3 ms·

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 se

by 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.
      - Ma8ee 3y ago
        And if one or two, maybe even three researchers, with good track records, want funding for a long shot like this, I think that would be perfectly reasonable. It becomes a problem when it is declared as the one true way and clogs the whole research community for almost half a century.
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.

by xpl 3y ago

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.
    - Ma8ee 3y ago
      And if one or two, maybe even three researchers, with good track records, want funding for a long shot like this, I think that would be perfectly reasonable. It becomes a problem when it is declared as the one true way and clogs the whole research community for almost half a century.

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.