Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The string theory hype machine will never die

math.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#21

Post by Tazerenix »

bonzini wrote: post #4

The first paper they link to is not about string theory. It's using math that was developed for string theory , and is perfectly valid outside it, to make predictions that can be (and are) experimentally validated. It has exactly none of the problems of string theory, and I am not sure why it's clumped with a physics paper in the blog. How is it a problem to say "hey they used string theory tools!" in a press release…

Peter Woit, the Columbia maths department computer systems administrator, makes his bread by googling the word String Theory and then posting what ever latest results come up in a disingenuous way on his blog to stir reactions from his readers.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#22

Post by queuebert »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #16
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One day when I'm not being lazy I might publish a point by point refutation of the usual nonsense anti-string theory memes. Until then, here's what I said on this point 25 days ago, specifically the first paragraph starting with "like another commenter". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46336655

OK, but if there are no predictions that we can test for several generations, how do you tell the difference between science and science-sounding nonsense?

There is no a priori reason why a bunch of meatbags would have the ability to test all laws of physics of this universe. I think we may have gotten lucky for a while there. String theory is so far out there that a new methodology has been developed, namely using beauty or symmetry or Occam's Razor to choose between competing theories. None of these have the pedigree of empiricism, but they may also not be wrong. I hope some aesthetic could be applied to the laws of the universe, but that is also not at all guaranteed.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#23

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

queuebert wrote: post #22
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but if there are no predictions that we can test for several generations, how do you tell the difference between science and science-sounding nonsense?

There is no a priori reason why a bunch of meatbags would have the ability to test all laws of physics of this universe. I think we may have gotten lucky for a while there. String theory is so far out there that a new methodology has been developed, namely using beauty or symmetry or Occam's Razor to choose between competing theories. None of these have the pedigree of empiricism, but they may also not be wrong. I ho…

> I hope some aesthetic

Certainly internal self-consistency will take you a long way if you don't have experiments. Some people find beauty in this :-)

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#24

Post by Tazerenix »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #16
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One day when I'm not being lazy I might publish a point by point refutation of the usual nonsense anti-string theory memes. Until then, here's what I said on this point 25 days ago, specifically the first paragraph starting with "like another commenter". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46336655

OK, but if there are no predictions that we can test for several generations, how do you tell the difference between science and science-sounding nonsense?

> If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside our illusions? Can we hope to be guided safely by experience at all when there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without getting to the root of the matter? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realisation of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they most certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of a mathematical construction. But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.

- Albert Einstein

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#25

Post by stared »

Well, it is a surprisingly natural path from Quantum Field Theory (QFT). So many things we get for free (primarily: gravitation), I would be surprised if it were just a random coincidence.

Yet, no one knows how to turn it into an actual theory in physics. It feels like we had QFT but weren't able to create the Standard Model.

It is, obviously, possible that the String Theory framework is just too broad. Or that it is in principle true, but we reached a level where it is too hard. Or it is just a step in the right direction, but we are missing something.

Given the effort of the smartest minds and still no progress (I do not think there is any hype left), it is possible that we need to wait for something more. Like the revival of artificial neural networks in the 2010s, after decades of slumber.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#27

Post by watersb »

Animats wrote: post #20
rbanffy wrote: post #2

All it needs is an experiment that can test it.

High-energy physics is kind of stuck on that. Most of the interesting questions involve energies or distances way beyond what's reachable by experiment today. Meanwhile, there's interesting experimental action in low-energy physics, down near absolute zero. Many of the weirder predictions of quantum mechanics have now been observed directly. Look at the list of Nobel laureates in physics since 1990. A big fraction of…

> Most of the interesting questions involve energies or distances way beyond what's reachable by experiment today.

Astronomers can observe extremely energetic environments from a great distance.

It's not a controlled experiment, but sometimes they get lucky and see something that suggests new physics.

I have no idea what might be needed to provide astronomical evidence for string theory.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#28

Post by slashdave »

qarl wrote: post #7
qoez wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had that the hype could die. Luckily it cannot be tested so the hype will continue in perpetuity

Heh... as someone on the outside, I feel the need to ask: Has it been rigorously shown that it can never be tested? Or is that your prediction?

Test which version? Part of the problem is that string theory is a meta theory. There will always be ways to escape any negative experimental result.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#29

Post by fithisux »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #10
rbanffy wrote: post #2

All it needs is an experiment that can test it.

One day when I'm not being lazy I might publish a point by point refutation of the usual nonsense anti-string theory memes. Until then, here's what I said on this point 25 days ago, specifically the first paragraph starting with "like another commenter". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46336655

In other words as we probe lower scales, string theory predicts thtat Lorenz invariance will never break,

as long we have to do with a consistent string like theory.

Is my understanding correct?

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#30

Post by afiori »

queuebert wrote: post #22
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but if there are no predictions that we can test for several generations, how do you tell the difference between science and science-sounding nonsense?

There is no a priori reason why a bunch of meatbags would have the ability to test all laws of physics of this universe. I think we may have gotten lucky for a while there. String theory is so far out there that a new methodology has been developed, namely using beauty or symmetry or Occam's Razor to choose between competing theories. None of these have the pedigree of empiricism, but they may also not be wrong. I ho…

This is good and all but then it is not really physics as it is generally intended
Post reply on HN