RE: Stephen Hawking on M-Theory
July 25, 2011 at 10:55 pm
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2011 at 11:07 pm by Anomalocaris.)
The problem with string theory's predictive power as I understand it is, those of it's predictions which can be tested in the foreseeable future are not unique, nor do they flow uniquely from string theory, nor are they required to be true if string theory as they are currently constructed are to be true.
So string theory lack falsifiability. I personally know a winner of Nobel prize in physics whose work in symmetry and field theory were vital to both the standard model and string theory. He was the director of one of the institutes of theoretical physics where some of the more important string researcher did their works. He advises really talented young students to avoid a career in theoretical physics because in his opinion the politics of the academic physics is such one could get a tenured position without being a dedicated string researcher, and while string research may generate many interesting advances in mathematics, it is unlikely to generate the sort of durable, verifiable fundamental advance in physics that would crown the career of anyone entering the theoretical physics field now.
He contrast the state of theoretical physics now extremely unfavorably with the state when he entered the field in the late 40s. He consider that time to have been an golden age in which development along multiple fronts are encouraged, while phycists were rigorous with the concept of testability, and were humble about the implication, while they now are cavalier with testability, and extravagant and over-reaching with implication.
So string theory lack falsifiability. I personally know a winner of Nobel prize in physics whose work in symmetry and field theory were vital to both the standard model and string theory. He was the director of one of the institutes of theoretical physics where some of the more important string researcher did their works. He advises really talented young students to avoid a career in theoretical physics because in his opinion the politics of the academic physics is such one could get a tenured position without being a dedicated string researcher, and while string research may generate many interesting advances in mathematics, it is unlikely to generate the sort of durable, verifiable fundamental advance in physics that would crown the career of anyone entering the theoretical physics field now.
He contrast the state of theoretical physics now extremely unfavorably with the state when he entered the field in the late 40s. He consider that time to have been an golden age in which development along multiple fronts are encouraged, while phycists were rigorous with the concept of testability, and were humble about the implication, while they now are cavalier with testability, and extravagant and over-reaching with implication.
