RIP String Theory?

This post explains it beautifully.

backreaction.blog
spot.com/2016/06/dear-dr-b-why-not-string-theory.html

>So, you asked, why not string theory? Because it’s an approach that has been fixed over and over again to make it compatible with conflicting observations. Every time that’s been done, string theorists became more convinced of their ideas. And every time they did this, I became more convinced they are merely building a mathematical toy universe.

>String theorists of course deny that they are influenced by anything but objective assessment. One noteworthy exception is Joe Polchinski who has considered that social effects play a role, but just came to the conclusion that they aren’t relevant. I think it speaks for his intellectual sincerity that he at least considered it.

The problem is that there are not many actually-existing alternatives to string theory. So you basically get to the point where you say that high-energy physics needs to be more or less abandoned because further tests are too expensive or not within our technological capabilities.

>Because it’s an approach that has been fixed over and over again to make it compatible with conflicting observations.

There are a bunch of different String Theories because they are all pertubative and are limits of a higher theory (i.e. "string theory" isn't actually a unifying theory).

Also string theories are background dependent. Ideally a unifying theory would be background independent.

Brainlet here,
Does size really matter when it comes to particle accelerators?
I would think that it's just all about stronger magnets.

If you wanted a collider on earth that could test string theory, you would need magnetic fields that are larger than even magnetars, or a gigantic collider hundreds of lightyears in radius. In theory we could someday carry out this experiment over thousands of years.

>Literally who, from literally where

Reading though her other posts she seems like a professional contrarian. Here she explaining why the Bullet cluster isn't actually evidence for dark matter, despite literally fucking everyone (even the MOND guys) agreeing that it is. Theres also a strong implication that she doesn't like Lambda-CDM, despite it's impressive predictive credentials.

I think I'll take a pass on her opinion, professional or otherwise.

Woops:
backreaction.blogs
pot.co.uk/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html

a-are you OK user? out of your schizo meds today? I suggest going back to bed and sleeping it off... your mom will bring the meds soon.

>There are a bunch of different String Theories
It's turtles all the way down. I know user.

PS: Did you guys know that the silly:

[math]1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -\frac{1}{12}[/math]

result is at the very core of ST? That's how they got to ST having 26 dimensions. TOPEST OF KEKS!

>1+2+3+...=−1121+2+3+...=−112
>result is at the very core of ST? That's how they got to ST having 26 dimensions.

26 dimensions is Bosonic String Theory, which is a toy model. The -1/12 result is only one of multiple ways to come to that conclusion.

>The -1/12 result is only one of multiple ways to come to that conclusion.
LOL! There are no other ways user. You have to do the Ramanujan summation in the end. Quit being so insincere.

>Ramanujan summation
>He's not doing Zeta function regularization
>He's probably never even done basic QFT

kek.

but she fucking nailed it tho:

>How come we so rarely read about the difficulties the Bullet Cluster poses for particle dark matter? It’s because the pop sci media doesn’t like anything better than a simple explanation that comes with an image that has “scientific consensus” written all over it. Isn’t it obvious the visible stuff is separated from the center of the gravitational pull?

>Is String Theory dead, Veeky Forums?
DELET TIHS

>dat pic
lol'd

JUST

First then
mathoverflow.net/questions/99643/why-does-bosonic-string-theory-require-26-spacetime-dimensions

But she fucking didn't tho. She presented issues with current understanding and then tried to make those issues seem like they're massive holes in the ship. Like I've already said she's in the minority, even the people pushing MOND admit that they still need DM to explain it.

It's like tobacco shiling, "doubt is our weapon".

Ed still has a Fields Medal, I think he'll be alright. You should remake this shoop with Lubos Motl instead.

>Lubos Motl
That angry manlet?
He looks like /r9k/ material.

>He looks like /r9k/ material.
Funny you should say that...
desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/18929562/#18937394

whoa, he is already JUST-tier

>My involuntary celibacy has made me more aware of how our society works. By not wasting energy on sex like an animal, I had more resources available to raise my intellect. Did you never notice how virgins are smarter than non-virgins? Newton, Nietzsche, Erdös, Dirac, Motl, the list goes on. I have joined their ranks as one of the most supreme intellectuals of our time.

Toppest kek.

>That angry manlet?
... yet still 100x smarter and more accomplished than you'll ever be.

Ed's more invested into ST than LM. So Ed has WAY MORE to lose. He's the poser-child of ST anyway!

Ed's shoelaces have been taken away from him and he's on a suicide watch...

this guy has potential to be the next great Veeky Forums meme:

motls.blogspot.com/2015/11/why-not-to-get-more-girls-into-stem.html

>... yet still 100x smarter and more accomplished than you'll ever be.
Shoo Luboš shoo.

Motl's one of my favs. Guy is opinionated and def not a beta male... like the majority of Veeky Forums memes. He;s the opposite from that autistic betafag Terrry Tao who can't even drive a fucking car and yet he writes theorems and corollaries about politics.

>face
>body expression
>just fuck my shit up hair
All faith... GONE
All hope... LOST

Motl is my favourite intellectual. Not only he is based but he is an accomplished physicist. His blog set the standard of scientific journalism.

Get out of here Lubos.

Motel is truly one of a kind. He impressed the mathematical world when he was only an undergraduate by doing groundbreaking work on matrices and string theory, just like Heisenberg did with the matrix approach to MQ. We should be thankful instead of mocking him for his appearance.

>Motl is my favourite intellectual. Not only he is based but he is an accomplished physicist. His blog set the standard of scientific journalism.
clap clap... he's great. one of the few blogs I'm subbed to and get daily updates. he always keeps you up to date about the latest shit (and gossip) in physics.

why do u hate him so much? he's right about pretty much everything. about the only thing I disagree with him is about relevance of ST.

Lupuš Motl hands down is my favourite mathematical physicist.

Horseshit I don't buy it

>Brainlet here. Please explain friendos.

When the string theorists say "String theory is what it has to be," I was able to say... oh ok if that thats is what it has to be then et cetera except I did come up with a few ideas for testable predictions, and one of my predictions was so specific that the LHC stopped reporting its finding in a desperate attempt not to say that I outsmarted all of them.

Becoming homeless tomorrow, not sure I when i will finish the book. Here is draft of the parts that are reasonably well edited already. Look in section at what I say about the path of maximum action/

drive.google.com/open?id=0BxV2HFmw-aNMY0pSZTZhc2xlbHc

Sabine is muh physicistfu

Dirac had children

can someone [s]redpill[/s] educate me on loop quantum gravity. is it just a meme?

1000x less likely than string theory, which is already really unlikely

Meme

>loop quantum gravity
It's a lot less narrower theory. Unlike ST, LQG doesn't assume there's a single entity that underlies everything. It's also a lot less well understood since less research time has been devoted to it.

I think it has a brighter future than ST at this point. People lost patience with ST because of its many faults.

T-theory actually.

They maintain that Lorentz symmetry is violated despite the Fermi telescope showing that it's continuous down to at least the Planck scale. They further assert that it's actually just a grand coincidence.

>why do u hate him so much?

I don't I think he's pretty good when he stays on physics, it's when he moves off it that he turns into a bloviating, reactionary, retard. Intelligence in one part of life doesn't necessarily transform into intelligence in all walks of life.

>about the only thing I disagree with him is about relevance of ST.

So the "only thing" you disagree with him about is his entire body of work? So really you only go to him because his social/political views align with yours, okay.

>I think it has a brighter future than ST at this point

Literally already been falsified.

?

no it hasn't. u from plebbit?

Yes it has.
>Our results disfavour quantum-gravity theories in which the quantum nature of space–time on a very small scale linearly alters the speed of light.

(Source: nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/nature08574.html)

LQG is a Lorentz violating theory.

>LQG is a Lorentz violating theory.
nigga pls.

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/228755/variable-speed-of-light-in-loop-quantum-gravity

a hypothetical elementary particle which causes neurodegenerative diseases?

From your own link:
>These and other considerations, including difficulties interpreting what it would mean to apply a Lorentz transformation to a spin network state, led Lee Smolin and others to suggest that spin network states must break Lorentz invariance
>spin network states must break Lorentz invariance

LQG breaks Lorentz invariance.

Only some variations. They have one that does not.

>J...just trust me I'm right, despite available evidence.

LQG is fundamentally flawed. The idea of quantizing the actual spacetime itself is the obvious thing to try, but also clearly riddled with flaws.

LQG tries to hard to force something that clearly will never work.

String Theory has kind of the opposite issue, it allows for too many possible spacetime geometries (with some weird "quantum" symmetries). But it at least keeps spacetime itself continuous.

This is what happens when people working in scientific fields form cults of personality. Instead of focusing on the concepts being presented, everyone just gets in a pissing match over who has published which papers and which universities are sponsoring certain people. What a joke.

How overrated is Ed Felten?

LQC has been falsified. I think LQG is still out there.

See

is he, dare I say it, /our guy/?

string theory is just a branch of speculative metaphysics

ST has actually taught me a lot about how to con people. I work in sales and I've actually followed this debate for decades and take notes on the techniques ST use to justify their theory. If you study how religions and cults work, you'll realize that they, String Theorists, use the same techniques for gaining followers. The most important thing is that you just make sure that no one can test your claim. Here's a great lecture explaining how it works.

youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA

I would recommend watching it at 2x speed because he talks sooooo sllooooowwww and his argument is easy to follow.

>is he, dare I say it, /our guy/?
He is a mix between a polak and a scientist.

>t.brainlets

>I work in sales
>Now here's my opinion on string theory

string theory: so bullshit even sales people smell it

Could be. Could also be that it's so complicated brainlets just have no way of understanding it, thereby making it look mystical. I know what I'm putting my money on (pro tip: It's not your suggestion).

>some dopey cunt explains why she, and not thousands of brilliant physicists, is right

Can we start just banning people who cite blogs to support thier arguments?

>thousands of brilliant physicists
buttmad ST retard got triggered.. kek

like thousands of smart people were not fooled by something before...

This is a dream of mine, user. That and simple calculus problems as captchas.

kys yourself.

>it's so complicated brainlets just have no way of understanding it

You see, this is actually a tactic that cult leaders use. They deliberately prey on people who are too naive or insecure to call out what is really a simple trick.

You must be familiar with the tale of The Emperor's New Clothes, yes? The trick is similar.

I don't actually care whether ST does or does not yield anything useful for physicists- like I said, I work in sales. I enjoy watching it from the ecological perspective. As an outsider, it is very obvious who is the prey and who is the predator, and amusing how clueless those who are being preyed on are to their situation.

Similarly amusing is the number of graduate students studying "pure math" who don't realize they're actually doing the work that string theorists need to justify their theory. They actually think it's pure! Can you believe that? Cracks me up how naive some of these kids are, especially on websites like MO. I always get a kick out of it when you a grad student get real puffed up over a question that "makes the wrong assumptions," that they were taught to question only a few months ago in an "inspiring lecture" that "radically changed their view of mathematics." It's the same story, over and over again.

>kys yourself.
amazing argument, ST baby. enjoy wasting your life on a dead theory.

You can't use math to prove things about reality, that's completely assbackwards.

>argument
>implying anyone is going to argue with a brainlet who posts things like "buttmad ST retard got triggered.. kek"

But some literalwho on the internet with zero contributions in the field, there's no way SHE could be wrong, amirite?

says a retard who wants to ban arguments just because they were posted on a blog.

stay retarded, stay mad, stay delusional and keep on wasting your life away on a dead theory.

>trying this hard

She's not going to reward your pathetic whitenighting by fucking you, retard.

>ur a retard reeeeeeeeeee
Amazing argument, brainlet.

Quit samefagging, STard. Go be mad somewhere else.

>What comes after ST?- 86 posts and 7 image replies shown.
nothing. I haven't heard any new ideas. no one has any anything right now.

... S, T, U, V,...

Yeah I think st isn't the right approach. My money is on aether. Even though the Michelson Morley disproved aether wind, it still sounds like all the theories today trend towards some unifying force or substance that ties everything together. I think it is aether, but that aether would not behave as a traditional fluid would, if it could even be called a fluid.

saad witen. thingken.

I think I agree. I can't understand why we are comfortable looking for zero mass parts inside the atoms, but the 'grid of existence' or aether, can supposedly not exist since it has no substance or measurable effect on matter.

Some physicists think other varsions of super symmetry could still be true. We just need higher energies. Could be wrong. Could be true. Who knows?

>We just need higher energies
That sounds like desperation. Higher the energy, less likely it is to be true.

>That sounds like desperation. Higher the energy, less likely it is to be true.
Conversation on 1980's
"-Well... The Higgs boson is not at 6 GeV.... We just need higher energies.
-That sounds like desperation. Higher the energy, less likely it is to be true."

>That sounds like desperation
t. 19th century natural philosopher

Higgs Boson is not SUSY. Even the lowest energy SUSY particles cannot be found.

Yet the correct prediction of the Higgs mass requires Supersymmetry. See

>Higgs Boson is not SUSY. Even the lowest energy SUSY particles cannot be found.
You didn't understand my argument. I was saying that "higher the energy, less likely it is to be true" is not a valid argument because it has been applied to the Higgs boson since the 80's and, at the end, they found it.

>correct prediction of the Higgs mass requires Supersymmetry
kek... just some bullshit ST theorizing. sorry but no. You don't need ST to predict Higgs Boson.