4 ms·
> IMO the most embarrassing problem in physics is people pushing non-falsifiable, unscientific theories (multiverse). Is this a not-so-subtle dig at Beacham an
by jMyles 6y ago
> IMO the most embarrassing problem in physics is people pushing non-falsifiable, unscientific theories (multiverse).
Is this a not-so-subtle dig at Beacham and other experimentalists who make room for multiverse? Or do I jump to the wrong conclusion?
Two questions for you:
1) Does 'falsifiable' in this context per se mean that there needs to be some particle physics experiment that can be designed to test the theory? Is there no room for theoretical physics? Is Rovelli, for example, per se barking up the wrong tree by this measure?
2) Aren't these theories reasonably falsifiable insofar as they'll eventually result in experiments designed to map out the possible domains of the space? eg, what if we build a much higher energy collider and finally find real evidence of the super-symmetry particles?
- lmm 6y ago> 2) Aren't these theories reasonably falsifiable insofar as they'll eventually result in experiments designed to map out the possible domains of the space? eg, what if we build a much higher energy collider and finally find real evidence of the super-symmetry particles? Would you treat not finding super-symmetry particles as falsifying those theories? AIUI those theories admit the possibility of such particles but also the possibility of such particles not existing, so they're not actually falsifiable that way.
- l33tman 6y agoMost theories' predictions are not open ended. It's possible to exhaustively search the prediction space to falsify them (up to an experimental standard that you need to agree on). I'm by far not an expert on super-symmetry but from what I've seen the prediction space of the most common SUSY models is getting continuously boxed in.
- andi999 6y agoI think super symmetry is almost falsified. People just cling to it because there is (almost) nothing else. If any new theory comes around without supersymmetry (but other predictions) people will jump ship.
- throwaway3699 6y agoScience is defined by testability. A theory that can't be tested is just pseudoscience, unlike a theory that just can't be tested right now due to technological limitations.
- JimBlackwood 6y agoIt would be pseudoscience if it were to be seen as or communicated as fact. It’s not. Any newly observed fact can falsify these theories. It just takes a long time. There’s still tons of open issues on General Relativity too. So far though, it seems to have passed every test. Would you call GR pseudoscience too then? Since it’ll likely never be fully verified.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago> would be pseudoscience if it were to be seen as or communicated as fact. It’s not. Pseudoscience is something labelling itself as science while not adhering to scientific standards. Claiming it's a fact would be a dead giveaway though. Relativity has been experimentally tested and made accurate predictions, it is impossible for it to be "fully verified."