About this whole question of when a theory is scientific

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter josh1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scientific Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the criteria for a theory to be considered scientific, particularly focusing on the testability and falsifiability of string theory and loop quantum gravity (LQG). Participants explore the implications of these theories in the context of current experimental capabilities and theoretical frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that string theory is testable in principle but not falsifiable, as theorists can adjust parameters to fit experimental results.
  • Others propose that the lack of understanding of gravitational physics of the vacuum complicates the ability to derive testable predictions from string theory and LQG.
  • A participant highlights the importance of making explicit, unambiguous predictions to allow for potential falsification of theories like LQG.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between testability and falsifiability, with some asserting that a theory must be able to be proven wrong based on experimental outcomes.
  • Concerns are raised about the flexibility of string theory, suggesting it may resemble mathematics more than a physical theory due to its ability to accommodate various experimental results through parameter adjustments.
  • Some participants express a desire for concrete predictions from string theory that could be tested against experimental data, similar to efforts being made in LQG.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the testability and falsifiability of string theory and LQG. Multiple competing views remain, with some asserting the theories' potential for testability while others emphasize their lack of falsifiability.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the current inability to derive specific predictions from string theory and LQG due to unresolved issues in gravitational physics and the understanding of vacuum states.

  • #31
f-h said:
*It is just a dimensionless number and there's nothing to measure.*

Like the fine structure constant? Or rather, the CKM angle in QCD?

The fine structure constant can't be described as simply some dimensionless number. It characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction and isn't measured but calculated in terms of the fundamental physical constants of QED. CKM doesn't help you either.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K