Is string theory pseudoscience?

What was the motivation for coming up with the quite arbitrary notions that string theory is based on?
Was there / is there ANY reason to believe those arbitrary concepts are possibly a better description for reality than something else? How the hell did string theory grow to such proportions when its basis seems to have been pulled from the hat?

They can be detected because gravitrons can disappear from a membrane to another.
In a monent they're there, in another they're vanished.

That is something that mathematicians believe they can do, as they have run the calculations that ultimately determine such a thing as possible, but no one has ever observed a graviton.

Every day people find out new stuff when colliding hydrogen atoms altogether, and this technology has only been arround for some time. Think about how slow science develops, some theories were ignored for centuries before they were accepted. I'm not saying string theory is right, I'm just saying give them some time.

>What was the motivation for coming up with the quite arbitrary notions that string theory is based on?

Yes

>Was there / is there ANY reason to believe those arbitrary concepts are possibly a better description for reality than something else?

The math is not random. It is very clear why String Theory must be exactly the way it is. But you have to really understand the math to see that.

The paradoxical relationship between quantum and classical systems, the strong desire for a theory of everything, and the opportunity to become the next Newton/Darwin/Einstein made string theory inevitable.

Under rated.

Some of it may be right but some of it may be wrong. It's just a theory.

>this theory of mine wouldn't make sense in a world where time moves at the same rate for everyone
>wait, i know, let's make it so that the passage of time isn't constant

>this theory of mine wouldn't make sense in this world where things do something or they don't
>wait, i know, let's say that things can do both things at once if i'm not looking

you are literally this dumb

No. But since no here understands it, good luck getting any decent replies.

Of course

Let's check, shall we:
1.) Are there laws?
>No
2.) Is physical evidence?
>No
3.) Is the mathematics or analytical evidence narrow enough to stake everything on the one hypothesis?
>No
4.) Have there been serious improvements that aren't just attempts to force fit a failing theory
>Debatable

String Theory and M Theory are debatable as fuck, but General Quantum Mechanics has been confirmed due to simple application:
Quantum Computers.

Of course, people will falsely equate String/M Theory with General Quantum Mechanics because false equivocations based on media-paring is normal.

1.) Are there laws?
It is a framework for generating symmetries. The word "laws" is a rhetorical misnomer in this context.

>Is physical evidence?

At the scales of black holes and fluid dynamics, other models do not suffice to describe the phenomena.

>Is the mathematics or analytical evidence narrow enough to stake everything on the one hypothesis?

By this standard of evidence, quantum mechanics is null and void. Science is about making a set of propositions which evolve according to the results of experiment. It is akin to religious fundamentalism when someone makes the claim that finite statements in natural language can be absolutely correct with respect to our understanding of the universe.

>Have there been serious improvements that aren't just attempts to force fit a failing theory

Most of the attempts to reconcile special relativity and quantum mechanics rely on string theory. Can you think of a better way to describe probability currents in GPS electronics?

No, but it does overlap with metaphysics.

>This post
Holy shit.

>General Quantum Mechanics has been confirmed due to simple application:
Quantum Computers.

Opinion fucking discarded.

Let us assume that poster did not understand the terminology of electrical engineering well.

Quantum chemistry, quantum sensors, quantum information processing, and quantum error correction are all fruits from that epistem.

Argument by Stone Fallacy.
I challenge your discard, and call personal incredulity fallacy.

>It is a framework for generating symmetries. The word "laws" is a rhetorical misnomer in this context.
Complete and utter horseshit.

>At the scales of black holes and fluid dynamics, other models do not suffice to describe the phenomena.
You can't use a hypothetical to support another hypothetical. There must by some empirical foundation.

>By this standard of evidence, quantum mechanics is null and void. Science is about making a set of propositions which evolve according to the results of experiment. It is akin to religious fundamentalism when someone makes the claim that finite statements in natural language can be absolutely correct with respect to our understanding of the universe.
*Yawn*; proof by verbosity, eh?
No. Quantum mechanics isn't invalidating because ONE or TWO theories are invalid.
That's called a fallacy-fallacy.

>Most of the attempts to reconcile special relativity and quantum mechanics rely on string theory. Can you think of a better way to describe probability currents in GPS electronics?
Did you seriously think you could drop special pleading and no one would call you out on it?
And then you follow it by using false dilemma, time constraints fallacy, the argument from ignorance, etc?

Apparently you've never studied analytics.

>Let us assume
Discarded.
>...are all fruits from that epistem
Discarded

I'm guessing college sophomores have the week off?

>Complete and utter horseshit.
If you have to use a vulgar metaphor, then your ignorance is just that apparent.

>You can't use a hypothetical to support another hypothetical. There must by some empirical foundation.

I told you about the empirical evidence of black holes and alluded to that of heterogenous fluids.

>*Yawn*; proof by verbosity, eh?
Appeal to ignorance, much?

>No. Quantum mechanics isn't invalidating because ONE or TWO theories are invalid.

Then a theory can be still right after a hypothesis evolves.

>That's called a fallacy-fallacy

It is not called that in English, and you are making serious grammatical errors beside.

>Did you seriously think you could drop special pleading and no one would call you out on it?

I told you about the niche application and current work, does that even register?

>And then you follow it by using false dilemma, time constraints fallacy, the argument from ignorance, etc?

I am asking you if you know anything about the topic, in real terms.

>Apparently you've never studied analytics.

Apparently, you do not know English at the adult level.

>Discarded.

You might as well mulligan unless there is some ace up your sleeve.

>I'm guessing college sophomores have the week off?

I'm guessing that you like to present red herrings and feel superior about yourself.

There must be a link between mathematics and physics. So far we have believed that both are like two different things, although with their own similarities and technically derived from the same thing, it still isn't clear at what point the purity of maths becomes crystal clear reality as in the mysteries of the Universe. I am just an office worker but I believe this might be the "lost link" between maths and physics that will make clear how at some point one becomes the other, the border between maths and physics, the door, I think.

There is a difference between figuring out the math to explain a phenomenon and altering reality to fit your math.

>Most of the attempts to reconcile special relativity and quantum mechanics rely on string theory.
...QFT doesn't rely upon string theory. Maybe you meant the general theory of relativity? In this case, there are still several other possibilities which exist aside form string theory, string theory just has better publicists.

>Complete and utter horseshit.
Given the relation between symmetries and conservation laws, you are wrong here.

>empirical evidence of black holes
What do you mean by this? The only string theory specific prediction I am aware of regarding black holes which has been reasonably tested came out false.

Like... we're just vibes, man...

No it's math.

What do you guys think about LQG?

Its a mathematical sound and stringent way to unify physics. One of even a few good attempts at it.

>but General Quantum Mechanics has been confirmed due to simple application:
>Quantum Computers.
lol fuck off

Theoretical physics is a load of shit.

It's not science, but it might be at some point. Or it might be the most expensive though experiment ever created. An economist might say it is a reckless gamble with tax dollars, which can only be sustained by leaving the public in the dark about it's nature.

fucking trips in such a shitty post

>Gamble with tax dollars

It's not a gamble you retard.

They are stealing your money for no reason.

>build wall
>it's the moslems
>we wuz kangs

Meanwhile the goverment robs you and gives you retarded theories in return that will never benefit anyone anywhere...

>we heard an alien fart 666 bagillion gorillion away
>same bus of retards can't find an aeroplane when it goes missing

underrated

This. Do people on this board not even fucking know about the problem of quantum gravity?