Timeline for Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Sep 10, 2013 at 13:01 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Sep 10, 2013 at 13:05 | |||||
| Sep 9, 2013 at 12:58 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Sep 9, 2013 at 13:06 | |||||
| Aug 11, 2013 at 8:12 | vote | accept | Sebastien Palcoux | ||
| Oct 28, 2014 at 21:37 | |||||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 3:02 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 8:01 | |||||
| Jun 11, 2013 at 11:54 | comment | added | Sebastien Palcoux | Voted to reopen. In my opinion, the reason why this question generates troubles in the physics community, is especially because it need a more specific formulation, a more mathematic one. Maybe some logicians on model theory could progress in this direction. | |
| Jun 11, 2013 at 11:07 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | Voted to closed since this is not a math research question. Specifically, I do not see how falsifability of the string theory affects mathematics. It it quite clear that the string theory has already had a huge impact on (some areas of) math regardless of whether it describes physical reality. | |
| Jun 11, 2013 at 10:57 | history | closed |
Felipe Voloch Misha Andrés E. Caicedo Andy Putman Igor Belegradek |
off topic | |
| Jun 11, 2013 at 5:09 | answer | added | user24656 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 22:43 | comment | added | Toby Bartels | I view string theory as a research programme rather than as a theory of physics as such. To the extent that it is falsifiable, it has been falsified (see Carlo's comment above), and this is damning to a theory of physics. But as a research programme into areas that are very difficult to test experimentally, I cannot fault it. It's a promising approach, and the lack of observed supersymmetry and extra dimensions so far doesn't prove much, since we can't go to high enough energies. The only problem, in my mind, is premature confidence in it. It's an interesting idea, not the last word. | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 22:12 | comment | added | Sebastien Palcoux | You're right @userN, thank you. I need to calm down my activity on MO, and invest myself more on my own research. For those interested, a discussion was opened (after @Aaron comment) on metaMO here: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1611/… | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 21:38 | comment | added | user1504 | @SebastienPalcoux I think you may be confused about the purpose of MathOverflow. Please take the advice Will Jagy gave you on Meta. | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 20:33 | history | edited | Sebastien Palcoux |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 10, 2013 at 17:43 | comment | added | user1504 | @SebastienPalcoux: It's standard practice on MathOverflow to explain why you've downvoted a question. Aaron was correct to put the comment where he did. | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 15:47 | comment | added | Aaron Bergman | This is not the place to have these discussions, which are not about math, yet again. | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 14:44 | comment | added | Peter Woit | @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, 2013 at 14:35 | comment | added | Aaron Bergman | Voted down because this isn't a math question. Nonetheless, string theory could be falsified if we could figure out how to accelerate elementary particles up to the Planck scale. Since that seems to be slightly out of the realm of experimental possibility, the answer is no at the moment. Someone could come up with something clever, though. | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 9:46 | answer | added | user34821 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 9:08 | answer | added | Urs Schreiber | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 1:39 | comment | added | Paul VanKoughnett | @JHI en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 23:32 | answer | added | Peter Woit | timeline score: 31 | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 23:03 | comment | added | JHI | Yes, but not between false and falsifiable. So the critics wants a theory which isnt non-falsifiable, so a falsifiable one, so a false one? A false theory is what they want, is that why they are into LQG? | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 17:43 | answer | added | cesaruliana | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 16:00 | comment | added | Woett | @JHI There is a difference between being falsifiable and being falsified. | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 15:53 | comment | added | JHI | I dont understand the supposed non-appreciation, wouldnt any true theory of nature necessarily be non-falsifiable? | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 10:36 | answer | added | Samuel Monnier | timeline score: 42 | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 10:27 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | to read more, here is a good starting point: superstringtheory.com/experm/index.html | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 10:26 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | of course string theory is falsiable, or it would not be physics; it predicts a new generation of particles (so called "supersymmetric" counterparts of the known particles) and it predicts extra spatial dimensions; the accelerator experiments at CERN support neither of these predictions, so this does not look hopeful, and this is why many physicists are critical of string theory; at the same time, as a mathematical toolbox, it is proving to be very useful in other branches of physics, for example providing a new approach to a theory of superconductivity | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 10:14 | comment | added | Qfwfq | I'm absolutely no expert, but I think the (or a) main source of appearent non-falsifiability of string theory may lie in the tremendous energy scale at which string theory phenomena take place, which is presently totally out of reach for human experimental devices, and will allegedly be so for a lot of time. So -if I understand this point correctly- string theory is not a priori non-falsifiable but it is so in practice. | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 9:03 | history | asked | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |