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

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#61

Post by qarl »

slashdave wrote: post #28
qarl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There will always be ways to escape any negative experimental result.

Yeah... except that hasn't been proven. That's just your belief, right?

I don't think anyone has proven that string theory can yield no testable predictions. I think if someone had, that'd be a big deal.

And I don't think we should pretend that an open problem is closed just because we don't like it.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#62

Post by qarl »

stogot wrote: post #55
qarl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... Penrose got himself into serious trouble speaking on issues beyond his expertise. I respect that he is now being more careful. And it's entirely possible that he isn't up to date on their tech. Why would you doubt his own words?

What did he say that got him into trouble?

He has some interesting beliefs about the basis of human consciousness.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#63

Post by afiori »

Tazerenix wrote: post #24
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?

> 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…

This is his argument that mental experiments are a good basis to construct a theory. If relativity had 0 experimental evidence to this day it would be held in considerably lower regard.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#64

Post by bonzini »

hannob wrote: post #38
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. Becaus…

And why would that be a reason to attack people who don't care at all about the physics, but acknowledge that the mathematical ideas they use originated in string theory? Should they omit that just because the physics side of string theory has been more or less fruitless?

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#65

Post by mastermage »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #15

I notice not-even-wrong-woit doesn't bother refuting any of the claims on their merits. Just calls it "ridiculous hype" and moves on. It's about the same level of rigor he applies to his research in LQG - Loony Quantum Gravity.

As a general rule of thumb I practice I ignore the complaints about Physics of anyone who cites Sabine Hossenfelder.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#66

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

mastermage wrote: post #65
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #15

I notice not-even-wrong-woit doesn't bother refuting any of the claims on their merits. Just calls it "ridiculous hype" and moves on. It's about the same level of rigor he applies to his research in LQG - Loony Quantum Gravity.

As a general rule of thumb I practice I ignore the complaints about Physics of anyone who cites Sabine Hossenfelder.

I hear you, but on HN it's crazy. That person is the messia who will tell you the real truth that Big Academia and Mainstream University won't tell you.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#67

Post by bonzini »

aaplok wrote: post #32
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, exc…

The professor whose student worked on this problem is a network theorist. He's never done string theory and has no need to "rebrand as machine learning expert". So yeah I don't buy it either.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#68

Post by jfengel »

stonogo wrote: post #57
Tazerenix wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems like a disingenuous description of a person with a terminal degree in the subject at hand. Why bother?

Because, unfortunately, a terminal degree is not always a guarantee of future productivity.

String theory came into the public consciousness about two decades ago, followed by a backlash from a relatively small but persistent set of professors. String theory has largely dropped out of the public focus, but those researchers continue to hammer at it.

Woit is one of those. He's known primarily for his objections to string theory. His own work is just fine, but nobody outside of his discipline knows it.

Re: The string theory hype machine will never die

#70

Post by isolli »

catigula wrote: post #42
isolli wrote: post #6

It reminds of this quote from Roger Penrose's book, Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe: “My nervousness was perhaps at its greatest because the illustrative area that I had elected to discuss, namely string theory and some of its various descendants, had been developed to its heights in Princeton probably more than anywhere else in the world.” “Moreover, that subject is a distinctly techni…

He's just saying he doesn't want to be eviscerated by Ed Witten, which is a pretty commonly shared sentiment in the community.

Thanks for illustrating my point. Eviscerating someone is not how science should be conducted. On the contrary, it's how we got here: decades invested in an untestable, unworkable theory.
Post reply on HN