6 ms·

Not much of a take. * Thinks string theory is wrong (in good company but doesn't prove anything). * Seen lots of previous attempts to make testable prediction

Not much of a take. * Thinks string theory is wrong (in good company but doesn't prove anything). * Seen lots of previous attempts to make testable predictions that didn't pan out (says nothing about this attempt). * Thinks nobody should write articles about new ideas they don't agree with (completely indefensible). Point me to some useful analysis, not just a rant from someone who doesn't like string theory. I personally found the article interesting. The theory is probably not correct, but so what? We will know more when we test gravity at smaller scales, which we are doing to do anyway.

echelon 3y ago
> * Thinks string theory is wrong (in good company but doesn't prove anything). String theory has had 40 years to show something -- anything -- for its claims. At this point it's expensive, fancy mathematical LARPing. It, like quantum computing and the amyloid-beta theory of Alzheimer's etiology, needs to see its funding diverted elsewhere to seed other promising lines of research.
- dev1ycan 3y ago
  Quantum computing is worth the invested cost, it's just that at the rate that they're improving it'll take 20 years or so
- xpl 3y ago
  Why it "has to show something"? Isn't it enough to present a more elegant mathematical formalism for describing the same reality? Like you take an "ugly" and self-inconsistent set of existing theories and "refactor" / "unify" them — yeah, it makes no new or testable predictions, but the math is more beautiful. I guess this is what attracts researchers to it.
  - epgui 3y ago
    I agree with this. I think a lot of the criticism of string theory ignores the fact that a lot of ideas have merit simply because they make you see things from a different angle. Even if they don't replace other models, these sorts of ideas are often worth something. You don't need to "believe" that the universe is literally made up of "the stuff" to appreciate that it could be a valid / self-consistent way of interpreting the world.
    - echelon 3y ago
      This [1] is a fantastic refutation of string theory in that the string theorists have taken more than their fair share of research dollars and public consciousness and that it's time for other branches of physics to get the funding. With limited resources, if you don't context switch, you starve everything else. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kya_LXa_y1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kya_LXa_y1E
      - hindsightbias 3y ago
        The physical manifestation of string theory is a self licking ice cream cone.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        That would end a lot of careers that were built on string theory, so it wont happen anytime soon.
    - scheme271 3y ago
      That ignores the fact that string theory is supposed to be a physical theory of the universe. If a physics theory is untestable and can't be falsified, it's really hard to justify funding it using physics grant money. Might as well get funding from the math department.
      - Ma8ee 3y ago
        How about a physics theory that can’t be tested yet? That is what they claimed all this time, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to fund a promising theory while they work out the details of how it is going to be tested. The problem with String Theory is that it totally dominated the field for near 4 decades, and the only outcome seem to be some “beautiful” formalisms that they are still trying to make useful somewhere.
        jjgreen 3y ago
        "We will be able to falsify it in 100,000 years" gives you a handy funding window.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    My understanding of string theory is that even if you understand it as a tool for mathematical formalism, it's actually not all that effective. Not that quantum field theories are all that easy to work with, but my understanding is that their string theoretic counterparts are downright intractable. It's kind of interesting when you actually take a closer look at the PR of string theory. There's lots of bombast about it being a candidate--the strongest candidate--for a theory of everything, but when you try to actually press for what that theory of everything, it ends up being "well, we don't actually have one yet." To answer your "why" question more directly: string theorists themselves have been very loudly proclaiming for decades that they are the One True Path™ to a theory of everything. This isn't coming from incredulous science journalists trying to summarize a hot field of study for the general public, this is the messaging from the leading researchers themselves, and they've been doing it long enough that a knowledge of its existence and its role in the theory of everything is firmly embedded in public consciousness, even if all details beyond "tiny strings" and "something something extra dimensions" are stripped out. So we should hold the field to its own standard of why it should exist.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    In the case it would just be mathematics and wouldn’t have received the funding it has. It’s supposed to be physics research
  - candiodari 3y ago
    The big claim to fame of string theory is that gravity falls out of the calculations, which the standard model famously failed to produce for close to 100 years now. People are pretty desperate about looking for a way forward at this point.
- paulpauper 3y ago
  String theory is both pure math and a theory. The fast that is has not proven itself in the latter does not mean it's useless or a waste of time. The search for the theory of everything is not just only string theory.
- scheme271 3y ago
  Well, quantum computing has shown results. Aside from stuff like D-Wave, people have managed to put together classical quantum computers and used the qubits for actual work. I do agree that string theory has been largely untestable so far and we should look at other approaches at this point.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Totally agree that funding should be provided for other theoretical approaches. String theory hasn't delivered much given the resources devoted to it, although that still doesn't mean it's wrong of course. Quantum computing is making steady progress though. It works and it offers a way to compute things we can't do with classical computing. It is just really difficult technically to pull off.
Sniffnoy 3y ago
> * Seen lots of previous attempts to make testable predictions that didn't pan out (says nothing about this attempt). Not at all. He quotes two string theorists who say they think this proposal is unlikely.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  The very first paragraph says: "For the last thirty years or so, one tactic of those who refuse to admit the failure of string theory has been to go to the press with bogus claims of “we finally have found a way to get testable predictions from string theory!”. I’ve written about dozens and dozens of these over the years."
  - Sniffnoy 3y ago
    I'm responding to your claim that he says nothing about this attempt. He does, in fact, say something about this attempt. I guess perhaps you were only saying that that particular claim says nothing about this attempt? I mean, OK, sure, but you gave a notably incomplete description of your article. From your description, one would think that he only spoke in generality about string theory and made no reply to this particular idea, when in fact he did.
    - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
      Ah, I see. I wasn't saying that he says nothing further about this attempt in the rest of it, just that the fact that many previous attempts have failed gives us no useful information about this one.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

echelon 3y ago

> * Thinks string theory is wrong (in good company but doesn't prove anything). String theory has had 40 years to show something -- anything -- for its claims. At this point it's expensive, fancy mathematical LARPing. It, like quantum computing and the amyloid-beta theory of Alzheimer's etiology, needs to see its funding diverted elsewhere to seed other promising lines of research.

dev1ycan 3y ago
Quantum computing is worth the invested cost, it's just that at the rate that they're improving it'll take 20 years or so
xpl 3y ago
Why it "has to show something"? Isn't it enough to present a more elegant mathematical formalism for describing the same reality? Like you take an "ugly" and self-inconsistent set of existing theories and "refactor" / "unify" them — yeah, it makes no new or testable predictions, but the math is more beautiful. I guess this is what attracts researchers to it.
- epgui 3y ago
  I agree with this. I think a lot of the criticism of string theory ignores the fact that a lot of ideas have merit simply because they make you see things from a different angle. Even if they don't replace other models, these sorts of ideas are often worth something. You don't need to "believe" that the universe is literally made up of "the stuff" to appreciate that it could be a valid / self-consistent way of interpreting the world.
  - echelon 3y ago
    This [1] is a fantastic refutation of string theory in that the string theorists have taken more than their fair share of research dollars and public consciousness and that it's time for other branches of physics to get the funding. With limited resources, if you don't context switch, you starve everything else. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kya_LXa_y1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kya_LXa_y1E
    - hindsightbias 3y ago
      The physical manifestation of string theory is a self licking ice cream cone.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      That would end a lot of careers that were built on string theory, so it wont happen anytime soon.
  - scheme271 3y ago
    That ignores the fact that string theory is supposed to be a physical theory of the universe. If a physics theory is untestable and can't be falsified, it's really hard to justify funding it using physics grant money. Might as well get funding from the math department.
    - Ma8ee 3y ago
      How about a physics theory that can’t be tested yet? That is what they claimed all this time, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to fund a promising theory while they work out the details of how it is going to be tested. The problem with String Theory is that it totally dominated the field for near 4 decades, and the only outcome seem to be some “beautiful” formalisms that they are still trying to make useful somewhere.
      - jjgreen 3y ago
        "We will be able to falsify it in 100,000 years" gives you a handy funding window.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  My understanding of string theory is that even if you understand it as a tool for mathematical formalism, it's actually not all that effective. Not that quantum field theories are all that easy to work with, but my understanding is that their string theoretic counterparts are downright intractable. It's kind of interesting when you actually take a closer look at the PR of string theory. There's lots of bombast about it being a candidate--the strongest candidate--for a theory of everything, but when you try to actually press for what that theory of everything, it ends up being "well, we don't actually have one yet." To answer your "why" question more directly: string theorists themselves have been very loudly proclaiming for decades that they are the One True Path™ to a theory of everything. This isn't coming from incredulous science journalists trying to summarize a hot field of study for the general public, this is the messaging from the leading researchers themselves, and they've been doing it long enough that a knowledge of its existence and its role in the theory of everything is firmly embedded in public consciousness, even if all details beyond "tiny strings" and "something something extra dimensions" are stripped out. So we should hold the field to its own standard of why it should exist.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  In the case it would just be mathematics and wouldn’t have received the funding it has. It’s supposed to be physics research
- candiodari 3y ago
  The big claim to fame of string theory is that gravity falls out of the calculations, which the standard model famously failed to produce for close to 100 years now. People are pretty desperate about looking for a way forward at this point.
paulpauper 3y ago
String theory is both pure math and a theory. The fast that is has not proven itself in the latter does not mean it's useless or a waste of time. The search for the theory of everything is not just only string theory.
scheme271 3y ago
Well, quantum computing has shown results. Aside from stuff like D-Wave, people have managed to put together classical quantum computers and used the qubits for actual work. I do agree that string theory has been largely untestable so far and we should look at other approaches at this point.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
Totally agree that funding should be provided for other theoretical approaches. String theory hasn't delivered much given the resources devoted to it, although that still doesn't mean it's wrong of course. Quantum computing is making steady progress though. It works and it offers a way to compute things we can't do with classical computing. It is just really difficult technically to pull off.

Sniffnoy 3y ago

> * Seen lots of previous attempts to make testable predictions that didn't pan out (says nothing about this attempt). Not at all. He quotes two string theorists who say they think this proposal is unlikely.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
The very first paragraph says: "For the last thirty years or so, one tactic of those who refuse to admit the failure of string theory has been to go to the press with bogus claims of “we finally have found a way to get testable predictions from string theory!”. I’ve written about dozens and dozens of these over the years."
- Sniffnoy 3y ago
  I'm responding to your claim that he says nothing about this attempt. He does, in fact, say something about this attempt. I guess perhaps you were only saying that that particular claim says nothing about this attempt? I mean, OK, sure, but you gave a notably incomplete description of your article. From your description, one would think that he only spoke in generality about string theory and made no reply to this particular idea, when in fact he did.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    Ah, I see. I wasn't saying that he says nothing further about this attempt in the rest of it, just that the fact that many previous attempts have failed gives us no useful information about this one.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]