"There’s this avalanche of experimental numbers you have to put in by hand. But in string theory the Standard Model just pops right out. With just a few assumptions you get the entire Standard Model. "
That's just wrong. #StopHype
theguardian.com/science/2021/a…
That's just wrong. #StopHype
theguardian.com/science/2021/a…
People, as I have said many times before, if string theory was actually really simpler than the Standard Model, then physicists would actually USE IT to make predictions for the LHC. They don't. Why? Because it's useless.
It's the same with supersymmetry. People who work on it claim it solves problems and it improves the standard model. But no one who actually makes predictions for the standard model expectations uses supersymmetry. Why? Because it's useless.
Same with the multiverse. Supposedly it simplifies something. But no one who makes predictions for structure formation or the CMB starts with a probability distribution over the multiverse. They just use the concordance model. Why? Because the multiverse is useless.
The same goes for literally hundreds of additional fields and particles and stories for the beginning of the universe. They're useless. They don't explain anything we observe.
The bottomline is this: Look at what scientists DO, not at what they say. If a hypothesis is really a good explanation, they will use it. String theory doesn't explain the standard model. Supersymmetry doesn't explain the Higgs mass. And the multiverse explains nothing. /end rant
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
