Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

That's entirely not true. It is explanatory, since it hypothesizes the strings etc. and other structures, which lead to the larger-scale phenomena. i.e. string theory talks about underlying causes, not just tabulating known data.

Underlying causes which nobody has seen or managed to test positively.

Also, a large number of predictions came out of string theory. That's how they have culled different variants, by LHC experiments at high energies and they couldn't find the particles predicted by several variants of string theory.

Spoiler: when all your theories have negative predictions, it's maybe time to switch the approach altogether.

So the actual case is almost the complete opposite of what you just said.

A bunch of variant theories, every one of which failed to predict anything new and real, cannot be considered "scientific" or "physical".

[Reelya]

You're being very shifty with these arguments. That's the basic definition of what they call "shifting the goalposts". You make a blanket statement that's easily proven incorrect, then you change the rules.


We do need new models, and the Standard Model is clearly not up to the job since it can't explain at all how relativity and quantum mechanics are related. Nobody has cracked that problem, but that doesn't mean we should rest on our laurels and attack anyone who proposes new models.

String theorists have done exactly what science is supposed to do in these cases. We don't have any new observational data that we can base an improved theory on, it's 100% clear that we do in fact need a better theory than the existing ones (since they're fragmented into incompatible pieces), so people propose low-level explanatory theories, make predictions and test them. That's science working as it's meant to. It's not wasting time to explore new theories because one of them could be the right one. All but one will be wrong, but that's history, and exploring the wrong theories is an important part of the process. Nobody is magically right all the time.

You can say "string theorists are wrong!" but it's more like "everyone's wrong, but at least string theorists are trying, what's everyone else doing: fuck all"

[Sergarr]

And there are already theories for quantum gravity that - surprise surprise - do not involve strings in any way shape or form, and can explain the already known fact better. But because they're less "mainstream", the only thing that people talk about is the frikking strings as if they were the only way.

[Reelya]

If it's the right theory, then let that one make some predictions? If it had any predictive power it would be the clear winner right now.

Weren't you demanding explanatory and predictive power a minute ago and not just "description".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Although a quantum theory of gravity is needed in order to reconcile general relativity with the principles of quantum mechanics, difficulties arise when one attempts to apply the usual prescriptions of quantum field theory to the force of gravity.[3] From a technical point of view, the problem is that the theory one gets in this way is not renormalizable and therefore cannot be used to make meaningful physical predictions.

It's just an attempt to cram gravity into the quantum theory. It neither explains anything, nor does it predict anything. It's just a restatement of the existing models, which is why it's not seen as any sort of improvement.

[Sergarr]

That's because quantum gravity theories scientific, meaning that they can be theoretically disproved in the future if they predict something wrong.

String theory is like a hyper-hydra - you slay one variant, and the string theorists will spawn ten to the power of one hundred more to replace it. A theory like this cannot possibly have any meaningful predictive power, because there always will be a variant of string theory that explains everything that we see. String theory is thus not scientific, because it cannot be fully disproven.

[SirQuiamus]

http://theawakenment.com/theoretical-physicist-james-gates-finds-computer-code-in-string-theory-equation/#sthash.sHwZ7w8J.dpbs

Relatively recently, whilst exploring the mathematics of string theory, Theoretical Physicist James Gates and his researcher discovered something rather interesting buried deep within the mathematical equations of super symmetry.

They found computer code.

And it isn’t just random 1’s and 0’s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software.

Specifically; Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code.

So apparently some physicist found known binary error-correcting codes hidden in string theory.

They "found" computer code in an equation of their own making? And they think that it proves something about the structure of the universe?

This is utterly idiotic gearhead stuff.   

[Reelya]

It's one of the simplest know equations that correctly matches all the real physical phenomena. It's not like that's an arbitrary thing. The whole point of string theory is that the equations correctly match both quantum physics and relativity phenomena that we know about. If they did not, they'd already be completely falsified (have made incorrect preditions). And they do it with the minimal amount of mathematical assumptions.

So, there's really no basis to claim such an equation is entirely arbitrary and that as such you could put anything in there. Whether or not strings exist, the string theory equations are actually the simplest set of equations that can predict all the known particle properties. To find complex codes that shouldn't need to be there in something engineered with those specific parameters is actually interesting.

[Sergarr]

the equations correctly match both quantum physics and relativity phenomena that we know about

Except when they're not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Background_independence

Yes, that means that string theory is currently completely incompatible with relativity.

It's not like that's an arbitrary thing.

"In string theory the number of false vacua is thought to be somewhere between 10^10 to 10^100..." Yes, totally not arbitrary at all *sarcasm*.

The whole point of string theory is that the equations correctly match both quantum physics and relativity phenomena that we know about. If they did not, they'd already be completely falsified (have made incorrect preditions).

The whole point of string theory is that equations can be fudged to correctly match almost everything that exists, and almost everything that doesn't. Again, at least 10^10 different variants for just lower bound. Upped bound is 10^500 variants. Such a theory cannot be falsified because there's always a variant in it that can explain anything you want.

And they do it with the minimal amount of mathematical assumptions.

Barring things like extra dimensions that are designed to be undetectable and supersymmetry (which is a whole can of worms in itself because there are multiple versions of supersymmetry theory, too).

So, there's really no basis to claim such an equation is entirely arbitrary and that as such you could put anything in there.

But the entire point of string theory is that it's entirely arbitrary and you can put anything in there and nobody will notice because there are 10^500 different solutions to it.

Whether or not strings exist, the string theory equations are actually the simplest set of equations that can predict all the known particle properties.

I'm curious, what are these "string theory equations" that predict all the known particle properties? I only see a lot of objects like strings and branes and a lot of funky geometries showing how they can combine into something resembling our particles and fundamental interactions, but at no point do I see any special "string theory equations".

And anyway, 10^500 different variants. Of course there's going to be a variant (or 10^10, or 10^100 variants...) that predicts all the known particle properties. And of course that would mean zero predictive properties.

That's not even counting in the undetectable dimensions and supersymmetry theories which are needed for string theory to function, which are also completely unproven to this moment.

[Eagleon]

the equations correctly match both quantum physics and relativity phenomena that we know about

Except when they're not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Background_independence

Yes, that means that string theory is currently completely incompatible with relativity.

It's not like that's an arbitrary thing.

"In string theory the number of false vacua is thought to be somewhere between 10^10 to 10^100..." Yes, totally not arbitrary at all *sarcasm*.

The whole point of string theory is that the equations correctly match both quantum physics and relativity phenomena that we know about. If they did not, they'd already be completely falsified (have made incorrect preditions).

The whole point of string theory is that equations can be fudged to correctly match almost everything that exists, and almost everything that doesn't. Again, at least 10^10 different variants for just lower bound. Upped bound is 10^500 variants. Such a theory cannot be falsified because there's always a variant in it that can explain anything you want.

And they do it with the minimal amount of mathematical assumptions.

Barring things like extra dimensions that are designed to be undetectable and supersymmetry (which is a whole can of worms in itself because there are multiple versions of supersymmetry theory, too).

So, there's really no basis to claim such an equation is entirely arbitrary and that as such you could put anything in there.

But the entire point of string theory is that it's entirely arbitrary and you can put anything in there and nobody will notice because there are 10^500 different solutions to it.

Whether or not strings exist, the string theory equations are actually the simplest set of equations that can predict all the known particle properties.

I'm curious, what are these "string theory equations" that predict all the known particle properties? I only see a lot of objects like strings and branes and a lot of funky geometries showing how they can combine into something resembling our particles and fundamental interactions, but at no point do I see any special "string theory equations".

And anyway, 10^500 different variants. Of course there's going to be a variant (or 10^10, or 10^100 variants...) that predicts all the known particle properties. And of course that would mean zero predictive properties.

That's not even counting in the undetectable dimensions and supersymmetry theories which are needed for string theory to function, which are also completely unproven to this moment.

"This criticism has been addressed to some extent by the AdS/CFT duality, which is believed to provide a full, non-perturbative definition of string theory in spacetimes with anti-de Sitter space asymptotics. Nevertheless, a non-perturbative definition of the theory in arbitrary spacetime backgrounds is still lacking. Some hope that M-theory, or a non-perturbative treatment of string theory (such as "background independent open string field theory") will have a background-independent formulation.[citation needed]"

from String_theory#background_independence

So numbers can be huge, but not that huge? 10^500 is still finite. Actually rather small considering there are bigger numbers. I would have expected maybe 10^501 or so.

The entire point of m-theory is to say that these variants aren't necessarily wrong just because they describe the same thing. If you have a mathematical model describing one thing, and another mathematical model describes the same thing, they are the same function expressed from a different 'viewpoint'. My knowledge of the field is limited to anecdotes, but I really don't see where your incredulity is coming from considering we're discussing the nature of reality. How unstrange does a theory have to be in order for you to accept it as non-arbitrary?

Regardless, all of this has been debated endlessly by physicists and mathematicians. The fact remains that string theory is mathematically interesting, and in theory, interesting to physicists as well that aren't dealing with plotting the course of satellites or describing the action of condensed matter. Whether it describes the universe yet remains to be seen, but if it does so, even if you can't produce an experiment to test it, it can be said to be functionally equivalent to an unfounded theory that does with experimental verification. Sarcasm and incredulity can't really touch that, it may be the best we can get, it may be that there is no experiment that can perturb reality on this level regardless of what theories you produce - that would make sense, because changes on that level could be very, very dangerous.

[Sergarr]

String theory is indeed an interesting mathematical theory, yes. But it's not physical, not before the magical M-theory gets actually developed into something tangible. Also it would probably help if there was a confirmation on the exact sypersymmetry theory that works in reality, if it works at all. And also the issue with extra dimensions being generally unstable to perturbations needs to be solved, too.

There need to be a lot of work done in the area, what I can say.

[SirQuiamus]

It's one of the simplest know equations that correctly matches all the real physical phenomena. It's not like that's an arbitrary thing. The whole point of string theory is that the equations correctly match both quantum physics and relativity phenomena that we know about. If they did not, they'd already be completely falsified (have made incorrect preditions). And they do it with the minimal amount of mathematical assumptions.

So, there's really no basis to claim such an equation is entirely arbitrary and that as such you could put anything in there. Whether or not strings exist, the string theory equations are actually the simplest set of equations that can predict all the known particle properties. To find complex codes that shouldn't need to be there in something engineered with those specific parameters is actually interesting.

But how did the scientists "discover" that equation? Did they just look through a microscope and see all these numbers and letters floating around?

It doesn't matter how simple or "correct" an equation is; it's still a theoretical construct created by the scientists themselves, and it does not magically produce new knowledge out of thin air. 



...but in any case, the "simulated universe" hypothesis is just as plausible as the "brain-in-a-vat" scenario, or traditional solipsism, or any brand of theological hogwash: entirely unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and uninteresting. 

[Flying Dice]

...but in any case, the "simulated universe" hypothesis is just as plausible as the "brain-in-a-vat" scenario, or traditional solipsism, or any brand of theological hogwash: entirely unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and uninteresting.

I was in agreement until the last two words. A question being unanswerable does not make it uninteresting, unless you are severely lacking in imagination.

[Reelya]

But how did the scientists "discover" that equation? Did they just look through a microscope and see all these numbers and letters floating around?

It doesn't matter how simple or "correct" an equation is; it's still a theoretical construct created by the scientists themselves, and it does not magically produce new knowledge out of thin air.

You could be describing General Relativity there just as well as any theory. Special relativity and G.R. were formulated entirely from theoretical contructs, not from any experimental work. Did Einstein look through any microscrope or telescopes? Nope.

How did we discover black holes? Not with a microscope or with a telescope, but by doing calculations based on General Relativity. General Relativity produced many results that we would never have looked for otherwise, due to theoretical constructs. The perturbations from GR are small enough we might have dismissed them as measurement error without the theoretical work. G.R. also predicted expansion of the universe, although Einstein didn't appreciate the importance of that result from his theoretical calculations.

Solving equations does in fact create new knowledge.

[Sergarr]

...but in any case, the "simulated universe" hypothesis is just as plausible as the "brain-in-a-vat" scenario, or traditional solipsism, or any brand of theological hogwash: entirely unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and uninteresting.

I was in agreement until the last two words. A question being unanswerable does not make it uninteresting, unless you are severely lacking in imagination.

I don't think I lack in imagination, but I find questions which do not have an answer to be incredibly boring, compared to those that have. That's probably because they provide too much space for imagination, and therefore provide zero space for imagination.

Kind of like a game where you can do anything is also a game where you can do nothing.

[Flying Dice]

...but in any case, the "simulated universe" hypothesis is just as plausible as the "brain-in-a-vat" scenario, or traditional solipsism, or any brand of theological hogwash: entirely unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and uninteresting.

I was in agreement until the last two words. A question being unanswerable does not make it uninteresting, unless you are severely lacking in imagination.

I don't think I lack in imagination, but I find questions which do not have an answer to be incredibly boring, compared to those that have. That's probably because they provide too much space for imagination, and therefore provide zero space for imagination.

Kind of like a game where you can do anything is also a game where you can do nothing.

That's a fair point, but I'd argue that there's a difference between something being difficult and something being bad. It's certainly more difficult, for example, to write a good story about a character with no meaningful limitations, but that means that in order to do so you must be an exceptionally good writer. The whole point of imposing limits is to make it easier to work with or understand whatever it is you're limiting; it's an inherent reduction in potential in exchange for a smaller pool of potential which can be grasped and shaped more readily.

If you want to go to extremes, it's hypothetically to understand literally everything with nothing but your imagination, but that possibility is so slim and so difficult to grasp as to be effectively impossible. The counterpart, of course, is that if you could successfully reduce a component of 'everything' to the simplest possible state literally anything capable of thought would be able to understand it with negligible effort, at the cost of making the thing understood functionally insignificant.