mumblerfish

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

mumblerfish ,

It's not untestable. It gives predictions and there has been tests for those predictions. The unfortunate part is that the predictions are often not very concrete, and the range of a lot of these predictions lies far beyond our capabilities. But people are looking to measure them indirectly in various ways. So it's not like it is untestable by design or anything like that.

mumblerfish ,

These are very broad statements that are not very easy to comment on. "Every single idea", makes it sound like they are a lot, I would not say they are. "Was rejected", depends what you mean... " did not show positiv results", "no longer possible to motivate economically", sure, " refuted as bullshit", not so much. "Was made more complex", sounds like there is intent, and/or, depending on what you mean by complex, that it would be necessarily a bad thing to using more advanced maths to formulate things you could not before, and hence solve new problems.

I can mention two possible avenues of inquiry that are less than 5 years old that has sprung from string theory as possible support for it: signals of black hole structure in gravitational wave 'ring downs' of black hole mergers, and the exclusion of a positive cosmological constant. But if you know that these are untestable or rejected, I'd love to hear about it.

mumblerfish ,

No, the problem is very different. In string theory you have a lot of freedom to build various models, and they can provide the standard model, slight deviations from it, or something completely different. Before LHC we knew we had some version of the standard model, the hope was that the LHC would find that we have some particular deviation, like supersymmetry (susy) with such-and-such masses and particles. It did not. The prediction is susy, the problem is that the prediction (at least yet) is not exactly this type of susy. String theory says there is supposed to be a lot of extra stuff beyond the standard model, question is just how do you find it, which is made harder by string theory allowing for so many models.

What's the equivalent of physics constants for social studies?

In physics, it’s common to develop a formula and then stick a constant to explain the unknown. For example, Newton’s theory of gravity uses the gravitational constant G on the formula F = G * m_1 * m_2 / r^2, later on Einstein gave a more accurate explanation with the theory of relativity which does not rely on a constant E...

mumblerfish ,

E = mc^2 is not an equation relating to gravity in the way you imply, that’d be the Einstein Field Equation [1], which still depend on G. And as far as we know, c is also a constant.

Then I’d guess a bunch of statistical constants probably show up in the humanities all the time. Is that what you are looking for, or some closed form expression with the constant?

[1] en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

mumblerfish ,

Not sure point One is fully correct. I think they often realize things is going to be shitty for everyone, but they think it will be less shitty for them if it gets more shitty for others. They know they will be an exploited working class (even if it is not phrased that way for them) as long as there is a part of the working class (immigrant workers, women workers, …) that is beneath them it makes them feel more ‘on top’.

mumblerfish ,

That only covers one angle, if people do it for religious reasons, not if they don’t do it because of religion. I’m not getting married, and the religious connotations of even a secular wedding is a significant chunk of why.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • All magazines
    •