- #36
Kevin_Axion
- 913
- 2
JustinLevy, I mean there is no experimental evidence for a theory Beyond the Standard Model, I do understand that there is remaining problems and physics beyond as I stated these ideas in my original post.
Kevin_Axion said:We have different perspectives and I respect yours, and I do sound harsh, but that is only because people come on this general sub-forum and completely deter String Theory and only focus on one idea falsifiability.
Come on, are you seriously suggesting people are not searching of a minimal description of quantum gravity?Lt_Dax said:These efforts would arguably be minimal if we had proof that a string is the only possible fundamental object.
You seem to be making the same claim that Dax is making, which is confusing me.Kevin_Axion said:JustinLevy, I mean there is no experimental evidence for a theory Beyond the Standard Model, I do understand that there is remaining problems and physics beyond as I stated these ideas in my original post.
What is this supposed to mean? Does it mean that theoretical physics is not supposed to make contact with experiment?Kevin_Axion said:There is a reason it's called theoretical physics.
Well, my opinion is that the answer should be 2b, in the sense that pursuits like LQG and string theory should get zero institutional support. (And this is not the same as saying that nobody will ever do any work on them. Once someone has tenure at a university, you can't stop him/her from working on something s/he finds compelling.)negru said:The answer is easy I don't understand why we always have to revisit the issue.
1.we have experimental data: we use it
2.we don't have experimental data:
a. we do what we can
b. we do nothing
Choose between a and b.
bcrowell said:Well, my opinion is that the answer should be 2b, in the sense that pursuits like LQG and string theory should get zero institutional support. (And this is not the same as saying that nobody will ever do any work on them. Once someone has tenure at a university, you can't stop him/her from working on something s/he finds compelling.)
negru said:Well you see this is the issue. If the problem with "dubious" research is the funding, I'd have to agree with you. However, I also find "research" in literature, or humanities in general to be pretty worthless. Does that mean we should cut funding?
To make it more clear, I am trying to separate two things:
1) Experimental Evidence showing our current theories are wrong (or at least need adjusting/ something added)
2) Experimental data on gravity at a scale where the quantum corrections become clear over the classical effects
We already have #1. We have yet to get a theory to resolve this. In this sense, experiment has been ahead of theory for close to a century.
We do not have #2. This does not mean we don't have evidence for something "beyond the standard model", or need for figuring out how to get GR as a classical limit of a quantum theory.
Well what one calls theory is semantics, there is eg in mathematics also the theory of modular forms and countless other "theories", so the string phyisicists just don't care how their field of research is called and go on. It is the self-declared critics who are obsessed with this kind of questions, in particular with falsifiability.
The string physicists are more interested in positive questions, like what can be learned from the results and how to make further progress.
Lt_Dax said:@suprised, you make some interesting points, but I'm not convinced that what makes a scientific theory is falsifiability - as I've said before, I think this is given greater importance than it deserves.
negru said:So who exactly gives it greater importance than it deserves? The people who work on it?
Lt_Dax said:By the way, I'm beginning to wonder if string theorists often find no further recourse than a personal attack of some form. I realize that some of what I say is uncomfortable, but I'd prefer a crystal clear answer to some of my questions than accusations about personal character.
You have good intentions, but seriously, the public doesn't know the difference between quantum physics and teleportation. Most people who come to this forum don't know this, despite having a greater than average interest in physics.Lt_Dax said:No, the usual low-quality critics of string theory who haven't really thought about it. The problem is that string theorists then spend too much time trying to claim that string theory is in principle falsifiable, even though it is irrelevant either way.
And I have to say, if someone's career is publicly funded, then the public has a say in what they work on. It's our job to explain to people how we're advancing physics. If they're self funded, then that's different.
There have been a great deal of results coming out of string theory which apply to day-to-day physics, like scattering amplitudes in qcd. Today the easiest way to compute scattering amplitudes is via string theory.
Just these applications to scattering amplitudes means that string theory will never go away, because it is directly intertwined with gauge theory and gravity.
This isn't to say that whoever gives the money shouldn't have the last say, but the say will always be uniformed. The public will want to continue research in QM because they want teleportation, and they will want research in string theory because they want wormholes.
Lt_Dax said:Are you saying that we can just work on what we want, with a loose definition of how to build a scientific theory, because the unwashed plebians won't be able to tell the difference either way? I'm not comfortable with that view of the public.
negru said:Has multiplication explained anything that addition could never explain?
Has QFT ever explained anything SR and QM could never explain?
Oh I didn't mean you, be assured - there were plenty of other threads here over the years which is what I was referring to. With obession I mean that the same claims are made over and over again, by the same people, despite explanations to the contrary. With self-declared I mean people who don't understand the issues but nevertheless behave in a way as if they would be experts.Lt_Dax said:It's unfair of you to call me a self-declared and obsessed critic because of that.
I don't quite understand what you mean here; why would there be a problem.Lt_Dax said:Maybe the problem is that many string theorists trained as mathematicians, so they think that the only thing that matters is proof in mathematical sense?
Results like the successful count of microscopic quantum states in blach holes, and the AdS/CFT correspondence. The latter relates gauge to string theories, which is obviously of great importance.Lt_Dax said:Again, your semantics are unclear to me. What do you mean by "results"?
Yes...that's true also today. That's why people are working very hard to understand the foundations of quantum gravity etc. Do you want to criticize this?Lt_Dax said:Part of the whole problem seems to be that people involved with speculative models feel comfortable with building upon results which haven't been rubber stamped by experiment yet.
In the past, you could only build such a house of cards if you know that the foundations are correct.
What do you mean by "real science". You you realize how biased already your language is?Lt_Dax said:In real science, contact with experiment is not a "goal", it is part of the enterprise. Right up until the 1980s it was always very close by.
I doubt it, theoretical physics is different. Again an example: there IS an apparent clash between GR and QM. This is likely the deepest basic questions in physics. Do you view it as a "problem" if a few people sit down and try to resolve it? Is it "purely mathematical" or "non-scientific"?Lt_Dax said:The point is that you develop a theory from these results, not in anticipation of them. .
..
(And I believe there is a lot to be learned about how science works from the evolution/creation debate).
There wasn't any attack. And apart from that, string physicists have quite good arguments, so your "no further recourse" is not appropriate.Lt_Dax said:By the way, I'm beginning to wonder if string theorists often find no further recourse than a personal attack of some form.
Me: Maybe the problem is that many string theorists trained as mathematicians, so they think that the only thing that matters is proof in mathematical sense?
You: I don't quite understand what you mean here; why would there be a problem.
Lt_Dax said:@marcus I agree that near-term falsifiability is practically important and you can't really make progress without it. I just think that it doesn't go into what makes something a theory or not. However on both counts, the case for pursuing string theory is weakened. Unfortunately, it's practically impossible to have a conversation about this with clever people who will play mental gymnastics with the meaning of words in order to accommodate their view.
It is a sad indictment on the current state of the physics community that I was accused of using biased language for claiming there is such a thing as real science. This is the reason I don't feel like carrying on with this discussion.