I stumbled upon an article by Jonathan J. Heckman proposing a connection between string theory and rational inference that contains insight to a new perspective that seems to be very hard for people to grasp the potential of. This made me happy and IMO it gives a new hope to hope for new grips from WITHIN string world.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Statistical Inference and String Theory

-- https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3621 Jonathan J. Heckman said:In this note we expose some surprising connections between string theory and statistical inference. We consider a large collective of agents sweeping out a family of nearby statistical models for an M-dimensional manifold of statistical fitting parameters. When the agents making nearby inferences align along a d-dimensional grid, we find that the pooled probability that the collective reaches a correct inference is the partition function of a non-linear sigma model in d dimensions.Stability under perturbations to the original inference schemerequires the agents of the collective to distribute along two dimensions. Conformal invariance of the sigma model corresponds to the condition of a stable inference scheme, directly leading to the Einstein field equations for classical gravity. By summing over all possible arrangements of the agents in the collective, we reach a string theory. We also use this perspective to quantify how much an observer can hope to learn about the internal geometry of a superstring compactification. Finally, we present some brief speculative remarks on applications to the AdS/CFT correspondence and Lorentzian signature spacetimes.

I just want to say that while this paper imho along by no means explains or solve the landscape problem or the apparently arbitrary starting point of a continous string in a continous space, it in my eyes represents a glimps of hope on new thinking that may contains keys to resolving current problems.

I have no prior knowledge of the author or of his "thinking" so maybe i see things that the original author didnt, but anyway. I felt this paper deserved to be commented on more bacause i didnt find alot of follow ups on this?

I just found oddly enough these old comments from Lubos

https://motls.blogspot.se/2013/05/string-theory-bayesian-inference.html

Is the "hope" i tend to see in this paper which the author himself calls a "note" shared by others in string theory world? Or is the environment not yet ready to spin onto the seed? Comments on lubos blod seems mixed and confused. The questions is probably how to make the REAL step to proving that strings uniquely follow from a possible hypothesis that is sense hint in that paper?

/Fredrik

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# A A new hope for ST? Hold the thought of Jonathan J. Heckman

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - hope Hold thought | Date |
---|---|

Thought on T-duality? | Jul 3, 2015 |

Alain homers with Ali and Slava on base : further thoughts | May 1, 2015 |

Thoughts on Quantum Holonomy Theory? | Apr 29, 2015 |

Can observation offer some hope to Garrett's theory, somehow | Dec 14, 2013 |

Hopeful thought about Loll sum over topologies | Jul 10, 2005 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**