Opinion Passionate Takedown of String Theory

[SummerStriker]

This woman is a doctor of physics who was a fan of all the pop culture physics of string theory in the 90s. She believes that experimental particle physicists had their reputations ruined because 30 years of flem flam men selling defunct, not even wrong string theory caused the public to conflate phycisists and philosophers and liars. The damage to particle physists' reputatiion made communicating and getting funding harder.

 

[Deorum]

The hype and marketing was sort of bizarre because it never advanced beyond the state of speculative mathematical conjecture. I mean, General Relativity was once that too...and then started becoming experimentally verified within three years, over the course of an entire century. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. If there's no experiment, then well shit, it's hardly even science and String has been sitting in perpetual hypothesis stage.

 

[lsa]

 

[SummerStriker]

The hype and marketing was sort of bizarre because it never advanced beyond the state of speculative mathematical conjecture. I mean, General Relativity was once that too...and then started becoming experimentally verified within three years, over the course of an entire century. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. If there's no experiment, then well shit, it's hardly even science and String has been sitting in perpetual hypothesis stage.

Is String Theory is like philosophy or religion, what do you think fuels public interest in it? I consume some String Theory content through Rogan / PBS Spacetime, and I think it is interesting, but is a nickle worth of interest all it has been?

 

[Fox by the Sea]

The hype and marketing was sort of bizarre because it never advanced beyond the state of speculative mathematical conjecture. I mean, General Relativity was once that too...and then started becoming experimentally verified within three years, over the course of an entire century. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. If there's no experiment, then well shit, it's hardly even science and String has been sitting in perpetual hypothesis stage.

theoretically, we aren't advanced enough to test the string theory to its breaking point.
at the moment, its a litmus test of where we are as a scientific community - not smart enough to test, not smart enough to disprove it.
ST is a lot harder to prove than general relativity

 

[Andy Capp]

The hype and marketing was sort of bizarre because it never advanced beyond the state of speculative mathematical conjecture. I mean, General Relativity was once that too...and then started becoming experimentally verified within three years, over the course of an entire century. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. If there's no experiment, then well shit, it's hardly even science and String has been sitting in perpetual hypothesis stage.

I don't think it's bizarre at all.

Is String Theory is like philosophy or religion, what do you think fuels public interest in it? I consume some String Theory content through Rogan / PBS Spacetime, and I think it is interesting, but is a nickle worth of interest all it has been?

It's just good ol' fashioned marketing mixed with magical thinking, IMHO.

It's easier to market as potentially paradigm shifting than, say, "We report an improved measurement of the inverse muon decay process, ν μ +e→ μ − + ν e , at the Fermilab Tevatron. The rate of this reaction with respect to the ν μ -N charged current interaction is measured to be (0.1245±0.0057(stat.)±0.0031 (sys.)) × 10 −2 . The measurement confirms the standard model predictions for the Lorentz structure of the weak current, the helicity of the neutrino, and the energy dependence of the cross section."

I mean, for all I know that could be a result that of vital importance to nearly all of physics, but just go ahead and try to make it sound exciting.

Further, the marketing benefited from people like Brian Greene, who turns out to be a good TV presenter.

At the same time, there is a huge appetite for any physics which reaches beyond the standard model and there was a lot of hope string theory could lead the scientific community in the right direction. But it didn't despite tons and tons of wishful thinking, and now experimenters are left with their huge piles of expensive equipment turning out exabytes of data every day and very little idea what they should be looking for beyond what they have already been doing. And when you have that much data, it helps to have an idea of what needle in particular you are trying to pull out of that colossal haystack.

They can take ever-more precise measurements of things they've already measured, but it's like if there were silicon based life on some planet we'd never know it was there if we only look for signs of carbon-based life (credit to Star Trek for that one). They're looking for miniscule deviations from what the standard model predicts, but what if a good theory came along--which string theory decidedly is not--that could tell them exactly where to look and what to look for? The Standard Model used to do that job but that motherlode is played out. Experimenters shouldn't complain they're not getting the attention they deserve, IMO; they should be working hand in hand with theoreticians--but then that only ever worked at Bell Labs because they could do pretty much whatever the fuck they wanted. We need more of that "You're one of the best people we can find. Here's money; research whatever you want, don't care if it leads to practical application" type of organization at the national level.

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

Lol at coming to sherdog with string theory. I'd be surprised if half of them can tie their shoestrings.

 

[Yehudim]

The hype and marketing was sort of bizarre because it never advanced beyond the state of speculative mathematical conjecture. I mean, General Relativity was once that too...and then started becoming experimentally verified within three years, over the course of an entire century. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. If there's no experiment, then well shit, it's hardly even science and String has been sitting in perpetual hypothesis stage.

Is String Theory is like philosophy or religion, what do you think fuels public interest in it? I consume some String Theory content through Rogan / PBS Spacetime, and I think it is interesting, but is a nickle worth of interest all it has been?

theoretically, we aren't advanced enough to test the string theory to its breaking point.
at the moment, its a litmus test of where we are as a scientific community - not smart enough to test, not smart enough to disprove it.
ST is a lot harder to prove than general relativity

I don't think it's bizarre at all.

It's just good ol' fashioned marketing mixed with magical thinking, IMHO.

It's easier to market as potentially paradigm shifting than, say, "We report an improved measurement of the inverse muon decay process, ν μ +e→ μ − + ν e , at the Fermilab Tevatron. The rate of this reaction with respect to the ν μ -N charged current interaction is measured to be (0.1245±0.0057(stat.)±0.0031 (sys.)) × 10 −2 . The measurement confirms the standard model predictions for the Lorentz structure of the weak current, the helicity of the neutrino, and the energy dependence of the cross section."

I mean, for all I know that could be a result that of vital importance to nearly all of physics, but just go ahead and try to make it sound exciting.

Further, the marketing benefited from people like Brian Greene, who turns out to be a good TV presenter.

At the same time, there is a huge appetite for any physics which reaches beyond the standard model and there was a lot of hope string theory could lead the scientific community in the right direction. But it didn't despite tons and tons of wishful thinking, and now experimenters are left with their huge piles of expensive equipment turning out exabytes of data every day and very little idea what they should be looking for beyond what they have already been doing. And when you have that much data, it helps to have an idea of what needle in particular you are trying to pull out of that colossal haystack.

They can take ever-more precise measurements of things they've already measured, but it's like if there were silicon based life on some planet we'd never know it was there if we only look for signs of carbon-based life (credit to Star Trek for that one). They're looking for miniscule deviations from what the standard model predicts, but what if a good theory came along--which string theory decidedly is not--that could tell them exactly where to look and what to look for? The Standard Model used to do that job but that motherlode is played out. Experimenters shouldn't complain they're not getting the attention they deserve, IMO; they should be working hand in hand with theoreticians--but then that only ever worked at Bell Labs because they could do pretty much whatever the fuck they wanted. We need more of that "You're one of the best people we can find. Here's money; research whatever you want, don't care if it leads to practical application" type of organization at the national level.

fucking nerds

 

[SummerStriker]

Lol at coming to sherdog with string theory. I'd be surprised if half of them can tie their shoestrings.

These cunts don't even know what a woman is, am I right?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Didn’t we prove a big aspect of the theory with the discovery of the Higgs-Bosen partical?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Watched some of the video. HB actually proved the standard theory as opposed to string theory

 

[Long Dark Blues]

She's cute.

 

[SummerStriker]

Didn’t we prove a big aspect of the theory with the discovery of the Higgs-Bosen partical?

Not of string theory. There is the "Standard Model of Particle Physics" which predicted the Higgs, and a bunch of other particles, before they were discovered. String Theory inspired an alternate version of the SM called "Super Symmetry" which predicted other particles which weren't found, and a different mass of the Higgs than what was found.

SM didn't hit the nail on the head with the Higgs mass, but at least it made a bunch of correct predictions while SS hasn't had any wins.

 

[emefer]

I don't care if she’s a doctor or not. I’m tired of hearing about tampons

 

[Snubnoze707]

Currently willing string theory into existence...

 

[Andy Capp]

Didn’t we prove a big aspect of the theory with the discovery of the Higgs-Bosen partical?

No, but it confirmed that to the limit of what the Standard Model of Particle Physics is capable of doing, it does it reliably and accurately--and there's the rub*.

The Higgs Boson, prior to the experimental confirmation of its existence in the real world, was predicted solely as a consequence of the math that produced the Standard Model. Basically, the math said it had to be there and when they looked, sure enough, they found it.

*That's really the crux of the problem. We've found pretty much everything the Standard Model can predict, and while it's been a spectacular success, it is well known that it's not a complete picture of the universe. There are open questions it cannot answer and it gives no hint of where to go from here.

The result is that physicists know there are questions they can't answer because they lack a theoretical framework around which to help figure out where to look for new experimental results. Right now they're taking educated guesses on a trial and error basis and mostly striking out badly--at least as far as I understand.

 

[Rob Battisti]

No, but it confirmed that to the limit of what the Standard Model of Particle Physics is capable of doing, it does it reliably and accurately--and there's the rub*.

The Higgs Boson, prior to the experimental confirmation of its existence in the real world, was predicted solely as a consequence of the math that produced the Standard Model. Basically, the math said it had to be there and when they looked, sure enough, they found it.

*That's really the crux of the problem. We've found pretty much everything the Standard Model can predict, and while it's been a spectacular success, it is well known that it's not a complete picture of the universe. There are open questions it cannot answer and it gives no hint of where to go from here.

The result is that physicists know there are questions they can't answer because they lack a theoretical framework around which to help figure out where to look for new experimental results. Right now they're taking educated guesses on a trial and error basis and mostly striking out badly--at least as far as I understand.

Yes. I clarified in the next post where I realized my mistake.

 

[Andy Capp]

fucking nerds

LOL, whatever else you may say about him,

 

[Blayt7hh]

I forget. Is that the theory where if we bring back dinosaurs they will break free and eat us?

 

[Andy Capp]

Yes. I clarified in the next post where I realized my mistake.

Roger that.

Watched some of the video. HB actually proved the standard theory as opposed to string theory

Indeed, I just respond as I go along most of the time.

However, to clarify, Peter Higgs (and probably some others) worked out the math that said it should exist, which is a great accomplishment and discovery, but he didn't prove shit in the main sense of the word, only in the mathematical proof sense, like proving a^2 + b^2=c^2 on a right triangle.

The Standard Model had been confirmed in numerous ways for decades--it was used to predict the existence of many particles that no one knew of before and then they were observed, one after the other, hence confirming the Standard Model as an accurate representation of reality to the limit of what it could represent--and that limit has been reached, pretty much, hence the problem. The experimental confirmation of the Higgs Boson was really just the final nail in the "proof coffin", as it were, but that lid was already well and truly nailed shut.

Please note, when I say "used to predict" I'm just saying some nerds did a lot of complicated math. The proof comes from the experimentalists. If they're having trouble getting funding they need to design more imaginative experiments until the theoreticians can find a way to get ahead of them.