Dax discussions of Beyond SM theories/including newcomer questions

[Kevin_Axion]

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.

 

[Lt_Dax]

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.

You may find it interesting that I view the falsifiability argument as a meaningless distraction - I care little about it, since an unfalsifiable theory may become falsifiable in the future; this is in my original post. My criticisms of ST are different, it's more to do with how we do science and how we discover real knowledge.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Yes, real knowledge precisely what we are lacking. I suppose you are right in that sense. We need real knowledge through experiments, but Theoretical knowledge is just as convincing. I suggest the idea of Bekenstein-Hawking Radiation, an unobserved phenomena but widely accepted. It is because it just seems right, as does SST, that doesn't mean it is though.

 

[JustinLevy]

These efforts would arguably be minimal if we had proof that a string is the only possible fundamental object.

Come on, are you seriously suggesting people are not searching of a minimal description of quantum gravity?

People would LOVE to find a consistent 4-d field theory version of quantum gravity.

You ask why is string theory considered an advance, it is because this appears to be a possible explanation. This is a huge step forward.

Would you feel more comfortable if we worded it as:
For decades no consistent approach to quantum gravity could be found. People tried to add many different degrees of freedom, or use other mathematical tools, to cancel out divergences. Nothing seemed to work. String theory represents our first data point for finding an upper bound on the minimal amount that needs to be added to find a consistent theory of quantum gravity.

Theorists worked hard to get this data point. The information provided by this data-point should not be dismissed.

It's an awkward way to word it, but as already stated, there is no mathematical nor experimental claim that string theory IS the minimal explanation. I did not claim it was the minimum. I explicitly stated the opposite.

 

[JustinLevy]

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.

You seem to be making the same claim that Dax is making, which is confusing me.

How is experimental evidence of gravity, NOT experimental evidence beyond the standard model? Same with dark matter, which is not in the standard model either.

If you claim there isn't evidence beyond the standard model, then all efforts to get theories beyond the standard model DO appear to have no experimental motivation. Which falls right into Dax's complaint.

EDIT:
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.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

I am saying that dark matter and dark energy aren't concepts that give us a framework but yes they do suggest something beyond the Standard Model.

 

[bcrowell]

It seems to me that some of the responses to Lt_Dax have involved a lot more hand-wringing and ruffled feathers than was necessary. I think Lt_Dax's original post was spot on. If it hurts people's feelings, then the right response is to calm down, put those feelings aside, and try to write a response that answers intellectual points with intellectual points.

There is a reason it's called theoretical physics.

What is this supposed to mean? Does it mean that theoretical physics is not supposed to make contact with experiment?

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.

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.)

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Yes it is supposed to make contact with experiment but you don't need experiments to research theoretical physics, it's a purely logical subject based on reason and deduction. Others would differ as the OP has and I absolutely accept that viewpoint I was just expressing my own.

 

[negru]

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.)

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?

And why should tenured people be allowed to work on whatever they want? What's so special about them? Pretty much all universities receive federal funding whether they're private or not, so it's still tax money funding tenured profs.

 

[MTd2]

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?

Humanities can arguably be in touch with reality. But some areas of it, like paranormal research, still get funding from governments. I think QG and paranormal are in the same zone of priority according to bcrowell.

 

[Lt_Dax]

@Justin Levy

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.

This is the key. I think some have mistakenly thought that I don't believe there is evidence that our current theories need revising. On the contrary, one thing I have emphasized repeatedly is that not only do we have such evidence, but we probably have a lot more than we think (the "long list of unsolved problems" concept).

The main cause of confusion is that some people are saying that such evidence justifies developing entire 'frameworks' aside from experiment. This is bizarre because the actual point shows that we are not devoid of data or experimental oddities (I think this is a pernicious myth). The trend towards massive model building such as string theory is a separate issue, and seems motivated more by grandiose desires to build a theory of everything, not a lack of unsolved observational problems to work on.

My view, which could be overly simplistic, is that we should do theoretical physics by examining experimental problems. The $$g-2$$ may be a good example, and there are other examples (which people have mentioned) of where we need to extend or revise the standard model. The development of ST seems to be a separate exercise. I'm sorry to say, I find the concept of doing 'theoretical research' alone somewhat strange. The $$g-2$$ people, for example, do their research in concert with experimentalists. The other two main divisions of theoretical physics (Lattice Gauge Theory, Particle Phenomenology) fit the "old", proper definition of what theory is. The meaning of the word "theory" really does matter. If it didn't matter, then we can basically just do anything we want, no matter how wild. If "theoretical" physics is no longer a part of physics (an experimental science by definition), then that would probably result in a huge mountain of 'theory' papers which say a lot but explain very little.

So I don't question that there is physics beyond the standard model, I think there is evidence for that already, I want to make that clear. My main question is about why string theorists use such incredible language to describe what they are doing. Is it really justified to say we have had a "revolution" (or two, no less) even though it hasn't been confirmed experimentally? The two real revolutions of the early 20th century were tightly linked to experiment, front and back.* The Standard Model in the 60s and 70s is a brilliant example of a highly predictive theory which was developed and verified at famous particle accelerators in the USA and CERN in cooperation with theorists, but even with this level of success, they never ever made unwarranted claims about the importance of the theory. They knew that they could only be sure it was right up to a certain energy scale. Wilsonian renormalization taught us that beautifully.

Again regarding language, why do we describe the development of string theory as discovery? This is not a question regarding its usefulness in pure mathematics, or how interesting it is, it is a question about whether we can discover a real fact about the universe by writing down a new equation. In the Standard Model, didn't we write down equations to explain new observations (e.g. the QCD lagrangian wasn't written down before we had experimental knowledge of the features of the strong force). String theory doesn't just claim to explain what we already know, it is so unconstrained that it results in a unified theory (which may or may not be the case) and even branes and multiverses (which may or may not exist). Is this discovery? I'm still certain we've never done anything like this in the past, and surely it is false that we don't have any new data to work with?

* Not only that, but the judgment of whether something is a revolution is not made by the practitioners of the subject at that precise moment. It is typically made in the future, and it is typically made by others. So what makes Green, Witten et. al. so comfortable using these words?

 

[Lt_Dax]

By the way I'm still not purely making assertions - my questions are not all rhetorical. If any cool heads can explain why pure model building can be real discovery even without experiment, then I welcome it.

One thing I may anticipate is the "argument from beauty" - i.e. Dirac did it, so that's what we're doing. Well, I think there are essential differences (Dirac didn't develop the theory with exotic objects and dimensions, only new matrices), but apart from anything else, to use an old quark physics pun, truth comes before beauty. (This may be why Dirac was nervous about calculating $$g$$ from his equation and left it til the next day, assuming he was nervous).

 

[suprised]

What is routinely neglected in these discussions, is that there are, as a matter of fact, extremely non-trivial computational results! For example, state counting in black holes. This is a theoretical arena where the two pillars of modern physics, GR and QM, seem to clash and strings provide a way to reconcile these. It is very non-trivial that this, and many other things, do work at all! This is what has been "discovered" and the reason for excitement.

It is simply not so that string theory is an unmotivated "belief" and people just say: well let's postulate that we have those little strings and see what comes out. If it doesn't work, we "believe" instead in membranes, or yellow octopi, for that matter.

On the contrary, strings are a framework, or machine, that seems to "work" and make sense as a physical model, whenever one checks something, so many people view this as very meaningful and not as a random idea. This is a very important point and sets it apart from countless other attempts that have been tried in the past. Whether it directly or indirectly applies to nature is a different question. It is in principle testable, so qualifies as a scientific theory despite certain people want to deny this.

 

[Lt_Dax]

@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. An unfalsifiable idea may become falsifiable as technology advances, so it's irrelevant. All ideas are falsifiable in principle. Something only achieves theory status when it has been experimentally confirmed (and repeatedly!). We say this to creationists all the time when they claim that evolution is only a theory. Is it one rule for creationists, another for us?

It is very clear that string theory is not just a random idea. From what I know of it, it is a remarkable construction, but I think you can see that the implications of string theory go way beyond just state counting in black holes. It opens up a whole new can of worms, a vast array of new predictions. The demands upon String Model to make it String Theory are very big. (I might not be expressing this viewpoint very clearly so i apologize if that's the case.)

The real test of a 'theory of everything' is that it can explain everything, old experimental results and new experimental results. Isn't that a tall order?

 

[suprised]

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. This is right now mainly conceptual, ie about understanding how things works. An example is holography in quantum gravity, which is a spin-off of string theory and seems to be a central point of quantum gravity. Many see this as one of the most important insight in theoretical physics in the last decades; if the naysayers would have had their will, this kind of research would have been stopped since long, and an enormous damage would have resulted. Fortunately, and for good reasons, the naysayers don't matter! Most of them are not even scientists.

Of course ultimatively the goal is to make contact with experiment, but this goal is far away (if it ever can be reached), so people content themselves with more modest goals for the time being. They are difficult enough.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

That's exactly the points I was trying to address, surprised, you're a string theorist, correct?

 

[Lt_Dax]

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.

Semantics (meaning) really does matter! It's unfair of you to call me a self-declared and obsessed critic because of that. The meaning of things really does matter, because if words can mean anything, then the discussion becomes meaningless. (And as I've said, I don't care about falsifiability because all ideas are "in principle" falsifiable).

Your comment about parts of mathematics which are called "theories" illustrates the point. I'm not talking about those parts of mathematics which can be called "formal theories" - where the word formal is used because we adhere to mathematical standards of proof. I am talking about "empirical theories" - which is what we mean when we call something a scientific theory. "Proof" in what scientists call a theory means something different.

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?

The string physicists are more interested in positive questions, like what can be learned from the results and how to make further progress.

Again, your semantics are unclear to me. What do you mean by "results"? 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.

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.

Here's the problem: even for very high energy physics which might require something like a string theory, the cry of being devoid of experiments is false. Cosmological or even some condensed matter physics results may be capable of showing things which we can't do in a super accelerator (again some of these reports have been prominent lately). The point is that you develop a theory from these results, not in anticipation of them. This is what the creationism cartoon was mocking.

(And I believe there is a lot to be learned about how science works from the evolution/creation debate).

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.

 

[negru]

@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.

So who exactly gives it greater importance than it deserves? The people who work on it? It's their business what they're interested in. The people who fund it? See my post above.

 

[Lt_Dax]

So who exactly gives it greater importance than it deserves? The people who work on it?

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.

 

[negru]

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.

What you're saying is neither uncomfortable nor new, just usually uninformed, if you don't know what kind of results surprised is referring to. 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.
Not to mention things like the klt relations. This has all been discussed hundreds of times on this forum. Just these applications to scattering amplitudes means that string theory will never go away, because it is directly intertwined with gauge theory and gravity. If there's any other qg theory out there, it will either be eaten by string theory, or eat it itself.


But of course, if string theory only says new things about old stuff, it wasn't actually needed in the first place, and if it says something completely new it's out of touch with reality.

 

[negru]

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.

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.

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]

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.

Why reinvent the wheel? I'm not uninformed about these "results", so please don't make uncalled for accusations, I just don't view them as necessary. If they are just a calculational device, then are you saying that you don't really believe strings exist? Is this just like using complex plane integration to simplify tricky integrals in the real plane?

Just these applications to scattering amplitudes means that string theory will never go away, because it is directly intertwined with gauge theory and gravity.

Has this "calculational device" approach ever explained things which the standard model could never explain? Has it made new predictions beyond the standard model which we can search for soon? If the answer to both is no, then was it a waste of time?

 

[friend]

Maybe it would help to think in more general terms what a theory of everything would accomplish and what issues it would raise.

It might be with experiment we can discover smaller and smaller particles, and with time we can discover more interesting mathematical structures that describe them. But just because we can measure the properties of these smaller particles doesn't mean that we have an explanation for them. And just because we can predict their rate of occurance doesn't mean we understand why they exist.

We will always be asking why things are as they are until we can derive physics from the principles of reason alone. I think that's the ideal for a theory of everything, to be derived from logic alone. Such a theory would explain where the principles of QM and GR come from to begin with and why the SM has the constants it has. And I'm not so sure we're far off from that goal.

Then what becomes of the questions of falsifiability? Can you falsify a mathematical equation? Can you falsify a logical deduction? If the logic is impecible that give the physical prediction, then what are we to think if measurements are contrary? What are we to question, our sight or our reason? Perhaps that delemma is one reason many may be uncomfortable with supporting such efforts. Yet, isn't it the ultimate goal of science to "explain" everything - to prove that the universe is perfectly logical - to derive physics from logic?

 

[Lt_Dax]

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.

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]

Has multiplication explained anything that addition could never explain?

Has QFT ever explained anything SR and QM could never explain?

 

[negru]

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.

Well I'm not comfortable with publicly funded research in the first place. But if you're going to have it, it's not practical to ask the public what they want. I'm not comfortable with democracy either, but if you're going to have it, it's not going to be practical to ask the public to vote on every law itself. See what I mean?

 

[Lt_Dax]

Has multiplication explained anything that addition could never explain?

Has QFT ever explained anything SR and QM could never explain?

Answer to first question no, answer to second question yes.

 

[suprised]

It's unfair of you to call me a self-declared and obsessed critic because of that.

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.

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?

I don't quite understand what you mean here; why would there be a problem.

Again, your semantics are unclear to me. What do you mean by "results"?

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.

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.

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?

"Speculative" is often used misleadingly. Many results (eg see the above) are not speculative but just plainly follow from, or are strongly suggested by computations. That's why we don't talk about religion here. What is speculative is to build models and claim these describe nature.

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.

What do you mean by "real science". You you realize how biased already your language is?

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).

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"?

By the way, I'm beginning to wonder if string theorists often find no further recourse than a personal attack of some form.

There wasn't any attack. And apart from that, string physicists have quite good arguments, so your "no further recourse" is not appropriate.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

There is no need to be nihilistic towards a certain theory just because you may not understand the implications of String Theory or it doesn't conform to your idealization of what physics should be. If everyone had favoured your opinion in the 1970s theoretical physics, as suprised stated, would be absolutely bare of richness and beauty that has been discovered recently, particularly in the context of String Theory. Once again, I'll state that some people need to fully understand what something has done before ultimately stating that it's effects on physics have been minimal. Again, if everyone had said this about Superstring Theory SUSY wouldn't exist and SUSY appears to be a vital component to extending the Standard Model, Gauge/gravity duality wouldn't exist, String Dualities wouldn't exist, Holographic Principle wouldn't exist and unique approaches to understanding high-temperature superconductors wouldn't exist. String Theory has actually become unavoidable because its ability to explain certain aspects of reality is unprecedented.

 

[Lt_Dax]

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.

I'm tiring of this. If you actually believe that the criterion for accepting an idea in science is mathematical proof, whereas I believe it is experimental validation, then it is no wonder we are talking past each other.

Same goes for your conveniently loose definition of a "result". In my view the only kind of result that matters is an experimental one: either a result that calls for a new theory, or one which confirms a recent one. You talk about things such as AdS/CFT, which are new ways of thinking about QFT, as a result, but in a discussion like this, coffee break language doesn't cut it.

A conversation where we don't agree on the meanings of simple words can only descend into farce. Unfortunately, I assumed from the outset that these terms were so well established in science that we took them for granted.

I sought some clarification of why it is justified to claim that in BTSM theories we are discovering new physics rather than merely hypothesizing. People have made some interesting points but there has been no clear response to this question - I suspect that many string theorists actually disagree with it. Same goes for the theory issue - some of you guys have been claiming string theory is a theory, even though many string theorists accept that it isn't. With inconsistency like this within the same discipline, we can only ever descend into conversational farce.

So here it is: some people think I'm talking sense, others think I'm talking nonsense, and my initial criticisms have not been addressed, mainly because we are wasting time arguing about the meaning of words. Since I have to keep repeating points I made in my original post, I'm not particularly motivated to carry on with this discussion.

 

[marcus]

Dax, it puzzles me that although you stress the importance of physics being guided by phenomena (observation/experiment) you play down the value of nearterm falsifiability.

Falsifiability is one form of testability (a particularly strong form) which could include weaker forms such as constraint of parameters and other types of guidance as well. There is, I think you would agree, special value in near term testability.

The judgment as to whether something is legitimate empirical science, or abstract math, or crackpot, or pseudoscience must surely be a subjective consensus-type judgment by the scientific community involving some imprecision and perceived differences of degree. Can't ever be perfectly clear cut black-or-white. Science is an aristocratic community and a tradition, not a computer program.

I suppose that is why people find it necessary to get defensive, argue interminably, and engage in special pleading and occasional propaganda. These are community functions.

Anyway, I urge you not to deprecate the value of nearterm falsifiability. And note that it's important when the phenomenologists themselves (whose professional job is to identify and delineate testability) determine that a theory is falsifiable.

When they decide, that is, while the theoreticians have not asked for it and may even be a little reluctant to accept the idea. :yuck:

 

[negru]

Well you keep arguing about the meaning of words, what is a real vs unreal theory, when string theorists couldn't care less about any of this and are busy finding interesting results, in whatever form they appear. You say people are focusing too much on reaching a particular conclusion, when in fact it's you doing that. String theorists don't care what they need to find. They just look for what's interesting. But we also had this discussion when we were arguing about the significance of the scattering amplitudes developments.

 

[Lt_Dax]

@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 people's reasoning ability 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.

 

[marcus]

@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.

Please don't be offended or disheartened. This is your first thread here at PF and you have caused a very lively active one. We learn from observing what people get defensive about and become heated and impassioned over. The issues are not to be settled but we learn a lot by noting what arguments are employed. Bravo. (Now I am applying the masculine case as I think of you, perhaps it is the symbiont who is a he.)

I am not too concerned with stringery---I think that in practical terms like new jobs the interest in it is moderating in the physics community. People have to say a lot of things just to keep their morale up. Like trumpeting black hole entropy and taking credit for holographic principle.

We are not obliged to show reverence or devotion---we can ignore the hat-on-the-stick symbol if we choose.

 

[Lt_Dax]

Yes the symbiont has been a he on several occasions. :tongue2: