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

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#31

Post by torginus »

Unfortunately my understanding of physics stops at general relativity and quantum mechnics (which I did study both at uni, with some mathematical framework of understanding).

How would I advance from this point, what should I read to get a grip on string theory, including the concepts and maths involved? Could you recommend some resources?

Like why did they come up with the concepts they came up with, how does that help explain established theories and experimental phenomena on a deeper level, etc.

Also I've noticed there are several competing theories in this domain (like Quantum Gravity, String Theory, hope I'm not wrong), what are the odds that these theories end up being equivalent?

As others have pointed out, compared to classical physics, quantum mechanics describes the world of tiny distances and energies in greater detail while relativity becomes useful at the opposite end.

How would one construct an experiment whose results depend on both phenomena?

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#32

Post by aaplok »

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…

This quote explains why the author thinks that it is a problem :

> with string theorists now virtually unemployable unless they can figure out how to rebrand as machine learning experts.

Their issue is (seemingly) not with the paper, but with the claim that these headlines feed a hype that attribute to string theory capabilities it doesn't have.

To be clear this is OP's argument, not mine. I am not sure I buy it, except perhaps for the fact that every other academic is expected to rebrand as an ML expert nowadays. It has more to do with ML hype than with string theory hype.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#34

Post by raffael_de »

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #14

Among theoretical physicists there is little doubt that Edward Witten is currently the greatest living theoretical physicist. Here is an interview with him from a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbP0magTVY I think it is a great watch for anyone with an interest in the field.

eric weinstein said that witten is the dark lord of string theory; scotching any advance in theoretical physics.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#36

Post by WhitneyLand »

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…

Left this on his blog but it’s awaiting moderation:

It would be helpful to have more clearly targeted and titrated criticism, because you’ve mentioned press releases, a sciam article, the paper, and Sabine all without differentiation.

I hope it’s clear enough the paper itself is legit and doesn’t seem to make any inappropriate claims. Beyond that, the PRs seem to be the real offenders here, the sciam article less so (could be argued that’s healthy popsci), and I’m not sure what comment you’re making about Sabine. The title of her video may be click baity but the content itself seems to appropriately demarcate string theory from the paper.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#38

Post by hannob »

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…

I'm certainly a lay person here, so take this with a grain of salt. But my understanding is that this is part of the problem, or more the issue that people criticize.

I think it's largely uncontroversial that the math in string theory could be useful in other areas. But if that's your argument for the legitimacy of string theory then the question arises what string theory is and if it is still part of physics. Because physics has, of course, the goal of describing the real world, and, my understanding is, string theory failed to do that, despite what many people have hoped.

If string theory is "just a way of developing math that can be useful in totally unrelated areas", it's, well, part of mathematics. But I don't think that's how the field sees itself.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#39

Post by XorNot »

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…

Occam's razor is perfectly empirical: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". It's what people repeatedly accuse string theory of violating in low-rent popsci criticism.

The other things you refer to are still Occam's razor: symmetry is handy because it eliminates symmetry-breaking entities even though we know they can happen in the standard model (Higgs) and "beauty" is really just another way of saying Occam's razor - you'd prefer your theory to not be full of dozens of free parameters because it starts to fit any possible outputs and be less predictive.

At all points the issue is that unless you've fully explored a simpler space with less entities, don't start adding them because you can always keep adding them to solve any problem but predict nothing (ala epicycles keeping geocentric solar models alive. You could probably run a space program assuming the Earth is the center of the universe, but it would be fiendishly difficult to model).

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#40

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

raffael_de wrote: post #34
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #14

Among theoretical physicists there is little doubt that Edward Witten is currently the greatest living theoretical physicist. Here is an interview with him from a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbP0magTVY I think it is a great watch for anyone with an interest in the field.

eric weinstein said that witten is the dark lord of string theory; scotching any advance in theoretical physics.

Hasn't stopped Weinstein from publishing. That nobody takes him seriously isn't Witten's fault. At least... not directly. Witten just happens to be very rigorous and a very gifted mathematician, so he sets a high bar for the rest of the field.
Post reply on HN