4 ms·

It has to agree with every prior measurement in Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. That, in itself, is impressive.

Pharmakon 8y ago
It also has developed some interesting mathematical tools and perspectives, but as a TOE I think the growing skepticism is warranted. The worst outcome of course being that M-Theory is accurate, but untestable. It would be a bitter irony for humanity if our best theory required a galactic-scale collider to test it!
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  We just need to make contact with a hyper-dimensional sentience who can give us the low down on how everything works.
- caf 8y ago
  It would be a bitter irony for humanity if our best theory required a galactic-scale collider to test it! Doesn't that also mean that (in such a hypothetical situation) our best theory says that our previously best theories will give accurate predictions up until the point at which we observe something equivalent to a galactic-scale collider? If so, that doesn't sound so bad to me.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    The trouble is that strings is more of a framework for physics to fit in to (like quantum mechanics) than it is a physical theory. There isn't a specific list of string particles, just like there isn't a list of Schrodinger equation particles. You have to add in whatever particles you discover, and then the theory tells you how they move. On the bright side, if there was a single particle that didn't move like a string, string theory would be falsified. On the dim side, it's difficult for anything to not move like a string, because string theory is so powerful as a framework that you can get it to make just about anything consistent. What you really want in physics is a brittle framework that only allows you to slot in a few different behaviors. It's kind of funny because programmers want the opposite thing that physicists do. When your client asks for a behavior that you have painted yourself into a corner against ever implementing your software has been "falsified," an expensive disaster that you work very hard in advance to prevent! If you made universes for a living, strings would be an ideal framework.
Retra 8y ago
It's not so impressive if all you're doing is generalizing frameworks or cherry-picking the subsets that happen to agree with experiment. You have to show something new. For example, (going from memory here, so don't quote me), your basic (Von Neumann's?) formulation of quantum mechanics was basically a generalization of Newtonian physics that specified an unreasonable number of non-real possibilities, and you can only recover meaningful results by taking Newtonian physics as an axiom a la the 'classical limit'. This would have just been mathematical over-complication had it not been for the fact that this model predicted things that differed from Newton physics in measurable ways. So to reiterate, if your theory is unfalsifiable, it is not impressive that it agrees with every measurement. All you'd have achieved is restating what is already known in a language nobody wants to use.

It also has developed some interesting mathematical tools and perspectives, but as a TOE I think the growing skepticism is warranted. The worst outcome of course being that M-Theory is accurate, but untestable. It would be a bitter irony for humanity if our best theory required a galactic-scale collider to test it!

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
We just need to make contact with a hyper-dimensional sentience who can give us the low down on how everything works.
caf 8y ago
It would be a bitter irony for humanity if our best theory required a galactic-scale collider to test it! Doesn't that also mean that (in such a hypothetical situation) our best theory says that our previously best theories will give accurate predictions up until the point at which we observe something equivalent to a galactic-scale collider? If so, that doesn't sound so bad to me.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  The trouble is that strings is more of a framework for physics to fit in to (like quantum mechanics) than it is a physical theory. There isn't a specific list of string particles, just like there isn't a list of Schrodinger equation particles. You have to add in whatever particles you discover, and then the theory tells you how they move. On the bright side, if there was a single particle that didn't move like a string, string theory would be falsified. On the dim side, it's difficult for anything to not move like a string, because string theory is so powerful as a framework that you can get it to make just about anything consistent. What you really want in physics is a brittle framework that only allows you to slot in a few different behaviors. It's kind of funny because programmers want the opposite thing that physicists do. When your client asks for a behavior that you have painted yourself into a corner against ever implementing your software has been "falsified," an expensive disaster that you work very hard in advance to prevent! If you made universes for a living, strings would be an ideal framework.

Retra 8y ago

It's not so impressive if all you're doing is generalizing frameworks or cherry-picking the subsets that happen to agree with experiment. You have to show something new. For example, (going from memory here, so don't quote me), your basic (Von Neumann's?) formulation of quantum mechanics was basically a generalization of Newtonian physics that specified an unreasonable number of non-real possibilities, and you can only recover meaningful results by taking Newtonian physics as an axiom a la the 'classical limit'. This would have just been mathematical over-complication had it not been for the fact that this model predicted things that differed from Newton physics in measurable ways. So to reiterate, if your theory is unfalsifiable, it is not impressive that it agrees with every measurement. All you'd have achieved is restating what is already known in a language nobody wants to use.