[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 286 KB, 1131x707, String_Theory_by_seanwendt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3718332 [Reply] [Original]

Is it just a /sci/ meme to hate string theory? No-one here even understands it, let alone could come up with a better idea. It just seems like many people have a "HURR DURR DOESNT SEEM INTUITIVE TO ME SO MUST BE WRONG" attitude.

>> No.3718336

Wasn't it also disproved by CERN?

>> No.3718355

The main theory these days is M-Theory, which is just an amalgamation of all of the different string theories.

>> No.3718379

Call me when they actually find something solid.

>> No.3718388

>>3718332
it's all bullshit anyways since they verify theories by seeing what particles they do or do not discover, but this process is itself based on probabilities (a discovery is an even that is > 5 sigma away from the mean)

>> No.3718401

>>3718379

So we aren't allowed to hypothesise now, even when it makes mathematical sense and has made accurate predictions?

Call me when you get your head out of your ass.

>> No.3718417 [DELETED] 

>>3718401
>So we aren't allowed to hypothesise now

No. But call me once they find something solid.

Kneejerk-nigger.

>> No.3718462

>>3718401
>accurate predictions
I was under the impression string theory only made predictions differing from the standard model that are too small to measure with current technology. Am I wrong?

>> No.3718527

>>3718401
String theory makes mathematical sense, but isn't sound and doesn't accurately model or predict anything observed.

>> No.3718541

String theorists seem similar to creationists to me.

>> No.3718573

>>3718541
>String theorists seem similar to creationists to me.
Are you insane? Creationists stick to their beliefs in the spite of evidence of its invalidity. String theorists have put forth a hypothesis. It isn't testable, yet, but might be in the future. It's just the same thing as when the neutron was postulated.

>> No.3718711

>>3718573
> String theorists have put forth a hypothesis. It isn't testable, yet, but might be in the future.

Why not troll people whom you can actually fool? That won't work with us.

String "theory" isn't a theory since it produces no testable conditions, and there's no expectation whatsoever that it ever will, since it uses models which are about as small in comparison to the electron as the electron is to the entire universe. No rational person can believes that an experiment can be designed to test for the effects on that sort of hypertiny scale.

String faux-theory doesn't even try to make accomodations for experimental testing. That is why it is no better than religion and as such, should be rejected by real scientists.

Science runs on THINGS YOU CAN TEST. If you can't test it, then you're just jerking off, intellectually speaking.

>> No.3718918

The stupid in this thread (apart from OP) is maddening.

>read some articles on wikipedia
>watch some vids on youtube
>suddenly more knowledgeable than top physicists with PhDs whose life work is to find out what the universe is made of

>> No.3718949

Creating a theory to explain known phenomena is passe.

When that theory predicts as-of-yet unobserved phenomena, it should be taken very seriously.

>> No.3718969

What's string theory?

>> No.3718979

I just think string theory is an example of where the math went way too far ahead of experimentation, and since so much in QED was inferred from mathematics before being proven experimentally, mathematicians now think that they have the silver bullet and anything they can come up with must represent a real, physical underpinning of the universe.

String theory predicts that there should be tons of holes in the fabric of spacetime that would basically end the universe. What's their solution? Oh, here's a mathematical equation that shows it's possible a brane can cover these singularities, therefore that's what's happening with all of them.

I'm not saying string theory doesn't have its benefits, but like I said before, the math has advanced way too far ahead of experiment for it to be of much practical use at this point.

>> No.3718990
File: 33 KB, 400x288, 1308013863460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3718918

Get the fuck out of here with that shit, son!
If you can't test it, it's not science.

Back to OP, no, criticizing a theory for being flawed and/or untestable is actually rather important in science.

>> No.3719010

Everyone here saying "theory". Isn't it just a hypothesis? If so, where's the problem?

>> No.3719049

as much as i'd like to accept it... I can't! Whats there to accept but theories and ideas? Same with religion... But lets not go there. Something tells me you don't talk about religion on /sci/.

>> No.3719397

>>3718711

This is exactly what I was talking about. You have no idea what you are talking about.

>> No.3719422

non testable hypothesis=not science

>> No.3719437

People on this board are retarded. Just because something isn't testable yet doesn't mean it is useless.

>> No.3719463

>>3719437
> Just because something isn't testable yet doesn't mean it is useless.

I didn't say it was useless, fuckunit. I said it wasn't S-C-I-E-N-C-E.

I don't mind if you try to make use of things that aren't science in your effort to produce results. But it's not science and you should admit it, and then stop trying to get public money for it. Money is for science. The rest is for the quacks and the innovators. I'm sure you're not the latter (an innovator), but there's always a chance that you are, and good luck to you.

Now GTFO with your non-science crap, dumbass. String "theory" isn't a theory and as such, it's crap. Come back when you have results from your basement string-detector. Oh wait, there's no way in FUCK that you can detect strings, since they are far smaller than an electron. Sucks to be you (and maybe you should have stuck with THINGS THAT YOU CAN TEST, hint-fuckin'-hint).

>> No.3719468

>>3719437
No one really says it couldn't be a science. But right now it sure as fuck isn't.

>> No.3719481

>>3719468

Why is that important? People who advance it don't claim it is.

If we're going to argue definitions and semantics it defeats the point of even trying. The fact is that it is a hypothesis with quite a lot of backing, even if it has no empirical support yet. Until people pull their heads out of their asses and realize that being dogmatic about this isn't helping /sci/ is going to seem retarded.

>> No.3719496

I don't know a lot about it. But from what I do know, it's a decent theory that has yet to be verified by observation.

There is only hate when people who claim it's actual fact and others who claim it's total fiction collide. When in fact, the most level headed among us just hope the funding to science is maintained until we can know for sure.

>> No.3719721

>>3719481
> The fact is that it is a hypothesis with quite a lot of backing, even if it has no empirical support yet DERP DERP DERP LOOKIE PRETTY COLORS

Douchebag, the REASON it doesn't have empirical support is that NO EXPERIMENT CAN BE DESIGNED TO TEST IT.

Therefore it's not science and it can't be science.

Come back with a REAL theory, that can be TESTED.

>> No.3719789

10/10, op

>> No.3719793

Theories must make verifiable predictions.

String theory has yet to make predictions we can verify.

Ergo, string "theory" is not actually a scientific theory.

It's interesting math, though.

>> No.3719833

>>3719721

CAPS LOCK IS FOR COOL PEOPLE

>> No.3719845

>>3719721
question to the tool having trouble with CAPSLOCK, do you also reject the theory of quarks?
I mean you've being going on about how string theory can never be tested because we cant see string but we cant see quarks either. guess what though a theory can make predictions these can be tested. for example with quarks new hadrons were discovered fitting the model, and we didn't have to see quarks to prove their usefulness and accuracy as a model. there is such a thing as indirect evidence.

>> No.3719854

String theory is just one way of describing elementary particles and the universe itself.
You shouldn't take it so heavily.

>> No.3719887

>>3719721

>I assume anyone who disagrees with me is retarded.
>I'm an autistic freak.

Your argument is that because it's impossible at the moment it's never going to be possible? How short-sighted is it possible to be?

>> No.3719901

>>3719845

You're confusing the INDIRECT OBSERVATION of quarks with the NOTHING AT ALL of string theory.

Quarks had natural effects we could TEST through EXPERIMENT.

String theory has FUCKING NOTHING.

DESCRIBE A WAY TO TEST STRING THEORY. DO IT NOW.

>> No.3719930

>>3719901

So maths is nothing at all now?

Also, why do you continue to shout? It makes you look autismal.

>> No.3719950
File: 76 KB, 438x422, dimensional_analysis.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3719930

>> No.3719951

>>3719930

Math is MATH.

It is a TOOL we may EMPLOY in science.

It does not make TESTABLE PREDICTIONS of the natural world.

It is SEPARATE from science.

>> No.3719977

>>3719901
there isn't anything but somebody had to put some work in to come up with the quark model didn't they? the mathematics is far more advanced but so is the problem.

you point was:
>NO EXPERIMENT CAN BE DESIGNED TO TEST IT.

no not yet but nobody is claiming its finished. if you can disprove it go a head but until the day when it is disproved or it successfully tests a prediction string theory is unfinished.
if you can mathematical or logical demonstrate how it can never provide a testable prediction go ahead but i think you're talking shit.
so go on prove conclusively its untestable and always will be or piss off.

>> No.3719989

>>3719951
>implying string theory is 100% physics free guaranteed.

>> No.3720021

>>3719977

The completeness of a model DOES NOT determine its status as a THEORY.

It is not a theory at all until it is TESTED and VERIFIED.

Furthermore theories are NEVER complete.

If they had to be COMPLETE before becoming a theory, replacing old theories with more accurate ones in light of better predictions and evidence COULD NEVER HAPPEN.

>> No.3720070

>>3720021
why is the string theory a theory then?
they've run numerous tests with their particle colliders and have yet to find the 'god particle' they need to have any precedent in their conjectures.

>> No.3720071

>>3720021
and i agree with every thing you say there but you said:
> it's not science and it can't be science.
no its not a theory, it is a misnomer even if it works its really more of a model but it is part of science. its not accepted or mature and nor should it be, but it is science its theoretical and a long way from being anything solid but until you or anyone else can prove it can't work its still worth perusing.

>> No.3720085

>>3720070
>why is the string theory a theory then

It isn't. That's the punchline.

It's not a scientific theory at all. They're using the colloquial definition meaning "hunch" instead, and it fooled you.

>they've run numerous tests with their particle colliders and have yet to find the 'god particle'

That's unnecessary for the present theory to continue to stand.

It is necessary to replace it with the (hopefully) more accurate theory they've hypothesized.

The fact that they haven't is why the old theory still stands.

>> No.3720095
File: 82 KB, 608x583, large_hadron_collider.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3720070
string theory is as much a theory as the scalar boson is a god, its just a name.

pic related
just because you haven't found it immediately doesn't mean it isn't there, you have to rule it out and that takes time and so does confirming a result.

>> No.3720103

>>3720095
how many years has it been since they've been colliding?

>>3720085
so when it becomes a theory it will be called 'string theory theory'. great.

no idea what happened to the eternal universe model, guess that got thrown out when all of the Christians decided to use science for a creation story.

>> No.3720117

>>3720071

I was referring to MATH and not string theory since that FAGGOT committed the fallacy of FALSE EQUIVOCATION.

>> No.3720203

>>3720103
the scalar / higgs boson was touted as one of the big goals because it would produce a result relatively soon, a lot of people are saying it will either be ruled out or found by at least next year there are even hopes a premature result could turn out to be higgs in which case it would be found by the end of the year.

a small part of me wishes that just to wind up some of the proponents of string theory who believe in "showmanship" (being dramatic, sleek suits, "ohh its so elegant") that they do publish it as string theory theory.

>> No.3720380

>>3719951

You don't understand anything about maths. Please leave the discussion.

>> No.3720396

>>3720117

The voice in my head reading out what you type is shouting. Please stop.