Another blow against string theory.
You might want to consider the article more carefully, especially the section "Short Hair, Long Hair". The predictions of string theory are in no way falsified by the analysis conducted by these researchers.
Readit Newsimportantstuff commented on Astrophysicists find no 'hair' on black holes quantamagazine.org/astrop... · Posted by u/rolph
importantstuff commented on Claude can now search the web anthropic.com/news/web-se... · Posted by u/meetpateltech
We will very quickly enter a Kepler effect of information on the internet. All text on the internet will become AI slop being parsed by AI. Real information and human beings will be drowned out by the garbage. The internet will cease to be useful and we will retreat to corners of the web or to walled gardens. I'm seeing more and more online communities these days enforce invite only because there's just too much AI slop everywhere now.
Do you mean Kessler syndrome by any chance?
The top scored is just the answer liked best. The fact that it refers to proton decay and quantum gravity, both hypotheses which, as plausible as they might be, are not experimentally testable at this time, renders in my mind the confidence of the answer questionable.
The top answer has multiple reasons. The one I am referring to in particular is this section: "I should point out that if you believe that the standard model matter is complete, then anomaly cancellation requires that the charge of the proton is equal to the charge of the positron, because there is instanton mediated proton decay as discovered by t'Hooft, and this is something we might concievable soon observe in accelerators. So in order to make the charge of the proton slightly different from the electron, you can't modify parameters in the standard model, you need to add a heck of a lot of unobserved nearly massless fermions with tiny U(1) charge." It makes no reference to quantum gravity.
I just had a really stupid thought, after finishing reading the article.
So, the electron is an elementary particle, right? Compared to the proton, the electron is "simple", yes?
Despite this difference in complexity, an electron has a charge of -e and a proton has a charge of +e. They are exactly complementary regarding charge (if I am understanding right, I am not a smart person).
my question is... why? why must protons and electrons be perfectly complementary regarding charge? if the proton is this insanely complex thing, by what rule does it end up equaling exactly the opposite charge of an electron? why not a charge of +1.8e, or +3e, or 0.1666e, etc? Certainly it is convenient that a proton and electron complement each other, but what makes that the case? Does this question even make sense?
so, there's a concept of a "positron", which I can understand - of course it has charge +e, it is the "opposite" of an electron. it is an anti-electron. at least that makes some kind of sense. but a proton is made up of this complex soup of other elementary particles following all these crazy rules, and yet it also ends up being exactly +e.
No one who has replied to your question has got the right answer. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21753/why-do-ele... has the right answer. There are multiple aspects to this argument, but essentially, the symmetries of your system force the charges in the Standard Model (quarks and leptons) to be the way they are due to gauge anomaly cancellation. If you believe in quark confinement, which is extremely well motivated, computationally, theoretically and experimentally, then the fact that the proton has exactly charge +1 follows naturally.
importantstuff commented on Profile of Sabine Hossenfelder npr.org/2023/09/23/119946... · Posted by u/rntn
> If you're promoting research into quantum gravity that doesn't respect special relativity, you're a crackpot.
Is there a short argument for why MOND cannot agree with relativity, at least on the relevant scales?
I don't have a quick explanation, but rather a quick anectode. The incompatibility of MOND with relativity used to be called "Bekenstein's Theorem", based on the idea that Bekenstein had tried to write down such a theory but failed to do so. Since Bekenstein was a very smart guy, if he couldn't do it, it couldn't be done. When he heard about this, he proceeded to write down an incredibly ugly theory called TeVeS, but, well, that theory's got fields too (Tensor, Vector, Scalar), so in the end it's just dark matter all the way down.