is string theory detrimental to modern theoretical physics? i've heard things along the lines of it just being a mathematical framework with no empirical basis but i was wondering if anyone knew the details of it.
string theory/m-theory general
>>7998252
>is string theory detrimental to modern theoretical physics?
No. Physicists will work on what interests them and what they can make advancements in.
>i've heard things along the lines of it just being a mathematical framework with no empirical basis but i was wondering if anyone knew the details of it.
This is true but necessary at the incredibly small scale and level of abstraction modern physics currently finds itself in. String theory currently stands only on its ability to elegantly simplify the empirically proven models.
>>7998264
>String theory currently stands only on its ability to elegantly simplify the empirically proven models.
Is it able to simplify the process of making empirical predictions though? What good is physics if I can't use it to predict/affect the world in any way?
>>7998357
Build things to help each other survive
>>7998252
My supervisor has done some work in String theory and he thinks its all bullshit. I think from what he says is that the theory can't be used for anything practical, but that it correctly predicts scaling dimensions so he knows some of the maths is right and now its our job to figure out whats the real underlying theory that uses some of the maths.
>>7998510
>practical
lmao'ing @ ur supervisor
>>7998510
>practical physics discoveries
>in the 21st century
Yeah buddy
I wish >>>/x/ would leave.
>>7998600
>What is solid state
>>7998252
I'm more of a quantum foam advocate
>>7998252
>is string theory detrimental to modern theoretical physics?
Not really, string theory is really only small part of high energy physics, which is in turn only small part of all the theoretical work done in physics.
>>7998600
>particle physics is all there is to physics
>>7998702
OP here. im fully aware that people think string theory is bogus, i was moreso wondering why, and why it still gets attention in mainstream physics. i hate /x/ as much as the next /sci/ user
>>7998768
i guess meme pop-sci has exaggerated something once again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
>>7998942
>i guess meme pop-sci has exaggerated something once again?
That's exactly what it was.
>Simolin
This cunt pisses me off more than most, he shits out books like "the trouble with physics" because String Theory is more popular than his own pet theory (loop quantum gravity). What he never says is that LQG got falsified a couple of years ago, yet I can guarantee that you'll never see a book called "the trouble with LQG". The man is the embodiment of all that's wrong with academia.
>>7998942
>wondering why
WIthin the physics community, a lot of the non-string theorists gave up on it when a lot of its LHC predictions failed miserably while the string theorists called for a reparameterization that once again hid all the novel predictions at unmeasurable energy scales. Why normal people think it is bogus is because quantum mysticism got some mainstream attention making all of quantum physics look like magic woo-woo to the public in spite of the digital age being built upon the quantum theory of solids.
>why it still gets attention in mainstream physics
It looks that way to the public because a lot of the big faces of physics in the media are string theorists and so it gets a disproportionate amount of screen time. In the physics community,string theory is increasingly the domain of mathematicians while the other branches of physics have started looking over the corpse for interesting mathematical machinery to make actual use of.
>>7999207
But normal people largely believe in string theory because as you say string theorists get so much media time. Normal people pretty much believe anything scientists tell them. because science is mystical to them especially string theory.
>>7999226
Normal people largely believe whatever makes them feel smart around their friends and makes a nice sound bite.
>>7998252
string theory is a very advanced theory which poses extremely complicated mathematical problems and, as such, has had some hard time making testable predictions. There are some, actually, but despite its level of sofistication, the predictions come more from toy models than from the actual full fledged version.
HOWEVER some of the successes of the theory are in the field of mathematics. and it's not some incomprehensible, abstract result. it's using ideas of string theory that Kontsevich computed the number of degree d curves through exactly n points in the plane. can you believe this? 1 line through 2 points, 1 conic through 5 points, but we couldn't go much further without string theory. Now we know precisely the number for any degree and any number of marked points.
>>7998510
>I think from what he says is that the theory can't be used for anything practical,
B/C of the Ads/CFT it actually has a lot of potential applications. Though these applications, just testing string theory itself, requires technology we don't have.
See: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.2947v1
>>7998510
>the theory can't be used for anything practical
its been used to solve shit in QCD that was unsolvable before string theory, so is he saying QCD is also not practical?
>>7999301
Elaborate you know your stuff and it's interesting. Only recently got my BSC and I'm still not sure which way to go
>>7998252
String theory wastes so much space in the high energy section on arxiv
>>7998252
The key problem is that to directly probe the incredibly tiny length scales of the actual 'strings' of string theory (~10^-35 m) requires commensurately massive energy scales, which in turn require a particle collider of staggering diameter. I think one of my lecturers ballparked it at around 10^3 lightyears or so (given current magnets of course).
>>7998702
You do realize you have to actually get bingo, right?
>>7998252
>>7998357
The primary objective of scientific philosophy is to construct testable and precise frameworks with which to explain observed phenomena.
M theory is incredibly precise, explanatory, and in principle testable. This makes it a solid and important scientific theory, but we cannot assign a great deal of credibility to it because we lack empirical support that singles it out.
>>7999166
have you ever read "Why Johnny Can't Think" by Robert Whittaker? it's a pretty good explanation of how academia got so retarded, funny too.
can be found on cripchans /pdfs/ board
