What are the most controversial theories in your field?

Nice

>Interuniversal Teichmuller Theory
Wait is this that guy a few years ago that submitted his own new math branch for proof-checking? I always wondered what happened to that.

no it's anthropomorphic, you're probably not even a climatologist

>Wait is this that guy a few years ago that submitted his own new math branch for proof-checking? I always wondered what happened to that.
allegedly a handful of people understand it (some have given their own exposition of the proof of prime importance: kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gokun/DOCUMENTS/abc2017Oct.pdf), but the IUT papers still haven't been published in a journal

What did he said?

Enthalpy

wheel theory

rational trigonometry

I was under the impression string theory was well accepted, could you explain why it's not or what makes it controversial?

Does the theory have Merritt? How would a prion have incubation time?

Prime importance? Seems a
Very odd.

What's contrvesial about this? It's usefulness? a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total heat content of a system. It is equal to the internal energy of the system plus the product of pressure and volume.

That's what Google says, don't see a problem, maybe I'm just uninformed.

Who cares about this nerd shit, what happened in the pic?

>could you explain why it's not or what makes it controversial?
no empirical evidence

this desu senpai

I thought that string theory was useful for making predictive models? If it can be used to make an accurate predictive model wouldn't that be evidence for it? Sorry if I'm missing the point, my understanding is limited in this area.

>If it can be used to make an accurate predictive model wouldn't that be evidence for it?
only if you have the technology to gather such evidence

Im under the impresuon that we do with computers and applying it to models of the past.

some metal alloys are ceramics

Is that a problem? Does it really matter much if they are? Why is it controversial?

Not a specialist, but prions are misfolded proteins that aggregate and we know how they kill people because they do it quickly in cases we see. They could also do it very slowly, resulting in tissue atrophy like we see in Alzheimers/Huntingtons, just would have to look in the right places.

I was under the impression that the prions either cuase damage quickly or in a predictable way

Sure, the ones we've consistently studied do. But proteins are one of those things that unless you're an X-ray crystallographer with nothing to do you're not sitting there trying to figure out to what extent they aggregate in vivo. The misfolded proteins collecting over time, resulting in the aggregation like we see in Alzheimers.

Is their proof of these aggregates in patients with Alzheimer's?

amyloid plaques (the things that cause alzheimers) are protein aggregates. uc.pt/en/fmuc/phdhs/Courses/neurodegeneration/Selkoe__Nat_Cell_Biol-04__AD_PD_review.pdf

I meant of prions specifically, that is for the link though.

There's new materials that behave like ceramics that are alloys of metals and metalloids. Its not really that important, its just that they aren't ceramics. Ceramics are non metallic, so to have 2 "metals" behave like a ceramic is strange.

I don't believe it. You can have ceramics like iron carbide, but its not a ceramic if it consists of only metals. That's why I think these people are stupid. I'm not even 100% sure what compounds are being made, just that I kept hearing about these three TAs and the new Material Science professor instructor talking about it like its fact.

metals make metallic bonds, where there's a "sea of electrons" between the positive metal ions. Ceramics most often, in all cases I'm aware of, have predominantly ionic bonding. That's why I think its highly unlikely these metal-metalloid compounds are not ionically bonded.

yeah in this case the misfolded amyloid subunits would be the prions, because prion are just misfolded proteins. It just happens in this case to be a prion causing the formation of other prions from the same protein source.

racial IQ difference
which shouldn't even be controversial, just look at the results of any serious research
[spoiler]t. Hans Eysenck[/spoiler]

The entire field of Psychology

It's controversial because It doesn't replicate

that's false tho, look at general psychology to mention one

is it because the studies are not taking simple random samples, but are stacking the sample groups up to prove their hypotheses?