/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9186919]

>string theory

[Anonymous No.9186946]

JUST

[Anonymous No.9187159]

>>9186919
I mean what the *bleep* do we know?

[Anonymous No.9187575]

>>9186919
String hypothesis
ftfy

[Anonymous No.9189387]

>>9186919
brane theory
sacred geometry

[Anonymous No.9189401]

[math]\int \mathcal{D} \varphi \mathcal{D}\bar \varphi \mathcal{D}\psi \mathcal{D}\bar \psi \exp \left[ {\frac{{ - 1}}{{4\pi }}\int\limits_\Sigma {{\operatorname{d} ^2}z\left[ {{g_{ij}}\left( {{\partial _z}{\varphi ^i}{\partial _{\bar z}}{{\bar \varphi }^j} + {\partial _{\bar z}}{\varphi ^i}{\partial _z}{{\bar \varphi }^j}} \right) + {B_{ij}}\left( {{\partial _z}{\varphi ^i}{\partial _{\bar z}}{{\bar \varphi }^j} - {\partial _{\bar z}}{\varphi ^i}{\partial _z}{{\bar \varphi }^j}} \right) + i{g_{ij}}\left( {\bar \psi _ - ^j\operatorname{D} \psi _ - ^i + \bar \psi _ + ^j\operatorname{D} \psi _ - ^i} \right) + {R_{ijkl}}\psi _ + ^i\bar \psi _ + ^j\psi _ - ^k\bar \psi _ - ^l} \right]} } \right][/math]

[Anonymous No.9189419]

>>9189401
Cthulu goes insane from this

[Anonymous No.9189421]

>>9187575

Nope, its a mathematical theory, not a scientific hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.9189426]

>>9189421
Theories can be tested. String """Theory""" cannot.

[Anonymous No.9189428]

>>9186919
>theoretical physics in 2017

[Anonymous No.9189429]

>>9189426

Not mathematical theories. If you want to be a pedant, at least make sure you're not wrong.

[Anonymous No.9189430]

>>9189426
Not what "Theory" means in physics.

[Anonymous No.9189443]

>>9189430
At least string theory predicts gravity
>mfw

[Anonymous No.9189493]

>>9189401
B model is the cooler topological string model thanks for this.

[Anonymous No.9189540]

more branes pls

[math]S = - {T_{Dp}}\int {{d^{p + 1}}\sigma } {e^{ - {\Phi _0}}}\sqrt { - \det \left( {\left( {{g_{\mu \nu }} + {B_{\mu \nu }} + k{F_{\mu \nu }}} \right)\left( {{\partial _\alpha }{X^\mu } - {{\bar \Theta }^A}{\Gamma ^\mu }{\partial _\alpha }{\Theta ^A}} \right)\left( {{\partial _\beta }{X^\nu } - {{\bar \Theta }^A}{\Gamma ^\nu }{\partial _\beta }{\Theta ^A}} \right) + k\left( {{{\bar \Theta }^1}{\Gamma _\mu }{\partial _\beta }{\Theta ^1} - {{\bar \Theta }^2}{\Gamma _\mu }{\partial _\beta }{\Theta ^2}} \right)\left( {{\partial _\alpha }{X^\mu } - \frac{1}{2}{{\bar \Theta }^A}{\Gamma ^\mu }{\partial _\alpha }{\Theta ^A}} \right)} \right)} + {\mu _p}\int {{{\left( {C \wedge {e^{B + kF}}} \right)}_{p + 1}}} [/math]

[Anonymous No.9189553]

>>9189540
i got this. the answer is 6

[Anonymous No.9189556]

>>9189540
My good friend, what do you call this autism?

[Anonymous No.9189562]

>>9189556

Math.

[Anonymous No.9189590]

Physicists shit all over string theory out of embarrassment

They decided to side with a concept that can't even describe gravity KEK

[Anonymous No.9189619]

Can I make bigger contributions to physics by just studying math and biostatistics/probability then picking up the physics part myself? Or should I take formal courses.

My advisor has a PhD in math and he does quantum spin systems.

[Anonymous No.9189675]

>>9189556
DBI Action

[Anonymous No.9189678]

>>9189540
I don’t understand how this comment is constructive, or encourages the reader to think more deeply about anything. It appears to me that this comment’s only purpose is to display the cleverness of the author. Unfortunately, despite the collective efforts of the commentariate, we do get infiltration from those who are apparently determined to give the impression that they are incapable of parsing an entire piece of writing and reading it as a whole.

As has been previously noted (regular readers will be aware) we (that’s the “Royal we” — fellow commenters, occasional contributors such as myself and the moderator team) are engaged in an ongoing attempt to keep the quality of comments at its former impeccably high standard. Sadly, this is more of an effort than it should be.

And as a scientist, it is rather tiresome having to try to explain to the occasional numpty who happens across a post basic reading comprehension skills, how to follow an argument when it is constructed long-form and the ability to master data interpretation.

And I’ve just caught up on all the subsequent comments on this page. All the other commenters have managed to make coherent and intelligible contributions that furthered my understanding or gave me something to think about, because they took the trouble to type more than a single sentence. I don’t agree with everything that’s been said in other comments. Quite the opposite in a couple of cases. But at least I understand what was expressed and the intention behind it.

[Anonymous No.9189687]

>>9189678
Yes. This thread has otherwise been so constructive.