3 ms·
I wouldn't call string theory an issue of major importance with respect to physics compared to monetary policy in economics. I'm not a physics buff, but my unde
by jamesaguilar 13y ago
I wouldn't call string theory an issue of major importance with respect to physics compared to monetary policy in economics. I'm not a physics buff, but my understanding is string theory hasn't yet made any predictions that would result in different outcomes than the standard model. On the other hand, the variety of monetary policy viewpoints among economists would certainly make different predictions, and their magnitude would be significant.
More analogous would be if physicists were split on whether gravity exists.
- jessriedel 13y agoNo, gravity is something for which there is overwhelming, unambiguous evidence. Macroeconomics is something that by its very nature is difficult to gather convincing evidence about. (No controlled experiments, very small observational data set.) Strings is much more like a macroeconomic question, because neither can be definitively tested. How to formulate a quantum theory of gravity is the most important outstanding question in fundamental physics. Strings is the best guess. Policy-wise, the effects of government spending is the most important outstanding question in economics. I think it's pretty analogous actually.
- RockyMcNuts 13y agoexcept economists aren't actually split on the effects of government spending in general, just on the relative importance of those effects in specific situations. Wikipedia's collection of unsolved problems in economics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_ec...