4 ms·
You misunderstand, first: it is not the case that new observations about the world forced the changes. Instead, it is mostly observations about the internal pro
by Trombone12 10y ago
You misunderstand, first: it is not the case that new observations about the world forced the changes. Instead, it is mostly observations about the internal properties of string theory which has forced modifications.
After it was proposed as a self-consistent theory of quantum gravity it was realized it wasn't self-consisten because it had ghosts, which was then fixed by adding 22 dimensions. But this is a problem because that's not how many dimensions the world has so they solved it by compactification that folds all the extra dimensions tiny so they don't bother us. But then it turns out that there is no particular reason to fold just so so that we get the world we live in. And now they are trying to find a way to make it so its natural that the folding happens just so that we get the world we live in.
Secondly, and most importantly, while it is true that some models get revised whenever there is more data, those are poor models. Good models agree with all the data and don't need modification. (The best models agree with most of the data, but sometimes don't so that the scientist gets a mystery to solve!) Realistically this stage takes a while to happen, and proponents of string theory argue that they right now have a models that is going to be great one day, but right now needs a bit of tinkering. What critics say is that string theory has been in the "tinkering" stage for around 50 years now and maybe we should try other ideas a bit more.
Finally, I don't think Sabine likes being refereed to as a "he" and rather have that pronoun used to describe the father of her children rather than herself.
- logicallee 10y agoDon't the "best" models make surprising predictions that we go out of our way to design experiments to collect data for - and find that they are, in fact, accurate? Has string theory made a single prediction anyone went out of their way to test, finding it accurate? I don't have a problem with shoveling in a bunch of dimensions. If it's shovelled in carefully so as not to predict anything that can be tested, I can get that entertainment from watching flat Earth videos though.
- lmm 10y ago> Don't the "best" models make surprising predictions that we go out of our way to design experiments to collect data for - and find that they are, in fact, accurate? Models like e.g. the heliocentric solar system, or even relativity, weren't developed that way - they were developed by noticing flaws or incompatibilities in existing models, and proposing a better explanation for them. (The much-touted "experimental verification" of relativity in an eclipse was a nonsense - the errors were as large as the measurements - but it didn't matter; the theory was elegant enough to be obviously correct). String theory is mostly still at the fiddling-with-the-epicycles-and-thought-experiments stage. But at least it has a model that contains a) standard QM and b) a graviton. None of the competition has even got that far (and there's little reason to think they ever will in most cases).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]