Timeline for Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2013 at 17:56 | comment | added | Urs Schreiber | That there are more constraints on a consistent perturbative string theory background than on any old QFT is well known. That's why one started describing that "landscape" of solutions in the first place, since for general QFT there are two few constraints to say anything of interest. And if anyone points out a mistake on an nLab page, it will be corrected. | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 13:26 | comment | added | Peter Woit | 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, 2013 at 9:08 | history | answered | Urs Schreiber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |