Is String Theory Still Taken Seriously or Has it Become a Joke?

wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No they won't win the smart money is on the KISS theory, What are calliope Yeow!-trics? Anyone? :smile:

Has String theory fallen so far that it is now the but of jokes? I wonder if people are still doing P.h.D's in it?
 
You mean that paper is a joke , it was just beginning to make sense
to me, i guess, (The t quark is also the tea quark of the MI tea-bag [13],
should have tiped me off.
 
I think this comes from a B.S.
 
makes just as much SNES as the real theories.
 
Schrodinger's Dog said:
No they won't win the smart money is on the KISS theory, What are calliope Yeow!-trics? Anyone? :smile:

Has String theory fallen so far that it is now the but of jokes? I wonder if people are still doing P.h.D's in it?

It is the way the mother of Orpheus kept her beautiful voice, the translation has suffered through the ages, but the trick was to Yeow for ten minutes a day.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...
Back
Top