4 ms·

Most of my friends and colleagues in string-adjacent fields --I doubt anybody would lately admit to doing string theory proper-- have the integrity to begrudgin

Most of my friends and colleagues in string-adjacent fields --I doubt anybody would lately admit to doing string theory proper-- have the integrity to begrudgingly confess that string theory is Mathematics done poorly. My guys are healthy, they have neither Philosophy nor Maths envy. Calling String Physics Experimental Mathematics isn't even wrong, there are other fields of physics, computer science, or statistics that deserve that moniker. So what nomens do we have left? Not many. "Religion" is one of them, would appreciate more interesting suggestions here.

leereeves 4y ago
Isn't all of theoretical physics just a search for mathematics that fits the observations obtained by experimental physicists? It's all a subset of math. What makes string theory particularly poor, in your opinion?
- adastra22 4y ago
  It's not trying to explain any experimental results. There is literally not a single piece of evidence in need of an explanation. There are a very small handful of anomalies which aren't adequately explained by the standard model, but string theorists didn't base their models around resolving these questions. They sought a grand, unified, simple theory out of a philosophical (religious?) belief that one ought to exist.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    I don't see that there's anything wrong with that approach. Sometimes progress is a slow and steady refining of existing models, sometimes it is wild new perspectives that come out of left field and change everything. And generally speaking we have good reason to believe the universe operates on a simplistic rule set that evolves in complex ways because finding a simple equation at the heart of complex interactions is pretty much the history of physics.
    - adastra22 4y ago
      In physics the explanations that come out of left field explain experimental results though. It is never the case, as far as I can think of, that an out of the blue theory developed for no reason other than mathematical “beauty” ends up overturning the old order.
      - DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
        > It is never the case [...] that an out of the blue theory developed for no reason other than mathematical “beauty” ends up overturning the old order Well, Paul Dirac for one did predict the antimatter counterpart of the electron because of mathematical beauty, didn't he?
        adastra22 4y ago
        No he created a framework for explaining the behavior of quantum systems moving at relativistic speeds, which was already being observed to diverge from theory in the measurement of cosmic rays. His equation implied the existence of antimatter, which was then looked for and found, but that was more of a happy accident.

leereeves 4y ago

Isn't all of theoretical physics just a search for mathematics that fits the observations obtained by experimental physicists? It's all a subset of math. What makes string theory particularly poor, in your opinion?

adastra22 4y ago
It's not trying to explain any experimental results. There is literally not a single piece of evidence in need of an explanation. There are a very small handful of anomalies which aren't adequately explained by the standard model, but string theorists didn't base their models around resolving these questions. They sought a grand, unified, simple theory out of a philosophical (religious?) belief that one ought to exist.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  I don't see that there's anything wrong with that approach. Sometimes progress is a slow and steady refining of existing models, sometimes it is wild new perspectives that come out of left field and change everything. And generally speaking we have good reason to believe the universe operates on a simplistic rule set that evolves in complex ways because finding a simple equation at the heart of complex interactions is pretty much the history of physics.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    In physics the explanations that come out of left field explain experimental results though. It is never the case, as far as I can think of, that an out of the blue theory developed for no reason other than mathematical “beauty” ends up overturning the old order.
    - DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
      > It is never the case [...] that an out of the blue theory developed for no reason other than mathematical “beauty” ends up overturning the old order Well, Paul Dirac for one did predict the antimatter counterpart of the electron because of mathematical beauty, didn't he?
      - adastra22 4y ago
        No he created a framework for explaining the behavior of quantum systems moving at relativistic speeds, which was already being observed to diverge from theory in the measurement of cosmic rays. His equation implied the existence of antimatter, which was then looked for and found, but that was more of a happy accident.