Peter Woit
|
Registered User
|
|
|
Jun 10 |
awarded | ● Mortarboard |
|
Jun 10 |
comment |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory I guess your argument is that we just need to get a list of string theory vacua and the ability to calculate detailed predictions from them, do this, then falsify the theory if we find no match. The problem with this is that we don't actually know what the theory is, so even in principle cannot do what you suggest. So, the theory is unfalsifiable by this line of thinking by lack of being well-defined. You're free to conjecture that a well-defined theory exists where these calculations can be done, but until someone produces it, the current version of "string theory" is unfalsifiable. |
|
Jun 10 |
comment |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory The models described in the paper you link to don't "reproduce convincingly the standard model". Even the authors refer to them as only "quasi-realistic". These are very complicated geometric constructions which are claimed to only give the the correct SM gauge group and fermion representations, a small amount of information about the theory (in particular, none of the continuous parameters of the theory are calculated). As typical for these constructions, more complexity goes in than comes out. No one would claim these could convince anyone this is an explanation of the standard model. |
|
Jun 10 |
comment |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory @Aaron, It is not true that string theory is falsifiable by Planck scale accelerator experiments, for reasons explained in my answer to the question. |
|
Jun 10 |
comment |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory I don't believe it's accurate to say that a string vacuum "reproducing convincingly the standard model" exists. If you know of one, please explain what it is, and what its predictions are that will test it. In any case, I don't see how you get a falsifiable prediction of string theory out of this. If the string vacuum you pick actually predicts something and it turns out to be wrong, that will not falsify string theory. Your answer to the question still seems to me to be the same as that of Urs Schreiber, that the theory is unfalsifiable. |
|
Jun 10 |
revised |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory added 1680 characters in body |
|
Jun 10 |
awarded | ● Commentator |
|
Jun 10 |
comment |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory The page you link to does not answer the question, with the term "falsifiability" not on the page. It appears to me that your answer to the question would be that string theory is unfalsifiable, but you believe all theories are unfalsifiable. This is an extreme argument that few physicists would agree with, as is your argument that "string theory is actually more testable than other existing theoretical frameworks". You are well aware of the counter-arguments, so if you want nLab to be taken as an authoritative source of information, you should not do this sort of thing. |
|
Jun 10 |
comment |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory In response to the addendum: You still have not addressed the question that was asked. You claim that string theory is falsifiable, but you do not give what was asked for ("one experiment that would test it"). In addition, you seem to be trying to make the same argument as Urs Schreiber, but giving the opposite answer to the question (he seems to be claiming string theory is unfalsifiable, but that this is true of just about all physical theories). |
|
Jun 10 |
awarded | ● Nice Answer |
|
Jun 9 |
awarded | ● Editor |
|
Jun 9 |
revised |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory edited body; added 71 characters in body |
|
Jun 9 |
comment |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory You didn't actually answer the question. Your argument seems to be that the theory is falsifiable, so you should provide what is asked for: a specific experimental prediction. Note that if your prediction is that "at high enough energy one will see the soft scattering amplitudes of perturbative string theory", you really haven't taken into account M-theory in general, so you are talking about falsifying only one corner of the theory. |
|
Jun 9 |
answered | Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory |
|
Jan 24 |
answered | Clifford Lie Algebras |
|
Jan 19 |
awarded | ● Nice Answer |
