9 ms·
The real takeaway is that researchers may have found a potential test for string theory. Its presumed lack of falsifiability has been one of its drawbacks and
by zgramana 3y ago
The real takeaway is that researchers may have found a potential test for string theory.
Its presumed lack of falsifiability has been one of its drawbacks and has been the source of some of the controversy around it.
Finding a potential test that could be conducted with telescopes instead of high energy particle accelerators would be a big moment in modern physics.
- nathan_compton 3y agoI don't see how this is testable, given what is written here.
- simiones 3y agoI think there are all sorts of other potential tests of string theory. The problem is that for all the actual tests that were ever proposed, it failed (supersymmetry, various proposals for sizes of the extra dimensions).
- progrus 3y agoYeah, it’s more they might have found a way to test the latest fix, than anything.
- sigmoid10 3y agoTo be fair, what failed is low-energy Supersymmetry and large extra dimensions, because these things were actually accessible by current gen experiments. But there's a huuuge amount of room left unexplored.
- dcsommer 3y agoNot without fine-tuning. The issue is that high-energy supersymmetry no longer removes the "ugly constants" of the standard model -- it just shifts them somewhere else. Disclaimer: not a physicist, but I learned a lot reading "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray".
- Pet_Ant 3y ago…by Sabine Hossenfelder. I treat her like Jordan Peterson. Obviously smart, but also obviously bitter and if/when they have a valid point I’m sure someone else has said it in a less grating manner.
- monkeydreams 3y agoSabine argues the data, in good(ish) faith, but she does carry a chip on her shoulder. Peterson does not argue data - he suggests analogies and then holds those analogies as iron-clad transitive relationships to argue his preconceived position.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y agoPhysics needs more insider critics. She's oppositional but - unlike Peterson - she does know what she's talking about.
- gloryjulio 3y agoJordan Peterson now is so far gone into the far right now it's not remotely comparable. Maybe been you mean Jordan Peterson the year 1 edition where he was still talking about personal responsibility.
- runsWphotons 3y agoJordan Peterson has had many iterations. The year -5 edition had good psychology lectures and I disagree with the above poster who says he doesn't know what he is talking about. Within his academic realm, I think he did, although there would be points other academics would contest (this is what academics do). He has then gone through at least two transformations.
- yarg 3y agoHis position regarding a lot of religious topics seems tainted by his personal beliefs. He makes frequent reference to judaeo-christian archetypes, which seems to me to grossly overstate the relevance of the belief systems. The fundamental archetypes represented in the human mind are far older than any current form of religion, to the extent that there's overlap then either the archetypes have been co-opted, or have been overlaid with a culturally mediated avatars. I don't think that you ever find him framing those underlying structures in a way that does not tie back to Christ.
- simiones 3y agoThat's my point: what experiments could be performed have been performed, and have failed. Also, it is a massive weakness of the theory that it can be used to predict such varied values. This is a big part of why it is not exactly a scientific theory: it is not really falsifiable, since you can tweak it to predict any value you want. If we had the kind of particle accelerators needed to test high-energy supersymmetry, and if it failed again, it could be adjusted to predict higher-energy supersymmetry, and since the number line extends towards infinity, this would never stop.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoCan't you disprove string theory by disproving quantum physics?
- peteradio 3y agoI think you are correct, ST is closer to mathematical abstraction than an actual physical theory. I think that makes it more useful than less useful though.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoWouldn't that mean it is just more useful in mathematical reality but less useful in physical reality?
- noobermin 3y ago"low-energy Supersymmetry" oh, you mean 8 TeV wasn't enough? This kind of reasoning is just like the ether, people keep harping on a god of the gaps explanation for the failure of the search.
- ravenstine 3y agoEven if it were testable, and the test failed to validate string theory, I don't think that would convince string theorists one way or another. Strings are a de facto religion within physics.
- asdfman123 3y ago“Science advances one funeral at a time” - Max Planck
- Accujack 3y agoSadly, this is true of many things these days.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoI don’t think it’s a these days thing at all. I think it’s a human thing and every generation has to deal with the fanatics or believers or whatever you want to call it of their time. We’re in a time where a great number of people are extremely religious without having any idea they are. The people that live by what their screen tells them. If you didn’t see some of this in the last three years that there is religion without it being labeled as such, I don’t know I’ll be able to reach you now.
- asdfman123 3y agoI agree with your first sentence for sure. It’s human nature for older people to be more conservative. Transcends time and culture.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoAre you sure you’re not emphasizing my second point by thinking what I wrote was an attack of one ideology vs another?
- 3y ago
- jgeada 3y agoI know it is the standard nomenclature, but I object to it being called string theory, as it is at best a hypothesis, if not even just philosophical speculation with more math. It can make no predictions, it is not falsifiable, it meets none of the constraints that allow something to be science.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago> just philosophical speculation with more math Speaking of nomenclature, this is not a good characterization of what philosophy is, if your intention is to reduce philosophy to what you seem to have in mind for “philosophical speculation”. Metaphysical theory thoroughly supported by argument (hylomorphic dualism, theory of act and potency) is actually stronger than mere empirical science. Empirically testable predictions do not transcend reasoned argument as observation is interpreted though the body of propositions of prior theory and enters into scientific argument as argument.
- canadianfella 3y ago[dead]
- behringer 3y agoI think string theory is so pupular is exactly because it can make predictions that classical particle theory cannot.
- vlovich123 3y agoAre you sure? I thought that was why it had largely fallen out of favor. The predictions it makes are not testable.
- whynotkeithberg 3y agoString theory is basically just noodles on the wall these days trying to find what sticks. mostly without basis and 99.9% of it falls off eventually as it's not backed by anything of substance.
- noobermin 3y ago>If the researchers can discover an important observational difference between topological solitons and traditional black holes, this might pave the way to finding a way to test string theory itself. This is a big if. For now they've just shown that once again something in the string theory landscape could look like something in real life.
- eikenberry 3y ago> Its presumed lack of falsifiability has been one of its drawbacks[..] Given that the definition of a theory is an hypothesis that can be tested for falsehood, it isn't a theory by definition. It is a hypothesis.. but presumably "string hypothesis" doesn't sound as nice.
- pdonis 3y ago> The real takeaway is that researchers may have found a potential test for string theory. Not really. All this paper is really saying is that they have found solutions in classical theories of gravity with extra dimensions that, in four dimensions, can look like standard black holes. So even observing effects predicted by these models would not be evidence for string theory. It would at best be evidence for possible extra dimensions of spacetime at the classical level. Also, the paper only compares its models with the standard Schwarzschild black hole. But first, most black holes are spinning so the comparison should be with Kerr, not Schwarzschild; and second, as the paper notes early on, there are many other proposed models of compact objects that can look similar to standard black holes. Any given set of observations would have to be tested against all proposed models, not just this one.
- x3n0ph3n3 3y ago> But first, most black holes are spinning Have any been detected that are not spinning?
- adastra22 3y agoWell technically no black holes have ever been directly detected.
- raylad 3y agoGiven that there is no absolute position in spacetime and everything is relative, in what sense is a black hole "spinning"? Can't we just pick as a reference the black hole, and say that the everything else is spinning, just as well?
- adastra22 3y agoNo, spinning is an accelerated reference frame. If you spin on a carousel, you won’t feel the same as standing still. Now what does it mean for a black hole, which we assume to be a singularity occupying no space at all, to be spinning? We don’t know. That’s one of the gaps in our theory. But as the collapsed remnants of an object that was spinning, they should have done residual angular momentum.