Why aren't you working on string theory yet?

[Anonymous No.9332860]

[Anonymous No.9332863]

>>9332860
Because I don't have the [math]\mathbb{PHENOTYPE} [/math].

[Anonymous No.9332866]

because it's imaginary shit that has no basis and cannot be proven or disproven

[Anonymous No.9332878]

more like JUST theory

[Anonymous No.9332880]

>>9332866
>t. irrecoverable brainlet

[Anonymous No.9332882]

I'm not schizophrenic enough.

[Anonymous No.9332920]

>>9332866
Just like evolution.

[Anonymous No.9332929]

>>9332920
Just like math. :^)

[Anonymous No.9332936]

>>9332860
I am working on getting to the point where I can work on string theory.

[Anonymous No.9332958]

>>9332882
autistic*

[Anonymous No.9333092]

>>9332936
Me too, just taking an intro class this semester.

[Anonymous No.9333546]

>>9332878
hey lubos, get back to matfyz, i like your style of teaching

[Anonymous No.9333553]

>>9332860
...well, I'm not a metaphysician.

[Anonymous No.9333560]

>>9333553
a mathepsychic-what?

[Anonymous No.9333568]

>>9332860
>Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

> TESTABLE
> T E S T A B L E

it's not testable or falsifiable therefore it's not science.

[Anonymous No.9333582]

>>9333560
A professional lunatic who's paid for telling you how many angles fit on a needle tip.

[Anonymous No.9333600]

I took a course many years ago, but I don't think anybody is gonna make it in that field.

I'm following the nLab pyhsicist(s) relatively closely, but I want to use their framework for more general mechanics than string theory (less deep/fundamental but more practical theories)

[Anonymous No.9333601]

>>9333568
>theory makes unique predictions in extremely high energies
>wonders why its predictions (unique to string theory) weren't tested
phenomenology is centuries behind theory, no wonder we weren't able to see anything new
string theory is being used even today, in condensed matter physics for example

[Anonymous No.9333647]

>>9333582
That's actually an old caricature of theologians, not metaphysicians. Of course no theologian ever entertained the question of how many angels fit on the head of a needle, but this is besides the point. The point here is that you're stupid.

[Anonymous No.9333666]

>>9332863
[math]\mathcal{KARYOTYPE}>\mathbb{PHENOTYPE}[/math]

[Anonymous No.9334076]

>>9333666
>333
>666
Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.9334082]

What should I major in math or physics, and if physics, what study of physics will introduce me to string theory?

[Anonymous No.9334113]

>>9334082
Go for math and pick electives in theoretical physics, after MSc in math go for PhD in hep-th, but careful- it's much harder than math and they only take about 30 people each year into good string theory programmes (that's about 4 people per programme).
If physics, pick as much math as you can and self-study Landau. You want to get through it in first three semesters in undergrad. After Landau you'll be ready for gauge and conformal, then you can get into strings (there's a book that elegantly goes from qfts to strings if the canonical books are too much). Ideally, you want to get to strings at around the time you're finishing undergrad to have a chance. Basically your thesis must be on string theory, so you need to get a good grasp by the time you're starting it.

[Anonymous No.9334122]

>>9332920
Evolution has been shown in bacteria, viruses, and other organisms with rapid breading cycles.

>>9332860
The entire theory is unfalsifiable until completed, which is its first major strike. It implies that all of reality can be deduced to mathematical relationships which seems dubious given Godel's and Bell's Theorems. Also, even if it is theoretically possible a Theory of Everything seems well beyond the capacity of the 21st century science. It is the most ambitious theory you could possibly have. Maybe an AI can deduce it one day in the far future, but I believe it is well beyond the capacity of human beings.

[Anonymous No.9334126]

I don't even believe in modern quantum physics with their messenger particles of force let alone strings.

[Anonymous No.9334133]

>>9333553
Good post, its easy (and often justified) to make fun of philosophy but when physicists start to argue for a 'post-empirical-science' (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7005)) you can only wonder what other motivations they may have for creating endless pseudo-formulas that lead nowhere for decades on end.

[Anonymous No.9334136]

>>9334113
thanks

[Anonymous No.9334140]

>>9334122
>Evolution has been shown in bacteria, viruses, and other organisms with rapid breading cycles.
Sure, but no experimental work can provide evidence for macro-evolutionary processes such as speciation. These are induced from the very incomplete fossil record which is at our disposition, and always will. Does that invalidate evolution? The testability of theories is but one among many of the criteria available for the evaluation of a scientific theory. Equally important criteria are explanatory power and explanatory adequacy. This is where String Theory's power lies.

A word of advice, don't go name dropping Godel if you don't understand the implication of his work.

[Anonymous No.9334159]

>>9334126
Your belief is irrelevant when it has applicability.

[Anonymous No.9334163]

>>9334140
>macro-evolutionary processes
They're irrelevant to the theory of evolution, though.

[Anonymous No.9334166]

>>9334133
>>9334122
It is falsifiable, the easiest way to do it *today* is finding mathematical incosistency. Again, phenomenology lags behind theory by centuries so don't expect any progress on this front that soon (SUSY from early 2000's were best-case scenario, it still is the lowest-hanging fruit for phenomenologists).
It doesn't imply anything of that sort and, apart from Gödel being irrelevant here and you misunderstanding Bell, it is also too early to talk about interpretations of string theory. It really is a whole new kind of theory. It is not like going from Newton to Einstein, string theory "devours" whole theoretical physics in some sense.
The call for post-empirical science is warranted by humanity reaching limits of what is possible, we can't progress without relaxing our expectations. String theory has immense power, that is (for many hep-theorists) good enough reason to accept it even without bulletproof evidence.

[Anonymous No.9334174]

>>9334163
They clearly aren't.

[Anonymous No.9334186]

>>9333666
Nice trips.

[Anonymous No.9334214]

>>9334166
Also Woit does a disservice to the book, as is typical of him when it comes to string theory.
*No* theory of quantum gravity can't be directly tested (assuming spacetime of dimension at least 4), this limitation comes from Planck's length. Does it mean that you can't study quantum gravity? Of course not, even if you can't conduct any "direct" experiment, you can still indirectly see its effects and study it through these. We accepted atoms before we were able to see them, why can't we accept string theory?

[Anonymous No.9334220]

Because medicine is more important than physics.

[Anonymous No.9334358]

>>9334220
>muh field am better den yours

[Anonymous No.9334752]

>>9332878
is that a fucking booger in his nostril

[Anonymous No.9334755]

>>9334752
that's dirt on the window you absolute moron

[Anonymous No.9334756]

>>9334755
sure it is lumo

[Anonymous No.9334763]

>>9333666
God has spoken.

[Anonymous No.9335096]

>>9332860
because even if it's correct it will never be proven to be and will never have practical applications other than keeping people too smart for their own sake busy

[Anonymous No.9335152]

>>9333666
what is this?

[Anonymous No.9335182]

>>9334756
Wat een kanker lelijkerd