/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3533170]

ITT: we make up science related fields

Quantum Biosociology

[Anonymous No.3533184]

relevant mathematics

[Anonymous No.3533186]

Psychology of Hydraulic Analysis

[Anonymous No.3533189]

Economics
Quantum Physics
Sociology
Psychology

[Anonymous No.3533194]

Theoretical physics.

> pretty mathematics
> minimal experimental results
> lol 12 dimensions

[Anonymous No.3533202]

>>3533189
dohohoho

[Anonymous No.3533210]

>>3533194
you people are as bad as creationists

>hurr de durr it goes against my prejudices so it must be wrong.

leave the thinking to smarter people asshole.

[Anonymous No.3533211]

>>3533189

You forgot Biology

[Anonymous No.3533226]

>>3533210

Please divulge to us some of your advanced knowledge of theoretical physics o mighty intellectual juggernaut

[Anonymous No.3533239]

{'Quantum x' | x <span class="math">\in[/spoiler] Shitscience}

[Anonymous No.3533250]

>>3533170
This is funny because there's this SF novel that actually has something similar to what you're describing (Quantum Biosociology). {spoiler second part of "Schild's Ladder" novel}

[Anonymous No.3533254]

>>3533226
i don't say i was smarter i said that the logic behind string theory being nothing but bollocks is the same logic behind creationism. "it goes against my prejudices so it must be wrong so i am right."

total deflection i call out you're bullshit logic so you ask me to prove string theory. i never said it was correct.

[Anonymous No.3533289]

>>3533254
> it goes against my prejudices so it must be wrong so i am right.
Funny, coming for the guy who has already made up his mind about string theory detractors without informing himself about the actual arguments they have.

But hey, of course, if they disagree with you they must be comparable to creationism, right? It's not like your quoted poster tried to point out the incongruence of relying on experimental results while at the same time claiming 12 dimensions. Oh no, it must be some bullshit about prejudices. Yes, that must be it. That belief itself isn't prejudiced at all.

[Anonymous No.3533316]

>>3533256

I was j ribbin ya. But I mean you've got to be able to accept skepticism if you're defending a scientific field that has "theoretical" in the name.

[Anonymous No.3533361]

astromancy

[Anonymous No.3533367]

>>3533289
experimental validation is essential in ever theory which is why string theory is only a hypothesis or a model.
i never once claimed string theory was correct or in any way validated but the argument that because string theory uses extra dimensions and is thus bullshit is comparable to the logic of creationism.

both claim despite no proof that because it goes against what they think it must be false.

i don't claim to know if string theory with ever pan out but sensitising a theory because it takes some heavy assumptions is not scientific. string theory is still a long way from being a closed case and pretending that this sort of discussion:
>12 dimensions lol
is scientific skeptism and not prejudice is stupid.

[Anonymous No.3533389]

>>3533367
> both claim despite no proof
I hope you're not trying to imply that it's the detractors' job to find the proof whether those dimensions exist or not. Because at this point it's you that's getting dangerously close to creationism.

[Anonymous No.3533410]

>>3533367
While I can't say I'm a huge string theory fan, I will explain why you're wrong about it:
QM and GR are shown to be mostly correct experimentally.
QM and GR cannot be unified directly into a local Theory of Everything, alt least not without a lot of mathematical juggling (such as string theory, but LQG is also a candidate).
The point here is that the universe has some underlying laws of physics. QM is true at certain scales. GR is true at certain scales. Both QM and GR are false at certain scales. A theory that is true at the scales QM is true and at the scales that GR is true, but also at the scales where both of them are false, is more "true" than QM and GR and should be prefered. However, when you look at the scales where GR and QM are false, then the new theory will offer new predictions there. Unfortunately string theory's predictions are not yet within reach of our experimental physicists. This doesn't make it more right (or wrong), merely better than GR and QM as a Grand Unified Theory as at least it's more likely to be consistent (this is already questionable as they're not quantizing their spacetime and strings and who knows how consistent is math involving such infinitesimals).

Falsifying GR or QM would also falsify any theory that tries to unify them (including string theory).

[Anonymous No.3533419]

>>3533389
did you not read the bits:
> string theory is still a long way from being a closed case
>experimental validation is essential in ever theory which is why string theory is only a hypothesis or a model.
and
>i never once claimed string theory was correct or in any way validated

ii was merely stating that sting theory is never stated as fact however people like the poster state "its bullshit" as fact. and what argument do they have "lol 12 dimension", this is not scientific its is based on prejudices.

[Anonymous No.3533448]

>>3533410
i don't see what this has to do with my post i was calling the guy out on his reasoning not defending string theory. and i don't see how any of those things area a problem with string theory its a long way from finished and even longer from experimental tests.