It's important to avoid conflating string theorists with all theoretical physicists. Plenty of people in particle physics either don't believe in string theory or don't think it can make useful predictions any time soon, even if it were assumed true. Furthermore, the vast majority of people called "string theorists" don't even work on traditional string theory day to day, but on more concrete ideas that have been par…
String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
101–110 of 162 posts
Re: String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, for instance you can perfectly describe the rules of Conway's Game of Life, and if you were an artificial intelligence living in the Game of Life you could presumably figure out the rules quite easily through experimentation. You wouldn't be able to prove those are the rules though, you'd have to make some assumptions that the rules didn't change in space and time, and that they weren't a manifestation of some mo…
> you can perfectly describe the rules of Conway's Game of Life, and if you were an artificial intelligence living in the Game of Life you could presumably figure out the rules quite easily I'm not so sure about this. It reminds me of the quote "If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't".
Re: String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
...all over the place A small, but possible chance of Pu-238 spreading over Florida. I just read that 238 (half-life 87 years) emits mostly alpha, which is said to be easily blocked, even by paper. In FL, many go about half naked, so I'm not sure if this matters. I wonder how thoroughly Kaku considered everything. Seems his concern was based partially on NASA's (small but not null) history of failures. I don't know,…
> Maybe his Japanese (distant) ancestry was a factor? Why would it be?
Re: String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
#104So is all this about the fact that String Theory just didn't turn out to be practically useful? Or is the theory no longer believer to hold weight given current observations?
Re: String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
#105Correct me if I am wrong. i think string theory is searched not just because of its beauty, but also because of existing problems in general relativity. For example, the center of black hole is predicted to be `infinite` in terms of many metrics . But the center is also part of the spacetime, it should bear some measurable values. The answer might require quantum physics since it is microscopic. Therefore, the unifyi…
Re: String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, do you think literally everybody was doing string theory? There have always been plenty of theorists focused on more concrete things -- string theorists are not and have not been the majority. Grad students entering even in the 90s knew they had to make a choice between concrete, more easily testable physics and a long-shot approach to quantum gravity. String theorists have stories of faculty going out of the…
So as long as there is one physicist on the right side of the fence the “field” is somehow in the know...? Would you be willing to extend that kind of reasoning to the “pop scientists”? I often wish Feynman (or anyone of his kind really) was still here. Science nowadays seems more and more like one big appeal to authority...
When I was in physics in the early 2000's, the general feeling was that it's a probably nonsense, but having someone out at the far end of the mathematical spectrum like that in your theory group was a good investment. And even if they were doing string theory, there's a good chance they were using it as a vehicle, a kind of generalized, more flexible version of field theory, to poke at some mathematical rabbit hole.
The majority of physicists are not in HEP. The majority of HEP physicists are experimentalists. The majority of HEP theorists are phenomenologists. But phenomenologists aren't generally good fodder for science journalists because statements like, "I'm calculating scattering cross sections in the kaon sector for CP violation measurements" isn't going to get clicks. And the experimentalists are even worse: "I've been working eight hour night shifts for the past two years. I'll probably go back to my home university and spend another couple years processing data to get an estimate for this parameter in this scattering calculation. It might be a fraction of a percent off what we expected!" Faced with that, "I'm playing with a high dimensional extension of quantum field theory to see if I can generate a spin 2 field in an expanding spacetime" sounds really sexy.
Re: String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
#107"It would culminate the ancient human quest for knowledge, which began when the first of our ancestors asked, "Why?"" I'm always baffled when I read these kind of quotes, especially coming from such smart people. Do they just forget that our theories are models of reality? I personally believe that there are no wave functions or vibrating membranes out there, as there are no "triangles". These are just names for our…
This is historical nonsense. There's an interesting book called Curiosity by Philip Ball that looks at the history of curiosity going from being a vice to being an epistemic virtue.
Re: String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
#108String theory is probably the one scientific topic I spend the most of my free time learning about. It is fascinating. I have read Brian Greene's 'The Hidden Reality' over five times, I think. I recently watched his conversation with Sam Harris and was intrigued by a point Brian made, albeit about quantum mechanics and the 'many worlds' theory. Brian claims that he doesn't think the many worlds theory holds water bec…
> while many worlds claims that all possibilities are indeed realized
That's...a problematic statement since you have to define "realized" without resorting to any classical concepts. Once you manage to excise the classical concepts you end up with something that is perfectly reasonable.
> Brian claims that we just don't know for sure what happens between events (A) and (A'); he claims that a unified theory would explain what happens between those events.
I suspect that this was a communications breakdown. It's hard to imagine a quantum physicist today postulating this in the face of the last few decades of experimental and theoretical work on the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Re: String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobel prizes skew heavily towards experimental physics and theory prizes require experimental verification. That's why Higgs had to wait until 2013 even though absolutely everyone was convinced that a Higgs boson existed for decades before that. Even Einstein didn't win the Nobel for GR, but for the photoelectric effect. Back in the day when high energy physicists kept discovering new particles and there was a short…
My history of physics is probably simplified, but I think Einstein got it for (mainly) the photoelectric effect in part because relativity was still (despite having been verified to some extent already) too weird.
Turns out that the photoelectric effect as described by Einstein was possible to get out of classical physics, though, so it took a few more iterations in the later 20th century to really nail that one down again. See 'The Quantum Challenge' by Zajonc.
Re: String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet
#110It's important to avoid conflating string theorists with all theoretical physicists. Plenty of people in particle physics either don't believe in string theory or don't think it can make useful predictions any time soon, even if it were assumed true. Furthermore, the vast majority of people called "string theorists" don't even work on traditional string theory day to day, but on more concrete ideas that have been par…
But for someone focused on mathematics, string theory, quantum loop gravity (if that is what it's called) and all the others become tools and objects of study on their own that have a unique perspective to offer in their own right. Whether you study one or the other then becomes a personality inspired preference. Just because I don't study number theory, doesn't by default scorn the field (or perhaps I just can't do number theory).