Hellow.
It seems as if some of them "String guys" do not know what the value of a mathematical proof and refuse to let go of the wrong ideas of the past. It is a disappointing to see that the lack of intellectual flexibility and the lack of Scientific Integrity, as we all know what was achieved in 2021-2022 and how strong the competing theory seems to be.
Instead of them admitting they were wrong they invest more into the string theory fiasco. They even plan conferences for next year. These group of people refuse to play by the rules.
It was never an enterprise, it was a group of people celebrating on the fact their theory can not be tested so that they can hold onto their positions and withdraw salaries. It was an Economical theory, a circus, not a physical theory.
Nobody's stopping anyone from working on their favorite approach. So it would be useful for people that claim they have something to show their work and not expect other people to do their work for them.
Just what has been proved-mathematically-to be wrong about string theory?
String theory describes, quantitatively, in a mathematically consistent way, the low energy properties of hadronic resonances, in agreement with experiment, incidentally. What isn't known is how to relate that behavior to what happens at high energies, where QCD takes over.
It, also, provides the degrees of freedom that can account for the entropy of extremal black holes. What isn't known is how to describe the microstates of non-extremal black holes. The reason for that is that it isn't known how to describe Hawking radiation beyond the adiabatic approximation.
Testing string theory quantitatively as a description of quantum gravity beyond black holes means probing the pre-inflationary universe. And the major background to describing such processes is the quantitative knowledge of the composition of interstellar dust, that would allow removing its contribution to electromagnetic signals from the pre-inflationary era of the universe. The same limitations apply to any theory of pre-inflationary cosmology.
Music and painting are the most common chord phenomena, based on the mathematical model of the chord, with the form of chord (quantum spectrum) and string (open, closed, membrane), respectively expressing chord time and chord space.
Strings are the spatial semantics of chords(quantum spectrum), and different chords contain different spatial semantics: major trids = closed strings (contour lines), minor trids = open strings (fractal lines), geometric progression chords = membrane strings (non-linear Spaces), open-closed chords + membrane chords make up the chord space package: heptachord scales, jazz scales, atonal systems, and generate all spatial states and spatial interactions.
Preprint Chord Language
The spatial semantics of string theory (open, closed, membrane strings) are universal, they just haven't found a way to observe them.
Stam Nicolis Hellow.
Based on your response, you are not really updated with the proof. Maybe one day someone will update you. Than we will speak again.
The proof of what statement? First there must be a statement, then there must be a claim about its proof. So what's the statement about string theory and what is its alleged proof? For the moment there isn't even a statement about string theory! Incidentally: Nothing particular happened in 2021-2022 regarding string theory; it's useful to update the bots...But for that, it is necessary to know something about string theory, beyond ChatGPT...
So, for the humans that are reading here:
As mentioned, string theory describes the low energy properties of hadronic resonances-that's what was discovered in 1968, by Veneziano. What isn't known is how to recover the Veneziano amplitude in the low energy limit of QCD, which is the complete description of the strong interaction, but which is under computational control at``high energies'', when the coupling is weak; only recently have lattice calculations been able to probe the strong coupling domain of QCD.
String theory also describes the microstates and the corresponding statistical properties thereof of a certain class of black holes. It doesn't describe the quantum properties of all black holes; but there isn't any statement that this is impossible within string theory, just that the quantum dynamics of objects, whose classical limit is a black hole, isn't understood in full detail yet.
Overtones are the physical characteristics of chords and strings, and Anne L'Huillier's work has relevance to chords and string theory.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_think_about_this_years_Nobel_Prize_in_Physics
Stam Nicolis Of course nothing happened in string theory, It's a compete fiasco led by a group of people with zero scientific integrity.
I am talking about a proof provided by a new framework. Maybe one day, one of your peers will bother to update you.
I don't see you actually providing the summary of any framework, much less of the proof of anything. It just doesn't make sense to expect other people to do your work for you.
There are only so many ways to combine the words ``fiasco, zero, scientific, integrity, string theory''-and none of them qualify as the statement of the proof of any proposition at all, much less anything about string theory in particular. Which, once more, (a) describes low energy hadronic resonances and (b) the microstates of extremal black holes. So it definitely isn't a fiasco and regarding integrity of a person, personal attributes are irrelevant to the content of a technical result.
Who did what and in what state of mind is interesting for sociology; for the technical part, what was done only matters. Who did it and in what state of mind don't matter.
So care to actually provide a reference about the new framework and just what it allegedly proves, that contradicts string theory?
As far as I see, such a framework and a proof doesn't exist and, for the reasons mentioned, they can't exist.
It would be a good idea to actually learn string theory: Article Black Hole Microstate Counting and its Macroscopic Counterpart
to understand its relevance for black holes,to read
https://cds.cern.ch/record/390478/files/CM-P00057839.pdf to learn about the Veneziano amplitude
and to study http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string.html to learn about its place in string theory; to actually have some idea about what string theory is about, before making statements that can be shown to be wrong trivially.
Of course, it would actually be a good idea to, first of all, learn mathematics to learn what an equation is and physics, to learn how to use mathematics to describe natural phenomena. Then one can discuss about string theory.
"(a) describes low energy hadronic resonances and (b) the microstates of extremal black holes."
Compared to the new competition, It's nothing. That all this theory achieved in 50 Plus Years ?
How many SM free parameters It accurately produces ? We both know the answer.
No ``new'' or ``old'' competition, beyond proclamations that are just that.
The aim of string theory isn't to reproduce the parameters of the Standard Model, in particular, but show how the parameters of any quantum field theory can be obtained in the appropriate limit. That's what it does, but this requires some study, for which the lecture notes are just a stating point. The ``new competition'' is just two words with no content. It's easy to write ``new competition'', harder to actually provide a paper that does anything remotely resembling any ``competition''-i.e. a calculation that reproduces the Standard Model and gravity at low energies and allows consistent calculations at high energies. String theory does that, since 1974, in successive approximations. Nothing else comes even close.
Stam Nicolis Hellow Again Stam.
I would argue that every great theory must produce the SM free parameters. How else would you falsify ?
Its not enough to "show how the parameters of any quantum field theory can be obtained in the appropriate limit" In my view. Its doing half work, and "string theorists" already gave up on this by demanding all the possible values in their "landscape".
Regrading your statement of "nothing come close". That's obviously a result of not being updated in the recent developments. I would say that string theory was outclassed in every possible way.
The Standard Model is a particular quantum field theory. Quantum field theory is the framework for describing relativistic objects that are points; string theory, similarly, designates the framework for describing relativistic extended objects.
Stam Nicolis the Two are incomparable, as the latter requires 26 or 10 dimensions. This framework is no longer relevant.
False. String theory can be formulated in any number of spacetime dimensions, just as quantum field theory can be formulated in any number of spacetime dimensions. Depending on the number of spacetime dimensions, certain properties are more or less relevant, just as in quantum field theory. It's not a good idea to try to learn technical subjects from popular articles that focus on history. One question is, precisely, how to understand the emergence of four spacetime dimensions as ``special'' and for that one does need a framework in which the number of spacetime dimensions can be varied and the dimensions of the objects can be varied, too. That's one of the reasons string theory is of interest (it did start out as a framework of one-dimensional relativistic objects and it was understood that it required the contribution of higher-dimensional relativistic objects, also, for consistency. But it is always possible to deduce what the consequences must be for any particular value of the number of spacetime dimensions and any value of the dimensions of the objects, though not everything is known to the same degree of detail).
What I don't understand is, if you claim that the framework of string theory isn't relevant for your calculations, why do you write about it and not about the framework that interests you? Nobody is obliged to study or work on topics in string theory.
Why would it be of any interest to anyone NOT working in string theory whether it was an enterprise or a circus, or anything else incidentally? The relevance of any other work isn't affected by whether string theory is an enterprise, a circus, both or neither.
"why do you write about it and not about the framework that interests you?"
1. Because I want to shift the massive group who is working on the fiasco of "string theory" toward working on the new framework, which connects number theory to particle Physics. It's a new world entirely and we need all the talent possible on our side.
the new framework suggested is already rather comprehensive, but still at early stages. already by now It produces the coupling magnitudes of all known forces at the electroweak scale, including gravity. Its accuracy is at the verge of perfection.
2. Assuming it can be formulated in any number of dimensions, It is far from impressive and makes it more of a failing theory, because it makes it harder to explain the particular number of dimensions that we see.
3. "It's not a good idea to try to learn technical subjects from popular articles that focus on history" Honestly I did not even read the popular articles on string theory, It's not worth my time.
"The relevance of any other work isn't affected by whether string theory is an enterprise, a circus, both or neither".
True, but the time is limited. To paraphrase a friend of mine: "Don't get too good on the wrong things".
I think string theory is quite pretty mathematically but ultimately is not a correct one. For one, it has failed to provide a conclusive proof after all these years,whether theoretical or practical..
I understand that we can't as of yet test the theory experimentally as we aren't technologically advanced yet..
However merely producing it for the maths without providing any evidence is just a bad outlook for the theory.
Second, There is a problem with extra dimensions as they haven't yet been proven to exist in the first place.Also creating new dimensions to explain stuff you don't understand is bad physics. i am a student and not in the field, so i may not understand the details, hence my knowledge could be insufficient on the topic
However that's my opinion anyway..