/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4182438]

Why is string theory called a 'theory' instead of a hypothesis? As far as I know, there's no experimental evidence for it.

Do you even think it's possible to create a valid explanation of the universe just by playing with mathematics instead of, well, adjusting our knowledge in accordance to our experimental findings? Einstein did it, but his theory was much smaller that ST.

[Anonymous No.4182445]

Because the scientific community doesn't care about semantics.

Why are all the paradoxes in Physics called paradoxes when they are not paradoxical?

[Anonymous No.4182455]

>Einstein did it
except no

[Anonymous No.4182462]

> object faster than lightspeed
> einstein no genius

[Anonymous No.4182463]

>>4182455
He invented relativity from scratch, there was nothing like that before him

[Anonymous No.4182484]

>>4182463
Hahaha. He didn't there was many work about relativity before him, starting by lorrentz, max clarkwell, and there is one guy that already employed that term before him whose name i saddly can't remember, but i will come back to you when i do.

[Anonymous No.4182491]

>>4182484
Forgot to add: That doesn't mean he was not a genius.

[Anonymous No.4182663]

String theory is not perfect, but it's a start.

[Anonymous No.4182676]

>>4182462
Wait a bit before jumping onboard the "neutrinos are faster than light" idea. I personally don't believe neutrinos are FTL.

[Anonymous No.4182680]

All string theory is for sure is logically self-consistent. And I think we should continue pursuing it. But until it makes a novel prediction that is observed experimentally, it's speculation.

[Anonymous No.4182682]

>>4182676

Nor, furthermore, do the researchers behind the 'neutrinos are FTL' study. They released their results for the purpose of having them sanity-checked, but the media ran away with it as they do with most science news.

[Anonymous No.4182843]

string theory is called string theory because its a mathematical field of study, not a scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.4182894]

My two cents:

>>4182843
this was the first thing I was going to write.

>>4182680
this post has a good point in that it's about "novel predictions".

The sentence in OPs post "As far as I know, there's no experimental evidence for it." is a bit vague, because as far as we can see, string theory would agree with every result made by the other theories we use. The problem is just that the things that differ from other theories (the strings) are not yet in an observable range.

>>4182680
The statement it's self-consistent is far reached. Maybe you really just mean that the mathematical problems in string theory (there are many, like the classification of all 4 dimesnional manifolds) are not as critical as the renormalization problems in some effective field theories, but the term "self-consistent" is a bit over the top.

As far as the Einstein discussion goes, yes, I would argue that he made a physical theory just from mathematics and theoretical but physical insights.
The claim he was a loner and he made everything from scratch is not justified however, because as other people mentioned Hilbert was also productively working on the topic (Hilbert was actually working productively on all problems of mathematics at that time, I guess) and second, there are some general relativit'esque theories which were even produced prior to Einsteins theory (which worked best).
See for example this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstr%C3%B6m%27s_theory_of_gravitation

[Anonymous No.4182916]

The theory of a "flying fuck" can be a theory by definition. Whether its accepted by the scientific community is another factor.

[Anonymous No.4182966]

>>4182894
>The problem is just that the things that differ from other theories (the strings) are not yet in an observable range.
they never will be. how will we be able to observe or see individual strings?

the problem that really upsets me with string theory is the number of required dimensions; for example, in some models we have fucking 26-dimensional minkowski space. that's fucking ridiculous. we observe 3 spatial dimensions (+1 temporal, if you insist), and there isn't a speck of evidence to suggest more. why add more? 'rolling up dimensions' to solve the problem is just as inane.

couple that with m-theory, and it's the most pseudoscientific 'cargo cult science' i've ever seen. p-brane collisions? what the fuck? you're telling me some fucking absurdly fictional 'manifold' (that we are unable to observe, see, interact with, provoke, puncture, etc) of space-time has momentum and velocity. and that it can somehow bump into another absurdly fictional copy of itself in some lsd-driven 'omniverse'?

until we see even an ounce of experimental evidence to hint towards string theories' existence, i'm out.

[Anonymous No.4182980]

>>4182966
Well, yes this can be viewed as a problem, but whatever. I don't like a lobbying for string theory within the scientific community, which effectively beats other trials down, but other than that I think its valid to do string theory. It really depends on how realistic you treat the quantities in a physical theory. How much reality you subjectively need to give to all these thing. I personally have no real problem with extra dimensions and the essential point for me is that string theory is, mathematically, a really beautiful construction.

[Anonymous No.4182988]

>>4182980
sure. from a mathematical standpoint it's quite brilliant. considering it a potential TOE or as a building block for grand unification is metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.4183002]

>>4182988
Well, I disagree on that with the pov, that if a theory works in the sense that if a theory can predict result for unmeasured stuff, then its a perfectly nice theory. It's not the fault of the theory side, that the only questions we can't really answer (except for computational problems in macroscopic physics) are the cosmological problems that dark matter/energy tries to explain.
Also, I'd not missuse the word metaphysics, it's a specific field, which is not related to string theory in any sense I can make out.

[Anonymous No.4183092]

>>4182966
>says 26 dimensions required
>M theory unified string theory and says 11
>can't understand the concept of interdimensions intuitively
>reason it must be false

Your argument boils down to shitting on the English language by adding the f-word every other sentence and distinctly reminds me of a line in a song; "fucking magnets, how do they work?" Just because you can't grasp something doesn't mean it's false.

[Anonymous No.4183109]

>>4182463
>einstein
>invented relativity from scratch
Are you joking?

[Anonymous No.4183108]

>As far as I know, there's no experimental evidence for it.
There is

[Anonymous No.4183147]

>>4183092
>says 26 dimensions required
i stated specifically 'some models'. you clearly are incapable of reading. there are many branches of string theory.

>M theory unified string theory and says 11
m-theory isn't a "unified string theory". it is supposedly the most appreciated model because it boils down to /ONLY/ 11 dimensions whilst respecting supersymmetry.

>can't understand the concept of interdimensions intuitively
nothing in maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or in einstein's theory of relativity (both highly accredited models with absolutely no mathematical loop holes or errors in simple experimental logic) make these kinds of deductions. if you understood the reasoning behind the addition of more spatial dimensions and appreciated the need to simplify it down to just 4, maybe you'd understand why my voice on the string theories aren't just restrict to a few physics grad students in my university.

have you even taken an elementary string theory course?

>>4183108
please let us know immediately! this will almost surely wrap up almost every major disagreement in physics and lean the entire scientific community towards specializations in bosonic string theory! you will certainly be guaranteed a noble prize for your incredible contributions to physics!

>>4183002
>that if a theory works in the sense that if a theory can predict result for unmeasured stuff
but surely you can appreciate that countless other models can do the exact same thing, and conclude at the same difficulties that are shared universally across physics. string theory isn't anything special.

>Also, I'd not missuse the word metaphysics, it's a specific field
of course it is - it's a branch of philosophy. this is exactly the kind of reasoning someone who claims string theory is 'the answer to it all' would be making. i'm not dissing anyone's opinion here, but for chrissake string theory has predicted absolutely nothing!

[Anonymous No.4183159]

>>4183147
ya, I don't put string theory above any other theory.
The oposite is usually the case, actually.