How did string theory get so far without any physical principles, postulates, predictions, or equations?
How did string theory get so far without any principles or equations?
Maybe instead of asking the same retarded question every week, you should go learn quantum field theory and string theory and realize why your question is retarded.
Please just share the physical principles, postulates, predictions, or equations of string theory. Unless they don’t exist.
Alexander why don't you tell us what you think string theory is. I'm always looking to learn from experts in their discipline!
Please just share the physical principles, postulates, predictions, or equations of string theory. Unless they don’t exist.
You should really just kill yourself if you can't figure out how to read a book.
[...]
Please just share the physical principles, postulates, predictions, or equations of string theory. Unless they don’t exist.
You should really just kill yourself if you can't figure out how to read a book.
I read all of Brian Greene’s and Michio Kaku’s books. String Theory has no physical principles, postulates, predictions, or equations. Read the books and you’ll see.
Seems like a reasonable question. I also am curious what the answer is. I don’t have time to learn a new field, I have an active research program.
The responses have loser incel energy.
Lol it really does appear that String Theory has no physical principles, postulates, predictions, or equations.
Otherwise someone would share them.
For instance, Newton had equations like F=ma. Einstein had equations like E=mc^2.
String Theory is different lol.
[...]
You should really just kill yourself if you can't figure out how to read a book.
I read all of Brian Greene’s and Michio Kaku’s books. String Theory has no physical principles, postulates, predictions, or equations. Read the books and you’ll see.
Greene's is a popular book. If you read Kaku's technical books then I would understand your claim but I assume you read his popular books as well...
[...]
I read all of Brian Greene’s and Michio Kaku’s books. String Theory has no physical principles, postulates, predictions, or equations. Read the books and you’ll see.
Greene's is a popular book. If you read Kaku's technical books then I would understand your claim but I assume you read his popular books as well...
Newton's Principia is a popular book. It has equations. Euclid's Elements is a popular book It has principles, postulates, and equations.
Green's Elegant Universe book on String Theory has no principles, postulates, nor equations because String Theory has no principles, postulates, nor equations.
[...]
Greene's is a popular book. If you read Kaku's technical books then I would understand your claim but I assume you read his popular books as well...
Newton's Principia is a popular book. It has equations. Euclid's Elements is a popular book It has principles, postulates, and equations.
Green's Elegant Universe book on String Theory has no principles, postulates, nor equations because String Theory has no principles, postulates, nor equations.
Do you understand the difference between a pop science book addressed to layman and a technical book? You are just thick as a brick.
[...]
Newton's Principia is a popular book. It has equations. Euclid's Elements is a popular book It has principles, postulates, and equations.
Green's Elegant Universe book on String Theory has no principles, postulates, nor equations because String Theory has no principles, postulates, nor equations.
Do you understand the difference between a pop science book addressed to layman and a technical book? You are just thick as a brick.
This guy is obviously mentally ill, he needs help.
[...]
Newton's Principia is a popular book. It has equations. Euclid's Elements is a popular book It has principles, postulates, and equations.
Green's Elegant Universe book on String Theory has no principles, postulates, nor equations because String Theory has no principles, postulates, nor equations.
Do you understand the difference between a pop science book addressed to layman and a technical book? You are just thick as a brick.
Was Einstein's THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY a pop science book addressed to laymen, or was it a technical book? Was Newton's Principia a pop science book addressed to laymen, or was it a technical book? Was Euclid's Elements a pop science book addressed to laymen, or was it a technical book?
Your screen is so tiny that we decided to disable the captcha and posting feature
Formatting guidelines: Commonmark with no images and html allowed. $ and $$ for LaTeX. Input previewed in last post of thread. For a link to be allowed it must include the http(s) tag and come from the list of allowed domains.