6 ms·

It's like string theory - a framework with tons of free parameters which will never produce a coherent physical theory, but you can always write a paper that co

by sesm 2y ago

It's like string theory - a framework with tons of free parameters which will never produce a coherent physical theory, but you can always write a paper that contains a promise of explaining any observation with the right fine-tuning of some parameters (the promise will never be fulfilled, of course).

Certhas 2y ago
It is utterly unlike string theory. String theory is a very rigid coherent theory. It has produced plenty of deep mathematical insights. I personally don't believe that it describes our universe, but it is possible to calculate its properties. Wolframs "Theory" is a bunch of relatively conventional ideas (by high energy physics theory standards), tied together by wishful thinking and speculation. In parts it seems almost possible to show that the ideas are actually contradictory. It is only saved by being to vague to fail coherence checks. It is, to use the old cliche, not even wrong.
- sesm 2y ago
  "Not even wrong" is a title of a book about String Theory by Peter Woit. I've noticed a common tactic in online disinformation campaigns: taking a common term associated with critique of some concept and spamming it in a different (sometimes opposite) context, to break the semantic link.
  - Certhas 2y ago
    Not even wrong is a quip attributed to Wolfgang Pauli. This is where Woit got his blog and book title from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      Oof. Lol. If I ever start rambling about They's malfeasance in Their campaigns, may I receive as humble and direct a reply as this, as soon as possible.
zachf 2y ago
There are exactly zero free parameters in string theory [0]. The details of why string phenomenology is hard is a difficult subject, but the characterization you've given of it is not correct. If you have a proof that string theory is not self-consistent, you should publish it, because there is no such proof in the scientific literature today. (Source: my PhD in physics.) Unfortunately, there is a ton of misinformation about this topic on the web. For example, people love to say that string theory predicts anything and everything. But it predicts (and rejects) a lot; it’s just that all of the known predictions happen to fall into the categories of (1) predicting things that are very hard for humans to measure (behavior of black holes at long time scales, graviton scattering, etc) or (2) retrodicting things we already know are true (e.g. gravity, Lorentz invariance, etc.). This state of things isn’t by design of nefarious string theorists designing their theory to be untestable, it’s just cruel fate of what comes out of the math. Hopefully someday we can find some other type of prediction, but string theory isn’t easy. [0] See e.g. https://indico.cern.ch/event/630393/contributions/2890113/attachments/1610680/2557430/Dawid.pdf https://indico.cern.ch/event/630393/contributions/2890113/at...
- pyinstallwoes 2y ago
  How is string theory useful?
  - zachf 2y ago
    To whom? To other branches of physics? Look up AdS/CFT. To the general public? Dunno, I guess the pursuit of understanding the universe is its own reward for some.
    - pyinstallwoes 2y ago
      How is it understanding the universe if it’s not applicable/useful in the general case?
      - zachf 2y ago
        You mean, if string theory does not turn out to describe the universe, how could it be useful? Well, by giving extraordinarily powerful tools for understanding things that are well established to be useful, like quantum field theory. AdS/CFT gives us the only tool we have to analytically understand quantum field theories in the so-called “strong coupling regime”. This is useful for discovering new properties of quantum matter in systems where you would otherwise need simulations. You can think of it intuitively as string theory providing a glue between two descriptions of the quantum matter, like a “type cast” in programming where you start with one kind of object but reinterpret it as another. The thing that is incomprehensible in one representation is simple in the other. This was discovered by studying limits of string theory in interesting geometries.

by sesm 2y ago

Certhas 2y ago

It is utterly unlike string theory. String theory is a very rigid coherent theory. It has produced plenty of deep mathematical insights. I personally don't believe that it describes our universe, but it is possible to calculate its properties. Wolframs "Theory" is a bunch of relatively conventional ideas (by high energy physics theory standards), tied together by wishful thinking and speculation. In parts it seems almost possible to show that the ideas are actually contradictory. It is only saved by being to vague to fail coherence checks. It is, to use the old cliche, not even wrong.

sesm 2y ago
"Not even wrong" is a title of a book about String Theory by Peter Woit. I've noticed a common tactic in online disinformation campaigns: taking a common term associated with critique of some concept and spamming it in a different (sometimes opposite) context, to break the semantic link.
- Certhas 2y ago
  Not even wrong is a quip attributed to Wolfgang Pauli. This is where Woit got his blog and book title from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    Oof. Lol. If I ever start rambling about They's malfeasance in Their campaigns, may I receive as humble and direct a reply as this, as soon as possible.

zachf 2y ago

There are exactly zero free parameters in string theory [0]. The details of why string phenomenology is hard is a difficult subject, but the characterization you've given of it is not correct. If you have a proof that string theory is not self-consistent, you should publish it, because there is no such proof in the scientific literature today. (Source: my PhD in physics.) Unfortunately, there is a ton of misinformation about this topic on the web. For example, people love to say that string theory predicts anything and everything. But it predicts (and rejects) a lot; it’s just that all of the known predictions happen to fall into the categories of (1) predicting things that are very hard for humans to measure (behavior of black holes at long time scales, graviton scattering, etc) or (2) retrodicting things we already know are true (e.g. gravity, Lorentz invariance, etc.). This state of things isn’t by design of nefarious string theorists designing their theory to be untestable, it’s just cruel fate of what comes out of the math. Hopefully someday we can find some other type of prediction, but string theory isn’t easy. [0] See e.g. https://indico.cern.ch/event/630393/contributions/2890113/attachments/1610680/2557430/Dawid.pdf https://indico.cern.ch/event/630393/contributions/2890113/at...

pyinstallwoes 2y ago
How is string theory useful?
- zachf 2y ago
  To whom? To other branches of physics? Look up AdS/CFT. To the general public? Dunno, I guess the pursuit of understanding the universe is its own reward for some.
  - pyinstallwoes 2y ago
    How is it understanding the universe if it’s not applicable/useful in the general case?
    - zachf 2y ago
      You mean, if string theory does not turn out to describe the universe, how could it be useful? Well, by giving extraordinarily powerful tools for understanding things that are well established to be useful, like quantum field theory. AdS/CFT gives us the only tool we have to analytically understand quantum field theories in the so-called “strong coupling regime”. This is useful for discovering new properties of quantum matter in systems where you would otherwise need simulations. You can think of it intuitively as string theory providing a glue between two descriptions of the quantum matter, like a “type cast” in programming where you start with one kind of object but reinterpret it as another. The thing that is incomprehensible in one representation is simple in the other. This was discovered by studying limits of string theory in interesting geometries.