/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10844708
that user was a trolling brainlet. at the Strings 2018 conference, Veneziano (the true founder of string theory) estimated 50 years until string theory is mature enough to describe the standard model plus gravity

is it really going to take 50 years before string theory can reproduce the standard model, like Veneziano says?

i know the landscape looks pretty bad, but isn't anybody holding out hope that some hotshot will find some trick and we'll get a string theoretic particle physics model in the next year or so? i thought that's what witten and susskind were arguing for for years. what changed?

>>9983294
(cont'd)

so, SUSY wasn't found where it had to be to solve the problem it was designed to solve. throw it away? "REEEE" shout the string theorists. "we need our SUSY! even though it introduces the same problem it tried to solve, we need it because our stuff relies on it! and our stuff pops out a graviton!"

meanwhile they still have the problem of their theory not having a unique solution, and relies on luck to 1 part in 10^500 ("but hey, muh chaotic inflation!!!"), and they aren't even CLOSE to having any observational evidence because they STILL haven't worked the theory out to the point where they can calculate a single goddamned thing. 50 years it's taken them so far.

and guess what they say? another 50 years before they can calculate a single goddamned thing.

and meanwhile Vafa has shown that string theory is probably inconsistent with a positive cosmological constant and (vanilla) inflation

verdict: MEME