STRING THEORY

I successfully lurked on every topic related to the string theory  for im studying early physics at college. And seriously, what the hell were they thinking with these theories. 

You "successfully" lurked? How hard can it be?

>>2
by successful i mean lurked EVERYTHING on this topic, at least until it got nothing related to string theory

String theory? You mean, because there's so much evidence verifying the model?

Moare like String Hypothesis, amIright?

>>3
How do you know? You wouldn't know if there was a thread, you hadn't lurked in.

Not to mention all those hidden rolled-up threads.

I know for a fact you didn't see the three threads on string theory I made.

>>7
guess not, would like to know what are the different opinions on this theory, it looks too unsupported for me to believe

>>4
URRITE!  The discipline of Physics has become lost in math games that they only believe apply to reality.  Due to innate untestability, these games CAN'T apply to reality.

Physicists should either produce experiments designed to test the String Hypothesis, or they should STFU and get real jobs.

>>9
"Due to innate untestability, these games CAN'T apply to reality."

actually, you could develope a theory that was an exact discription of reality, and an inability to test it wouldn't affect whether or not it was how reality actually worked.  stop your fail logic.

separately, you all still fail at recognizing the difference between a model that produces useful predictions and an attempt at an accurate explanation of what the universe really is.

if they could produce a model that required the assumption that giant elephants are compacted into the space between every atom's nucleus and electrons, but it produced good, useful predictions, that would be a good theory, regardless of your stance on elephantatomism.

>>9
But what about quantum mechanics, we are actually just believing in it. All that schrodinger shit is all just theoretical. A huge part of quantum physics is pure theory, maybe we should just accept that experimental methods have a limit on the events it can possibly explain, also saying that our brains have a limit.

>>9
Redcream failed OMFG
>>10
urrite

>>10

<<actually, you could develope a theory that was an exact discription of reality, and an inability to test it wouldn't affect whether or not it was how reality actually worked.>>

This "discription" isn't really useful to science though, because, due to its unverifiability, and its apparent unfalsifiability, we can never really know if it is true. Such a matter is the bread of philosophers and logicians, not physicists.

>>9

Yes, it should be the String Hypothesis, a Theory must undergo rigorous and thorough attempts at falsification to become accepted. However, we should let physicists continue in an attempt to produce falsifiable results, else we may overlook the truth.

>>11
But the equations work perfectly. We only need an interpretation. Some say we can't develop one accurately, so it's not worth the effort -Copenhagen interpretation etc...

>>13
listen, faggot.  i don't care about this particular instance where his faulty logic might happen to be correct.  i am not commenting on whether or not string theory is a useful theory.  i do not know enough about string theory to make any such claim.  i am pointing out that his reasoning for why it was a bad theory is not valid.  i never said it wasn't a bad theory.  i don't know whether it is or not.

>>9
Not innately untestable, currently untestable. There is a difference.

>>15

If I was Red Cream, I would at this point suggest that if a theory was an "accurate description of reality" then there should be reams and reams of proof, emanating from that reality it describes. For how can a statement that applies to reality be untestifiable, if reality is there for us to observe?

And that's what RC was getting at, the APPLICATION to reality. String theorists are digging themselves into a mathematical myriad of symbolism, such that what they're doing isn't even ATTEMPTING to apply itself to generating a workable model of a physical universe.

Furthermore, I stand by my comment of >>13. Just as you were not commenting whether or not string theory is a useful theory, RC was not commenting on whether or not string theory was right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. The generation of some kind of description or model of the universe is intimately entwined with, and inseparable from, the generation of predictions concerning its behaviour thus.

You studied for physics by browsing 4chan? uh-oh.

>>17
i'm not sure what you said because i didn't read it, but i'm pretty sure it was an admission of incorrectness.  glad i could help.

>>19
Ah, you didn't bother, same way you can't seem to be bothered to touch the shift key, about 2cm away from a full stop; I'm not much surprised.

>>18
lol wut? who said that? 4chan wont ever be a source of knowledge, hivemind rarely does the work, even in /sci/ most threads are about some redcream drama.

>>15
You are failing on many, many levels. Stop posting already.

>>10
MAXIMUM POSSIBLE FAIL.  How do you develop an "exact discription of reality" if you can't test it to determine if it IS descriptive, much less exact?

Well, fuck TESTABILITY, what about predictability?  String theory also fails on that account!  It can't make predictions that result in things that CAN BE TESTED.  It only creates more math games.

In short, how do you KNOW?  The implied answer is that you DON'T, and that leads back to my correct and original assertion that these Physicsfags are only playing math games.

I'm right, and you overeducated twentysomethings are fucking wrong ... AGAIN.

And, to the fag who tried to hang me on QM (which I did NOT mention at all):  At least QM's peculiar and non-intuitive math produces 6-digit answers of observable events, fulfilling the predictability requirement for a good theory.

You stupid, overeducated, twentysomething fuckos DO NOT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE.  Theories have to be based upon data if they are to survive.  They must also form a basis for prediction, which obviously implies more data.

No wonder the production of American universities is so pathetic.  You fucks only know how to worship your professors, obey orders, and manipulate symbols.  BUT YOU FUCKERS JUST CAN'T THINK.  Your continued insistence that (contrary to all evidence) you CAN think is getting to be embarrassing.

String theory is not yet a testable theory. BUT: there are tests being posited, which just require a few advances in experimental techniques.  Admittedly, it is at the moment no more science than a really fucking fantastic regression curve, but when we can start to "plot points" off the end, we can start to test these hypotheses.
You seem to have forgotten genereal relativity, which was effectively untestable for decades after its inception (excluding the jokes that were the eclipse tests).

>>25
After the colossal scam known as "fusion power", deep physics no longer has the intellectual credit line available to it, to reach such a conclusion.  It's time for the stupid fucking dipshits pushing String Theory to produce evidence or do some real work for a change.

What they are doing now is weakening physics.  They are relying on a bizarre form of faith to support a bizarre form of a priesthood.  Promises?  You can't run science on promises of "real soon now" and other such bullshit.  The twentysomething fuckholes at university don't understand that anymore since they have effectively been brain-damaged by the same system.

And it's time for you chanfags to drop the untestable relativity fraud.  There was enough experimental indications to show that relativity was on the right track, before more solid proof emerged in time.  This is stark opposition to String Faux-Theory, which is just a math game for which NO experimental evidence exists.

It remains true that physicists have to design experiments to test proposals or they should shut the fuck up.

>>26
Obviously we differ in the views on string theory, but fusion?
Research into that is still going on, a new reactor is being built, and progress is still being made.

>>27
LRN2RD.  "Progress is still being made" for over 40 years?  40 years of "progress" without results (i.e. power production) is the very definition of FAILURE.

>>28
Fuck's sake. AI research still hasn't created AI, we don't have moon bases, and there's no world peace. I guess we'd better give up and all sit at home watching a strobe lights to keep our ADHD minds entertained.
Just because something is slow, doesn't mean it's not moving.

>>29
Fuck's sake, indeed.  When you're digging a hole and haven't found a fucking thing, eventually you have to stop digging or look like a time- and energy-wasting RETARD.

AI research has produced better and more intelligent software.  Actual Human-mind software and hardware is a wash, obviously, but the offshoots are worthwhile.

We don't have moon bases but we COULD have them if we really wanted them.  It's not a research issue; it's one of economics and politics.

World peace is impossible.  I don't know why the fuck you brought such a silly and stupid issue into this thread.

And finally, the issue is not movement-despite-slowness.  The issue is RESULTS.  If you can get there within the budgeting time or money, you just don't go, and go other places more in line with the budget.

You sound just like the type of retard that would have built the SSC.  How about if we tax you personally for $10000/yr to get the SSC built again?  Would you THEN realize that scientific progress has to ALSO be economic in order to be considered feasible?

>>29
I swear.  It's like half you chanfags are borderline autistic.  If you have a good grasp of one aspect of the whole problem at hand, you have ZERO comprehension of another important aspect, and then you fight tooth and nail for the right to remain ignorant on that 2nd aspect.  GET YOURSELF CHECKED OUT FOR AUTISM!

>>30
You're making it sound like the fusion project is like a jigsaw upside down, and that if you don't put it together completely, you get none of the benefits. You do realise that stuff has been discovered? "[T]he offshoots are worthwhile". Doesn't that sound like a familiar argument?
'You sound like the kind of retard who would like to be shot. How about if we shoot you? Would you then realise that being shot hurts? '
Do you see how arguing against something I don't even believe in is completely and utterly pointless?
And what do you mean by economic? You're now getting in a very tricky area, because to carry out research means, by definition, that you don't know what you're going to get. You cannot simply define science, or maths simply on the direct applications that are made. At least, not with any degree of probability that you're correct until a long time has passed.

>>31
Sorry, could you argue about the specific topics that were being debated? The first and second aspects are?

>>31
ZOMG BBCODES!!!
wtf r u doin posting here if youre not a chanfag, making drama out of it makes you an attention whore.
Its true that american undergraduate education is pure failure, but saying that physics are time waste is just too retarded, it has always looked like that, and truth is, physics are the source of all other sciences not including biology or politics.
And seriously, an autistic person develops his brain way further that a normal one, change autistic for retarded and its done.

This thread just became redcream rhetorics faggotry BBcode drama

They disproved String Theory by altering the math and creating something entirely new and unexpected, Membrane Theory.

At the moment, string theory is purely a math game, and nobody even knows the exact equations that govern existence.  The best that has been done so far is an approximate solution to an approximate equation.

It holds a lot of promise: we don't want to overlook this theory because it is possible that it might eventually be shown to be right.  Of course, if it's wrong, then it's wrong.

It does predict stuff: it predicts GR, QM, standard model, all of that goodness that is experimentally verified with rigor.  The only problem is finding evidence for the deviation from the original models (eg GR corrections to hydrogen atom, QM corrections to black holes).

It is also officially named "superstring theory" because the theory includes another symmetry known as "supersymmetry".  This supersymmetry requires the existence of a superpartner to all the particles currently documented by the standard model.  Problem: no such particles have been detected yet.  Solution: wait for larger particle accelerators.

>>26
All research requires a "real soon now".  If they have something in their hands already, then it's not research!

>>36
It's only a name change...

It's actually quite more than a name change foo, it changes the whole idea of String Theory.

>>38
hrm... perhaps, but it wasn't completely throwing the original out the window.  I thought it was just a necessary extention of the theory to incorporate all 5 subtheories into a single M theory...

>>24
Yes, because ALL the best and brightest of America post on 4chan, therefore we should seriously consider all of the gross blanket generalizations you have made.

Proof RedCream only talks out of his/her ass with a bias against America. If you're going to rant about this type of shit go somewhere else, and leave this type of retarded discussion out of the reputable board of /sci/. Don't try to push your anti-american agenda down our throats under the guise of cogent reasoning.

>>40
The brightest minds post on /sci/, FACT. It's their place to be retarded

>>41
It's true. :p

I successfully lurked on this thread.

>>42 ID:EZSh7evB OMG WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF THAT? 78/100?, 77/100?

>>41
Such irony, that these slaves of entertainment, gathering to moral and intellectual decadence should believe themselves to belong to the elite. Proclaiming it to be but a play, they sink into the comfort of mediocrity.

>>42,45
Hay, you guys are supposed to be dead.
Sorry einstein, no dice. Get back here!

So, why is there a science board on 4chan and why it is active (for a text board) if supposedly every chanfag is a retarded weeaboo or pedophile

>>47 because even retarded chanfags weeaboo's and pedophiles like science & math?

>>48
i guess they do

>>49
We sure do!