>>16991362
because the theory of this dude >>16988193 is better?
string theory never was the only possible theory of everything. and it is clear today that after decades failing to find the supersymmetric particles, loop quantum gravity is a more likely and fact abiding theory

File: 62z4cz.jpg (341.5 KB)

>>16991368
Mr. Ashtekar, why hasn’t this work been published yet?
One can easily write down what I just told you but it should be developed in more detail.
One of the strengths of string theory is that one also finds interactions between the different excitations just by looking at the string worldsheet and how it branches and joins and so forth. So what I would like to develop requires not only studying the spectrum of particles but also studying the interaction between these particles. As in string theory, in which strings propagate in a Minkowski background, here it is also necessary to find a semiclassical state – a coherent state that is the canonical quantum state representing Minkowski space. For example, in electrodynamics, if you give me a classical solution to the source-free Maxwell equations, then there’s a canonical state, a coherent state of photons of the quantum Maxwell field which is such that the expectation value is the classical Maxwell field you gave me and the uncertainties in the electric and magnetic field are minimised. In this case you know how to produce the coherent state and you could, of course, add a few more photons to that state and it would still be an excellent approximation to the classical Maxwell field.
But the availability of this canonical semiclassical state has been technically and con-ceptually extremely useful in quantum optics and that’s why so much advance could be made. So what is lacking – and this is mainly why this work was not published – is to find the canonical state corresponding to Minkowski space. Once you have this specific state then you can look at perturbations and then from these perturbations one can construct the interactions between the different excitations.
I kept hoping that one of these days either we, or somebody else, would come...

File: images (3) (2).jpg (25.7 KB)

Mr. Gross, do you think that loop quantum gravity has shed some light on these issues?
The loop guys haven’t solved a single thing.

Not even background independence in the way you’ve been talking about?
No, no. There are things so technically shaky and problematic that it’s really hard to talk about them or to seriously discuss whatever it is that they’re doing.

So you don’t think that other approaches like loop quantum gravity have ...
Loop quantum gravity is total BS. I mean, it’s really not worth discussing it. Don’t put that in the book. But, it really isn’t.
This sentence would earn millions . . . (laughs) I’ve said it before. It really is.

File: in-it-for-the-long-haul-an-interview-of-nima-arkani-hamed-v0-_kTJ6DaITYfVVBX3e_bdWb7IKU6CytJlid_9h5XKFzY.jpg (65.8 KB)

"LQG people are really obsessed with diffeomorphism invariance, background independence and these sort of formal math-ematical technical issues. However, we have so far spent half an hour talking about the physical fact that there are no local observables which they don’t appreciate. What do they claim the observables are? I mentioned earlier that if someone comes and hands you a whiz-bang theory of quantum gravity, you should ask: What does it predict and what are its observables? LQG tells you that “the observables are the eigenvalues of the area operator.”
Okay, great! Let’s say this is true, you work till you’re blue in the face and you compute the eigenvalues of the area operator up to 3000 decimal places, right? But the question is: What measurement measures that value? It’s nonsense! There’s no measurement that measure it because there are no local observables (laughs)."

File: 8pwsoix3teoz.jpg (234.4 KB)

What's the best way to stack Planck units?. Loop quantum gravity has been debunked with light from the beginning of the universe having clean movement to get here without the time differences LG would make.

>>16991362
>its not testable
I'm not very familiar with this. Do you mean that it's not even theoretically testable, or just that we don't yet have the means of testing it?
If it's the former then that sounds like a very good argument.

>>16991362
>its not testable
Not science then. Faith in God makes more sense than faith in autists

File: serene-swan-glides-tranquil-pond-surrounded-lush-greenery-blooming-lilies-364799109.jpg (303.4 KB)

Could 10 dimensions only get through in some places?

>>16991720
I'm just an armchair casual but string theory requires 6 extra spatial dimensions we cant see or interact with by definition, so I don't think it can ever be proved.

>>16991720
you could probably test for it if you had, not exaggerating, a particle accelerator the size of a galaxy. The Planck scale where string theory operates is so unimaginably tiny compared to even the smallest particles we can observe now, like 15 orders of magnitude smaller than an electron. That doesn't mean it's wrong however

>>16991800
its intellectuals like you that degrade science today, fuck yu.

>>16992335
I literally said that I'm the opposite of an intellectual, retard-sama. And the pros seem to be be degrading science just fine all by themselves.

>>16991362
>don't worry, Steiner's supersymmetry will save us.

>>16991362

> solves every major issue in modern physics

> has nothing useful to say about the standard model, has nothing useful to say about inflation, dark matter, and the cosmological constant.

> Great job!

>>16991362
>String theory in 2026
Hasn't it been completely discredited as phlogiston-tier nonsense for like a decade already?

>>16991362
>>16993204

>>16993118
maybe that should be taken as an indication that everything you listed is junk lol

>>16991362
>predicts many spatial dimensions
disproven
>some forms predict the formation of micro-blackholes at the LHC
disproven

theres probaby more but this is just the why it is all bullshit versoin i got from my HEP professors

File: 1000000542.png (1.3 MB)

>>16991362

>>16994687
More spacial dimensions is definitely not disproven. What is very unlikely based on experimental evidence is extra "large" (e.g. non-compact) spacial dimensions, but this is not how string theory is typically formulated.

String theories are typically formulated on a spacetime of the form M x X where M is a usual 4-dimensional non-compact spacetime manifold and X is a compact manifold encompassing any additional spacial dimensions.

This use of compact extra dimensions is not just a trick to try to get around experimental evidence against large extra dimensions, but is actually required by the mathematics to produce string theories that are phenomenologically realistic.

It sounds like your professor does not understand String Theory at all.

1+1+1+1 is not the same as 2*2. in a discrete point of view, you cannot have "2" and "2", you can only have individual units.
any method which requires fabricated self referential constants to produce the expected result is just masturbatory, regardless of if that result can be meshed into a repeatable, predictable observation.
inb4
>the use of an undefined constant is just to fill out what hasn't been measured yet
yes but that's the problem. that as a method brings the necessary question, "is the maths which we want to believe correct, simply arbitrary (replaceable by any other method that produces the same result)?" and that question applies to all methods with undefined variables filling in gaps.

2*2 gives the same result as 1+1+1+1, but 2*2 is a fundamentally incorrect way of describing 4 individual parts.
everything more complicated than that which describes the measurement of basic physical realities (motion, EM, thermal transfer, etc) could be nothing but a figment of the imagination and it can't truly be proven with those gaps of measurement requiring an..."imaginary number"

tl;dr string theory is a bunch of shit, but it's a bunch of shit too like the others, the only thing you can prove is that which you can measure with no missing pieces

>>16991362
because m-theory unifies all 5 competing string theories in 1 dimensions, but then string theorists complain that it's too hard and not testable and go back to their own pet 10 dimensional theories.

>>16995040
*11 dimensions

>>16994946
>could be nothing but a figment of the imagination and it can't truly be proven with those gaps of measurement requiring an..."imaginary number"
what is is with schizos and getting filtered by nomenclature?, do you happen to be bothered by tax expenditure on mathematics as well?, just so that i can fill in my bingo sheet

>>16995417
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

>>16991362
That’s a layman’s view of it kek. It introduces more problems than it solves.

File: 1767365524471155.png (106.5 KB)

>>16991362
How can a theory that needs the relativity theory to be true to work even be considered seriously?