Timeline for Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 11, 2015 at 10:44 | comment | added | kakaz | @Dimensio1n0 - no it is right. In string theory %'s sum up to 150% | |
| Feb 11, 2015 at 10:43 | comment | added | kakaz | I suppose there should be mentioned the following argument: we observe String Theory! It is because if String Theory would not exists, then Universe would does not exists, so string theory cannot be discovered! It is simple like that! | |
| Jul 9, 2013 at 13:26 | comment | added | G. Rodrigues | @dimension10: If a physical theory is inconsistent in the usual mathematical sense, then it has no predictive power, as both P and not-P are entailed by the theory for any P in the formal language of the theory. But this is not even the reason why point 3 does not makes any sense. The main reason is, whatever we take "2" to be, it is not the sort of thing that can be observed, like say electrons, planets or persons, so saying things like "detecting a mathematical inconsistency in our world" just shows a good deal of muddled, confused thinking. | |
| Jul 3, 2013 at 8:21 | comment | added | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | @G.Rodrigues: It does, because other alternatives are mathematically inconsistent. So if mathematical inconsistencies were true, then those alternatives would be right. Oops, I accidentally voted up Igor Khavkine's comment and can't retract the vote. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 14:26 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Kim Morrison | ||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 3:02 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 13:02 | |||||
| Jun 11, 2013 at 12:48 | comment | added | Igor Khavkine | Perhaps it should have been clearer that my comment went along with a downvote. Point 3 is a pure equivocation fallacy. The word "consistent" is thrown around quite liberally in theoretical physics and has at best an extremely tenuous connection to "consistency" in mathematical logic. | |
| Jun 11, 2013 at 12:33 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | +1, Igor. How much actual sense point 3 makes might even be beside the point, as it may be read merely as more nakedly polemical than some of the others. | |
| Jun 11, 2013 at 11:51 | comment | added | G. Rodrigues | Point 3 makes no sense at all. | |
| Jun 11, 2013 at 11:34 | comment | added | Igor Khavkine | The original author of this answer, Lubos Motl, should be credited here. Also, it is chock full of hype and there is nothing particularly mathematical about its content or its intended audience. | |
| Jun 11, 2013 at 9:45 | comment | added | user22882 | In point 1, you write, "Lorentz symmetry works ... with a precision much better than 100%". What did you mean with that? | |
| Jun 11, 2013 at 5:09 | history | answered | user24656 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |