string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard

I just wanted to second this recommendation - while the video is nearly an hour long, it feels much shorter and is well worth watching: ▶ this video

in “20 Years of "Not Even Wrong"” · View on HN

This [1] is a fantastic refutation of string theory in that the string theorists have taken more than their fair share of research dollars and public consciousness and that it's time for other branches of physics to get the funding. With limited resources, if you don't context switch, you starve everything else. [1] ▶ this video

in “In a 'Dark Dimension,' Physicists Search for the Universe's Missing Matter” · View on HN

not a physicist but this video by Angela Collier is a fun watch: “string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard. ▶ this video

in “The string theory hype machine will never die” · View on HN

Exactly. Consistently untestable and unfalsifiable claims for decades has to be seriously questioned at some point, and I think we're well beyond that point. This is especially true for string theory. I'm particularly fond of how Angela Collier laid out the timeline of string theory in her video on it[0] as well as the consequences that science communication is now facing as a result. [0] = ▶ this video

in “Fundamental physics is dying? [video]” · View on HN

I’ve found this explainer by Angela Collier super helpful in understanding the current state of string theory. ▶ this video I was a gigantic pop science fan and read The Elegant Universe when I was approximately 13 and am excited it’s still being read even if it’s not necessarily true about our universe. It’s got the inspiration and excitement part that’s all I really needed as a kid.

in “The Elegant Universe: 25th Anniversary Edition” · View on HN

Agree but very much with your caveat. If you study the mathematics of some sort of abstract structure you are doing research in pure maths. That is a worthy and completely legitimate pursuit and a ton of stuff started life as pure abstract mathematical research and ended up having real-world benefits way down the line that noone could have forseen.[1] If on the other hand you say that abstract structure is a fundamental building block of the universe and, say, unifies the standard model with gravity etc but actually your theory isn't explaining anything observable I would say that isn't theoretical physics[2] but is just "making shit up". So far string theory has failed to produce any sort of verifiable prediction[3], so I just don't see how it's physics (you could say "yet" perhaps). I enjoyed the video "String Theory Lied to Us and Now Science Communication is Hard"[4] by Angela Collier, who is a computational astrophysicist[5], because it gives a sense for how these things impact other physicists and the popular perception of science. [1] And Ed Witten for example is without doubt a very impressive mathematician - he won the Fields medal. [2] Which is the science of matter, energy, space, time etc all the stuff which makes up the natural world. [3] In particular, the one that has been tried is supersymmetry and the LHC, as I understand it as a non-physicist, brought about an experimental result that called supersymmetric extensions of the standard model into serious doubt

in “20 Years of "Not Even Wrong"” · View on HN