vortex theory

[Anonymous No.9948719]

read an interesting article:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2011/12/beautiful-losers-kelvins-vortex-atoms/

by none other than Frank Wilczek...

so this was a theory that said all atoms were made of "vortices" or knots, you know like knot theory (pic related).

so Wilczek calls it a "Beautiful Loser" because it never worked out, even though all the fancy math was so pretty that physicists thought it just _had_ to be right...

hmmmmm, Frank, you realize this sounds a lot like string theory rite?

[Anonymous No.9948764]

>an emergent REPRESENTATION of amplitudes as knots is similar to a FUNDAMENTAL description of reality via strings
>doesn’t understand the distinction between Wilczek’s theory, which has foundations and analogues in TQFT, CFT and critical phenomena, and string theory, which is a completely new way of looking at reality with little to no foundations, drawing most of its inspiration from Witten’s work on CFT
>doesn’t understand neither Wilczek’s proposal nor string theory
Why do undergrads keep outing themselves as the stupid typical Dunning-Kruger types on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.9948829]

>>9948764

[Anonymous No.9948845]

>>9948829
>missing the point
Keep digging this hole, tard.

[Anonymous No.9948848]

No one says that string theory is right yet, it doesn't mean it won't be though. If already gave you gravity (a postdiction sure), with a few more predictions it can become good, I don't see it as a problem because there are other problems that need to be solved like the expansion or the universe, if these happen to be incompatible with string theory, it goes away. You don't stop working on something just because you're afraid is wrong

[Anonymous No.9948859]

>>9948845
so what’s your point? seems to me OP’s article has Wilczek proposing using anions in superfluids as a quantum computer—and frank is clearly missing (or just ignoring) the obvious analogue that ST might be a beautiful loser just like vortex theory

[Anonymous No.9948866]

>>9948859
Read the first greentext, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.9948873]

>>9948866
so Frank has some other non-stringy theory? what's it called?

if so, then good for him. anyhow my (OP) point is that if you compare how vortex theory was defended in victorian times, it looks strangely similar to how string theorists defend string theory today. and vortex theory turned out wrong, so connect the dots

[Anonymous No.9948885]

>>9948873
>still missing the point
Holy fucking shit. The point is that Wilczek, as well as the entire theory revolving around quasiparticle braiding/theory of fusion categories and UMC’s does NOT propose an alternative epistemology to conventional metaphysics, while string theory does. The fact that quasiparticles behave collectively like string defects does NOT at all imply that the fundamental building blocks of nature IS indeed strings, and therein lies the difference between Wilczek’s theory and string theory.
Learn to fucking read, dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.9948924]

>>9948885
so in other words, you’ve decided to derail a post about historical parallels between string theory and failed theories from the past because you feel a need to argue about what you think Frank Wilczek’s metaphysical interpretations of string theory are... i think _you’ve_ missed the point, and also are missing that tidbit about who gives a fuck about metaphysics

[Anonymous No.9949018]

>>9948924
>derail
In what world is pointing out two different physical theories with vastly different things to say about the nature of fucking REALITY “derailing”? Do you think just “parallel”, in the extremely narrow and loose (even in terms of the maths involved) sense, is the kind of thing you were trying to imply? Fuck off with your goalpost shifting
>historical
LMAO you do know the theory of quasiparticle braiding was developed in the 1930’s, DECADES before the inception of string theory right? Besides, any “historical parallel”, especially for the kind that is as weak as the one you’re trying to imply, has absolutely NOTHING to say regarding the physical validity of either theory. Pull your head out of your ass, dumbshit.
>who gives
Literally ANY physicist. Why do you think Einstein was so against QM’s (or rather, that of the Copenhagen interpretation) modification of our conventional ontology? Why do you think string theory is so controversial in the jest place? Why do you think Witten identifies as a mathematician instead of a physicist? Fuck’s sake what a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.9949129]

>>9949018
>is pointing out two different physical theories with vastly different things to say about the nature of fucking REALITY “derailing”?
um, yes, it's irrelevant to the topic of my OP. the thing that I was implying is obvious, especially if you read the image here
>>9948829
which is written by a respected science historian (Helge Kragh) who spells it out for you. the parallels are obvious

>NOTHING to say regarding the physical validity of either theory
anybody who studies physics knows that there is something to be learned from the history of physics. when you see claims like neutrinos traveling faster than light, or that bell inequality tests are flawed because of some loophole, don't you think back over the history of these concepts and similar fallacious claims made in the past? any scientist frames his judgments in terms of the body of evidence surrounding the theories and ideas involved.

>Why do you think Einstein was so against QM
einstein believed in a certain form of completeness of physical reality that had MEASURABLE implications; he thought that hidden variables were encoding the results of measurements in a deterministic and complete way. obviously he had a (wrong) mental picture of how the universe worked, and that's fine, but the whole reason he cooked up the EPR paradox was to connect it to measurements. einstein didn't dabble in metaphysics because he knew it's only for philosophers and undergrads with raging autism (ahem).

>Why do you think string theory is so controversial in the jest place?
it's because at the moment, ST makes no (and cannot make any) physical predictions and is therefore basically pseudoscience. in fact it relies on SUSY, which is not coming true in the experiments. ask a layperson what they think of particles actually being strings and they'll shrug; tell them physicists have getting funding for 50 years for a theory that's 100% abstract math with no connection to reality and that's what they'll get upset about