Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:16:45 UTC No. 16419539

>>16419538
string theory is physicists realizing that math is more fun than physics

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:46:46 UTC No. 16419600

>>16419538
It was initially looked at as something that can describe the strong force. Then QCD turned out to be a much better theory. Then they found out that gravity is renormalizable in their theory. Their stuff then also included other forces, so they thought they could derive the Standard Model. They have now admitted they can't derive the Standard Model due to the "landscape problem" so their garbage can't produce any phenomenological predictions aside from "just measure the temperature of a black hole" or "just build a collider the size of the galaxy".

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:52:07 UTC No. 16419611

>>16419600
>It sounds like you're talking about string theory, a theoretical framework that has gone through a similar trajectory. Initially, it was considered a potential theory for describing the strong nuclear force. However, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) became the successful and accepted theory for the strong interaction, leaving string theory to pivot toward a broader ambition: unifying gravity with quantum mechanics and the other forces of nature.

One of the major attractions of string theory was its potential to provide a consistent, renormalizable theory of gravity, which is something general relativity lacks when combined with quantum field theory. Additionally, string theory seemed to offer a framework in which all the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force) could be unified.

However, one of the significant challenges string theorists face is the so-called "landscape problem," where there are an enormous number of possible solutions (around 10^500)—corresponding to different possible universes with different physical properties. This makes it difficult for string theory to make precise predictions about our universe, such as predicting the values of the constants in the Standard Model. The theory doesn't provide a unique solution for the observable universe, and so far, string theory hasn’t yielded testable predictions that can be experimentally confirmed.

Critics often point to the lack of empirical evidence for string theory, with suggestions that testing it would require extreme conditions, like measuring the temperature of a black hole or constructing colliders on a galactic scale—both of which are far beyond current technological capabilities. This has led to a perception that string theory, while mathematically elegant, struggles with connecting to observable phenomena in a way that more conventional theories do.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:59:55 UTC No. 16419628

>>16419611
Thanks, ChatGPT

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:02:15 UTC No. 16419634

>>16419628
Ahem, Physics Nobel Prize Winner, ChatGPT

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:12:30 UTC No. 16419655

>>16419538
>Real quantum field theories have string-like objects often called flux-tubes
>They are easy to consider classically, but it's a quantum field theory after all so let's make them quantum
>Unexpectedly it turns out the one of the lightest excited states of a quantized string is a graviton
>Hey we want to know how quantum gravity works, and now we have a theory that we can work with that has gravitons!
>In order to make this theory work we need extra dimensions, and there is some other unphysical junk corresponding to the other lightest string states, but let's consider it anyway!
>This is now the early 1980s, and this is a fairly new research program, and theoretical physicists have a lot of confidence due to the success of the standard model in the previous decade
>At this time most of the best minds were convinced there is a major discovery waiting around the corner, so they start working on it
>As the decades roll on the optimism dries up, but string theory and adjacent topics are notoriously difficult so the best students are still attracted to it
>If you care about toy models in physics, there are some very interesting real developments in this time but it is harder to explain to the public than "everything is made of tiny strings"
>Meanwhile it is still true that there are real flux tubes in quantum field theory, and it is still true that this is at least a workable toy model of quantum gravity so the initial things that attracted the 1970s generation are still there

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:13:30 UTC No. 16419661

>>16419538
I am the world's second best theoretical physicist and I don't care about string theory. I only care about gooning.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:15:59 UTC No. 16419673

>WE WUZ STRANGZ MUFFUGGUH
>SHEEEIIIIIIIITTTT MUH IQ SO BIG
>t. science

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:32:31 UTC No. 16419693

>>16419655
>>Unexpectedly it turns out the one of the lightest excited states of a quantized string is a graviton
Stringniggers say this as some kind of a deus ex machina thing, when in reality you just get every integral spin state out of a bosonic string. Spin 2 must be gravity (proven all the way back in the 50s) and every higher-spin field must be non-interactive (once again proven before string theory).

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:46:43 UTC No. 16419702

People realized that you can't just keep making up dimensions in order to make shit work. String theory ended up as a bunch of made up horseshit that relies on faith to the point you might as well say "God did it."

People like string theory because it was "promising" and they wanted to be the next einstein that created a unified filed theory.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:41:55 UTC No. 16419764

>>16419693
It would be plausible that you would get spin 2 states before you did the calculation, but they didn't need to end up being massless

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:19:38 UTC No. 16419820

>>16419702
They made some of the theories mirror Kabbalah as an inside joke which is the same as saying God did it.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:16:56 UTC No. 16419873

>>16419538
They strike at our curiosity regarding instrumentation and insturmental lingo’ like strings. Open and closed holes or valves and key properties. Perhaps should be called Vulvam

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:19:44 UTC No. 16419874

>>16419538
tenure.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:28:58 UTC No. 16419880

>>16419538
It's elegant, but bullshit. It's beautiful, but deceptive. Questions à la
>Why are there three generations of each particle family
become
>Why are there only odd-dimensional holes in the Calabi-Yau manifolds in a hypothetical 13-dimensional spacetime?
and this makes them seem super intelligent and alien.

In all honesty though; Truth is, because there's nothing better to do right now. Nobody had any idea about a unifying theory or anything of value in recent years, and the commercialization of Academia turned it into a degree mill unworthy of any science-minded talented individual. How else would you spend your time if not with the beauty of an ultimately waste of time theory to fight the intuitive knowledge that all you ever dreamed, all you ever fought for is in vain?

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:32:11 UTC No. 16419886

>>16419880
You don't know what you are talking about. That is true for most people in this thread, but I feel the need to point it out with you since you are using jargon incorrectly and other people may be fooled into thinking you have some kind of inside perspective.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 22:45:31 UTC No. 16419904

>>16419886
I worked on String Theory from 2016-2017. While I did try to forget as much as possible about it, im sure I've still got it down sufficiently correct, except for the number of odd-dimensional holes perhaps. What do you believe is wrong here?

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:22:36 UTC No. 16419973

>>16419880
>>16419904
How in the world does string theory end up with flavor symmetry in it? And is it only CKM or is PMNS also accounted for?

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:34:13 UTC No. 16419997

>>16419973
It's only fair that you answer my question first, no?

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:40:42 UTC No. 16420011

>>16419997
I’m not >>16419904

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:42:40 UTC No. 16420013

>>16419997
I’m not >>16419886

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:50:52 UTC No. 16420021

>>16419538
Perhaps you could just open the book and it would tell you.
Few reasons:
>Initially thought it would be able to describe strong force. Surprisingly described gravity. Gravity was also renormalisable (this is also unique to string-like objects).
>AdS/CFT correspondence is basically a result which shows string theory is just a QFT in a different dimensional spacetime. This is important because it means a theory without gravity is in some sense equivalent to a theory with gravity.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 00:55:20 UTC No. 16420077

String theory is popular because you can make up your own variables and no one can empirically prove you wrong.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 05:38:16 UTC No. 16420595

>>16420077
The LHC did though lmao. Funniest result to come out of it. Totally worth the 10 or so billion dollars.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 06:26:08 UTC No. 16420616

>>16419538
String theory is the only theory that exists that provides a mathematically consistent theory of quantum gravity.

The only one. Every other attempt has been a complete failure.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:00:38 UTC No. 16420971

>>16420616
how does string theory does that? I understand its mathematically complex and it might be impossible to dumb it down, but try to explain
As for background, i formally studied physics at a PhD level but not particle physics, though i learned QFT at a superficial level

B00T at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:01:22 UTC No. 16420973

>>16420971
Whoa, smartass

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:07:26 UTC No. 16420984

>>16420616
>Every other attempt has been a complete failure.
That's because every other attempt doesn't make up a bunch of horseshit in order to make it work.

BTW, you're wrong. "It's a simulation." and the laws of physics being arbitrary coding or the bending of space time being a simple if->then statement makes more sense than string theory and is just as testable.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:54:29 UTC No. 16421040

>>16420616
LQG sisters…

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:03:54 UTC No. 16421051

>>16420973
Whatever, ill just watch some explanation in Youtube

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:09:27 UTC No. 16421054

Basically it’s a new religion for astrophysicists isn’t it? Ie if you can make it work in a math equation then it’s real.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:00:00 UTC No. 16421127

>>16419904
13 dimensions? Odd dimensional holes? Stop larping

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:26:13 UTC No. 16421178

>>16419538
The book you posted tells you why on page 5. Unless you can actually understand the theory (i.e. read a book like Polchinski) you're not going to understand the significance of string theory.
>>16419880
Stop larping. You are obviously (mis)-quoting from a youtube video. You didn't actually work on any problem like that. But even if you weren't larping, deriving something like the number of generations from a mathematical structure is an interesting problem. Giving mathematical structure to physical laws is the entire point of physics since Galileo.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:44:01 UTC No. 16421198

>>16421178
I didn't read the book and I understand its significance. All of that significance can go fuck itself when there are no phenomenological predictions to back it up.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:03:55 UTC No. 16421478

>>16421127
What's your problem, stringlet?
https://www.outline-of-knowledge.info/OKD/5/Physics/String%20Theory/Dimensions/Calabi-Yau%20shapes.html
>Calabi-Yau shapes have different numbers of holes, different numbers of even-dimension holes, and different numbers of odd-dimension holes. For Calabi-Yau shapes with same total hole number, interchanging number of even-dimension holes and odd-dimension holes results in same physics {mirror manifold}. String vibration sizes and frequencies depend on the difference between odd-dimensional hole number and even-dimensional hole number.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:06:43 UTC No. 16421480

>>16421178
>You are obviously (mis)-quoting from a youtube video.
I don't recall ever having watched a YouTube video about string theory. It's a bore fest, I hated working on it. That's why I may remember some details incorrectly.
>deriving something like the number of generations from a mathematical structure is an interesting problem.
I never said it wasn't. If you could comprehend written language, you'd have read that I criticized the fact that string theory merely shifts questions to more compelx ones instead of answering anything. And trust me here, Witten et al noticed that way sooner than I did.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:11:36 UTC No. 16421487

>>16421478
No string theorist refers to those as "even or odd dimensional holes". They would speak about cohomology groups or Hodge diamonds. You also were speaking about 13 dimensions which has nothing to do with string theory. Either 26 or any number less than or equal to 11 I would give you the benefit of the doubt but you failed that simple test.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:21:45 UTC No. 16421495

>>16421478
String Theory, just like Quantum Field Theory, is a mathematical framework that can produce different theories based on different parameters.

Unlike QFT, String Theory involves gravity, which means the background geometry is one of the parameters. Because as we know form General Relativity, gravity is geometry.

Idk why people act as if this is some major flaw.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:26:58 UTC No. 16421498

>>16421495
>Unlike QFT, String Theory involves gravity
Nothing prevents you from writing down the Einstein-Hilbert action in QFT. It's non-renormalizable, obviously due to the dimensionality of G, but you can still formulate an EFT with it like you would with Fermi theory for example. Ramond's introductory book on QFT contains a chapter on gravity where he builds the action and couplings using the vielbein formalism. The main difference between QFT and string theory is renormalizability.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:28:19 UTC No. 16421501

In fact, Hawking's derivation of black hole entropy was him doing semiclassical QFT with gravity.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:30:32 UTC No. 16421509

>>16421498
Writing down an action is a classical field theory. The fact you can't renormalize means there is no quantum field theory.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:44:27 UTC No. 16421536

>>16421509
>The fact you can't renormalize means there is no quantum field theory.
You can still make quantitative predictions up to arbitrary order using EFTs as long as you're well below the characteristic energy scale. See Fermi theory. The only thing it could indicate is that there is a UV completion. Whether that UV completion is string theory or something else would have to be confirmed experimentally like we did with the electroweak bosons.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:46:25 UTC No. 16421537

>>16421509
Not him, but you can work out something called an "effective field theory" for gravity. Non-renormalizability isn't taken to be such a problem today as it was before say the late 1970s. The problem with non-renormalizability is that it implies that you need to specify new parameters to calculate high energy processes. String theory in principle "predicts" these parameters (although it depends on the choice of compactification etc) but there is no way to test this experimentally because it require going to too high of energy.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:55:39 UTC No. 16421552

>>16421487
>No string theorist refers to those as "even or odd dimensional holes".
On the contrary, many do. I gave an example. The explanation for why I did is simple: I supervised two seminars back then for mathematics and physics students with rather shallow backgrounds in differential geometry and functional calculus.
>13 dims
There are other options to make the Weyl anomaly disappear than simply relying on dimensional effects. You don't advance string theory or any theory really by doing exactly what other people are doing. But yeah, I should've probably just said 26 or called it m-theory.
>>16421495
Did you reply to the wrong post? Also this >>16421498.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:03:36 UTC No. 16421571

>>16421552
Give it up already. At best you had a string theorist professor that was forced to make some bullshit learning project for undergraduate students and made up some language so it would be feasible. Meanwhile even though you are misremembering even the basics, you claim to have "worked" on string theory. Give me a break.

Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 23:44:02 UTC No. 16421994

>>16421571
>still no argument
k
>Give me a break
It was over 7 years ago and I completely abandoned physics in 2018. You want to sound tough but only ever produce easily disprovable nonsense criticisms. Why are you doing this?

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:08:09 UTC No. 16422563

This thread shows why there are no actual scientists left on this board. Holy shit you guys are just asses for the heck of it. Take it to /b/, tards.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:16:50 UTC No. 16422567

>>16422563
>waaah you’re not scientists like me because you’re MEAN
tough shit. Gonna cry like a little girl?

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:17:55 UTC No. 16422568

>>16422567

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:01:02 UTC No. 16422742

>>16422567
That's not what I said at all, but yeah. I'll dry my tears with my fat paycheck while my beautiful wife blows me when the kids are asleep tonight.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 18:46:05 UTC No. 16423301

>>16422567
>>16422742
Just wanted to let you know I sprayed her full upper body with a huge load, up to her hair. I'm very happy now and can finally concentrate on managing my (admittedly smallish) real estate business now. Bye.

B00T at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 18:48:30 UTC No. 16423307

Somethin for you to try on while I take the old stuff

B00T at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 18:51:24 UTC No. 16423317

Just choosing what I wanna be myself. Was gonna be all gentleman and sad and romantic but then changed my mind. It begins.