As somebody who interacts with physicists every day, I can say string theory has been considered unscientific for several decades. Lee Smolin, for example, the originator of Loop Quantum Gravity, wrote a scathing indictment of string theory called " The Trouble With Physics ," much like the string theory critique in "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit. Likewise, string theory was one of many targets in " Lost in Math, " by Sabine Hossenfelder.
The real nail in the coffin in the community's opinions of string theory came when the Large Hadron Collider failed to discover any new physics whatsoever, as so many GUT and SUSY promoters expected it would . Instead, it confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson as the standard model predicted.
Your understanding of the multiverse might be missing some information.
The idea of a multiverse is not original to quantum mechanics or to string theory. It probably originated with ancient Greek philosophy, but may be even older than that. It is not a scientific idea; it is a religious notion.
The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics postulates a multiverse to explain the problem of wave function collapse, but this is not a scientific notion either. Quantum mechanics has many "interpretations," none of which make any testable predictions. The many-worlds case argues that since from a quantum state of many vectors only one vector will be measured, that technically all the vectors are measured, just in different universes.
Leonard Susskind, who likes this interpretation, postulated that the same was true of the many vacuum states of string theory. And he also tried to convince people that this explains the cosmological constant because applying the anthropological principle to a multiverse would imply we would only exist in a universe with an appropriate cosmological constant. I don't have to say that this isn't a scientific notion, because we left all science behind several kilometres ago.
Your understanding of science might be missing some information. Just so you understand, something isn't "not science" just because you don't agree with it or understand.
The specific idea of the multiverse being discussed is from quantum physics, and has nothing to do with religion. And to be clear, the multiverse appears in the math of quantum mechanics, regardless of interpretation. Interpretations are just about whether there is some unknown mechanism that stops the multiverse becoming "real".
Also, plenty of interpretations do make testable predictions.
The mathematics of quantum mechanics cannot be said to imply the existence of the multiverse without an interpretation. Just think about it, the Copenhagen interpretation, for example, doesn't require a multiverse.
That's the whole point of interpretations. Math doesn't NECESSARILY tell you something about nature.
And I say the multiverse isn't a scientific notion because it's unfalsifiable. This is one of the necessary qualities of scientific hypotheses. Individual multiverse models may be falsifiable, and some of those may be scientific models, but no evidence exist that any of these models are correct.
The math absolutely implies a multiverse without an interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is one of those interpretations I mentioned that proposes that some mechanism exists that destroys other parts of the wave function to prevent the multiverse becoming "real".
It is also unfalsifiable to claim that matter that slips past the cosmological horizon continues to exist outside of the observable universe, should we thus also conclude that any discussion of reality outside our hubble volume at all is inherently not science?
That's where interpretations come in. What is the physical relationship between nature and the wave function? Nobody knows. But interpretations guess and postulate .
Yes, the idea that there is a point beyond which we cannot see is unfalsifiable, because no matter how far one looked, one could always claim that one simply hadn't looked far enough. (It is worth noting that this is the starting point of Bayesian reasoning, which underlies much of modern science. It is the minimum assumption. The maximum assumption would be that everything known now is the extent of all that exists.) However, the cosmological considerations are about something else. It is observed that the universe is expanding . Our cosmological model to explain this is based on General Relativity with a positive cosmological constant .
And if we assume General Relativity is correct (we don't have to, but nobody has found anything better ), one of its predictions is a Cosmological Horizon at a particular place with respect to any point in the universe. This isn't testable, but it's a prediction of a testable theory (General Relativity) and that theory is the simplest, most successful we have in fundamental physics.
So I ended up seeing it and it's fine it explains the whole thing tho it says "by the 2010s the general public understood string theory was a fraud" and I wasn't aware of it
Did something happened recently involving string theorist? Cuz suddenly everyone is piling on them as frauds
As somebody who interacts with physicists every day, I can say string theory has been considered unscientific for several decades. Lee Smolin, for example, the originator of Loop Quantum Gravity, wrote a scathing indictment of string theory called " The Trouble With Physics ," much like the string theory critique in "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit. Likewise, string theory was one of many targets in " Lost in Math, " by Sabine Hossenfelder.
The real nail in the coffin in the community's opinions of string theory came when the Large Hadron Collider failed to discover any new physics whatsoever, as so many GUT and SUSY promoters expected it would . Instead, it confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson as the standard model predicted.
In fundamental physics, we have the standard model gauge group and Einstein's field equations . Everything else is so far fruitless. However, we know that our picture can't be complete, for two reasons. First, we don't have a quantum theory of gravity , so QM and General Relativity don't work together mathematically. And second, Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, and has no definition of a measurement nor physical explanation for wave function collapse .
:josus-stalin:
Is apparently considered Baka
TY comrade, this is a great rundown of the state of things
:so-true::reddit-logo:
Unrelated to the discussion, but this man's website whips ass. No fuckin' around, just the links.
And more on topic, I really like this little gem in the footer.
Thank you for the concise summary!
Np comrade.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The multiverse has nothing to do with string theory; it's from quantum physics.
Your understanding of the multiverse might be missing some information.
The idea of a multiverse is not original to quantum mechanics or to string theory. It probably originated with ancient Greek philosophy, but may be even older than that. It is not a scientific idea; it is a religious notion.
The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics postulates a multiverse to explain the problem of wave function collapse, but this is not a scientific notion either. Quantum mechanics has many "interpretations," none of which make any testable predictions. The many-worlds case argues that since from a quantum state of many vectors only one vector will be measured, that technically all the vectors are measured, just in different universes.
Leonard Susskind, who likes this interpretation, postulated that the same was true of the many vacuum states of string theory. And he also tried to convince people that this explains the cosmological constant because applying the anthropological principle to a multiverse would imply we would only exist in a universe with an appropriate cosmological constant. I don't have to say that this isn't a scientific notion, because we left all science behind several kilometres ago.
Your understanding of science might be missing some information. Just so you understand, something isn't "not science" just because you don't agree with it or understand.
The specific idea of the multiverse being discussed is from quantum physics, and has nothing to do with religion. And to be clear, the multiverse appears in the math of quantum mechanics, regardless of interpretation. Interpretations are just about whether there is some unknown mechanism that stops the multiverse becoming "real".
Also, plenty of interpretations do make testable predictions.
The mathematics of quantum mechanics cannot be said to imply the existence of the multiverse without an interpretation. Just think about it, the Copenhagen interpretation, for example, doesn't require a multiverse.
That's the whole point of interpretations. Math doesn't NECESSARILY tell you something about nature.
The idea of a multiverse in quantum mechanics is an interpretation.
And I say the multiverse isn't a scientific notion because it's unfalsifiable. This is one of the necessary qualities of scientific hypotheses. Individual multiverse models may be falsifiable, and some of those may be scientific models, but no evidence exist that any of these models are correct.
The math absolutely implies a multiverse without an interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is one of those interpretations I mentioned that proposes that some mechanism exists that destroys other parts of the wave function to prevent the multiverse becoming "real".
It is also unfalsifiable to claim that matter that slips past the cosmological horizon continues to exist outside of the observable universe, should we thus also conclude that any discussion of reality outside our hubble volume at all is inherently not science?
You're just describing a wave function as a multiverse . The measurement problem remains unsolved, and therefore nobody can observe a wave function. Call that inner product of vectors in a Hilbert Space a multiverse if you will, but I don't think we can call it anything until we have a solution to the measurement problem.
That's where interpretations come in. What is the physical relationship between nature and the wave function? Nobody knows. But interpretations guess and postulate .
Yes, the idea that there is a point beyond which we cannot see is unfalsifiable, because no matter how far one looked, one could always claim that one simply hadn't looked far enough. (It is worth noting that this is the starting point of Bayesian reasoning, which underlies much of modern science. It is the minimum assumption. The maximum assumption would be that everything known now is the extent of all that exists.) However, the cosmological considerations are about something else. It is observed that the universe is expanding . Our cosmological model to explain this is based on General Relativity with a positive cosmological constant .
And if we assume General Relativity is correct (we don't have to, but nobody has found anything better ), one of its predictions is a Cosmological Horizon at a particular place with respect to any point in the universe. This isn't testable, but it's a prediction of a testable theory (General Relativity) and that theory is the simplest, most successful we have in fundamental physics.
the zeitgeist is slow until it isn't :shrug-outta-hecks:
Idk I've always been a hater because they all give off grifter vibes. Gonna lean into it
I saw this video in my recs, maybe others saw it or she is making a response to something else that brought it into the discourse.
Yeah same but seems like a response to idk what so I'm not hearing one hour of something I don't get
So I ended up seeing it and it's fine it explains the whole thing tho it says "by the 2010s the general public understood string theory was a fraud" and I wasn't aware of it