Math to Explain Theories: Fundamentals & Calculation

darkside00
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Allright, looking at at a bunch of string theories and using math to explain, it really looks like nonsense. Calculus is easy math to learn because it means something, eg. explaining and altering functions to make sense fundamentally. What I don't understand, is how people use math to model their theories where the math does not make sense rationally. Wheres the fundamentals to explain their theories on a calculatable basis?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Exactly what kind of non-rational math do you have in mind? :)

Can you give an example?
 
Well String theory is to out there for me. What I like to see is calculated examples to there theories to make sense physically. perhaps just a simple example to give the idea
 
Last edited:
String theory is still a work in progress, and techniques to calculate the theory's predictions about results of experiments at the energy scale of particle accelerators don't exist yet.

The claim you made in post #1 (that the mathematics of string theory "does not make sense rationally") isn't appropriate at Physics Forums. This is a place for people who want to learn about scientific theories, not for people who just want to make absurd claims. (You might want to try forums.randi.org).
 
A lot of math does not make sense "rationally" to someone or other. Who knew that the Euler Beta function would years later be later interpretated to apply to nuclear physics...?

In fact even solutions may not make sense...until someone bright enough comes along to see through the "haze". That was sure true of Einstein's equations, which others had largely developed but did not really "feel"...and some of the later solutions as well...it took about 20 years to gain a "rational" understanding and acceptance of Einstein's GR.

In fact the original math for string theory was developed for understanding the strong force (if I recall) until someone later discovered a massless spin two particle hidden in the details (the graviton) and, voila, real string theory was born.

In other words, we need some crazy mathematicians to develop what appears to be at first some crazy math...
 
What you're missing, darkside, is that just because you do not (yet) understand the math on which the theories are based on does NOT imply that the maths/theories do not make rational sense. In other words, this isn't just dressed up numerology (except for that M. S. El Naschie fellow and his e-infinity "theory").
 
This is an alert about a claim regarding the standard model, that got a burst of attention in the past two weeks. The original paper came out last year: "The electroweak η_W meson" by Gia Dvali, Archil Kobakhidze, Otari Sakhelashvili (2024) The recent follow-up and other responses are "η_W-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum" by Dvali et al "Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweak η_W" by Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Francesco Sannino, Jessica Turner "Astrophysical...
In LQG and LQC there are solutions called "black to white transition". I'll add some references: (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07251 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03872 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06330 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.04264 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12823 https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02691 https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.07589 https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01788 https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.12646 https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03027...
Hello everyone, I am seeking to better understand the conceptual foundations and potential consequences of "Two-Time Physics" (2T-physics), as developed by Itzhak Bars and others. My interest was sparked by a recent paper that attempts to explain anomalous results in particle physics (apparent superluminal propagation of virtual photons) within the framework of 2T-physics: Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02696 Key quote from the abstract: *"...the problem... can be solved naturally...
Back
Top