What is really crippling the progress of string theory?
>>7665652
No mathematical basis. It's just pothead waving their hands using big words.
Reality
>>7665652
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqLlgIaz1L0
>>7665674
That's the opposite of the truth.
What's not "mathematical" about (super) conformal field theory on Riemann surfaces?
>>7665652
implying that you know anything about it.
humanity will only accept theories, if they can be applied on a visible scale.
or in other words, stupid people need to see the result, to believe something.
>>7666325
This isn't a matter of "stupid people," it's a matter of physics being an experimental science. A theory of nature is only useful insofar as it makes predictions that can be verified in reality.
This is the biggest failure of string theory, that it has not yet produced many experimental predictions. This is what most string theorists are currently working on---probing the theory to find predictions that can be tested.
>>7666329
shouldn't it be called the string-theory predictions theory then?
>>7665652
10^500 possible vacuums. No one knows which is the one that corresponds to our universe.
>>7666355
Well, we know at least that it must be one in which the plural of vacuum is vacua.
>>7666375
I didn't know that. Thank you.
>>7665652
People who post cancerous 9gag memes
>>7666315
Guess what though? I dont give a shit what you think?
>>7666306
I don't think SCFT's have a rigorous mathematical defintion. Then again, neither does QFT and that works just fine.
Also, I wouldn't say string theory's progress is `crippled', it's just hard to explain to people what kind of progress is going on, since most of it is either mathematical in nature or relates to dualities.
Lack of credible proof.
String theory is still progressing just fine. What connection it has to reality, however, is becoming increasingly tenuous. Reparameterizations to explain failed LHC predictions certainly did nothing to help this.
>>7666546
What LHC predictions? String theory doesn't set a scale for susy, it's just phenomenologists who would like to have the breaking scale be low enough to have an NMSSM model to solve their issues. Would have been nice of course, but not really necessary.
>>7665652
How general it is.
It covers so many different aspects of mathematics, that its difficult for anyone to learn enough to have a full grasp of all of today's string theories. And in each field it is pushing the limits of our mathematics that we just dont know what part to focus on.
Not every physicist knows enough about K-theory, Non-commutative geometry, Orbifolds, Conifolds, Twisted K-theory, Algebraic topology, Twistor theory, Super-conformal algebra, Category theory, Deformation Quantization, exotic super-manifolds, Penrose-Ward transformations, Superambi-twistors, N = 1 superstring theory, Type IIA and IIB string theory, Topological A and B models, Super Yang mills theories, Dolbeault cohomology, Sheaves, Calabi-Yau manifolds, Cech cohomology, Non-anticommutative deformations, Partially holomorphic Chern-Simons theory, Deformation theory, Thick complex manifolds, Fattened complex manifolds, and whatever else there is.
>>7665652
>What is really crippling the progress of string theory?
The fact that it's not a theory, and all the work on it has already given up on following the scientific method in order to arrive at a real theory. The entire matter is really a coup inside the theoretical physics industry, where a bunch of worthless mathematicians took the lead, and all they do is sit around totally absorbed in their math, oblivious of the previous need for, oh gee I dunno, RUNNING EXPERIMENTS to test hypotheses in order to ultimately support a real theory.
Personally I suspect that the entire physics industry just matured and found itself looking for the easy way out. Physicists were unable to find a link between relativity and quantum mechanics, despite decades of trying. So they were looking like fools. String 'theory' gave them the opportunity to work pretty much forever on physics without looking like fools to the common man for their inability to actually come up with a workable theory. Job security, forever. The new paradigm in physics is that you can sit around and play math games and never actually spark any experiments or verification process of any sort... and you still get paid your salary and your grants keep getting funded. *But there are no results.*
Hell, that's the dream of K-12 unionized educators in public systems, and they achieved that dream a long time ago. They get paid for no results, or results that are so piss poor that rational socio-economics would have fired all those people and blacklisted them from the industry due to their massive incompetence.
Anyway, to day, string 'theory' has produced no predictions, and in fact is unable to produce them, be design. It's not a theory; it's a way for about 1500 physicists worldwide to collect paychecks even though they don't actually produce. We've about the same number of string 'theorists' today as we did in all of physics when Einstein was working in the Swiss patent office. The industry became bloated.
>>7665674
>No mathematical basis
what the fuck are you talking about?
>>7666355
> 10^500 possible vacuums. No one knows which is the one that corresponds to our universe.
And that's a totally unsupported assertion, since any assertion in science that CANNOT BE TESTED FOR VERACITY, is just nonsense, like religion. String 'theory' can't be tested, can't be falsified, and makes no predictions. It's a cartoon of physics, and it's a crime against Humanity that it's come to dominate physics today. About 1500 people are in this fraud. They're a Physics Mafia. J'accuse!
>>7666959
Why in the world does a physicist need to know Čech cohomology to do string theory?
>>7665652
A lack of the ability to test. It's near solely backed by theoretical physics, there's no experimental backing and for all we know, by nature there can't be.
Tesla said it best:
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."
And that was nearly a hundred years ago. It's worse now. String theory might be neat and yield interesting results we can't foresee, eventually. But for now it's just a pretty consequence of mathematics, which will only have much inherent meaning for people who believe the universe is (our notion o) math, and that math is discovered, not created. Personally, I don't see much real difference between an invention and a discovery.
>>7665652
>What is really crippling the progress of string theory?
1. Lack of technology needed to test it.
2. You practically need at least a masters in mathematics to do work in it. The majority of physicists will never get something like this.
>>7667231
>Tesla said it best:
Except Tesla was completely wrong...
>>7667261
>Luminiferous aether whining
Come on anon.
>>7667231
>Tesla said it best:
Trashed.
>>7667206
Its needed for Twistor string theory since the Penrose-Ward Transformation relies heavily on it (which gives a relation between solutions of self-duel Yang-Mills equations on C4 and a topologically trivial, holomorphic vector bundle over Twistor space).
>>7667175
Except that ST has had real word applications already, such as using methods developed in it to calculate the amplitudes relating to the strong interaction, which till then could not be done.
>Pic related
>VSG
>>7668078
omg you are right!, my apologies to talk about something of what I know nothing (at least from the physics point of view)
