- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
Although the theory is promising, the duo point out that they have not yet completed its proof. The theory uses a technical procedure known as renormalization, a mathematical way of dealing with infinities that show up in the calculations.
So far Partanen and Tulkki have shown that this works up to a certain point—for so-called ‘first order’ terms—but they need to make sure the infinities can be eliminated throughout the entire calculation.
“If renormalization doesn’t work for higher order terms, you’ll get infinite results. So it’s vital to show that this renormalization continues to work,” explains Tulkki. “We still have to make a complete proof, but we believe it’s very likely we’ll succeed.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Original free access article :
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/adc82e
Gravity generated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symmetries and the Standard Model
if i get even 0.01% of what this is, then, they really reached a “Theory of Everything” but it can’t be experimentally tested until quantum gravity things are detected.
“theory” LMAO
I’m not trying to be too flippant but this gets posted over and over again and it’s basically gobbledygook and fancy word salad
(Bullshit)
It’s so annoying how ridiculously terrible science journalism is. Like weirdly enough it’s probably more clickbait than celebrity tabloids.
Oh hell yeah. Just look at quantum computing. It’s a giant hoax & funding/investment shell game, and you have journalists who have convinced people but there’s actually quantum computers that can do things. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It’s so farcical and depressing, every time I point out that quantum computing is a hoax, thousands of uninformed buffoons show up to tell me what an idiot I am. And this is all science, it’s a giant bullshit act now.
The word “theory” is misused here. It should be “hypothesis”.
A scientific theory is something that’s well established, has a working understanding, and is verified through multiple experiments.
Although the theory is promising, the duo point out that they have not yet completed its proof
Physics is not math, you can’t “prove” a physical theory. You make predictions and through experiment or observation Nature has the last word.
Quick, get in contact with the physicists, they need the insight that you got from thinking about a sentence in a pop sci article for 30 seconds.
If you get ahold of them, I need to tell them why they’re wrong because of this one time I watched star trek while I was baked.
I am a physicist. String theory already unified QFT and GR and that doesn’t mean it’s a verified physical theory, you need to validate it through experiment. It’s physics 101. Just watch some Sabine H. videos to see how she speaks about string theory being a failure besides being mathematically consistent.
Nothing has unified gr and qft and you’re a liar
“The bonus of string theory is that it has the tenets of a unified theory of all interactions, electro-magnetism, weak and strong interactions, and gravitation” https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.1036
“tenets”
They are talking about mathematical proofs here. Once the mathematical proof is complete, we can look at the application, i.e. using it to make predictions and seeing how well they do.
