/sci/ - Science & Math

derped...here's the link.

http://www(dot)ted(dot)com/talks/lang/eng/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html

/thread

>>3287012
>>3287012

I think it's more than that. It'd answer a lot of questions about physics as well as confirm the existence of other physical dimensions.

>>3287003
String theory:
>Making up stupid shit where science doesn't have any answers.

Mathfiction.

This is what happens when theoretical physicists start to care more about "elegance" than actual physics.

>>3287003
Wondering what these 10 physical dimensions might be. I mean, there are three "room"-dimensions. Are the others just dimensions in terms of parametrization of one point in the room? I cant see how dimensions can be 'small'? A dimension is usually defined as the amount of basis-elements that give the whole span of a space .... help appreciated :)

String Theory. LOL.

ITT: a thousand and one posts along the lines of
>durr string theory is for idiots and is bullshit

well guess what general relativity seemed like bullshit to many when Einstein came up with it.
>curved space-time must be rubbish
>extra dimensions must be rubbish
face it, you don't understand it so don't try to attack something you know nothing about.

>>3287185
just because every non string theorist describes it as elegant does not mean that was the desired outcome

>>3288432
Do you understand it?

>>3288437
never claimed to nor do i attack other theories i don't understand.
for the moment string theory is for the theorists, you can call it mathematical masturbation if you want but every theory derived from mathematics instead of experiment is the same until it can make predictions.

>>3288432
To constitute a convincing potential verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it and not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity.

>>3288462
String hypothesis confirmed.

>>3288462

exactly but it could be a set of predictions rather than one in particular.
this much i know despite not being a theorist we can say at what point it will become valid or not but we can't jump the gun with personal prejudice.

>>3287003

> String Theory is basically a HYPOTHESIS that

> would answer many questions in physics
­> would shift many questions of physics to different, more complex questions

> a great theoretical physicist
­> a theoretical physicist

> It basically states that there are 10 physical dimensions
­> It basically assumes that there are either 10 or 26 physical dimensions

fix'd

>>3288479
What is the observable evidence?

>>3287051

> String THEORY
> confirming existence of something

I think you need to lrn2science

>>3288432

relativity had it's reasons. There were experiments suggesting it was true and Einstein did motivate it.

Unlike string theory where it's just about "let's assume strings - woah every question is solved by some obscure mechanism i just found"

>>3288508
>woah every question is solved by some obscure mechanism i just found"
...especially when you adjust the numbers and equation so everything totals out.

Experimentation is for homosex.

>>3288508
there were no experiments indicating curved space-time. and there were no experiments validating relativity for years after.

>>3288494
there isn't any so we can't say its nonsense or correct yet.

>>3288490

> would shift many questions of physics to different, more complex questions

true dat. String theorists often claim they can answer the question about why there are exactly 3 families of elementary particles by the form of the Calabi-Yau spaces, blinding the newfags and science-prostitutes to not see the fact that it just shifted the question to "why do Calabi-Yau manifolds look exactly like that?". Sometimes it's really pathetic.

>>3288544
>there were no experiments

...but there IS observable evidence.

>Astronomy master science.

>>3288544

I actually didn't see the "general", so you're right.

Thought experiments were there suggesting it was true (all points of view equally right, regardless of acceleration relative to something). Also, Hilbert found some thought experiments indicating curved space-time. in fact, Einstein was only slightly ahead of him.

>>3288552
>why there are exactly 3 families of elementary particles by the form of the Calabi-Yau spaces, blinding the newfags and science-prostitutes to not see the fact that it just shifted the question to "why do Calabi-Yau manifolds look exactly like that?"

And they poo-poo Garret Lisi and his E8 manifold.

People have such a limited view of string theory. Most are just sheep screaming that it is fake and a shit theory because someone they respect do it.

Arguably the greatest physicist in a very long time is working mainly on string theory (Ed Witten). Do you think he does it because he doesn't believe in it? Or because he finds it funny? Or maybe it is because he actually gets answers to fundamental issues in nature.

String theory is a framework to do physics in, and theoretically, it works. Deal with it.

>>3288574

> Most are just sheep screaming that it is fake and a shit theory because someone they respect do it

no.

> Do you think he does it because he doesn't believe in it? Or because he finds it funny?

So you think that means String Theory is serious business? That's not an argument.

> because he actually gets answers to fundamental issues in nature

orly? For example? I can also make up a theory in which i can adjust 100 numbers so that they fit certain evidence.

> String theory is a framework to do physics in, and theoretically, it works.

imokwiththat.jpg

>>3288574
>because someone they respect do it.
...

>Do you think he does it because he doesn't believe in it?
>believe


>String theory is a framework
Too bad it's not a theory.

>>3288586
>theoretically, it works.

If the theory is "Can we juggle numbers and adjust equations to make unfalsifiable predictions?", then yes.

>>3288602

String theory can be falsified, because it needs supersymmetry.

If we find out our universe is not supersymmetric, string theory is gone (until they come up with the next workaround, of course).

>>3288368

>>3288619
>String theory can be falsified, because it needs supersymmetry.

>So far, there is no evidence for the existence of supersymmetry.

>String theory can be falsified
>falsified

>>3288672
Hmm, I guess it can't be falsified.

>you need to prove/disprove another hypothesis to falsify another

>>3288672

wut?

If supersymmetry is ruled, string theory is gone. Therefore, it is falsifiable.

It doesn't matter if there's evidence of SS or not at present, moran.

>>3288682

> ruled out

fix'd

>>3288432
>curved space-time must be rubbish
>extra dimensions must be rubbish

That's still unproven dickwart

I started reading the comments of that video, and now I feel depressed.

FUCK people are SO FUCKING RETARDED.

>>3288682

IT IS NOT FALSIFIABLE YET, YOU SHITHUMPING BLATHERING WITCHDOCTOR.

>>3288745
Which video are you talking about?

>>3288745
Because they don't believe something that someone tells them?

Let's face it : this shit is super hard to have a grasp on, especially when you need a PHD in physics to be able to.....

>>3288776
>>3288776
The one OP meant to post

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html

well presented talk, very interesting.

>>3288781
>>3288781
No, because they question the works of theoretical physicists with shit like "but that doesn't make sense because" and "i think it would be like this" or "hey guys consider this as an alternative"

When the guy was talking about proving dimensions by drawing triangles I called it quits and bailed the fuck out.

>>3288682
>If supersymmetry is ruled, string theory is gone. Therefore, it is falsifiable.
No, it can't be falsified, because SS is in a superposition of proven/not proven, therefore it is USELESS.

For that matter, they both can still be wrong.

>It doesn't matter if there's evidence of SS or not at present, moran.

Look at who is calling who names.

>>3288682
>If supersymmetry is ruled, string theory is gone. Therefore, it is falsifiable.
No, it can't be falsified, because for SS to be used to falsify ST, it cant be in a superposition of proven/not proven, therefore it is USELESS.

For that matter, they both can still be wrong.

>It doesn't matter if there's evidence of SS or not at present, moran.

Look at who is calling who names.

Christianity is basically a theory that, if proven true, would answer many questions in physics.

>>3287149
>>3287149
>>3287149
Can ur simple ass come up with something better you fuckin jiggaboo

>>3287003
>scientific theory
>if proven true
Popper called and said facepalm.jpg

>>3288544
Bullshit. Shift in Mercury's perihelion was known long before general relativity and GR was first theory that explained it and didn't break any other observed things. And Einstein knew about this and he pointed it out during his presentations of GR. Next, very soon after GR was published there were many predictions that could be tested and they were tested.

You're full of shit.

Hey brosephs I think God will reveal His secrets on 2012 I want all ur names ill pray for u gentiles and save u from eternal hellfire repent in the name of our Lord

>>3288853
It proves that things seems to behave like space time was curved.
IT doesn't mean it is actually curved.
Well, I don't "believe" in this explanation:
Time is an abstract
Space is an abstract

The fact that matter tends to exhibit a slowing down of its activity and a propension to follow a curvature doesn't necessarily imply that anything happened to "space time"...

OR are we speaking in metaphores?

>>3288874
It is curved and you are a faggot.

>>3288881
Well, prove to me than space and time exist .

>>3288871
Only jews get an afterlife. Gentiles dont have souls

>ITT: People who don't understand string theory argue about string theory.

>>3288874
Observable evidence is what? And GR is falsifiable?

>>3288886

YOU don't exist.
QED.
now STFU.

theoretical model works; has little relevance to reality as it is observable, has little or no possibility of being experimentally tested.

is not science. EXPERIMENT=SCIENCE, fuckers. once we are able to test it over and over and over and over, then it is science. until then, hooey.

anyone who says otherwise is speculating and not doing science.

pic mildly related

>>3288891
Give me your name kike_lover ill pray for u

>>3288900

>how does I defend my beliefs from savage observation?

>INSULT THE HEATHEN!

>Other potential forms of evidence for string theory have been proposed.

This is not the same as "observable evidence".

>In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

String theory is not a theory for several reasons.

ITT: People trying to dismiss string theory because "they just invent random numbers to make it work", but fail to realize that a lot of physical equations use "numbers pulled out of someone's ass", i.e. g, planck constant, etc.

>>3289000
Or the universal constant.

>>3289000
Experimentally proven ≠ pulled out of an ass.

>>3289000
experiment, experiment, experiment. ass numbers are ok. no proof is not ok.

>>3289000
ITT: you fail at understanding that string theory has so many free parameters that it can fit any sort of data if they wanted.

But I doubt a retard like you even knows what overfitting means.

>>3289000
Or Einsteins "cosmological constant".

>>3289032
Don't do that.

>>3289000
Notsureiftroll.jpg

>>3289015
Yes, basically any reasonable theory that could unite gravity and QM would have to be one of the manifestations of string theory... which makes it kind of useless, unless someone comes up with an idea to make it more specific.

>>3289032
Einstein had a very good reason (aesthetic reason, but still) to include it and he regretted it after Hubble started to meddle in. I only wish he knew of today's evidence! It would make him happy and maybe he wouldn't think of it as "the greatest mistake of his life". This makes me sad for some reason.

>>3289092
Are you trying to make the "string theory is a theory" crowd look bad?

>>3289120
What? No. How?

>inb4 inflation after big bang
and in all siriusness,
>inb4 the big bang

<also

>>3287185
Truth is beauty, and beauty, truth.

"When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
— R. Buckminster Fuller

>>3289015
Dude. Really?

The validity in any theory lies in its explanatory power. It's not about plugging in numbers to create an outcome. If you think string theory can be made to explain anything, you should go back to believing in an Almighty Creator.

>>3289273
...but bullshit still smells like shit.

>>3289285
Please, elaborate. Tell us how you have used your divine intuition to determine the veracity of string theory.

>>3287003
String theory is a mathematical theory not a scientific theory. String theory is really a scientific hypothesis.

Not one aspect of string theory has been verified, nor has it produced anything useful.

So far, string theory is BULLSHIT!

>>3289281
So why call it a "theory"?

It gets credibility it has -not- earned.

"In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries—like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)—which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems."

>>3289281
As expected, you are completely unable to even begin to understand what I'm saying.

>>3289299

i tihnk theory fits since it is just a geuss

>>3289290

>veracity of string theory.

It's NOT a theory.

>>3289293
As you well know, mathematics and physics are interdependent. There are many real-life cases where abstract mathematics has been discovered later to apply to physical law in some way.

You are right that ST hasn't made physical predictions that are testable, yet. But I notice you haven't offered any other option for uniting gravity and quantum mechanics. We know for a fact that relativity and QM cannot both be true at the same time. We also know that many aspects of the Standard Model are arbitrary, such as the mass of the electron - ST has the potential to produce these values as logical consequences of the mathematics.

I just don't get the hate on that some folks have for ST.

>>3289299
>>3289299
"string theory" is a proper name. It is not actually called a "theory", nor is it classified as a "theory" by scientists (PER DEFINITION OF THE FUCKIN WORD THEORY).

>>3289308
All string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.

Therefore, to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance, or general relativity. Hence, string theory is falsifiable and meets the definition of scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion.

Thhhtphtpphpt.

>>3289281
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions.

However, you actually need to TEST THEM!

String hypothesis (it's not a theory) has not produced any predictions that could be experimentally verified.

TEST THE THEORY.

>>3289322
WE CAN'T!

>>3289317
A theory must bring forth falsifiable predictions that no other already existing theory already has.

>>3289325
THEN YOUR THEORY IS FUCKING WORTHLESS, AND IT MIGHT AS WELL BE GOD STRUMMING ON THE SILLY-STRINGS!

>>3289325
Wouldn't the experiments made in particle accelerators qualify as valid tests for ST?

>>3289310
>>3289310
>relativity and QM cannot both be true at the same time

Stop talking out of your ass son. Tell me, what is the problem you speak of? Why can't they both be true?

I'm pretty sure you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You are just repeating some pop-science gibberish you heard.

Prove me wrong though. Explain what you mean faggot!

>>3289337
But if QM is true, that would invalidate relativity the same way relativity invalidated Newton's laws.
This is not >>3289310 but I'd like to know if I'm wrong.

>>3289335
Naw, to constitute a convincing potential verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it and not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity.

Particle accelerators confirm QM.

>>3289337
You're welcome to do quantum mechanics in the presence of gravity. Meaning, with a curved space, look at quantum mechanical particles, their wavefunctions, or if you're bold, quantum fields on curved spaces. Hawking radiation and the Unruh effect are both examples of this and it is quite successful.

The problem is that you might want to view the metric in GR as another "field" that lives on spacetime, "telling matter how to move...", etc. But quantum mechanics, or rather its big daddy quantum field theory says that you should quantize this field.

It turns out that while most studied fields are renormalizable (their quantum corrections can be controlled), the metric field is non-renormalizable (their quantum corrections require infinitely many parameters to be put in by hand). Unless you are given those parameters from another source (say, string theory), then the quantization procedure is hopeless.

tl;dr - ncompatibility shows up between the two theories when both QM effects and relativistic effects are large enough to be detected and then disagree.

>>3289348
>But if QM is true, that would invalidate relativity the same way relativity invalidated Newton's laws.
wait, wat?

>>3289299
QM fits the definition you quoted just fine.

>>3289356
general relativity requires space to be continuous, QM requires space to be quantized

as long as you look at very large scales or very small scales, you don't encounter any problems, but as soon as you try to make them meet in the middle, you can't

string theory has the potential to resolve this, which is why it gets attention

>>3289360
What did I say about QM?

NOTHING, BRONY!

WEEEEEEHURHURHUR!

>>3289372
I meant string theory.

>>3289366
That's exactly what I was thinking, which is why >>3289337 is wrong:
>Why can't they both be true?
Because relativity is an approximation of QM, the same way Newton's laws are an approximation of relativity.

>>3289348
>But if QM is true, that would invalidate relativity the same way relativity invalidated Newton's laws.

dur blow QUANTUM mechanics up into superbig mechanics and relativity goes dinosaur. OBV HOW IT WORKS

>>3289366
Not that.
>the same way relativity invalidated Newton's laws.
That.

QM fucks with Newtons laws, along with SPECIAL relativity.

>>3289391
QM isn't a better approximation than relativity - there's no quantum gravity. But in relativity, there's no quantum effects.

So really, they are both approximations, and there must be a 'higher' theory that is a better approximation of reality and incorporated elements of both.

Could it be.... STRING THEORY????

>>3289412
>Could it be.... STRING THEORY????

naw, dude. naw.

>>3289418
Right now we've got no better contender. It's not without its controversy - as we can see here - but again, I'd like to invite folks to contribute a better idea.

Anyone?

>>3289412

NO.

IT.

CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN'T!

THROW THAT GARBAGE OUT, AND DO THE WORK AGAIN WITHOUT THE VIBRATING COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANTS EVERYWHERE CONNECTING QUANTUM MECHANICS TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY.

>>3289421
<sigh>

Gimmie a sec. I gotta dig out my TI-99. This will take 7 years, so you're going to have to keep your pants on.

>>3289437
Okay, I'll just sit here while you do that.

>>3289348
>if QM is true, that would invalidate relativity

That is fucking bullshit kid. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

>>3289421
>Right now we've got no better contender. It's not without its controversy - as we can see here - but again, I'd like to invite folks to contribute a better idea.
>Anyone?

we should make a thread with nothing but string theory alternatives we dream up. i'm pretty sure with the reasonable intelligence (HA!) of folks on here we could come up with a couple hundred ideas that hold only slightly less water than string theory does.

then it's just a matter of getting hundreds of mathematicians and scientists to drum up millions of bucks to research each of them. within 10 years we could have at LEAST 30 different theories that were just as fun to imagine as string theory is, and have just as much proof as it does (and will have by then)!

i've got a sarcasm boner.

Okay, first of all, gravity is is not an electromagnet force or particle. It is an effect of mass on space.

<cudcudcudcudcud>

>>3289445
>Gimmie a sec. I gotta dig out my TI-99. This will take 7 years, so you're going to have to keep your pants on.
>keep your pants on...7 years

it already smells like shit in here. we don't need to exacerbate the problem.

>>3289468
Wow.
>graviton
>what is mass
>what is space

>>3289469
Fuck you, I already solved gravity.

>>3289474
Hey, lets hear yours that doesn't rely on strings.

>>3289474
>graviton

Evidence is where? Why do you need a graviton, anyway?

>>3289477
>Fuck you, I already solved gravity.

it's partially reliant on unknown quantum repulsion and tachyons interacting with mass in the future as well, isn't it? I FUCKING KNEW IT

>>3289492
SOMETHING makes mass drag on space.

>>3289486
My what? My money's on string/M theory atm.

I was simply stunned at the dumbness of the post, is all. There is certainly a place for gravity particles in current theories, and this whole thread illustrates that we don't really know what space and mass are, yet.

>>3289497
You're hating, not helping.

But your MAD is delicious.

>>3289503
No, you said it's easy. Contribute.

Think of it as debating for the side you don't like.

Unless that's too hard for you, then quit yer bitchin, /sci/boi.

>>3289511

i wish you'd solved gravity, friend. i'd love to know how it all works.

i know 0 about string theory. what are the vibrating strings made of?

>>3289527
Energy.

>>3289526
You are VERY insulted and buttmad.

>>3289352
>>3289412
>>3289391

It is obvious you have a plebeain knowledge of physics.

You keep talking about "relativity" being inconsistent with QM.

RELATIVITY IS TWO VASTLY DIFFERENT THEORIES. Special relativity IS ALREADY FUCKING INCOPERATED INTO Quantum Mechanics and Quantum field theory.

THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND QUANTUM THEORY! THEY GO FUCKING GREAT TOGETHER!

The way you keep using the word "relativity" shows your lack of knowledge.

>>3289529
Q: How does the energy vibrate?

A: We don't know.

>>3289527
>i know 0 about string theory. what are the vibrating strings made of?

energy, sorta. and they be supertinysmallerthananythingyoucanimagine. so we conveniently can't find out if they really exist for at least a very long time.

>>3289520
I think you may be mistaking me for someone else, I said nothing about anything being easy.

I believe string theory/m-theory is the best bet we've got going right now to integrate the incompatibilities between general relativity and QM. It suffers from not having easily-tested predictions, and many '/sci/bois' like to raeg at that. Fuck 'em, I say.

You want me to argue against it? Uh... lessee. It's wrong, I just know it in my gut, without offering any competing ideas. That good?

[ω-infinite facepalm]

>>3289533
lol, wut? are you serious?

why do you think i'm actually mad, bro?

Wow, this thread actually started to make sense and be educational. You fags managed to turn it into shit with your dumb fights over the Internet.

>>3289535
There's no need for caps and insults. Shows you can't persuade logically, imo.

In my other posts you'll see I refer to general relativity. You are correct in that there is no conflict between special relativity and QM, but then special relativity doesn't consider curved spacetime, does i?

It's not complicated. General relativity requires space to be continuous. QM requires space to be quantized. They cannot both be true at the same time.

>>3289335
None of the vast mount of data at the LHC have been able to give any credibility to string theory.

From the standpoint of the particle physics community (as well as the physics community in general), string theory is still bullshit.

>>3289542
I actually meant the "insulted". "Buttmad" was because I'm an asshole too.

>>3289540
>theory with no proof
>theory that hasn't been tested
>theory that hasn't predicted shit

>the best bet we've got going right now

LMFAO. That is not the way science works dumbshit. YOU CANNOT JUST MAKE UP UNTESTED BULLSHIT, AND SAY "its the best we got".

THAT IS RELIGIOUS THINKING, NOT SCIENTIFIC THINKING.

>>3289556
True, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Mind you, the energies needed to test string theory are on the order of the big bang, so yeah, not gonna happen soon.

>>3289554
>QM requires space to be quantized

LMFAO. Nope. Where are you getting such bullshit? SHOW ME THE "QUANTA OF SPACE". LMFAOx100000.

Quantized space in not part of special relativity, nor is it in the standard model. Really, where are you getting this bullshit from?

>>3289573
Sigh. Again, there is no need for caps and insults, son.

As said before, we know for certain QM and special relativity are conceptually and mathematically incompatible. There are only a tiny handful of ideas that will move us beyond this to something more inclusive. Of that handful, M-theory is the most worked out to date.

Do you have a favourite TOE that is not M-theory? Please share it with the group.

>>3289585
s/special/general/

If there is a theory that connects QM and Special Relativity to the larger scales of physics, why does it have to be a form of energy?

>>3289575
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It is, actually. From a probability-theoretic point of view, if there's an event which, if it occurred, would be evidence of your theory being true, then it failing to occur is evidence against your theory.

>>3289578
Wow. Are you fourteen?

Please google 'quantum foam.'

>>3289589
For example, what do we actually know about the spacetime of the void of our universe?

>>3289595
Yes, but since the energies involved in that are far larger than what the collider can produce, we haven't got that absence of evidence yet.

>>3289566

not insulted. two assholes, we've got half a porn already.

in >>3289497 you had made a joke so i made one, man. mine was pretty lame, i'll give you that much.

>>3289596
We can't really examine it, can we?

If it wasn't for the Casimir effect, we'd have absolutely nothing related to it at all that is observable.

>>3289617
True. It's interesting that we're all made of it, though.

Google 'The Planck Dive.' Awesome story!

>>3289596
>'quantum foam'

This is not science dumbshit. Quantum foam is not part of the standard model, nor is it part of special relativity, quantum field theory, OR ANY FUCKING ACTUAL FIELD OF SCIENCE.

So far, quantum foam is just a bullshit hypothesis, like string theory. IT IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE! IT HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED AS TRUE, NOR HAS IT MADE ANY TESTIBLE PREDICTIONS.

Additionally, the concept of 'quantum foam" DOESN'T QUANTIZE SPACE! WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS BULLSHIT FROM?

Exactly how fucking retarded are you?

>>3289658
Ahahaha, thinking space isn't quantized in QM. You are funny, lil boy.

/b/ is calling you.

>>3289658
"In general relativity, spacetime is assumed to be smooth and continuous—and not just in the mathematical sense. In the theory of quantum mechanics, there is an inherent discreteness present in physics. In attempting to reconcile these two theories, it is sometimes postulated that spacetime should be quantized at the very smallest scales. Current theory is focused on the nature of spacetime at the Planck scale. Causal sets, loop quantum gravity, string theory, and black hole thermodynamics all predict a quantized spacetime with agreement on the order of magnitude. Loop quantum gravity makes precise predictions about the geometry of spacetime at the Planck scale." - Wikipedia

Problem?

>>3289672
>>3289672
>thinks space is quantized
>can't back up his claim

Do you know what quantized mean?

Please show me any ACTUAL SCIENCE (QFT, the standard model, Quantum mechnaics, etc), that uses quantized space. ACTUAL FUCKING SCIENCE, NONE OF YOU FRINGE THEORY BULLSHIT! Find me the actual science!

SHOW ME THIS QUANTIZED SPACE YOU SPEAK OF! .....I'm waiting

>>3289672
I sort of agree with him. The casmir effect exists on that scale, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it explains what spacetime is, or that spacetime is only as small as the plank length if it is not in fact smaller and therefore undetectable by any reasonable means at our scale. QM explains a lot, but it is still a work in progress.

>>3289697
see
>>3289676

I defy you to make a post without a swear word or a word in all caps.

>>3289676
>Causal sets, loop quantum gravity, string theory, and black hole thermodynamics

NOT ACTUAL SCIENCE.
YOU ARE POSTING "hypothesis's". You are not posting real science. You are giving examples which are "ideas" that have not yet been verified.

Do you not understand what actual science is? ACTUAL SCIENCE HAS EXPLAINITORY AND PREDICTIVE POWER, IT FUCKING WORKS! It has been proven to be a "correct and accurate model".

The shit you posted has not been proven...DUMBFUCK! It is just a bunch of fancy "ideas", with no actual known tie to reality.

>>3289700
Of course - science can be defined as a work in progress.

Not claiming that we have experimentally established the reality of quantized space - but we haven't experimentally established that an electron is a point particle, either.

Mathematics, logic, and experiment are part of an organic whole that is evolving. And you know? Swearing and raeging and making ad hominem attacks against people have not exactly been the thing that advances science. Just sayin'.

>>3289702

>>3289676 IS FUCKING GARBAGE.
When you actually start posting real science, and not just fantasty bullshit, THEN MAYBE I WILL TONE DOWN THE FUCKING CAPS.

DO YOU REALLY NOT KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS? DO YOU REALLY NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "ACTUAL SCIENCE" (like QFT) AND BULLSHIT (LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY).

Do you not understand that "shit needs to be verified" to be considered science? A hypothesis without verification IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE, it is just a fancy math!

I can use science (like QTF) to build things and predict behavior of systems. I CANNOT USE loop quantum gravity for shit. DO YOU REALLY NOT GET THE DIFFERENCE?

>>3289724
Hee hee, this is fun. It's like holding a little boy down and gobbing on him. I think I win the dare about not swearing and using caps... not possible for you, sadly.

The Standard Model already has experimental evidence that it isn't a complete picture of reality. If you knew anything about physics, you'd accept that. The SM is the most accurate approximation of physics we have, but it's showing its age.

It's the tension between the gaps of what we cannot explain with the Standard Model and what experiment has already shown us that drives further models of reality. At one time, the SM was a much less-developed theory.

Good heavens. Would you smite the top theoretical physicists with such nonsense? They are all actively working on these concepts.

Son, a real scientist would not be so attached to a theory, such as the Standard Model represents. Do you think we've found the ultimate in the Standard Model? Oh, it is to laugh.

Alright well I've heard a lot about a lot of science on here, and I'm gonna go ahead and enlighten all of you (physicsminorfag here).

Everything is binary, and measured at the basic unit of the plank. String theory is falsifiable but it requires the assumptions of the Klauss-Maginot Field to be true in order for an experiment to be even created. If KMF=true then ST=testable. The problem is the immeasurability of events on plank level, due to chaos theory.

ST is irrelevant until the KMF can be tested which requires general relativity to be true. If we can test the frequency of the field, measuring the energy fluctuations of the hyper-neutrinos, we can determine the KM constant, and therefore test the field.

Unfortunately, the observer effect gets in the way. I believe this is due to the tendency of gravitrons to fluctuate along a probability continuum unless directly observed by a conscious mind (or a quantum computer, which is what a conscious mind is).

/thread

You're welcome

>>3289727
>>3289727
>Not claiming that we have experimentally established the reality of quantized space

SO ITS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE THEN! Quantized space isn't even the fucking mainstream opinion of particle physicist DUMBSHIT. It is just some fringe idea, with a very small group of followers.

We have a very small bound for the electron sub-structure, so most consider is a point particle for all practicle purposes (as of yet).

WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OR REASON TO THINK, that space is quantized. It not incorperated into any science we have, nor is it needed to be. There is nothing in science leading us to even think that space is quantized.

Again, do you know what quantized space even means? What it would even imply? It would severly fuck up most of the shit in QM and SR (which we know to be true).

>>3289805
>>3289805
>physics
>conscious mind

>>3289805
yeah, but if we can truly define the Moveable Constants, observer effect won't matter, and we can account for quantized space

>>3289810
I'm sorry you cannot see. There are many good articles on the internet, even at a simple level such as you would understand, that could help you. But your raeg gets in the way.

One last time. As you know, QM cannot speak of something smaller than a Planck length. Yet you seem stuck on the idea that space is not quantized. If you can't see the problem there, then the whole internets can't help you.

I'm outta here. Enjoy your foolish, misdirected anger.

>>3289828
yes but I mean until we can

for now we have to use the approximations offered by the Weissman Equation

>>3289810
if space is quantized then how do we account for Ditterman Fluctuations among positrons??

fuck your science

String theory has value even though it has no useful experimental value now. The reason we even have untestable theories relating to quantum gravity stems from our inability to formulate any experiments that we can hold our theories to.

Physics has two main areas, the experimentalist and the theorist. Those two areas feed into each other in a cycle. Experimentalist generates data for the theorist to explain which in turn generates new predictions for experimentalist to test. With quantum gravity the cycle is broken. Experimentalists are generating no data and theorists are generating no predictions.

To me this really indicates a failure in the experimentalists. As an experimentalist it really bothers me that we've had so much trouble even devising an experiment. The best we can do is literally just hope one of our colliders produces some crazy result we weren't expecting.

The reason I say it is an experimental failure is that experiment is usually the driver to keep the cycle of experiment and theory going. Relativity was an attempt to reconcile two experimentally verified theories. Also the theorists have been groping in the dark for so long and have yet to produce any answers.

So I think it is a bit unfair to throw so much dirt on string theorists. Someone needs to work on the problem so we as a civilization doesn't forget the problem if it takes us 1 or 2 more generations to come up with a useful answer. For now the approach is a failure. But, failure is better than no approach at all.

>>3289835
Thinks space is quantized.

Must change all space-integrals to space-summations. Fucks up all the shit we knew was true.

YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID AS FUCK!

>>3289727
>but we haven't experimentally established that an electron is a point particle, either.

I kind of doubt it is a point particle. We'll have to see with the LHeC experiment that has recently been proposed.

>>3289846
>So I think it is a bit unfair to throw so much dirt on string theorists.
but it's so much fun. they're all so pretentious and concerned with the long life of their names and not with real science.

>Someone needs to work on the problem so we as a civilization doesn't forget the problem if it takes us 1 or 2 more generations to come up with a useful answer.
if there's validity to it, it will be brought back up. until now, let's stop spending millions of dollars researching/promoting/teaching the shit.

>>3289846
>The reason I say it is an experimental failure is that experiment is usually the driver to keep the cycle of experiment and theory going.

This was true until a few years ago, when theorists discovered group theory and that they could use it to "mass produce" theories. Just look at how particle physics developed.

Strange quark? Observed first, explained later. Almost everything else after it? Theorized first, observed later.

>>3289862
exactly - which is why general relativity and qm are irreconcilable, hence the development of string theory

you finally get it! congrats.

>>3289892
I JUST FUCKED YOUR MOM. I LEFT HER PUSSY PRETTY NASTY BRO, TELL HER TO CLEAN THAT SIT.

>>3289876
I'm not going to suggest there are no instances of theory driving experiment. There are plenty of cases. I just think the theorists are at a wall that suggests they need more data. They are trying to bridge a gap that is too far. Most theory that comes before experiment wasn't such a huge leap from experiment. Mainly because they were teasing out unforeseen results from a well tested theory.

What string theory is trying to bridge is a huge gap in our knowledge with no foundation of experiment to assist. I just really think it is a problem best solved by experiment now. Obviously this is mostly a value judgment so I'm not expecting to convince anyone.

We just badly need some data that no theory can explain right now. We've been going for so many years without any data and we seem to have no hint we'll get it. It's kind of frustrating.

>>3289892

>>3288368

search youtube: carl sagan 4th dimension.
or read the book: flatland
shortly, you even cant imagine the 4th "room" dimension. its like alari 2-dimensioned creature cant imagine 3rd dimension.

>>3289892
Maybe it's spacetime interferometry theory that connects QM with GR.

Not forces, but connections to the environment itself.