Timeline for Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2013 at 8:12 | vote | accept | Sebastien Palcoux | ||
| Oct 28, 2014 at 21:37 | |||||
| Jun 10, 2013 at 14:16 | history | edited | Peter Woit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1680 characters in body
|
| Jun 10, 2013 at 10:51 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | ncatlab.org/nlab/show/string+theory+FAQ | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 9:07 | comment | added | Urs Schreiber | The nLab has a page devoted to this question: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/string+theory+FAQ | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 8:42 | comment | added | Urs Schreiber | a) No interesting perturbation series is supposed to converge, for it would mean that it converges also for negative coupling. The important aspect of the string perturbation series is that it is degreewise finite, hence renormalized. b) CY-compactifications "one gets" only when demanding N=1 global susy after compactification. c) The "string landscape" is conserably more constrained than the "QFT landscape", as there are considerably more consistency constraints on a string background. d) Complaints about the size of the landscape confuse theories with models built inside theories. | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 23:43 | history | edited | Peter Woit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body; added 71 characters in body
|
| Jun 9, 2013 at 23:32 | history | answered | Peter Woit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |