>needs 11 spacial dimensions to work

>needs 11 spacial dimensions to work
>no evidence for higher spacial dimensions so instead of finding a better theory they claim that the dimensions are just very small

String Theory has robbed us of multiple generations of our brightest autists and produced 0 testable claims, 0 observations, and to kill it even more supersymmetry predicts particles we have never found since the launch of the LHC

Find a better theory

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I ain't no genius but I don't think no sane person would listen to "11 dimensions" and thinks it makes sense

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's a hilariously specific number

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's the number of sephirot in the kabbala

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I ain't no genius but I don't think no sane person would listen to "11 dimensions" and thinks it makes sense

        It all started with the kaluza-klein compactification in the 1920s. A spacetime with 5 dimensions was proposed to unify gravity with electromagnetism, classically nothing to do with QM. The string theory with 11 dimensions is also an unification of many string theories with 10 dimensions under a common roof, but needs that extra dimension.
        The kaluza-klein idea called for the 5th dimension to be compact like a tube so you travel down there and come back after a loop, not extended like the normal dimensions.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no evidence of higher dimensions
    >meanwhile the behavior of subatomic particles absolutely suggests involvement of unobserved spatial dimensions

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >no evidence of God
      >meanwhile the retrograde motion of the wandering stars absolutely suggests involvement of continuous divine intervention

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the behavior of subatomic particles absolutely suggests involvement of unobserved spatial dimensions
      whu?
      Muons were proven to be interacting with virtual--particles not already part of the Standard Model, nothing specifically about unobserved spatial dimensions.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds a lot like Einsteinian Relativity theory

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nature has no reason to cater to your philosophical biases. Simple as.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      make a single string theory experiment then, oh wait you cant.

      the only reason people cling to string theory is BECAUSE of philosophical bias, it looks nice when you math with it, so it must be right!

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    weird hill to die on
    any theory that tries to go beyond the standard model is in many ways extremely difficult to test

    string theory is the simplest thing we've come up with that seems to unify a lot of fields, and is hinted at by the experiments we have.
    Its kind of like joining the dots and seeing what shape they make. You cant see the shape itself, but you can infer something really seems to exist within certain boundaries.
    Its not about making straightforward sense.

    Even quantum mechanics doesn't make intuitive sense but its fully experimentally provable to be true. Electron single & double slit experiment is the classic example.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP Here

      as stated in my other reply

      String Theory states that the universe is made up of "strings" inmutable "things" that vibrate differently to express themselves as different particles/forces.

      A string vibrating one way would be a proton, while a string vibrating another way would be a muon. The problem comes from the fact that there isnt enough ways for these strings to vibrate, so new dimensions had to be added to the math for it to check out.

      I admit, the math relating to string theory is VERY satisfying, it ties everything together very neatly, but the facts are still out.

      I dont think String Theory is retarded, its a very satisfying theory.

      Im definitely towards the factual experiment driven side of particle physics, Double Slit over Quantum Eraser type beat.

      the facts are still out on String Theory, I think we have 9 conflicting interpretations of ST these days, and its weird to see so much time and effort being dumped into the rabbit hole with pretty much nothing to show for it. String Theory looked a lot more promising in the 90's, and I admit its still possible now, I just think we need to de-pedestool it from its pop science perch a little.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >0 observations
    Quantum gravity.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Quantum Gravity works better without string theory
      cope

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    were getting to the point where this stuff is so hard to understand that it makes people angry and they'd rather say its all bullshit than admit they might not be smart enough for it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      prove string theory then

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >prove string theory then
        you gonna pay for a super collider that's big enough to circle the earth? Cause that's what we would need.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          String theory math requires a negative cosmological constant, it literally doesn't work with a positive one.

          String theory math requires 11 (sometimes 10 if you want to nix gravity from the theory) spacial dimensions for the math to check out.
          String Theory also requires super-symmetry, the mathematical dogma that every particle has a dual reflection of its self.

          1. We have determined systematically that the cosmological constant is positive. String theorists now have 9 different solutions, each one requiring different physics that contradict.

          2. We have never detected more spacial dimensions, there has been numerous peer reviewed studies. They have used gravitational waves from Sagitarius a* to the ripples felt from the collision of neutron stars, and the measured data does not line up with gravity coherent to higher spacial dimensions. To cope with this String Theorists had to introduce imaginary numbers to the equations, pro tip, if you have to use non-real numbers in your equation of reality, maybe your equation sucks.

          3. we have pretty much ruled out supersymmetry from being real, it checks out mathwise but it predicts 11 particles that have never been measured. To solve this, instead of finding a theory that works, they made "super-supersymmetry" and that somehow the mass of these dual particles arn't symmetric, but everythign else is trust me bro. The high mass is why we cant find them in collidors bro trust me.

          Things are false until proven true, and instead of adopting reality, String Theorists have stranged the once simplistic and beautiful String Theory into a garbled math mess to make its numbers spit out similar things to what we find in nature.

          String Theory is not science, if you are unable to make any testable claims you might as well have Thor be the one behind the magnetic force instead of magic strings, it doesn't change much.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's a lot of bullshit lip flapping to say you aren't paying for the required testing equipment.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nearly everything in this post is false; clearly this poster is trying to regurgitate Sabine but screwing it up due to not having one iota of relevant education

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that's a lot of bullshit lip flapping to say you aren't paying for the required testing equipment.

          >you gonna pay for a super collider that's big enough to circle the earth? Cause that's what we would need.

          im saying thats not what we would need, it is relatively cheap to test string theory, its just none of the results come up in favor of string theory, and they have to change it every time.

          I would gladly pay for any experiments you could come up with that could reasonably prove/disprove it, just so String Theorists can add more imaginary numbers and abstractions to their retarded theory.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >bullshit bullshit bullshit
            We need a supercollider the size of the earth to get the clear resolution on the scale of string theory particle sizes. We need to fling antimater and mater at eachother at the speed of light to crack reality and prove there's more than the dimensions we see normally.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >We need a supercollider the size of the earth to get the clear resolution on the scale of string theory particle sizes. We need to fling antimater and mater at eachother at the speed of light to crack reality and prove there's more than the dimensions we see normally.

              actual cope

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah physics is now just smashing rocks together as hard as we can, 150 IQ take

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah physics is now just smashing rocks together as hard as we can
                particle physics experimentation is exactly that. the higher the energy of the collision the more clearly you can see things at smaller scales. You retards say no one has ever proved string theory, and that's true. Because we need a supercollider that's orders of magnitude more powerful than anything ever built in order to see things on those scales and do the tests to prove it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We need to not see da strings to say its false!!!! otherwise im right!!!!

                its crazy how much like a religion it is. Its not enough for the theory to not line up with reality, they just move the goalpost everytime, now its the supercollider, wonder what its gonna be next.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                you:
                >how do you prove it
                me:
                >like this
                you:
                >unintelligible bullshit and gibberish cope and denial

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                projecting lol, its ok that you dont understand it anon

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I can prove to you gravity is real by throwing an apple at you, theres an underlying reality before we test the math

                String Theory lacks this, why would we spend so much money testing something that cant even come up with a single testable example or claim.

                God of the gaps, now with mathematical restrictions.

                anon is right, String Theory is just god of the gaps with extra steps.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >single testable example or claim.
                unification of electromagnetism and gravity

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                now prove it outside of a whiteboard

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >now prove it outside of a whiteboard

                [log in to view media]

                you:
                >how do you prove it
                me:
                >like this
                you:
                >unintelligible bullshit and gibberish cope and denial

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >now prove it outside of a whiteboard

                I can prove to you gravity is real by throwing an apple at you, theres an underlying reality before we test the math

                String Theory lacks this, why would we spend so much money testing something that cant even come up with a single testable example or claim.

                [...]
                anon is right, String Theory is just god of the gaps with extra steps.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >prove it without proving it
                you might be retarded

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                God of the gaps, now with mathematical restrictions.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Supercollider causes quark to break into more parts
                What will happen then? Another dark age of science?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                >What will happen then?
                Cthulhu emerges from the 5th dimension to punish us puny mortals for trespassing on the realm of the gods

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Find new force
    >Oh shit looks like i need to actually create another exponential copies of universe to account for this in new dimension!

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Find a better theory
    Why? It:s only a marketing gag of an fraudulent church former known as science.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no evidence for higher spacial dimensions
    gravity, particles refusing to collide...

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Find a better theory
    String theory is the only thing that makes sense at this point. Every other approach fails for obvious reasons in QFT. Granted part of this is because its so general.
    >no evidence of higher dimensions
    Many collider experiments suggest at there being small compactified dimensions. Its also the only thing that makes sense.
    Its also not than far fetched, consider a sine wave. It travels along the entirety of one axis, but only +/- 1 in the other axis. If you zoom out enough you might think its just a 1-D line, instead of a 2-D wave.
    >Why does string theory need 10, 11 or 26 dimensions to work?
    The 26 comes from wanting to keep invariance of conformal field theory. The 10 come from reducing 26 using supersymmetry. The 11 come from trying to reconcile the different 10 dimensional theories using duality.
    >now prove it outside of a whiteboard
    Gibs money for dem colliders then.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Because a lot of scientist are "Platonists" and belief in arguments of "Naturalness" or "Mathematical Beauty" rather than accept that nature might be very ugly and gross.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      nice attempt at scientific appropriation mr plato

Your email address will not be published.