747K views · Jan 30, 2017 · 17:56 · 2 HN recommenders · 4 mentions · discussed 2017–2022
Sixty Symbols interviews Nottingham cosmologist Tony Padilla, who says string theory deserves to be taken seriously. He explains how strings emerged from the equations rather than being invented.
Why Hacker News points people here: It is cited in string theory arguments as a counterweight to critics, a working physicist's reason to think there is something to the theory.
“a professor explains why he at least believes there is something to it”HN comment, 2018
“I like (The case for String Theory).”
Shows string theory's natural progression unlike other theories.
I like this video (The case for String Theory). It shows that there is a natural progression to String Theory that very few other theories have.
“a professor explains why he at least believes there is something to it”
Professor explains why strings popped out of the equations.
I've never found a good description or explanation of string theory for the layman. I look, but then I always run into Brian Greene. I did find this video[1], where a professor explains why he at least believes there is something to it. Tl;dr - they weren't looking for strings. They sort of 'popped out' of the equations. [1] = this video
“Nobody theorized strings.”
Strings arose as a solution to W-boson scattering.
The case for string theory this video tl;dr - Nobody theorized strings. They were trying to solve the scattering problem of w-bosons and came up with a solution. The interpretation of the solution is strings.
“it's worth listening to what he has to say as well.”
Presents the case for string theory from the opposite side.
I read her book Lost in Math [1] which I have to say was quite a laborious endeavour. It is essentially a long-winded argument that is better summarised in this article and her YouTube channel, though she got to visit many scholars across the globe. Some agreed with her to a certain extent while others simply didn't (Nima Arkani-Hamid, for example, had no interest in her point of view). What I found most lacking was a viable path forward, an alternative to all this nay-saying. She had a section in the end with bullet points on what to do and not do, but it was quite brief and generic. I had a short but interesting exchange on Twitter with Dr. Tony Padilla who has spoken about the case for string theory on Numberphile [2]. He stands at the opposite end of the spectrum of course, and it's worth listening to what he has to say as well. Being a non-expert with just a casual interest in the inner workings of the universe, I am eagerly awaiting whatever the next breakthrough brings for our understanding of the cosmos, but I have to say that string theory and susy have seemed to over-promise and under-deliver with little prospect in sight, and perhaps at the detriment of a more fundamental or foundational approach. Indeed, the question of what is time has always bothered me, so I'm picking up Carlo Rivelli's book on this next [3]. [1] link [2] this video [3] link
