3 ms·

String theory is crackpot AF. It's not based on Occam's razor or empirical observation, just on the fact that if you accept a few really giant unfounded assump

String theory is crackpot AF. It's not based on Occam's razor or empirical observation, just on the fact that if you accept a few really giant unfounded assumptions, then you end up with some neat math. We'd be better off with a theory of everything designed by a neural network, at least people wouldn't belabor under the mistaken assumption that "theory of everything" actually corresponds to anything real.

doetoe 5y ago
Occam's razor is a very useful guiding principle, but it still is a philosophical principle, not a requirement for a theory to be scientific. Observation of course is, and in fact string theory (potentially) is consistent with observed phenomena. Its main problem is that it is too difficult, if possible at all, to determine if it actually is, and in which form. Actually the same Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a book about that as you probably know
ncmncm 5y ago
There isn't anything for it to compete with. Anyway, a string theorist on the faculty doesn't cost any more than a mathematician. For the others you are continually having to pay for LHCs, nanokelvin freezers, and optical tables.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > There isn't anything for it to compete with. That's exactly the problem - instead of trying to produce new theories, people keep researching string theory, in massive numbers (relatively to the size of the field of theoretical foundations of physics, of course). Also, there are a few other interesting avenues to explore - coming up with a relativistic version of de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave mechanics (or as close as possible to get, given Bell's inequalities), for example.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    It's hard to imagine how you could test any alternative, either. If the string people were putting all their effort into coming up with a testable prediction, we might be better off. But they are mostly trying to show their untestable thing is better than the next one over, instead.

doetoe 5y ago

Occam's razor is a very useful guiding principle, but it still is a philosophical principle, not a requirement for a theory to be scientific. Observation of course is, and in fact string theory (potentially) is consistent with observed phenomena. Its main problem is that it is too difficult, if possible at all, to determine if it actually is, and in which form. Actually the same Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a book about that as you probably know

ncmncm 5y ago

There isn't anything for it to compete with. Anyway, a string theorist on the faculty doesn't cost any more than a mathematician. For the others you are continually having to pay for LHCs, nanokelvin freezers, and optical tables.

tsimionescu 5y ago
> There isn't anything for it to compete with. That's exactly the problem - instead of trying to produce new theories, people keep researching string theory, in massive numbers (relatively to the size of the field of theoretical foundations of physics, of course). Also, there are a few other interesting avenues to explore - coming up with a relativistic version of de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave mechanics (or as close as possible to get, given Bell's inequalities), for example.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  It's hard to imagine how you could test any alternative, either. If the string people were putting all their effort into coming up with a testable prediction, we might be better off. But they are mostly trying to show their untestable thing is better than the next one over, instead.