Could the discovery of the theory of everything be hampered by the fact that all of quantum theory assumes a point particle model? Would adding volume to particles illuminate some mysteries? After all, space is 3 dimensional, so limiting ourselves to the point particle model, while beneficial for calculation, could be obscuring something.
>>16826583there is no theory of everything that is accessible to an observer.
>>16826583That was the motivation behind string theory. However things already become very complicated when you go from 0D (point particles) to 1D (strings). So going to 3D would probably be impossible to handle
kinda curious what exactly would you do with such a theory if you managed to come up with something abstract to propose a physical property conceptually, some fundamental concept that couldnt really be tested in a meaningful way. where would you confer with someone in a relevant field that would take it seriously assuming its not the type of thing you could publish in a regular academic journal
>>16826590https://discord.gg/WVSrCXUF
>>16826592Is ST dead or still relevant given that it’s still in its infancy relative to other time-tested theories
>>16826732>Is ST dead or still relevantI'm a layman in these subjects, but from the science educators I've listened to:It sounds like the set of String Theories have not yet produced falsifiable predictions or observations, that were not already explained using some more...useful?robust?popular? alternative theory. They use the discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle as an example, and the lack of new discovered particles predicted by da String theories...though I don't quite remember how that all fits together as another piece of evidence against String theories' utility.>>16826619>where would you confer with someone in a relevant field that would take it seriouslybeing received with incredulity and humiliation comes with the territory of being someone who is presenting new ideas to the world.Can't offer advice from my lived experience, but my guess would be persistent and keep proclaiming in spite of any criticism, and take comfort in knowing that someone out there understands or has asked the same things
>>16826732I don't know what any of this actually means but last I heard the idea of AdS/CFT-correspondence came out of string theory and that's still relevant.
>>16826592>So going to 3D would probably be impossible to handleI think, in general, the modus operandi isn't necessarily finding field equations/a Lagrangian for this type of thing anymore. It would be more akin to trying to find any physics effects that can be easily obtained from simpler maths (using dimensional analysis lets say) that you can predict from the theory, that can then be observed and would confirm the theory. The maths is just way too fucked to really do anything with if you actually wanted to figure it out.
>>16826759>though I don't quite remember how that all fits together as another piece of evidence against String theoriesoh right, the criticism is:>"String theory failed to predict the Higgs-Boson"which I mean...if there hasn't been an elegant way devised to get to the Standard Model of physics from ST, that is not too surprising- despite being a valid point.
>>16826592just 1 more dimension bro
>>16826823are you claiming ST led to the discovery of the HB?
>dude omg!!!>i know everything about the entire universe!!>I'm soooooo smart!!!!the cringey infantile fantasy life of soiyence faggots
>>16827004>the cringey infantile fantasy life of soiyence faggotsYou're a faggot. No curiosity nor insight from your empty cranium.
>>16826590fbpb
>>16826583>the fact that all of quantum theory assumes a point particle modelthat is not a factretard
