Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:27:53 UTC No. 16623651

>>16623536
>now that supersymmetry is dead
elaborate

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:34:31 UTC No. 16623696

>>16623651
everyone said that we were gonna find supersymmetric particles in the LHC. The fact that they haven't been discovered proves t>>16623651
hat they don't exist

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:55:40 UTC No. 16623818

>>16623696
>if you dont find something it means it doesnt exist
fucking dumbass

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 21:28:48 UTC No. 16623905

>>16623536
>Ok so now that supersymmetry is dead, does that mean that string theory is dead too?
No. It might be effectively dead as a theory of everything underlying the standard model, but string theory evolved into something different. It is difficult to kill a moving target.

If you want a more concrete picture of the state of the art in string theory, take a look at this pdf of open research questions taken from the Strings 2024 conference. Almost none of the questions have anything to do with the old kind of string theory that is under discussion by pop sci advocates (like Michio Kaku) and critics (like Lee Smolin).

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:43:26 UTC No. 16625013

>another string theory bashing thread
>hey guys, here's what string theorists are actually doing
>crickets

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:43:35 UTC No. 16625079

>>16625013
I don't understand it. If you explain the pdf, I will tell you why it's bullshit

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:53:52 UTC No. 16625089

>>16623818
>it must exist even though we haven't found it yet
Fucking double dumbass

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:00:21 UTC No. 16625098

>>16625089
I guess math doesnt exist then

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:11:00 UTC No. 16625106

>>16625098
What exactly do you think mathematical proof is?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:25:35 UTC No. 16625223

>>16625079
Ok I'll explain the first two questions in alphabetical order.

>What are useful observables to sharply describe a chaotic-integrable phase
transition in quantum systems? Are there examples where we could have a
holographic description of the intermediate phase?
An "integrable" system is basically the opposite of a chaotic system. This question is looking at some quantum mechanical models that have a parameter that lets you adjust between a very chaotic model at one end and an integrable one at the other and seeing if we can describe a phase transition quantitatively. String theorists are interested in this because black holes are supposed to be fast scramblers (i.e. very chaotic). Condensed matter theorists are interested in this because "strange metals" seem to work a bit like the very chaotic side of the model.

>What is the classical string theory dual to the large N limit of (3+1 dimensional) QCD?
3+1 dimensional QCD is a theory in the real world that describes quarks and gluons. The large N limit asks us to imagine that instead of 3 colors of quarks there is a very large number. It sounds odd but this is a common approximation in theoretical physics. It has been suggested since the 70s that the large N limit has something to do with string theory. And in the 90s this was realized more quantitatively in the AdS/CFT correspondence. But originally that correspondence had to do with a very supersymmetric theory, not a real world one. This question is asking about the real world.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:32:20 UTC No. 16625229

>>16625223
Ok, I'll give you a you because you seek really desperate for it.
>muh black holes and strange materials
black holes are gay, and there are no strings inside a metal. QFT is more than enough.
>make string theory to explaing black holes
>black holes are still unexplainable
lmao
>AdS/CFT
The day we find a correspondence for a de Sitter 4 dimensional spacetime I'll stop saying that string theory is bullshit. Our universe is not anti de sitter.
btw, are you a real string theorist for real? or did you just ask chatgpt?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:36:57 UTC No. 16625235

>>16625229
>btw, are you a real string theorist for real? or did you just ask chatgpt?
I'm a high energy theorist doing things kind of close to the first two questions. I wouldn't call myself a "string theorist" per se.

>The day we find a correspondence for a de Sitter 4 dimensional spacetime I'll stop saying that string theory is bullshit. Our universe is not anti de sitter.
That's the paradigm shift I'm talking about. If you want something closer to the real world, focus on the boundary side of the correspondence rather than the AdS side.