3 ms·
I was thinking of the physical interpretation not mainly the math behind it, string theory: “You might have this small space that you can’t see or measure dire
by rightbyte 5y ago
I was thinking of the physical interpretation not mainly the math behind it, string theory:
“You might have this small space that you can’t see or measure directly, but some aspects of the geometry of that space might influence real-world physics,” said Mark Gross, a mathematician at the University of Cambridge.
I mean modern research math can be silly, but it is (hopefully) not bogus.
- hrhth 5y agoMath only has to be consistent. It doesn't have to have any relation to physics or "reality". I can start with 1 + 1 = 3(favorite example of "common sense" people when they point out something inconsistent) and other "nonsensical" statements and derive a bunch of results to make up a new theory within math. It might have jack-all to do with physics as we know it, but far as math is concerned, so long as the derived results are correct, then the derived theory is valid. The question is whether or not this new theory is interesting. Often times - not. Some physicists who express their dislike of string theory are not making a statement about math. Roughly they are saying the theory is more math-y rather than it's physics-y. It's similar to how some people dislike "soupy lasagna". They are not making a statement about soup. They are not saying soup is bad. They mean they like their lasagna be more like lasagna and less like soup.