/sci/ - Science & Math

is there an "intuitive" way to explain string theory that goes beyond just
> smol string go brrrr to make everything

also does the theory have any real future or is just the schizo dream of mathematicians hoodwinking universities to give them money?

Is beauty a fundamental propety of the universe? Is it a good guidelane for advancing science?

>>11417384
Good thread. Brainlets often think that string theory is merely yet another attempt at ToE, with academia being unsure about it's validity. This is not the case. We basically know that theory of everything, while incomplete, will have to be stringy. The mathematical evidence is just too good.

You will even find many subpar physicists believing this misconception, as they do not really understand string theory. But such physicists disappear at the higher end. Physicists smart enough to get string theory almost never choose to work on something else.
Another misconception is that we are looking for a theory of quantum gravity, trying to make GR and QM compatible. Nope, we already have the correct theory of quantum gravity for low energies. We are looking for very high energy quantum theory (of gravity but also other forces). This is why tabletop quantum gravity experiments (such as proposed by that dumbass Hossenfelder) will lead to no advances in the field. There is no substitute for pushing the energy frontier.

Has any other theory consumed so many geniuses without ever leading to anything?

I'm very interested in some math-heavy subjects of physics, namely QFT and ST. I'm a math undergrad, and I know particle cosmology is said to be a dead-end due to its competitiveness and difficulty, but I still want to do it because the mathematical aspect of ST is something I'd love to study.
The thing is, I'm not interested at all in other fields of physics, like condensed matter and whatnot.
Can I conceivably get into a graduate program in particle physics with a pure math background?

What are the most bleeding-edge subjects in physics?