/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15993859]

is there any good reason to have faith in string theory?

[Anonymous No.15993860]

>>15993859
No, but also there isnt really any other way either.
I'm pretty much lost all faith that we will ever figure the nature of this world or figure conciousness or make a crack in fundamental questions of philosophy in my timeline.

[Anonymous No.15993861]

>>15993859
>faith
Drop your religions here

[Anonymous No.15993866]

>>15993860
Nature of reality is pretty much a nonsense question. How could there be one equation to explain everything? We will be asking questions forever, as every answer raises more questions. There is no end to it.

[Anonymous No.15993867]

>>15993866
It's not a nonsense question. It's extremely hard and we might not ever able to know the end of the answer.
But dont be a lazy bum, keep asking until you get the answer or no longer can ask.

[Anonymous No.15993873]

>>15993867
I don’t think we will ever reach a point where we no longer can ask. That was the point Stephen Hawking made in that book about him that came out recently. He essentially changed his mind on the theory of everything, saying there probably isn’t one. But he said he was glad that likely we will be asking questions of the world indefinitely. This is not a sad thing. This is a great thing.

[Anonymous No.15993876]

>>15993859
>good reason to have faith
err....

[Anonymous No.15993879]

>>15993866
>We will be asking questions forever
Only if the question is "why" instead of "how"

[Anonymous No.15993880]

>>15993859
It’s the only game in town. Don’t like it? Come up with something better.

[Anonymous No.15993885]

Why did they hype it so much in the late 90s? They knew then there wouldn't be a way to experimently prove it

[Anonymous No.15993946]

>>15993880
Miles Mathis came up with something better but nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.15993953]

>>15993946
What did he came up with? Summary?
Aside from some stupid rationalwiki articles and his own webpage possibly full of schizo rambling I see nothing else.

[Anonymous No.15993963]

>>15993885
They did not know that then. They had hoped that there was a unique way to package string theory to reproduce the standard model, and then once this was fixed the model would be predictive. After the discovery circa 2000 that there were many ways to do this (the "landscape"), some string theorists started talking about things like the anthropic principle, but there quickly was a backlash. All of this mostly killed the idea of string phenomenology (i.e. compactified string theory as a model of the real world). But around the same time these problems were being discovered string theory was shown to be dual to some strongly interacting quantum field theories (this is AdS/CFT and all that). So string theory itself is not dead.

[Anonymous No.15993966]

>>15993873
If we somehow break out of the universe and there's someone out there, god or the programmer of the simulation or whatever, who tells us how it all works then that might be the end. But then we can explore outside the universe too

[Anonymous No.15993986]

>>15993966
Outside is only chaos. Order spontaneously emerges at random, like the works of Shakespeare produced by the library of babel, or a broken clock that is correct twice a day. You find yourself in a place governed by order because there is no other possible place you could find yourself.

[Anonymous No.15993993]

>>15993953
If there was something better everyone would know about it

[Anonymous No.15993997]

Hello. The M in M-theory stands for Mantastic

[Anonymous No.15994044]

>>15993946
>>15993953
Bear in mind this is the same guy who claims to have proven Pi=4.
He has a potato for a brain, his articles are littered with trivial errors which he never bothered to think about and just assumes the standard derivations are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15994075]

>>15994044
Proving pi=4 might be schizo enough for me to get curious.
Now I want to hear what he says lmao.

[Anonymous No.15994236]

>>15993997
Supersymmetry is real

[Anonymous No.15994259]

>>15994075

[Anonymous No.15994267]

>>15993859
What's the alternative? We're in a simulation or something?

[Anonymous No.15994271]

>>15994267
Dingleberry Theory

[Anonymous No.15994287]

>>15994259
Zoom in infinitely on those squares and the line of the circle would not be similar to the line of the rectangle

[Anonymous No.15994291]

>>15993859
It would be good if we could confirm there's even 1 extra spatial dimension let alone 7. Seems like a lot of work put into a theory that could be completely wrong. If anything they're putting way too much faith into the idea that mathematics always describes reality

[Anonymous No.15994296]

>>15993859
Explain me string theory in a way that a 9 yo kid would understand it

[Anonymous No.15994310]

>>15994291
It's more an appeal to our current physics *not* describing reality than a reiteration of the effectiveness and applicability of mathematics.

If string theory is schizobabble we are going to need to replace it with more schizobabble regardless

[Anonymous No.15994327]

>>15994259
The little squares are always up and across lines. Even if they have a very small height and width.

[Anonymous No.15994401]

>>15994310
It's just that without actually seeing what's going on, even if they come up with formulas that return mostly correct values for predictions, the understanding of how the internals work could be completely wrong. Because our microscopy and particle colliders aren't powerful enough to see what's going on, it's basically a black box. It's just surprising how much work goes into guessing what's in the box when there's almost no point until you can see what's in the box, or at least be close to it.

[Anonymous No.15994426]

>>15994296
A guy watches at a cat and sees that the cat is made out of whiskers, and then he realizes that everything is made out of whiskers, that is your string theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCIr97yOzOs

[Anonymous No.15994524]

>>15994259
If you built a giant circle out of bricks, like in the supposed proof, you would get a different perimeter than a normal circle; 4 versus pi.

[El Arcón No.15994560]

[El Arcón No.15994564]

>>15994560
Sixty-Six Theses: Next Steps and the Way Forward in the Modified Cosmological Model
>https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0152
>http://gg762.net/d0cs/papers/Sixty-Six_Theses__v4-20230726.pdf
The purpose is to review and lay out a plan for future inquiry pertaining to the modified cosmological model (MCM) and its overarching research program. The material is modularized as a catalog of open questions that seem likely to support productive research work. The main focus is quantum theory, but the material spans a breadth of physics and mathematics. Cosmology is heavily weighted, and some Millennium Prize problems are included. A comprehensive introduction contains a survey of falsifiable MCM predictions and associated experimental results. Listed problems include original ideas deserving further study as well as investigations of others' work when it may be germane. A longstanding and important conceptual hurdle in the approach to MCM quantum gravity is resolved with a framework for quantum cosmology time arrow eigenstates. A new elliptic curve application is presented. With several exceptions, the presentation is high-level and qualitative. Formal analyses are mostly relegated to the future work which is the topic of this book. Sufficient technical context is given that third parties might independently undertake the suggested work units.

[Anonymous No.15995056]

>>15994296

It's a theory of everything.
Right now, we have the Standard Model of Physics that says that all matter and all that happens is particles. Not only is all matter made from particles like electrons an quarks, but everything that happens between them is particles. Like if something bumps into another thing, that is actually the result of particles called photons carrying momentum between matter. There are stuff particles (fermions) and stuff happening particles (bosons), but they are all the same. They are only differentiated by a simple set of quantized properties.

The next step is to figure out why we have different particles, and why the values are quantized. We don't have the tech to look at the sub-sub-atomic world yet, but that hasn't stopped people from hypothesizing. Theories that try to drill below the Standard Model are called "Theories of everything". And every idiot has his own ToE these days. String theory is just one ToEs that happens to be the most popular.

String theory is pretty simple. It just says that the reason why the particles have different properties and the reason why they are quantized is because they are all actually looped one dimensional structures that are vibrating in all directions. And since these "strings" can only vibrate in multiples of a base frequency, that explains why they are quantized. A particle's different properties are determined by the frequencies in the different directions it vibrates in. The big flaw with the theory is that there are only three spacial directions it can vibrate in, but particles have 11 different properties. But "Ah" says the stringcoper. "Aktually, there are more spacial directions. But you just. Can't. See. Them"...

... Yeah, everyone knows string theory is kind of stupid. But at least its a somewhat consistent theory that we can test against when we eventually have the means to.

[Anonymous No.15995135]

>>15994259
That is fucking retarded. Do it with pixels, even at UHD resolution it looks like shit.

[Anonymous No.15995669]

>>15994259
When you move along a circle you move on a curve, when you move around squares you have to move horizontally and vertically