(July 25, 2011 at 10:55 pm)Chuck Wrote: 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.
Sure, string theory can account for essentially any phenomenon at the scales we presently deal with so it isn't falsifiable given our current ability but that isn't the case when dealing with higher energy physics - One notable prediction would be that of string harmonics, given it turned out to be false I believe there would be no way to reconcile string theory with observation and yes, it is something that we would only see at much higher energies than presently accessible.
It could also be falsified if Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity were falsified, but I think we both know the chances of that are fuck all.
Regardless, we have some empirical support for the notion in the prediction and conformation of Dark Flow, so until such time as we can confirm more of the unique prediction it remains a viable candidate and interesting model but little more.
Quote: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.
Interesting, that's a bit of a flip from the time where a person couldn't get taken seriously for studying it.
Quote: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.
Sure, but that could also be explained by the fact we have all but reached the limits of our technical abilities. Tell me, what discoveries can you conceive of being made given our technical limits that could lead to the "verifiable fundamental advance in physics that would crown the career of anyone entering the theoretical physics field now"?
.
