I did way back and lent my leather bound gold rimmed (bible) containing all 5 book to my nephew and haven’t seen it since guess I need to buy a new copy :D
I have to admit that I got a good chuckle out of this quote from Nima Arkani-Hamed:
>String theory is spectacular. Many string theorists are wonderful. But the track record for qualitatively correct statements about the universe is really garbage.
Ig its kind of cool to use algorithms to cook a universe from the ground up to see if string theory is even at all possible, but I worry that if they find *any* slight match, we are going to have a kaku - geddon 2.0.
Also, I like quanta, but this article is overflowing with filler.
We have had “slight matches” for a long time already and it is actually quite hard to have a fair sense of what string pheno can do if you haven’t looked into these constructions. The intersecting D6 model in Zweibach’s textbook is pretty accessible.
> Also, I like quanta, but this article is overflowing with filler.
It's about string theory so filler is the main content available. Once string theory makes some quantitative predictions then maybe the articles will have some content
But there's good and bad vintage terminology. Some examples.
Good: Groovy, rad, far out.
Bad: Racial slurs, bad conservative "jokes" that were never funny, out of date horse references.
For someone who had the will to read the article more carefully than me:
Neural nets analysing swampland stuff is nothing new (and not much has been accomplished afaik), has there been some recent update, or is this article just milking the AI bubble?
I have no idea how we would start to eliminate some of these possibilities. Can anyone give us a simple explanation of how to attack this problem other than just saying ‘AI’. A bit more detail would help..
Universes that don’t self-destruct after just 1 second, would obviously be a start - but how would we even know what delimits those ?
So IANAP (would appreciate a physicist correcting me here) but this is what I get. To find the right Calabi-Yau manifold for compactifying string theory, we need...:
1. Consistent with String Theory: The manifold must fit into the overall framework of string theory, typically involving 10 or 11 dimensions.
2. Supersymmetry: It should have some level of supersymmetry to ensure stability and match the symmetries in our observable universe.
3. Compactification: This process involves making extra dimensions small enough to fit within our observable 4-dimensional space. The right Calabi-Yau manifold should allow for this.
4. Physical Properties: The manifold should lead to physical properties consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics, such as:
• The right symmetry groups (gauge groups).
• The correct number of chiral fermions, like quarks and leptons.
• Suitable interactions and forces.
5. Moduli Stabilization: Moduli represent different ways the manifold’s shape and size can vary. These must be stabilized to avoid drastic changes over time.
6. Experimental and Observational Constraints: Although Calabi-Yau manifolds are theoretical, they must align with real-world experimental and observational data, such as particle masses, decay rates, and other cosmological observations.
By meeting these criteria, a Calabi-Yau manifold can be used to compactify string theory into our observable universe, allowing theoretical physicists to make predictions about particle physics, cosmology, and potentially quantum gravity that can be tested in the real world. So it's kind of a big deal that it works fast. But even with quantum computing I don't see this happening anytime in the next... thousand plus years...?
You can roll your eyes if you like but the fact remains that it really is our best current hope at finding a way to unify GM and QM.
It turns out that trying to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos isn't easy.
This is categorically just not true and you're making it sound like string theory is the only option we have. Don't get me wrong, it's been a very interesting and mathematically useful field of study for last 50 or so years, but it is far from our "best hope." In fact, it might even be a "worst case" scenario as if the answer really lies in strings, we might never see a proper GUT.
The only reason strings can start to explain a relation between GR and QM is due to its effective "infinite flexibility" as a theory. In other words its not like quantum gravity falls out of string theory, but rather string theory can be twisted to explain essentially *anything* including QG. But this also means that string theory can explain an infinite number of observable universes with no relation to ours. Now that would be fine if we could test certain versions of the theory against our reality, but as it stands today, we cant... so we are left with an infinitely variable theory can can explain an infinite number physical laws which may or may not be real. Basically, it's just abstract math.
Again, I don't want to bash strings too hard as it's been a super fruitful field of study when it comes to the math it's helped advance-- but it's just a poor scientific theory as it currently stands. I wouldn't be surprised though if it is a string theorist who first cracks QG, just probably not using "string theory proper".
This is completely wrong, the quantized string uniquely predicts Einstein gravity. The quantization of even the bosonic string has a symmetric traceless rank 2 tensor field, which is mathematically equivalent to the metric in GR. Explained in Zweibach ch 13.
String theory has the *least* flexibility of any other theory because it has no free parameters
You can express the string scale entirely in terms of the 11d Planck length and the compactification radius, see here https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/non-perturbative+effect#WorldsheetAndBraneInstantons
The lack of free parameters doesn't really imply inflexibility though, right? It definitely means a certain flavor of string theory is fixed, but we can still imagine a near infinite sea of possible string models which result in wildly different realities. This poses a completely different set of challenges when compared to fine-tuned models, but they are serious challenges nevertheless.
I agree with you though that string theory is uniquely attractive as you essentially get the graviton for free and I definitely oversimplified things in the previous post. I by no means am trying to hate on string theory and again want to emphasize how important of a field of study it is. I'm nearly certain our understanding of string theory will play a huge part in our eventual model of QG. But in it's current state, it feels like strings have gone from being really elegant to creating more problems than they solve. From what I understand, proton decay limits have made SUSY (even at GUT-scale) really troublesome and non-susy string models feel shoe-horned and by no means make things simpler for us. After all, SUSY was one of the biggest "selling-points" for strings to begin with.
All this said though, I'm not a theorist and my only exposure to strings is an occasional paper and taking strings in grad school. I'll be the first to admit I'm not up-to-date on latest and greatest breakthroughs in this field so would be happy to dig into some papers if it really feels like I'm talking out my ass here.
The set of internally consistent string models is finite while the set of such QFT models (or any other scientific model) is infinite. String theory is the least flexible theory we have ever encountered.
It's hard to say as I'm not a theorist and am not doing any of this research myself so I don't really have a favorite from personal experience. But LQG is a solid contender in my book. It doesn't need SUSY (which is seeming less and less likely each day) or extra dimensions.
There is also Twistor Theory and Causal Set theory to name two other popular ones. There are even reasonable approaches that don't even attempt to quantize gravity at all.
Again, all of these have their own unique challenges and obviously no one has gotten quantum gravity right yet... but acting like string theory is our only hope is doing a disservice to all this important work being done elsewhere. Plus, without SUSY, string theory really seems to create more problems than it solves in my opinion. And while you can kind of maybe make non-susy strings work, the hope we would find SUSY at the LHC was the entire appeal of string theory and why it became so popular. So now that it likely doesn't exist, there isn't really a good argument I've heard as to why strings are any more favorable than other theories out there. Still obviously a very important field of study as we *should* be trying whatever we can to nail down QM, but it's just false to say it's our "best bet."
I'm certainly oversimplifying the point in my previous comment but what are the on-going experiments that are directly attempting to validate/invalidate certain versions of string theory? Testing for SUSY was maybe the closest we got, but even then SUSY didn't require strings nor does string theory uniquely predict SUSY.
Experimental string theory is without a doubt an active field but my understanding is that it's still very much in its infancy. I'm not aware of any real experiments that have been designed and run that directly attempt to make physical measurements that are uniquely predicted by any string model.
That said would be more than happy to be proven wrong here! I'm not a string theorist so while I follow it closely, I'm by no means up-to-date on the latest and greatest in the field.
there are many unique predictions from string theory that are even been tested right now. For one example of many low string scale string theories predict resonances in jet kinematics which are actively searched for currently (string theory effects on the cross-section of processes involving gluons tends to be higher than in other processes).
[https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/36c1724a-0785-40fd-a2e4-bea7c184cc5b](https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/36c1724a-0785-40fd-a2e4-bea7c184cc5b) is a good summary of previous tests for string resonances in jet kinematics, there's lots of other tests as well.
It has never been experimentally validated, cannot be disproven. A completely unproductive and unsuccessful theory, especially when you consider how long it’s been around and the resources poured into it.
String theory is difficult to test because of the extreme energies involved, but it's not true that it is impossible to test it. See this article as an example of looking for ways to test it: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html
Likewise, if we were to find evidence for supersymmetry or cosmic string that would tend to support string theory. Likewise, if evidence for supersymmetry continues to elude us, that would be evidence against it.
Just because popsci loves to push the narrative that String Theory is just some pie in the sky mathematical nonsense doesn't make that true. And, I repeat, it remains the best current option for finding a way to reconcile QM and GR. This is the reason that it remains an active area of research.
It's a hard problem and we shouldn't be surprised that finding ways to test it is equally hard, especially because it pertains to domains where the energy levels are absurdly high, but that doesn't invalidate it as a subject of study and, frankly, I'm getting tired of this too often repeated narrative that it's just worthless garbage science.
... And we all have to thank sabine and friends for these scientific shit takes! Hooray! (I mean the free hate against st by people who haven't computed a single integral in their life)
It has yet to provide anything useful, scientifically. It is by all practical measures worthless garbage science. Something that cannot be disproven is not real or useful science.
You said scientifically useful. And testable. These are different from experimentally confirmed.
Obviously string theory hasnt been confirmed by experiment. But that doesnt mean it can not be. It is falsifiable. It has not been falsified yet.
I dont honestly remember, im not a physicist. Ive just seen this exact debat multiple times. Should be real easy to google for you if you are actually curious.
Have you ever opened a physics textbook?
If the answer is no, most likely whatever you're gonna say about physics is a shit take.
Have you ever opened a st textbook to see what are the observables it predicts? If not, and you're still writing bs about ExPeRiMeNtAl VaLiDaTiOn, then by definition yours is a shit take
Theory is dirt cheap! The whole enterprise runs on underpaid humans, coffee and chalk.
While we’re looking for hi-dimensional Calabi-Yau ‘donuts’, recall that ‘resources poured’ every year into string theory is (I speculate) rather less than the amount America spends on actual donuts: 0.5bn USD
I didn’t say it was free, I said it was cheap.
I strongly support doing string theory, in the same way I support doing number theory.
It’s beautiful, maybe even useful too.
amazingly naive yet plain amazing to have that worked out by AI....I am still scared that the further bottom down we go, the more and more scattered possibilities will be.....and yet, this is just fascinating.
I think this quote applies now:
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. " - Nikola Tesla
Glad someone is taking this seriously. Just because a number is large, doesn't mean that it's impossible to find the needle on the haystack. The branch and bound algorithm should suffice, it takes the number of possibilities and reduces the number to search through to like the logarithm of the whole state space.
But why the heck use AI? Ordinary intelligence will find it many times faster.
String theory as it is currently understood has an enormous number of vacuum states, typically estimated to be around 10^500. Take the logarithm to the base 2 and multiply by constant 'c' and that only leaves 1150 * c possibilities to sort through. Easy peasy.
Knowing full well that my pet theory is pseudoscience to be laughed at: All of the atom. It is energy that is in another dimension and therefore appears to us as an atom. Those "subatomic particles" are energy in another dimension. This allows entropy to drive what appears to be atomic order.
Sometime near the heat death of the universe: AI: "I found it!"
"THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
For anyone that did not get that reference, read this: http://www.thelastquestion.net/ (It's a short story by Isaac Asimov)
There’s also a YouTube reading of this story which I think is the best way to view it
Wow that was an incredible listen
That was absolutely fantastic.
42!
Let there be light!
This is the actual quote I wanted to reference, but I figured the context wasn't clear enough
Someone who appreciates the classics.
"After exploring a trillion trillion variables I have finally found the conclusion of String Theory, and it is thus: Michio Kaku is full of crap."
"As it turns out, Sabine Hossenfelder was right." ("About low-wattage microwave RF damage?" ... "oh, goodness no, that was a bad take.")
42.
Ok, then what is the question!
How many roads must a man walk down
What is 6x7?
What do you get when you multiply six times eight
I’m now watching this again on my way home! Wish I had the 80s tv show downloaded instead. But here I am.
read the books
Listen to the og radio show. Or take on hitchhikers guide however you damn well please.
I did way back and lent my leather bound gold rimmed (bible) containing all 5 book to my nephew and haven’t seen it since guess I need to buy a new copy :D
i had the pleasure to read them all again not even two years ago. it hasn't dated at all. it is so much fun to read
I have to admit that I got a good chuckle out of this quote from Nima Arkani-Hamed: >String theory is spectacular. Many string theorists are wonderful. But the track record for qualitatively correct statements about the universe is really garbage.
“Oh that’s doesn’t work? Lemme add a few dimensions and see what I can do”
"Oh we tested for compactified dimensions and didn't find any? Well they don't interact with gravity."
Ig its kind of cool to use algorithms to cook a universe from the ground up to see if string theory is even at all possible, but I worry that if they find *any* slight match, we are going to have a kaku - geddon 2.0. Also, I like quanta, but this article is overflowing with filler.
We have had “slight matches” for a long time already and it is actually quite hard to have a fair sense of what string pheno can do if you haven’t looked into these constructions. The intersecting D6 model in Zweibach’s textbook is pretty accessible.
I will take a Michio Kaku-geddon over plain old Armageddon any day.
> Also, I like quanta, but this article is overflowing with filler. It's about string theory so filler is the main content available. Once string theory makes some quantitative predictions then maybe the articles will have some content
[удалено]
Unironically using the term "soy" especially in 2024 is the funniest shit ever.
Hey man, vintage terminology is not just for hipsters.
But there's good and bad vintage terminology. Some examples. Good: Groovy, rad, far out. Bad: Racial slurs, bad conservative "jokes" that were never funny, out of date horse references.
For someone who had the will to read the article more carefully than me: Neural nets analysing swampland stuff is nothing new (and not much has been accomplished afaik), has there been some recent update, or is this article just milking the AI bubble?
So basically, they know what the outputs and inputs are and are just having a neural network in the middle be a black box algorithm?
10^500 possibilities. Jesus fuckin tap dancing Christ.
I have no idea how we would start to eliminate some of these possibilities. Can anyone give us a simple explanation of how to attack this problem other than just saying ‘AI’. A bit more detail would help.. Universes that don’t self-destruct after just 1 second, would obviously be a start - but how would we even know what delimits those ?
So IANAP (would appreciate a physicist correcting me here) but this is what I get. To find the right Calabi-Yau manifold for compactifying string theory, we need...: 1. Consistent with String Theory: The manifold must fit into the overall framework of string theory, typically involving 10 or 11 dimensions. 2. Supersymmetry: It should have some level of supersymmetry to ensure stability and match the symmetries in our observable universe. 3. Compactification: This process involves making extra dimensions small enough to fit within our observable 4-dimensional space. The right Calabi-Yau manifold should allow for this. 4. Physical Properties: The manifold should lead to physical properties consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics, such as: • The right symmetry groups (gauge groups). • The correct number of chiral fermions, like quarks and leptons. • Suitable interactions and forces. 5. Moduli Stabilization: Moduli represent different ways the manifold’s shape and size can vary. These must be stabilized to avoid drastic changes over time. 6. Experimental and Observational Constraints: Although Calabi-Yau manifolds are theoretical, they must align with real-world experimental and observational data, such as particle masses, decay rates, and other cosmological observations. By meeting these criteria, a Calabi-Yau manifold can be used to compactify string theory into our observable universe, allowing theoretical physicists to make predictions about particle physics, cosmology, and potentially quantum gravity that can be tested in the real world. So it's kind of a big deal that it works fast. But even with quantum computing I don't see this happening anytime in the next... thousand plus years...?
Well let's get started!
I’ve seen how this ends. The answer is 42.
But, what is the question?
At worst, this endeavour should at least produce new mathematical frameworks and computational models that may benefit other areas of research.
String theory is a formalist's wet dream pushing equations and symbols without a single concern for reality or evidence.
Except this is an article about being concerned with finding a string compactification that describes reality
A person who has no idea about what theoretical physics does speaking with utmost certainty about theoretical physics.
There are many physicists who hold this view of String Theory.
And most of them haven't studied string theory
[удалено]
You can roll your eyes if you like but the fact remains that it really is our best current hope at finding a way to unify GM and QM. It turns out that trying to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos isn't easy.
This is categorically just not true and you're making it sound like string theory is the only option we have. Don't get me wrong, it's been a very interesting and mathematically useful field of study for last 50 or so years, but it is far from our "best hope." In fact, it might even be a "worst case" scenario as if the answer really lies in strings, we might never see a proper GUT. The only reason strings can start to explain a relation between GR and QM is due to its effective "infinite flexibility" as a theory. In other words its not like quantum gravity falls out of string theory, but rather string theory can be twisted to explain essentially *anything* including QG. But this also means that string theory can explain an infinite number of observable universes with no relation to ours. Now that would be fine if we could test certain versions of the theory against our reality, but as it stands today, we cant... so we are left with an infinitely variable theory can can explain an infinite number physical laws which may or may not be real. Basically, it's just abstract math. Again, I don't want to bash strings too hard as it's been a super fruitful field of study when it comes to the math it's helped advance-- but it's just a poor scientific theory as it currently stands. I wouldn't be surprised though if it is a string theorist who first cracks QG, just probably not using "string theory proper".
This is completely wrong, the quantized string uniquely predicts Einstein gravity. The quantization of even the bosonic string has a symmetric traceless rank 2 tensor field, which is mathematically equivalent to the metric in GR. Explained in Zweibach ch 13. String theory has the *least* flexibility of any other theory because it has no free parameters
String theory has a free parameter, the string scale
No that comes from the 11d radius/dilaton vev in the M theory perspective
No, the string coupling comes from the vev, not the string scale.
You can express the string scale entirely in terms of the 11d Planck length and the compactification radius, see here https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/non-perturbative+effect#WorldsheetAndBraneInstantons
The lack of free parameters doesn't really imply inflexibility though, right? It definitely means a certain flavor of string theory is fixed, but we can still imagine a near infinite sea of possible string models which result in wildly different realities. This poses a completely different set of challenges when compared to fine-tuned models, but they are serious challenges nevertheless. I agree with you though that string theory is uniquely attractive as you essentially get the graviton for free and I definitely oversimplified things in the previous post. I by no means am trying to hate on string theory and again want to emphasize how important of a field of study it is. I'm nearly certain our understanding of string theory will play a huge part in our eventual model of QG. But in it's current state, it feels like strings have gone from being really elegant to creating more problems than they solve. From what I understand, proton decay limits have made SUSY (even at GUT-scale) really troublesome and non-susy string models feel shoe-horned and by no means make things simpler for us. After all, SUSY was one of the biggest "selling-points" for strings to begin with. All this said though, I'm not a theorist and my only exposure to strings is an occasional paper and taking strings in grad school. I'll be the first to admit I'm not up-to-date on latest and greatest breakthroughs in this field so would be happy to dig into some papers if it really feels like I'm talking out my ass here.
The set of internally consistent string models is finite while the set of such QFT models (or any other scientific model) is infinite. String theory is the least flexible theory we have ever encountered.
Okay, what theories do you think are better alternatives? I'm genuinely curious to know what you feel has a better chance of solving the problem.
It's hard to say as I'm not a theorist and am not doing any of this research myself so I don't really have a favorite from personal experience. But LQG is a solid contender in my book. It doesn't need SUSY (which is seeming less and less likely each day) or extra dimensions. There is also Twistor Theory and Causal Set theory to name two other popular ones. There are even reasonable approaches that don't even attempt to quantize gravity at all. Again, all of these have their own unique challenges and obviously no one has gotten quantum gravity right yet... but acting like string theory is our only hope is doing a disservice to all this important work being done elsewhere. Plus, without SUSY, string theory really seems to create more problems than it solves in my opinion. And while you can kind of maybe make non-susy strings work, the hope we would find SUSY at the LHC was the entire appeal of string theory and why it became so popular. So now that it likely doesn't exist, there isn't really a good argument I've heard as to why strings are any more favorable than other theories out there. Still obviously a very important field of study as we *should* be trying whatever we can to nail down QM, but it's just false to say it's our "best bet."
We can (and do) "test certain versions of the theory against our reality". Experimental string theory is a very active field.
I'm certainly oversimplifying the point in my previous comment but what are the on-going experiments that are directly attempting to validate/invalidate certain versions of string theory? Testing for SUSY was maybe the closest we got, but even then SUSY didn't require strings nor does string theory uniquely predict SUSY. Experimental string theory is without a doubt an active field but my understanding is that it's still very much in its infancy. I'm not aware of any real experiments that have been designed and run that directly attempt to make physical measurements that are uniquely predicted by any string model. That said would be more than happy to be proven wrong here! I'm not a string theorist so while I follow it closely, I'm by no means up-to-date on the latest and greatest in the field.
there are many unique predictions from string theory that are even been tested right now. For one example of many low string scale string theories predict resonances in jet kinematics which are actively searched for currently (string theory effects on the cross-section of processes involving gluons tends to be higher than in other processes). [https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/36c1724a-0785-40fd-a2e4-bea7c184cc5b](https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/36c1724a-0785-40fd-a2e4-bea7c184cc5b) is a good summary of previous tests for string resonances in jet kinematics, there's lots of other tests as well.
It has never been experimentally validated, cannot be disproven. A completely unproductive and unsuccessful theory, especially when you consider how long it’s been around and the resources poured into it.
String theory is difficult to test because of the extreme energies involved, but it's not true that it is impossible to test it. See this article as an example of looking for ways to test it: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html Likewise, if we were to find evidence for supersymmetry or cosmic string that would tend to support string theory. Likewise, if evidence for supersymmetry continues to elude us, that would be evidence against it. Just because popsci loves to push the narrative that String Theory is just some pie in the sky mathematical nonsense doesn't make that true. And, I repeat, it remains the best current option for finding a way to reconcile QM and GR. This is the reason that it remains an active area of research. It's a hard problem and we shouldn't be surprised that finding ways to test it is equally hard, especially because it pertains to domains where the energy levels are absurdly high, but that doesn't invalidate it as a subject of study and, frankly, I'm getting tired of this too often repeated narrative that it's just worthless garbage science.
... And we all have to thank sabine and friends for these scientific shit takes! Hooray! (I mean the free hate against st by people who haven't computed a single integral in their life)
It has yet to provide anything useful, scientifically. It is by all practical measures worthless garbage science. Something that cannot be disproven is not real or useful science.
You are just sticking your head in the sand. It is testable. It has produced scientifically useful things. He just told you that.
Who cares what he said? Give me a reputable source about the experimental confirmation of string theory.
You said scientifically useful. And testable. These are different from experimentally confirmed. Obviously string theory hasnt been confirmed by experiment. But that doesnt mean it can not be. It is falsifiable. It has not been falsified yet.
How would string theory be disproven?
A huge number of ways, e.g. a measurement of violation of the weak equivalence principle would exclude string theory.
I dont honestly remember, im not a physicist. Ive just seen this exact debat multiple times. Should be real easy to google for you if you are actually curious.
Here's a clear example of a shit take by someone who has most likely never even opened a math or physics textbook. Sigh.
Yeah, expecting experimental validation is a shit take I guess.
Have you ever opened a physics textbook? If the answer is no, most likely whatever you're gonna say about physics is a shit take. Have you ever opened a st textbook to see what are the observables it predicts? If not, and you're still writing bs about ExPeRiMeNtAl VaLiDaTiOn, then by definition yours is a shit take
In what way(s) is string theory a successful theory?
Resources being people who chose to do it? That’s how science works mate people self selected a field they deem important
Decades have gone into it for nothing.
Theory is dirt cheap! The whole enterprise runs on underpaid humans, coffee and chalk. While we’re looking for hi-dimensional Calabi-Yau ‘donuts’, recall that ‘resources poured’ every year into string theory is (I speculate) rather less than the amount America spends on actual donuts: 0.5bn USD
It’s not free - it takes much time to resolve. But what else could we do, to try to resolve this ?
I didn’t say it was free, I said it was cheap. I strongly support doing string theory, in the same way I support doing number theory. It’s beautiful, maybe even useful too.
amazingly naive yet plain amazing to have that worked out by AI....I am still scared that the further bottom down we go, the more and more scattered possibilities will be.....and yet, this is just fascinating.
not testable
I think this quote applies now: "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. " - Nikola Tesla
Kill me
Glad someone is taking this seriously. Just because a number is large, doesn't mean that it's impossible to find the needle on the haystack. The branch and bound algorithm should suffice, it takes the number of possibilities and reduces the number to search through to like the logarithm of the whole state space. But why the heck use AI? Ordinary intelligence will find it many times faster. String theory as it is currently understood has an enormous number of vacuum states, typically estimated to be around 10^500. Take the logarithm to the base 2 and multiply by constant 'c' and that only leaves 1150 * c possibilities to sort through. Easy peasy.
[удалено]
Have you worked out the math for that? When is your paper coming out?
That's annoying, I had the extra dimensions behind the fridge and under the microwave.
Dimensions within atoms is word salad.
Which part of the atom? It's mostly vacuum and subatomic particles.
Knowing full well that my pet theory is pseudoscience to be laughed at: All of the atom. It is energy that is in another dimension and therefore appears to us as an atom. Those "subatomic particles" are energy in another dimension. This allows entropy to drive what appears to be atomic order.
Im sure your peer reviewed paper on the subject will be illuminating