[ 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: 62 KB, 220x229, Calabi_yau_formatted.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9313264 No.9313264 [Reply] [Original]

What is the worst meme in Physics?
String theory always sounds like some new age, Haramein-tier fabrication.

I will appreciate any explanation about why I am wrong (or right)

>> No.9313266

>>9313264
string theory is math, not physics

physics has to do with reality

>> No.9313268

>>9313266
It is "sold" and studied as theoretical physics, not pure math.

>> No.9313284

>>9313268
>It is "sold" and studied as theoretical physics, not pure math.
What do you mean?

>> No.9313295

>>9313284
That it is not some masturbatory theory for mathematicians. If it was just that I would not even care about it. There are many of those.

It is being studied by physicists, as a model for reality or real phenomena. Just like QM, Relativity, ...

I agree, it does not seem to have anything to do with reality. As far as I know, it is almost, if not completely, useless. However, it is being studied as if it was something real.

>> No.9313308

>>9313264
People judge String Theory as if its complete, because popularizers like Kaku make it sound like it is. While it is the most well developed theory of quantum gravity, it is still very much a work in progress.

>> No.9313310

>brainlets who jump into the string hate bandwagons with little to no understanding of the topic
you're free to do your research in concurrent theories, but if you already think string theory is "too much math", then non-commutative geometry is gonna kick your ass

>> No.9313316

>>9313310
>but if you already think string theory is "too much math"
no one has ever made that complaint. string theory is shit because it has zero predictive power.

>> No.9313326
File: 62 KB, 382x395, 1511124937118.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9313326

>>9313268
>>9313266
Wait. Brainlet here.
I was under the impression that all maths have real components, which we call physics. And theoretical physics are attempts at making math fit the real world. Is there math that does not describe anything IRL, or alternatively is there anything math and physics disagree on?

>> No.9313330

>>9313316
>string theory is shit because it has zero predictive power.

It predicts tons of things. Not string theory's fault we don't have the technology to probe the scales where quantum gravity becomes relevant.

>> No.9313335

>>9313326
Physical theories use mathematics as a tool.

Mathematics -per se- do not necessarily describe anything real. They are an abstraction.
How are numbers "real"? for example
Or topology, or geometry... They all can have applications, but they are not real things. Idealisations, at best. Most mathematical theory is.. just math. Logic.

You can represent things with them, tho.

>> No.9313336

>>9313326
It is not the objective of math to describe the "real world". Sure, there are certain mathematical disciplines that turn out to be very useful in the natural sciences, but that is not because math is concerned about being useful in that matter.

>> No.9313337

The Copenhagen interpretation is the worst meme in Physics.

>> No.9313344

>>9313326
It's more like math is a set of rules that exist entirely divorced from facts, with structures like "If axioms A, B and C, then rules D, E and F."

Physics is, in a way, about taking real life and seeing which axioms apply, then using the math corresponding to those axioms

>> No.9313350

>>9313337
This. Schrodinger's cat is literally just a case of physicists hyping up simple concepts philosophers grew bored of centuries earlier.

>> No.9313358

>>9313337
>>9313350
What is a good interpretation? De Broglie–Bohm?

>broglie :DDDDD

>> No.9313360

>>9313337
THIS.
Also, the whole of cosmology.

>> No.9313361
File: 795 KB, 1756x2560, 91WwR0N28oL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9313361

>>9313326
Everything is maths, my son. Read this.

>> No.9313372

>>9313316
>no one has ever made that complaint.
really, because brainlets have just made it earlier in this thread

>> No.9313375

>oh shit, no explanation for this phenomenon?

>its muh dark ______

>> No.9313378

>>9313372
where?

>> No.9315002

>weekly string theory hate thread.

sigh... string theorist here, let me know why you think string theory is "wrong", and I'll tell you why your misconception is pop-sci tier bullshit.

>> No.9315004

>>9315002
>string theorist here
lol

>> No.9315005

>>9315002
I truly sympathize with you anon, here, let me make your life easier for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0jLD0PphTY

>> No.9315008

>>9315004
>>9315005
hahah, feel free to test me.

>> No.9315009

>>9313308
/thread

>> No.9315012

>>9315002
>let me know why you think string theory is "wrong"
let me know why you think string theory is "right"

>> No.9315017

>>9315002
>let me know why you think string theory is "wrong", and I'll tell you why your misconception is pop-sci tier bullshit.
but string theory is a pop-sci misconception

>> No.9315020

>>9315009
>doesn't know what /thread means
>>>9313308 doesn't answer OP, just parts of OP
So no, it isn't:
>/thread

>> No.9315040

>>9315008
>hahah, feel free to test me.
>Says this as I post a video supporting String theory, one that basically explains why it is a good candidate for explaining quantum gravity and unifying the four fundamental forces
What did he mean by this?
For those who are interested
>>9315012
>>9315017
>>9315020
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL04QVxpjcnjg_FpJNMJG0u0_swd9sL0tT
Is a good series of videos without too much over head that will answer most of you questions about the subject.
For
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL04QVxpjcnjitWcPcsIqJh4pNB3V40Exv
Just look at the last two videos, the first of which being
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0jLD0PphTY

>> No.9315141
File: 99 KB, 908x714, 1509591020852.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9315141

>>9313337
Despite not understanding the physics and only reading a single chapter of wholeness and the implicate order, I'm going to go with bohm because we share similar mereological beliefs

>> No.9315312
File: 1.42 MB, 480x480, AdvancedPrestigiousBlacklab.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9315312

E8 master race

>> No.9315705
File: 339 KB, 1451x2048, 1504866460693.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9315705

>>9313361
>muh MUH

>> No.9315707
File: 54 KB, 241x235, chen_rape_face.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9315707

>>9315008
Construct a projectively flat connection on a variation of pure twistor structures of weight zero.

>> No.9316046

>>9313350
>implying physicists hype up Schrödinger's cat
You're thinking of popsci (because that's the only experience you have with physics)

>> No.9317068
File: 56 KB, 284x235, smug44.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9317068

>"haha feel free to test me"
>can't answer a simple question
lmao fucking retard

>> No.9317075

>>9313264
Simulation theory
Multiple-worlds interpretation
Boltzmann brains
Linking the "measurement problem" to consciousness
Linking quantum entanglement to consciousness
Tachyons
White holes are just the other side of black holes

I FUCKING HATE "IFLS"

>> No.9317077

>>9317075
The WORST meme of all time:
The simulation-hypothesis

>> No.9317096

>>9313266
Everything beyond the standard model and GR is, sweetie.

Our bottleneck isn't theoretical, it's experimental. The current theory that we KNOW are incomplete at high energies, still fit the current data we have exactly. So the experimental data does not give any indication of where to look next other than what has been known for a couple decades by now.

>> No.9317250

>>9313337
Shouldn't have had to scroll this far desu

>> No.9317278

>>9317075
Linking the "measurement problem" to consciousness
Linking quantum entanglement to consciousness

holy shit I hate this so much too.

>> No.9317294

condensed matter physics is a meme

>if we compress this object to a billion pascals it'll act like a superconducter!

as if we'll ever reach a point where that is useful to do.

>> No.9317312

>>9313264

dark energy/dark matter

>> No.9317500

>>9313326
-1/12

>> No.9317553

>>9317500
I only know this as a popmath meme type thing.

What's the actual meaning/implications with this?

>> No.9317583

>>9317553
It's a meme because It's a horrible mis-representation. Summation=/=Zeta function, It's not possible for integers to converge as it would be possible for non-integer real numbers (algebraic or partial variety).

>> No.9317641

>>9313330
>It predicts tons of things
it has predicted ZERO things. a fucking magic eight ball "predicts" things.

>> No.9317648

>>9317641
I don't think you understand what predicting means.

It predicts things. First it matches what we already know.
Then it predicts more but we stikk can't test those new things.

>> No.9317650

>>9317648
>Then it predicts more but we stikk can't test those new things.
predictions without proof are nothing

>> No.9317709

The thing about string theory is that it's really cool math and like totally fun to play around with and you feel like you have a lot of freedom when you're doing it because you can just make your own theory and it reproduces quantum field theory and stuff...but like get fucking real man at some point there does need to be a practical application to all of science (except pure math) and where does string theory fit in? It's intellectual masturbation and your skills are much more valuable doing fucking finance or economic modeling for a cocaine cartel than pushing your snowflake GUT.

>> No.9317755

>>9317709
can you actually make any "mundane" prediction with it?
For example, solving classical 2-body Newtonian gravity problems seem hard to solve with General Relativity math, but you can still do it with some solutions or "hacks" like the Schwarzschild metric.

Is there any of that in string theory? Can one solve classical problems?

>> No.9317758

>>9317755
I would assume it would be something like taking the semi classical limit of a quantum field theory.

>> No.9317759

>>9317709
>>9317755
classical 2-body Newtonian gravity problems seem hard to solve*

I repeated myself

>> No.9317771

>>9313335
>>9313336
>>9313344

>math is not empirically discovered from doing logical experiments in reality

verbalcucks, enjoy being an imposter in grad school and telling yourself it's just a syndrome.

>> No.9317774

>>9317771
Are you trying to say math is only empirically discovered?

>> No.9317780

>>9317771
The imposter thing you're talking about might be projecting anon. I'd give you the name of a therapist but mine died a few weeks back :/

>> No.9317790

>>9317774
yes
>>9317780
or maybe you're projecting that you judge people on the internet as constantly projecting because that's what you do?

>> No.9317792

>>9317790
>or maybe you're projecting that you judge people on the internet as constantly projecting because that's what you do?
nope
not all math is empirical. maybe you just don't know that much math.

>> No.9317793

>>9317792
give one example of math that isn't empirical

>> No.9317796

>>9317793
the universe doesn't give axioms
1 + 1 isn't 2 because the universe doesn't contain a concept of numbers

>> No.9317801

>>9317796
I agree, the universe doesn't give axioms; people do in an attempt to clarify what they've empirically discovered about reality.

>> No.9317803

>>9317801
that's what math is though, that method, it's not based on observation, its method of proof is without context

>> No.9317804

>>9317803
>math is not empirically discovered from doing logical experiments in reality

>> No.9317805

>>9317804
ok you can keep using your own definition of math i don't care

>> No.9317810

>>9315002

sigh ... If you were honest with yourself, you would acknowledge that these claims that string theory adequately accounts for what we have observed about the universe around us include a fair amount of \emph{wishful thinking}.

>> No.9317812

>>9317805
how do you decide which axioms to use?

>> No.9318944

>>9313326
Math as a field is literally infinitely bigger than physics as a field.
There' nothing in physics that you can't model mathematically (therefore, there is nothing in physics that violates math).
There's a lot of math that has no application in physics.

>> No.9318955

>>9317075
If not simulation theory or many worlds, what?
"muh De-Broglie theory"
GTFO, we're in the damn simulation just accept it.

>> No.9319000

>>9318955
>t. I Fucking Love Science fanboy
Make sure to click the Like button!

>> No.9319032

>>9317755
Take the supergravity limit, then do a KK reduction, pull out GR and then reduce to Newtonian physics as usual.

>> No.9319082
File: 20 KB, 454x294, 1506641630884.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9319082

>>9313326
>all maths have real components

>> No.9319164

>>9319000
The "I fucking love science" people are all over De-Broglie.
I don't buy anything but Copenhagen.

>> No.9319220

>>9313337
>probability
>actually a ratio

>> No.9321262

>>9317812
see >>9319082

>> No.9321717

>>9317812
>how do you decide which axioms to use?
It's best to work in the category of all axioms

>> No.9321935

Anything that an engineer can't work with.

>> No.9322331

>>9317312
question, why?

>> No.9322340

>>9313264
String theory had a lot of hype around it as being a theory of everything, but I think a lot of that died down in the past 15 years.

It's not a theory of everything, but it is a solid contribution to theoretical physics. For instance, it started out of an attempt to explain mesons, which really do act to some extent like two quarks connected by a string. In real QCD that string is 'thick,' but if you make the idealization that it is an infinitely thin string and treat that quantum mechanically you start down the road to string theory.