/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11320296

6KiB, 225x225, Ed Witten.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 21 Jan 17:14:10 2020 No.11320296 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11320335 >>11320354 >>11320367 >>11321481 >>11321498 >>11321660 >>11321687 >>11321956 >>11322197 >>11322457 >>11322525 >>11322956 >>11323207 >>11323891 >>11324303

What went wrong with string theory? No big developments since Witten lobbed a boompill in there. Why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Jan 2020 17:15:37 No.11320299 Report

Quoted By:

nobody gives a shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Jan 2020 17:16:23 No.11320302 Report

Quoted By: >>11320334 >>11320387 >>11324016

What did Witten do exactly?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Jan 2020 17:28:27 No.11320334 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320302

got his dick out

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Jan 2020 17:29:12 No.11320335 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320296
bad luck, it's just not physical in any approachable sense. bad luck for humans

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Jan 2020 17:40:10 No.11320354 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320296
string theory is low iq

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Jan 2020 17:47:50 No.11320367 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320296
>lobbed a boompill
What does this mean?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Jan 2020 18:01:59 No.11320387 Report

Quoted By: >>11320416

>>11320302
Show that the various forms of string theory were actually all equivalent to each other.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Jan 2020 18:18:17 No.11320416 Report

Quoted By: >>11321785 >>11323419

>>11320387
you’re missing the other super important part of the second superstring revolution-in addition he demonstrated that string theories lead to one additional dimension, meaning there is a more fundamental theory called M theory which is 11 dimensional, and that theory has 11 dimensional supergravity as its low energy limit, meaning he united supergravity with string theory too

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 03:10:43 No.11321392 Report

Quoted By: >>11323216 >>11324332

bumping based Ed thread.

also just to add some content
> No big developments since Witten lobbed a boompill in there.
false. after the second superstring revolution we saw:
>black hole micro state counting from Strominger and Vafa
>Matrix theory from banks and fischler and shenker and susskind
>F-theory from Vafa
>ads/cft and in general gauge-gravity theory from maldacena
>amplituhedron from nima (though this isn’t particularly stringy but is a thing in the string community)
>dark energy stuff from kachru kallosh linde trivedi
>firewall stuff from mostly polchinski and hawking and susskind
>swampland stuff from vafa
>sabrina. just sabrina
>

El Arcón

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TIMESAND___particles.png, 208KiB, 1005x408

El Arcón Wed 22 Jan 2020 03:12:33 No.11321397 Report

Quoted By: >>11321407

Witten never lobbed a boompill in there. It was the USA feds that lobbed cointelpropill in there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 03:16:30 No.11321407 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321397
jon just stay in other threads. you always derail shit. go back on adding another 150 pages of nonsense to your manuscript on infinity-hat

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 03:49:58 No.11321481 Report

Quoted By: >>11321496

>>11320296
String theory is very, very, very gay

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 03:58:55 No.11321496 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321481
project harder

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 04:00:43 No.11321498 Report

Quoted By: >>11321534

>>11320296
>Why?
The Vortex theory of our time.
Lots of meticulously collected nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 04:17:43 No.11321534 Report

Quoted By: >>11323424

>>11321498
interestingly, knot theory (in mathematics) was spurred on by vortex theory, and knot theory has found applications in string theory as well as other disciplines (like topology and even condensed matter theoretical physics). so even if string theory is wrong you can bet it is pushing mathematicians to put some nice results into the books that future physicists will open up in the library in however many decades before they need it for real applications. and that’s the worst case scenario.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 05:50:37 No.11321660 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320296
Imagine devoting your entire life and career to study a field which has the same prediction power as psychology lmao

Hoaxfag

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1576414069160.jpg, 901KiB, 1668x1537

Hoaxfag Wed 22 Jan 2020 06:02:31 No.11321687 Report

Quoted By: >>11321736 >>11321915 >>11321954 >>11323804 >>11324157

>>11320296
Guys I know this is a bitterpill, but ALL quantum mechanics from 1900 until now is a scam, I don't know what word to use, hoax? Fabrication? The meticulously crafted fantasy land of a groupthink scientific egregore, maybe an idealogical echolalia chamber, where everyone just agrees with each other because children are so terrified of being proven wrong.
And we are children at heart I guess. So adults can't handle being wrong either.
Quantum mechanics is an invalid field of science.
No evidence to suggest it's viable. No testable theories, all quantum mechanical experiments have failed.

There is no quantum technology, that's just pop-sci. Lasers, transistors, computers etc, none of them use anything quantum.

Quantum mechanics is a god for atheists.
All your gods a lie.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 06:23:46 No.11321736 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321687
Ok :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 06:45:28 No.11321772 Report

Quoted By:

Witten got outed as a member of the national alliance, all of his research has been expunged.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 06:55:13 No.11321785 Report

Quoted By: >>11321817

>>11320416
Reminder that supergravity and string theory are literally made up borderline schizophrenic buzzwords without real meaning or impact in the real world

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 07:11:29 No.11321817 Report

Quoted By: >>11321822

>>11321785
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergravity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 07:15:04 No.11321822 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321817
>In theoretical physics, supergravity (supergravity theory; SUGRA for short) is a modern field theory
>In this theory there is this one theory

Cringe

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 08:35:31 No.11321915 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321687
teh fuck is this

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 09:15:54 No.11321954 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321687
If that picture is a troll it's an effective one, I'm mad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 09:16:19 No.11321956 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320296
There's no way to prove it. It's basically just a Grand Unified Theory cult that lets everyone believe they've finally "solved" reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 11:55:48 No.11322197 Report

Quoted By: >>11322509

>>11320296
>What went wrong with string theory?
They failed to realise they violated important principles of scientific process and just continued the madness.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Edward-Witten.png, 188KiB, 465x879

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 14:47:08 No.11322457 Report

Quoted By: >>11322509

>>11320296
String theory in nutshell:
If you don't understand physics, then add a new dimension.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO c03b481ee498fd40503a67457ee404ca.gif, 93KiB, 1024x522

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 14:49:36 No.11322466 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 15:03:06 No.11322509 Report

Quoted By:

>>11322457
>>11322197
It's like that 1+1=3 troll comics, just pile up whatever mathematical apparatus until answers check out. "Science".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 15:10:52 No.11322525 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320296
>why didn't my favourite meme receive any new sequels recently?
umm, I don't know. Maybe because further bullshitting would get too ridiculous? Not all memes can become unironically as widespread as the darwinian model.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 18:32:36 No.11322956 Report

Quoted By: >>11323188

>>11320296
Why Is this 40 years old dead theory so attractive for plebs and popsci fans?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:08:30 No.11323188 Report

Quoted By: >>11323214 >>11323223 >>11323263 >>11323843

>>11322956
quite to the contrary, it is popular among real theoretical physicists but as evidenced by this thread it is hated on by brainlet plebs

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:18:47 No.11323207 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320296
Ads/cft correspondence is the next big thing that bridges string theory to black holes and hence quantum mechanics

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:23:32 No.11323214 Report

Quoted By: >>11323263

>>11323188
as anything else rational

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:23:56 No.11323216 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321392
good post

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:26:11 No.11323223 Report

Quoted By: >>11323231

>>11323188
Theoretical physicists are not physicists, they are just overvalued math teachers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:27:27 No.11323231 Report

Quoted By: >>11323257 >>11323848

>>11323223
theoretical physicists are the only real physicists, the rest are just glorified engineers

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:33:15 No.11323246 Report

Quoted By: >>11323257 >>11323264

The truth is, there are two kinds of people when it comes to string theory:

1. Physicists smart enough to understand string theory who work on stringy topics.

2. People too dumb for string theory.

The third kind, physicists smart enough to understand ST but choose to work on something else, basically do not exist. That should tell you everything you need to know about them brainlets who trash ST on the internet. They are not good enough to even have an opinion on the matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:38:17 No.11323257 Report

Quoted By: >>11323262

>>11323231
>>11323246
0 testable predictions since it's inception, even after the 11 dimension reduction fail.
That's literally parapsychology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:41:14 No.11323262 Report

Quoted By: >>11323924

>>11323257
That is the nature of the subject, not particular to string theory, you brainlet. Rigorously testing quantum gravity theories may not be technically possible for centuries, if ever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:41:28 No.11323263 Report

Quoted By:

>>11323188
>>11323214
I think the issue is that people with only a vague interest in science associate the idea of a good theory with someone like Einstein or Newton - guys responsible for the *best* theories. Pre-university schools don't emphasize just how shocking and monumental it was to discover a theory that was not only immediately useful, but also impactful in multiple areas of study. We've been spoiled by geniuses that only show up every 300-or-so years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:42:41 No.11323264 Report

Quoted By: >>11323270

>>11323246
Then explain why loop quantum gravity has gained as much traction as it has

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:46:26 No.11323270 Report

Quoted By: >>11323279

>>11323264
LQG has basically no significant traction. LQG is a tiny academic circlejerk done by a relatively small group of physicists who are not good enough to study ST and who cite each other. There has been hardly any real progress on it since it was proposed. And there will not be, as it is a fundamentally flawed idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 20:51:13 No.11323279 Report

Quoted By: >>11323655

>>11323270
>fundamentally flawed
Isn't that true for any untestable physical theory? The flaw for both is a complete lack of real-life experimental data.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 21:56:35 No.11323419 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320416
Nobody's forgetting Joe

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Jan 2020 21:58:58 No.11323424 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321534
>even if string theory is wrong you can bet it is pushing mathematicians to put some nice results into the books that future physicists will open up in the library in however many decades before they need it for real applications
This

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 00:17:40 No.11323655 Report

Quoted By: >>11323751 >>11323838 >>11323870

>>11323279
the fact neither are testable right now isn’t a fundamental flaw. i don’t know what anon is specifically referring to but i see LQG as a failure mostly because it isn’t a unified theory of everything, it’s just a bozo way of trying to quantize gravity in an ad-hoc way (conversely string theory actually predicted gravity by accident before anyone realized it and thought the spin-2 particles it implies were a problem at first) and it doesn’t unite anything about gravity with the standard model except by saying “well yeah standard model on top of our crap, just stick it in” without any hints of how GUT theories of particle physics or supersymmetry or dark matter work. so it’s a complete one trick pony that goes nowhere. and aesthetically it is hideous, it basically has a discrete spacetime that only preserves lorentz invariance by implying that it’s a complete jumbled mess instead of e.g. a nice grid, whereas string theory says that space time emerges from a beautifully smoothe and conformally invariant worldsheet

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:02:09 No.11323751 Report

Quoted By: >>11323786 >>11323791

>>11323655
no one really believes in the "grand theory of everything" right? There's always going to be another nook or cranny

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:24:08 No.11323786 Report

Quoted By:

>>11323751
first of all “theory of everything “ and “grand unified theory” mean two different things. grand unified theory refers to the idea that just like electromagnetic and strong forces unify at around 1 TeV due to the Higgs mechanism (proven experimentally since 2012), that the strong force should join electroweak theory at some higher energy. it leaves out gravity as well as most of everything outside particle physics.

a theory of everything is a grand unified theory plus gravity. string theory is an example. however, that doesn’t mean everything is settled. just all four of the forces we know about so far. which is hopefully everything but maybe not. maybe e.g. dark energy is just a cosmological constant separate from everything else.

moreover, even if we had the theory of everything, it wouldn’t predict lots of stuff. it wouldn’t predict the weather (it’s too chaotic) or even why superconductors form when you cool certain metals (as far as we can tell BCS isn’t derivable even from a ToE. it is emergent.)

so a theory of everything just means we’ve figured out all the building blocks and their rules, but since the rules are so rich it means there is plenty of more theorizing left to work out

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:25:35 No.11323791 Report

Quoted By:

>>11323751
first of all “theory of everything “ and “grand unified theory” mean two different things. grand unified theory refers to the idea that just like electromagnetic and weak forces unify at around 1 TeV due to the Higgs mechanism (proven experimentally since 2012), that the strong force should join electroweak theory at some higher energy. it leaves out gravity as well as most of everything outside particle physics.

a theory of everything is a grand unified theory plus gravity. string theory is an example. however, that doesn’t mean everything is settled. just all four of the forces we know about so far. which is hopefully everything but maybe not. maybe e.g. dark energy is just a cosmological constant separate from everything else.

moreover, even if we had the theory of everything, it wouldn’t predict lots of stuff. it wouldn’t predict the weather (it’s too chaotic) or even why superconductors form when you cool certain metals (as far as we can tell BCS isn’t derivable even from a ToE. it is emergent.)

so a theory of everything just means we’ve figured out all the building blocks and their rules, but since the rules are so rich it means there is plenty of more theorizing left to work out

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:31:27 No.11323804 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321687
Based

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:45:31 No.11323838 Report

Quoted By: >>11323870

>>11323655
>right now
It has required the absolute peak of human ingenuity to fill out the standard model, and the first step was to devise incredibly specific predictions of what to look for and where. How would we even begin to start with strings? A super DUPER hadron collider (that can somehow see in 1-dimensional space)??

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:46:10 No.11323840 Report

Quoted By:

>theory is 40 years old
>no valid scientific observations to speak of
lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:47:24 No.11323843 Report

Quoted By:

>>11323188
exactly this. most of the popsci brainlet idiots seem to refute the theory and call it a bullshit

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:48:26 No.11323848 Report

Quoted By:

>>11323231
this in a nutshell. it's easy to press a button once someone with brain comes up with the theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 01:56:40 No.11323870 Report

Quoted By: >>11323876

>>11323838
well, one prediction of the standard model is that gravity doesn’t exist, spacetime is minkowski, black holes don’t exist, light doesn’t curve, mercury’s orbit doesn’t precess, and GPS should give wrong predictions. clearly the theory isn’t correct in these assumptions.

string theory provides a framework to preserve the standard model while preserving these GR predictions. and not only in an ad-hoc way, but in a very tightly constrained way that works despite tons of probable near-pitfalls. and it did it all by accident as said before:
>>11323655
so clearly the standard model needs some refinements, and string theory is basically a miraculously successful minor refinement that reconciled it with gravity using a fairly small and benign change to the problematic basic physical assumption that “particles” are the minimally more complicated version of what we assumed they were

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 02:00:09 No.11323876 Report

Quoted By: >>11323932

>>11323870
>a fairly small and benign change to the problematic basic physical assumption that “particles” are the minimally more complicated version of what we assumed they were
i should rephrase this
> a fairly small and benign change to the (problematic) basic physical assumption that “particles” are 0 dimensional, instead they are the minimally more complicated (but less problematic) version of what we assumed they were (they are instead 1 dimensional up close)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Lee-Smolin_2880x1620_Lede.jpg, 617KiB, 2880x1620

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 02:05:34 No.11323891 Report

Quoted By: >>11323898

>>11320296
because string theory is wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 02:10:48 No.11323898 Report

Quoted By:

>>11323891
no, smolbrain is wrong. not to mention he credits his career to Epstien in his book

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 02:20:20 No.11323924 Report

Quoted By:

>>11323262
>the nature of my theory is that it is impossible to test it rigorously bro
hehe nice one

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 02:23:21 No.11323932 Report

Quoted By: >>11323989

>>11323876
So how do you think we'll ever detect a non-3D object? Or will we only get an abstruse computer readout after we smash a bunch of quarks together real hard, or split a neutrino or some shit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 02:45:52 No.11323989 Report

Quoted By: >>11324036

>>11323932
computer readouts are how particle physics works nowadays. gone are the days where the trigger system caused a film camera to take a picture of a track in a chamber. now we use computers to trigger and record sensor outputs. that is just a fact of particle physics since say the 1980s

either way, it doesn’t matter for string theory or any theory of quantum gravity so far. none of them make any predictions at any current experiments. and for the foreseeable future the current theories will never make that kind of prediction for contemporaneous colliders. so there are two hopes: either the theorists work their theories out well enough that they can actually make new low-energy predictions, (low energy meaning on the order of current experiments) or they make predictions at medium energies and an accompanying revolutions happen in experiment which make “medium” energies possible. like a muon collider for example

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 02:58:09 No.11324016 Report

Quoted By: >>11324050 >>11325169

>>11320302
Fucked adam friedland

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 03:04:06 No.11324036 Report

Quoted By: >>11324074

>>11323989
But smashing shit is still the go-to procedure? I was thinking we might switch it up with some jostling or rotating, or really anything other than more collisions. I mean, if you have an object made out of tiny, simple 3D shapes, smashing the object apart will eventually isolate an individual shape. If you have an object made out of strings, uh, honestly I'm stumped here.

I know quantum physics isn't supposed to be intuitive, but it is certainly convenient that particle accelerators are always part of the answer....

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO witten.jpg, 34KiB, 480x640

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 03:06:31 No.11324050 Report

Quoted By: >>11325169

>>11324016
you know what you did

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 03:11:57 No.11324074 Report

Quoted By:

>>11324036
smashing muons or protons (even proton sub-constituents like quarks) at 13 TeV is not nearly high enough energy to get down to planck-scale or near-planck scale dynamics. Planck mass is like a trillion times more energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 04:03:37 No.11324157 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321687
based af

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO chimp-on-vacation.jpg, 20KiB, 400x410

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 05:08:02 No.11324303 Report

Quoted By:

>>11320296
his daughter got blacked by a male bonobo and he stopped doing any research

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO __yakumo_yukari_touhou_drawn_by_ (...).png, 607KiB, 900x720

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 05:19:30 No.11324332 Report

Quoted By:

>>11321392
>amplituhedron
https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04378

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 14:10:32 No.11325032 Report

Quoted By:

here is a great layman-level explanation of M-theory:
https://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jan 2020 15:47:05 No.11325169 Report

Quoted By:

>>11324016
>>11324050
Fellow cumboys

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Jan 2020 00:39:43 No.11326266 Report

Quoted By: >>11326271

bumping string theory thread

this time i have no good content to add besides noting that Lenny and Banks have nothing recently said stuff along the lines that even though they are heroes of string / M theory that they both believe it is not the theory of our universe but that a newer better theory is needed, and that it needs to be built using all the lessons we know know about string theory and M theory and duality. so get to work zoomers, quit playing on twitch and tiktok and hit those pencils to the paper so you can learn what being an adult means

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Jan 2020 00:40:43 No.11326271 Report

Quoted By:

>>11326266
*have recently
donno why i freudian slipped a “nothing” in there

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches