3 ms·
The maths isn't rigorous and well-defined AFAICT. There aren't any definitive equations either, as far as I know. However, there are some cool geometric observa
by ogogmad 5y ago
The maths isn't rigorous and well-defined AFAICT. There aren't any definitive equations either, as far as I know. However, there are some cool geometric observations like AdS/CFT.
There are some very polemical critics of string theory like Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder, who suggest that it's a complicated philosophy that started off simple and neat, encountered some problems, and then grew in complexity and vagueness.
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
- drdeca 5y agoWell, the math for QFT isn’t on as clear cut foundations as it could be either, is my understanding. (No one has proven that there is a 3D QFT for anything more than U(1), iirc? Or maybe even for U(1) ? Idr. There’s a prize for showing one iirc.) I don’t think that contradicts the claim of the mathematical beauty motivating things.
- ogogmad 5y agoThere aren't any definitive equations of string theory AFAICT. For the Standard Model, there are. This is on top of the lack of rigour that's already in QFT. The result is a theory that isn't really mathematics as mathematicians understand it, and nor is it physics as many physicists understand it.