Reputation of String Theory: Exploring a Possible TOE

[Jake4]

I was just wondering, I keep hearing different opinions on this, but how is the reputation of string theory now?

I speak to some mathematicians and they completely write it off, while I talk to other people and they say it's still in the works but looks promising.

Obviously it's not finished nor a complete TOE(at the moment) but is it still a route that should be explored?

 

[Demystifier]

Yes, you correctly summarized the status of it.

 

[Jake4]

um..

so.. is it still a valid theory that is actually thought to at least be possibly correct?

or is it just the red headed step child of the physics world?

 

[tom.stoer]

I doubt that you will get an unbiased summary here.

I would say that string theory is still an active research program, but that it lost credit due to
- missing post-dictions of already known phenomena
- missing falsifiable predictions of new phenomena
- excuses like the anthropic principle as a way to save the theory

Even if you forget about the anthropic reasoning and the landscape (which is not seen as a viable way out by all string researchers) the first two problems remain.

I would say that many discussions are politically biased. This is due to the fact that the majority of the string community ignored the first two problems over a couple of years more or less completely. A few years ago there were (not only physically motivated) attacks on string theory focussing exactly on these weak points.

So the problem is that the debate about string theory in the last years was never free of prejudices, from neither side.

 

[OB1]

I would have to respectfully disagree about "missing falsifiable predictions of new phenomena". There are plenty of predictions, and they are theoretically falsifiable. At this point in time experimental physics has yet to develop a machine which would test these predictions, but that is not a flaw in the theory, that is a flaw in the experimentation.
There is a difference between a theory which is unfalsifiable in principle (e.g. "God exists") or a theory which is unfalsifiable in practice (e.g. "there is water on Pluto"). The former is philosophy while the latter is science. I think this is the crux of the problem - many critics of string theory make no distinction between a theory for which a test can be designed, even if not implemented, and a theory for which no test can be designed in the first place. There is nothing wrong with a theory which is ahead of our technological capacity. 300 years ago they might have dismissed quantum mechanics as "missing falsifiable predictions of new phenomena". It is nonetheless a resoundingly successful scientific theory (although, of course, not perfect).
And as for missing "post-dictions of already known phenomena" - I am not sure specifically what you are referring to, but string theory, like loop gravity, technicolor, etc. is not a complete theory. That is precisely why the string theorists should keep working at it.

 

[Naty1]

It seems the early promise of greatness for String Theory has not yet been fulfilled... maybe sort of like the human genome code definition...at ten years for that this month, I don't think a single medical cure has been discovered...nor the specific genetics for any disease. But progress sometimes is elusive until a breakthruogh...like Einsteins "greatest thought"...

In any case, a number of theoreticians seem to feel the mathematics that has been developed in string theory and even possible physical insights that are suggested is itself worthwhile and may ultimately lead to other approaches. Maybe that's akin the Riemannian geometry which doesn't appear to have been used much until Einstein came along some years later and used it to great effect in General Relativity.

It seems one great obstacle was initially different and complementary views... the existence of at least five approaches...those were at least partially reconciled by Ed Witten via "M Theory" but that, too, seems to have not proved to be the cure all as was hoped. So far as I understand it, the mathematics of string theory is so complicated no one knows the exact equations of the theory nor I believe exact solutions.

is it still a valid theory that is actually thought to at least be possibly correct?

"Valid", I am unsure; "possibly correct", I think so...lots of people still work its mysteries.

Science is so far a progression over time: From Newtonian space and time, then Einstein with continuous GR, then QM with "quantum" components...none seem to be the final answer either.

 

[tom.stoer]

There is a difference between a theory which is unfalsifiable in principle (e.g. "God exists") or a theory which is unfalsifiable in practice (e.g. "there is water on Pluto"). ... many critics of string theory make no distinction between a theory ...

I agree and I see the difference.

But the problem is that ST is not even theoretically falsifiable. E.g. ST predicts SUSY, but does not tell us at which energy we should expect SUSY. The energy can be arbitrary high. So can you tell me which unique experimentally fasifiable predictions ST makes?

By unique I mean
a) predictions for which we necessarily need ST, that means for which e.g. MSSM and/or SUGRA are not enough
b) predictions which are unique within ST, that means for which ST does not make different predictions depending (e.g.) on different approximations.

And as for missing "post-dictions of already known phenomena" - I am not sure specifically what you are referring to.

Some examples:

• we live in 3 large spatial dimensions; ST can't tell us why 3
• the SM has 3 generations of fermions; ST can't tell us why 3
• the SM has chiral fermions; ST can't tell us why
• the SM has U(1)*SU(2)*SU(3) as its gauge group; ST can't tell us why
• ST can't explain the masses = the Yukawa couplings + Higgs mass, Weinberg angle, CKM etc.

Can you tell me which structures existing in the SM are explained by ST?

That is precisely why the string theorists should keep working at it.

As I said, my arguments are not unbiased. I don't want to tell anybody to stop or to continue to work on certain theories. But I think that a theory which is investigated by thousands of brilliant physicists for decades w/o progress of practical relevance can't be true. With practical I mean that ST must not only solve problems created by ST itself, but problems and questions relevant in practice (like in my list mentioned above).

 

[Jake4]

I would have to respectfully disagree about "missing falsifiable predictions of new phenomena". There are plenty of predictions, and they are theoretically falsifiable. At this point in time experimental physics has yet to develop a machine which would test these predictions, but that is not a flaw in the theory, that is a flaw in the experimentation.
There is a difference between a theory which is unfalsifiable in principle (e.g. "God exists") or a theory which is unfalsifiable in practice (e.g. "there is water on Pluto"). The former is philosophy while the latter is science. I think this is the crux of the problem - many critics of string theory make no distinction between a theory for which a test can be designed, even if not implemented, and a theory for which no test can be designed in the first place. There is nothing wrong with a theory which is ahead of our technological capacity. 300 years ago they might have dismissed quantum mechanics as "missing falsifiable predictions of new phenomena". It is nonetheless a resoundingly successful scientific theory (although, of course, not perfect).
And as for missing "post-dictions of already known phenomena" - I am not sure specifically what you are referring to, but string theory, like loop gravity, technicolor, etc. is not a complete theory. That is precisely why the string theorists should keep working at it.

this is basically what I thought..

I was wondering if anyone found problems with the theory. One can't dismiss a theory simply because our technology prevents us from being able to experiment it.

But I guess the question is, would it ever be able to be proven? It's an obvious consensus that no time even remotely soon would we be able to experimentally observe said 'strings' so, the theory could have had all kinks worked out, but it still would be up in the air.

When we're talking on the level of strings, I don't think anyone even has a far off theoretical idea of ho we would even try to observe them ( I could be wrong)

 

[OB1]

String theory is not my forte, but as an example of a possibly observable phenomenon predicted exclusively by string theory, consider the predicted B-field corrections to the Maxwell field. If we were able to observe the excitations of an electromagnetic field to sufficient accuracy to determine whether the field is purely Maxwellian or has a B-field correction, that would be clear evidence either in favor of, or refuting string theory.
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the gauge group structure of the standard model is expected to arise from an appropriate choice of Calabi-Yau compactification, at least in type IIA or IIB superstring theory. I also thought (and again, I could be mistaken) that the fermion generations fall out of the mass squared spectrum of different superstring sectors.
Finally, I am not sure what you mean when you that string theory can't tell us why our observable spatial world has 3 dimensions. On a physical level, we can't observe the other 6 dimensions for many possible reasons, all of which depend on the geometry of those dimensions. If you mean philosophically why our universe emerged in this way from the big bang, I don't believe that string theory has an answer, so touche on that point.

 

[OB1]

It is also my understanding that certain types of Regge trajectories would be indicative of strings.

 

[tom.stoer]

... that the gauge group structure of the standard model is expected to arise from an appropriate choice of Calabi-Yau compactification, at least in type IIA or IIB superstring theory.

With appropriate CY acrobatics you can generate (nearly) any gouge group you like; there is no selection principle which tells you which CY to chose, so no prediction for a specific gauge group. The mathematics changes with M-theory, but the problem remains essentially the same.

I also thought that the fermion generations fall out of the mass squared spectrum of different superstring sectors.

The fermion generations are related to the topology of the CY, so you have the same problem that you can't predict them. An additional problem is mass generation: in low-energy effective theories it boils down to SUSY breaking. Afaik how to break it is rather arbitrary (look at the MSSM), so again no prediction of fermion masses.

we can't observe the other 6 dimensions for many possible reasons, all of which depend on the geometry of those dimensions. ... why our universe emerged in this way from the big bang, I don't believe that string theory has an answer

Yes, this is what I mean. ST does not provide any argment why 3 out of 9 spatial dimensions are large whereas the other 6 are compactified to CY. The mathematics changes with M-theory, but the problem remains essentially the same.

... certain types of Regge trajectories would be indicative of strings.

That is correct, scattering amplitudes would indicate stringy behaviour. Regge behaviour is approx. true for certain hadrons which (afaik) was a support for ST in the sixties and early seventies. But now we would expect Regge trajectoires for elementary particles; unfortunately the situation is similar to SUSY: ST does not tell us at which energies we should expect Regge behaviour.

 

[darkside00]

If the higgs boson is found. Does that mean string theory is done?

 

[tom.stoer]

If the higgs boson is found. Does that mean string theory is done?

It does not mean anything regarding ST.

 

[OB1]

Well, that still leaves us with B-field corrections as a falsifiable prediction of string theory. As for post-dictions, I think I've lost the argument there...

 

[tom.stoer]

Well, that still leaves us with B-field corrections as a falsifiable prediction of string theory. As for post-dictions, I think I've lost the argument there...

Can you elaborate on this? Does that mean you expect ST corrections to Maxwell equations? Already at the classical level?

 

[BenTheMan]

I would say that string theory is still an active research program, but that it lost credit due to
- missing post-dictions of already known phenomena
- missing falsifiable predictions of new phenomena
- excuses like the anthropic principle as a way to save the theory

Even if you forget about the anthropic reasoning and the landscape (which is not seen as a viable way out by all string researchers) the first two problems remain.

Hmmm I have many things to say about this.

But I want to know what you mean by ``missing post-dictions of already known phenomena''.

What phenomena can string theory NOT explain?

 

[Noja888]

Someone please clarify or correct me here if I am wrong but in String Theory... - ( I believe I read this from Brian Green's first book ) - ...the "long hand" equations of ST are so time consuming for a PC to work through that they must use Perturbation theory to gain approximations.

Assuming the above is true. By using Perturbation theory are they clouding the results making predictions and relationships inaccurate?

Could anyone (more knowledgeable than me) elaborate on this or point out anything wrong in my understanding?

 

[tom.stoer]

But I want to know what you mean by ``missing post-dictions of already known phenomena''.

What phenomena can string theory NOT explain?

As there is no derivation of the standard model from ST, ST does not make the predictions the standard model makes; therefore ST does not even predict existence of electrons, quarks, neutrinos, ... ST does not predict their masses, their coupling strength ... ST does not predict confinement, deep inelastic scattering, chiral symmetry breaking, SU(2)*U(1) symmetry breaking, neutrino oscillations etc.

ST says tat all this could happen, but it does not exclude other possibilities. The standard model may emerge from ST; this has neither been proven nor disproven.

Thats what I mean by "missing post-dictions".

 

[BenTheMan]

As there is no derivation of the standard model from ST, ST does not make the predictions the standard model makes; therefore ST does not even predict existence of electrons, quarks, neutrinos, ... ST does not predict their masses, their coupling strength ... ST does not predict confinement, deep inelastic scattering, chiral symmetry breaking, SU(2)*U(1) symmetry breaking, neutrino oscillations etc.

ST says tat all this could happen, but it does not exclude other possibilities. The standard model may emerge from ST; this has neither been proven nor disproven.

Thats what I mean by "missing post-dictions".

What do you mean by ``standard model''?

Do you mean matter content, particle interactions and forces?

Or do you mean the electron mass to arbitrarily many decimal places?

My other comment is---SHOULD string theory predict things like chiral symmetry breaking, coupling strengths, or confinement? These are all features of the low energy effective field theory, and I think if you're asking string theory to address these questions, you're asking the wrong questions. Right?

 

[George Jones]

Full disclosure: I have almost no quantitative knowledge of string theory; after working through the first six chapters of Zwiebach and doing the exercises and problems, life got in the way.

From the second edition (2009) of Zwiebach (page 481):

In summary, while a fully realistic of particle physics has not been built in string theory, consistent progress towards this goal has been made. As we have seen, there are string models on D-branes whose open strings yield the particle content of the Standard Model. The significance of this development will depend on the ultimate success or failure of the models and what we learn form them. The intersecting brane models are not fully realistic. Symmetry breaking. for example, remains to be worked out. It would be a major accomplishment to achieve correct electroweak symmetry breaking in any string model.

If symmetry breaking works out in detail in some consistent string model, we would have shown that the Standard Model in its full glory can occur as a solution of sting theory.

A fair assessment?

 

[BenTheMan]

From the second edition (2009) of Zwiebach (page 481):


A fair assessment?

Of the models that he is discussing, yes, but not of the state of the art of string model building.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know.

 

[Fra]

These are all features of the low energy effective field theory, and I think if you're asking string theory to address these questions, you're asking the wrong questions. Right?

What would you say are the right questions?

Would it make sense to you to say that the questions ST is supposed to answer (ie. the "right questions") is to describe the possible (consistent with ST-ideas) world of models in the high energy domain, and not which of these possibilities that describe reality in the low-energy limit, and that the latter would be determined by experiment, and that the difficulty of the large landscape is due to actual uncertainties, rather than a flawed inference? And that we are bound to keep digging our way manually in the landscape?

If you disagree how would you phrase briefly the right questions?

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

What do you mean by ``standard model''?

Do you mean matter content, particle interactions and forces?

Or do you mean the electron mass to arbitrarily many decimal places?

My other comment is---SHOULD string theory predict things like chiral symmetry breaking, coupling strengths, or confinement? These are all features of the low energy effective field theory, and I think if you're asking string theory to address these questions, you're asking the wrong questions. Right?

By standard model I mean the well-established standard model of elementary particle physics: U(1)*SU(2) electro-weak interaction plus SU(3) QCD. Of course this includes the symmetry structure, 6 flavor / 3 generation content, masses, couplings, mixing angles etc. Of course I do not expect all these constants to be derivable with arbitrary numerical accurancy, but I expect at least the overall picture to emerge from ST.

Regarding low-energy phenomena I am not asking the wrong question. I do not expect ST to predict all these phenoma directly. The standard model as a low-energy effective theory of ST would be fine. But unfortunately there is no way known how to derive the above mentioned structure (the structure could be totally different as well).

Compare it to QCD: there are a couple of ways to motivate low-energy effective theories based on QCD (chiral perturbation theory). Of course this is not perfect, but by using symmetry arguments, approximations etc. one can at least motivate low-energy theories fitting both to the symmetry structure of QCD and to the low-energy phenomenology. Look at lattice gauge theory: you just plug in a few constants (like nucleon masses) and you are able to calculate all the other masses, decay constants and things like that within a few percent. Look at the Fermi theory of weak interactions, it emerges as "static limit" of the full GSW theory. The Fermi constant is even used to fix parameters of the GSW.

No such interplay between ST and the SM is known. Neither does ST predict the low-energy symmetry structure or some unkown parameters (like masses, couplings), not does the low energy effective theory allow one to predict or constrain the theory space of ST.

I know of no known fact of the standard model which was derived from ST. If you know a counter example, please let me know.

What ST is able to do is to provide a large class of theories (regarding dimensions, gauge groups, symmetries and symmetry breaking), to somehow constrain the theory space and to harmonize these theories with quantum gravity. This is of course a major achievement. D-branes and F-theory provide mechanisms for model building and they come quite close to structures similar to the standard model. So ST certainly makes some predictions like
- there must be gauge theories at low energies
- there must be SUSY which can be broken (fully or partially) at low energy theories
- there can be compactification of spatial dimensions
- fermion generations emerge from the topology of CY spaces
- ...
But all these structures are available w/o strings as well. So I do not see the benefit of introducing the whole complexity of strings just to motivate something which we already know and which can exist w/o strings as well. I do not see the additional benefit coming from strings.

 

[Haelfix]

"What would you say are the right questions?"

No one knows.

What is somewhat unreasonable is to expect a theory of quantum gravity to control anything about everything regarding low energy physics.

For instance when we discuss superfluidity, we don't sit there and write up a many body QCD and QED bound state problem. We could in principle, but the main salient features are mostly emergent (emergent here is a buzzword for 'its too complicated to solve, i'll just model the feature semianalytically')

Now the *hope* is that it does control a few things. Like for instance the amount of generations in the standard model, or perhaps why such and such a group representation is small.

To first approximation, if I was a physicist working on string theory phenomenology in the 80s, I would have been very satisfied if I could simply get mSugra and maybe a nice GUT group out. From there, various lower energy dynamics and unknown symmetry breakings mechanisms could in principle conspire to give me the standard model (+ answer a bunch of pertinent bySM questions). In that regard i'd be way ahead of the field already. Well, that has been done, redone, and finished a long time ago.

The state of the art in stringy phenomenology can now (somewhat miraculously) calculate various mass hierarchies and things like that.

The problem of course is that usually the more accuracy you push a particular class of stringy solutions, the more you find that things aren't that easy (and that's good in a sense). Sometimes you get exotics, sometimes one number comes up wrong, etc etc,

So let's say you have a nice stringy model A and you almost get the standard model in some approximation (maybe say the Yukawa couplings come out a little off, say maybe an order of magnitude error). The question you ask yourself, is .. Is the vacua I'm using incorrect, am I making a bad approximation somewhere, or am I failing to take into account some emergent low energy phenomena? That's a hard question to disambiguate.

Worse. Assume you finally did write down a model that reproduced the standard model identically. You could ask the same question (is this just a coincidence and did I really take into account everything).

 

[BenTheMan]

I know of no known fact of the standard model which was derived from ST. If you know a counter example, please let me know.

See this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2691

These models have the correct MSSM spectrum including forces, particle content (three generations of quarks and leptons) and interactions, heavy top quarks, and it can be shown that there are no light exotics. All couplings are calculable in principle, as the full yukawa structure is known.

But all these structures are available w/o strings as well. So I do not see the benefit of introducing the whole complexity of strings just to motivate something which we already know and which can exist w/o strings as well. I do not see the additional benefit coming from strings.

Well, for one, strings gives you a consistent theory of quantum gravity. To understand how the standard model emerges from gravity is no small feat.

 

[Haelfix]

"But all these structures are available w/o strings as well. So I do not see the benefit of introducing the whole complexity of strings just to motivate something which we already know and which can exist w/o strings as well. I do not see the additional benefit coming from strings."

I would turn that upside down. All the usual bySM structures seem a little adhoc. Even with SuSy and even with some choice of GUTs, there are a ton of irratating 'why' questions. I listed 2 (the number of generations and why representations tend to be on the simple side) but there are more. Further, there will still be a number of unknown free paramaters that will need tuning to experiment.

String theory in principle simplifies (not complicates) this scenario. No more free parameters, no more adhoc degree's of freedom and you get out a ton of explanatory power as everything is now geometrical.

Of course it shifts the question somewhat to why xyz solution corresponds to the real world, but notice how we've condensed everything down into a single problem.

 

[tom.stoer]

In the end it boils down to solve the landscape problem. There a couple of possibilities:
- the probability of all (fairly different) vacua is more or less equal
- the probability of some vacua is rather high
- we sit in a typical vacuum
- there is a (yet unkonw) selection principle

I am not an expert on these topics, but I think in order to make progress (beyond the anthropic principle) one must address these questions. There is still some hope that a guiding principle is to be identified which constrains the theory space enough to be confident to be on the right track. Today - afaik - there is reason why the SM looks as it looks; it could be something totally different.

If there is no such principle I am afraid that ST does not help anything. What is the benefit of introducing strings (and all the complexity - it is not for free!) if one could instead sit down and classify all mathematically possible gauge theories if they fit to our world. It's much easire (in fact, it already has been done).

If no such principle exists ST is just a waste of time.

 

[tom.stoer]

See this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2691

These models have the correct MSSM spectrum including forces, particle content (three generations of quarks and leptons) and interactions, heavy top quarks, and it can be shown that there are no light exotics. All couplings are calculable in principle, as the full yukawa structure is known.

Sounds promising!

But I think you understand what I mean by post-dict: in a theory which produces zillions of low-energy models, there should be some additional principle which singles out the SM (or at least a class of models containing the SM). Unfortunately up to know all possible low-energy models seem to be equally likely.

 

[humanino]

If no such principle exists ST is just a waste of time.

Although it appeals neither the string proponent nor the opponent, I cannot but note that string theory is currently achieving its initial goal : to provide with analytical models of QCD in the infrared. To me (and I realize we are not many) that alone already justifies ST$^{(1)}$.

That being said, there are other reasons which I am sure more competent people than me could describe.

(1) I suspect the total amount of money spent on theoretical developments in ST during the last decade equals a modest experiment.

 

[Haelfix]

"if one could instead sit down and classify all mathematically possible gauge theories if they fit to our world. It's much easire (in fact, it already has been done). "

The space of all possible gauge theories is enormous. The (moduli) space of all solutions of gauge theories is far, far more complicated than string theory and has not and probably will never be entirely classified.

The one benefit field theory has over string theory is that we have a sort of naive, and very human notion of what is simple and what is not. The fundamental representation of U(1) is simple. The 4298 of U(264) is not. We also have some tools to throw out entire classes (eg such and such a representation is anomalous, or nonchiral, etc etc).

The corresponding toolkit for string theory is more sparse, less well understood and involved.

 

[tom.stoer]

I am not talking about the solutions of gauge theories, but only about the gauge theories themselves. In ST you must (to a certain extend) solve the theory (construct a vacuum) in order to learn about the particle content. In gauge theory this much simpler, the particle content follows from group representation theory.

The difference is that in ST you are "constructing theories" whereas in gauge theory you already have them at hand. So there should be some benefit to let ST produce all these gauge theories instead of simply taking them, especially because the one you are interested in is already well understood. So all other theories (except for the SM) are just ballast and you want them to go away - but you don't know how this can be achieved.

OK, I see some benefits
- as I said, ST somehow constrains the theory space
- it adds quantum gravity
- it may provide a further selection principle which is unikely in gauge theories (anomalous is not restrictive enough)

Is there something like a new principle at the horizon? I do not count holography because it sems to be too weak and not very specific to string theory.

 

[BenTheMan]

in a theory which produces zillions of low-energy models, there should be some additional principle which singles out the SM (or at least a class of models containing the SM).

How is this any different from the case in quantum field theory? Does quantum field theory predict anything quantitative?

 

[Fra]

In the end it boils down to solve the landscape problem. There a couple of possibilities:
- the probability of all (fairly different) vacua is more or less equal
- the probability of some vacua is rather high
- we sit in a typical vacuum
- there is a (yet unkonw) selection principle

I'm far from convinced that one of the "set of possible models" implied from ST, can give a timeless description of reality, this is why I think we need to understand the nature of physical law - this is yet a deep question that ST at least originally didn't pose, wether the landscape problem forces some ST theorist to reassess might possible though.

What if there is no unique objective choice of vacuum or manifold even that makes sense in all situations? what would that tell us? and instead the choice of vacuum corresponds to the choice of observer? And that the choice of observer ultimately is tied to the population of observers in this world, and that an evolutionary picture is the only way to address that, that's something that would make sense to me, but then we need to still ask different questions.

Just because we understand darwins theory of evolution, doesn't mean it's possible to from a hypothetical early Earth even quantify the "probability" that the scottish would play bag-pipe. But then, that maybe isn't even a proper question since no-one at that time would be able to formulate that question. ie that "possibility" was't even on the map.

I personally think one reason for the landscape problem is the combination of structural realism with the idea a generic unification principle that can allow everything, because:

When we require an "observer independent theory", at the same time as considering the "most general" observer, it's pretty clear what happens - The complexity blows up and becomes overwhealming and useless, it's no surprise.

What if one observer instead would ask how different "observer dependent" theories interact and evolve, along with the observers? this would be a more physical view of theories, where there is not only a mathematical description of physics, but also a physics to the mathematics in the sense that complexity is constrained.

As I see it, ST originally at least never asked these things - but the landscape problem, almost "forces" these questions to be asked as they become unavoidable.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

How is this any different from the case in quantum field theory? Does quantum field theory predict anything quantitative?

Of course it does.

First of all you have to specify the process and e.g. an energy scale in order to calculate something quantitatively.

There are perturbative regimes and non-perturbative regimes. Perturbative regimes are typically appropriate for scattering, but even in scattering non-perturbative effects can become visible. The failure of perturbation theory can be seen within perturbation theory to some extend; see e.g. the QCD scale parameter and the running coupling.

Lattice gauge theory is a way to study the non-perturbative regime of QCD with great accuracy; I think they can calculate hadron masses, some form factors etc. within 5% accuracy = 5% deviations from experimental values.

So the success of quantum field theory is that it makes quantitative predictions with great accuracy.

 

[Fra]

How is this any different from the case in quantum field theory? Does quantum field theory predict anything quantitative?

Given Tom's response I think Ben means that QFT itself is just the framework for the SM. This framwork itself does not explain the "parameters" of the SM, couplings, masses etc. All that is merely infered from experiment, with the help of the framework.

So I guess at first sight one may have the same view to ST - that the ST framework can not replace experimental feedback and that the paramters of ST (including the choice of vacumm) is an issue for experiment.

So to ask "why this vacuum" is to task why the paramters of SM are the way they are. Which is better or worse?

That may seem a reasonable attitude but IMHO it misses what I think is that a theory is really like a tool for interaction. The context where the theory lives and is defined (which is an observer in my view) uses the theory to act towards it's environment. So from a science perspective a theory not only condeses our knowledge, it also helps us pose the next question, or the next experiments to invest it. Here issues like possible gain but also possible risk needs to be addressed. It's like in biological evolution, there is a balance between diversity (potential to find more fit combinations) and the risk of exctinction if the variation is too uncontrolled.

Therefor I question the rationality behind claiming the landscape of vacuua, without selection principle. I think the fact that this has occurred indicates something strange in the learning process (á la ST).

So the major difference between ST and SM in this sene, is that althouhg neither in a deeper sense explains the origin of parameters the SM paramamters are already known, thus at this point constitute part of our "prior-background" in the information sense. In a rational learning process, one would always question, and improve the current knowledge, but it can only be done relative to the current state. There is no external judge.

So IMO the reason why ST is not preferred over SM and QFT is then that it has spent disproportionate investments in inflating the map to the extent that there is no way to nagivate. I find this from a "learning model perspective" to be irrational. But that's my personal view.

IMHO, these are the questions that I think we need to ask. But neither SM nor ST addresses this, but neither does LQG.

/Fredrik