4 ms·

Nice, it left me wondering how the dialog of Rovelli continued.

rhaps0dy 9y ago
Well then read the paper! I'm in your same position. Also with "Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?". EDIT: I started reading it and it gets into reeeally good stuff: Simp – There are predictions from string theory as well. Sal – Like? Simp – Like large extra dimensions. Supersymmetry. Transitions that cannot happen in the standard model. Sal – You mean that if we do not find the experimental consequences of large extra dimensions we conclude string theory is wrong? Simp – Of course not, large extra dimensions exist only in very special models. Sal – So, the experiments on extra dimensions cannot kill string theory? Simp – No they cannot. Sal – And if supersymmetry is not found at the scale we expect, we do not abandon string theory? Simp – No we don’t. It will be at a higher scale. Sal – So, which experiment could kill string theory, in principle? Simp – Nothing I could think off. The theory is very strong. Sal – Seems to me is very weak. A good scientific theory is a theory that can be falsified. Simp – I am not a philosopher ... I'm rooting for Sal!
- ouid 9y ago
  The author was pretty clear about who the protagonist was supposed to be...
  - ahazred8ta 9y ago
    Sal – I am reading a book, written long ago, where I just found this phrase: “perch`e i nostri discorsi hanno a essere sopra un mondo sensibile, e non sopra un mondo di carta.” Roughly: “our arguments have to be about the world we experience, not about a world made of paper”.
- posterboy 9y ago
  > I'm rooting for Sal! So, I guess, you can falsify that string theory can't ever be falsified. Or are you just riding the bandwagon?
  - rhaps0dy 9y ago
    Well, I was rooting for her because the story paints her as the hero; and because not being able to think of a falsifying experiment for your favourite theory is pretty damning. Honestly I don't understand the specifics of the theories, and I wouldn't know if string theory is actually not falsifiable. On second read I realise that this is a straw-string-theorist ready to be knocked down. It was still an enjoyable read though.
CamperBob2 9y ago
The Rovelli paper dates back to 2003, it looks like. Has a likely winner emerged, or would 'Sal' and 'Simp' end up rehashing the same points in a similar conversation today?

Well then read the paper! I'm in your same position. Also with "Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?". EDIT: I started reading it and it gets into reeeally good stuff: Simp – There are predictions from string theory as well. Sal – Like? Simp – Like large extra dimensions. Supersymmetry. Transitions that cannot happen in the standard model. Sal – You mean that if we do not find the experimental consequences of large extra dimensions we conclude string theory is wrong? Simp – Of course not, large extra dimensions exist only in very special models. Sal – So, the experiments on extra dimensions cannot kill string theory? Simp – No they cannot. Sal – And if supersymmetry is not found at the scale we expect, we do not abandon string theory? Simp – No we don’t. It will be at a higher scale. Sal – So, which experiment could kill string theory, in principle? Simp – Nothing I could think off. The theory is very strong. Sal – Seems to me is very weak. A good scientific theory is a theory that can be falsified. Simp – I am not a philosopher ... I'm rooting for Sal!

ouid 9y ago
The author was pretty clear about who the protagonist was supposed to be...
- ahazred8ta 9y ago
  Sal – I am reading a book, written long ago, where I just found this phrase: “perch`e i nostri discorsi hanno a essere sopra un mondo sensibile, e non sopra un mondo di carta.” Roughly: “our arguments have to be about the world we experience, not about a world made of paper”.
posterboy 9y ago
> I'm rooting for Sal! So, I guess, you can falsify that string theory can't ever be falsified. Or are you just riding the bandwagon?
- rhaps0dy 9y ago
  Well, I was rooting for her because the story paints her as the hero; and because not being able to think of a falsifying experiment for your favourite theory is pretty damning. Honestly I don't understand the specifics of the theories, and I wouldn't know if string theory is actually not falsifiable. On second read I realise that this is a straw-string-theorist ready to be knocked down. It was still an enjoyable read though.

CamperBob2 9y ago

The Rovelli paper dates back to 2003, it looks like. Has a likely winner emerged, or would 'Sal' and 'Simp' end up rehashing the same points in a similar conversation today?