You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[Sherlock Holmes]

The ultimate judge of any physical theory should be comparison with experiment, and Woit duly underlines string theory’s miserable score on this count: “Not a single experimental prediction has been made, nor are there any prospects for this to change soon.” He adds a pithy remark by Feynman: “String theorists don’t make predictions, they make excuses.” While most string theorists are honest, Woit uncovers cases of dishonesty and outright fraud, such as the episode in 2002 involving the brothers Bogdanov, a string-theory version of the infamous Sokal hoax.

Source: Physics World

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

He has his opinions. Others many others have theirs. You insist his is the last word.

"Because he has lived a lifetime of complicated calculations, though, Penrose has quite a bit more perspective than the average starting scientist. To get to the bottom of it all, he insists, physicists must force themselves to grapple with the greatest riddle of them all: the relationship between the rules that govern fundamental particles and the rules that govern the big things—like us—that those particles make up. In his powwow with Discover contributing editor Susan Kruglinksi, Penrose did not flinch from questioning the central tenets of modern physics, including string theory and quantum mechanics. Physicists will never come to grips with the grand theories of the universe, Penrose holds, until they see past the blinding distractions of today’s half-baked theories to the deepest layer of the reality in which we live."

Peter Woit

For the last eighteen years particle theory has been dominated by a single approach to the unification of the Standard Model interactions and quantum gravity. This line of thought has hardened into a new orthodoxy that postulates an unknown fundamental supersymmetric theory involving strings and other degrees of freedom with characteristic scale around the Planck length. […] It is a striking fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this complex and unattractive conjectural theory.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Peter Woit

"conjectural theory?"

Why is everyone but you referring to it as a theory?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

"conjectural theory?"

Why is everyone but you referring to it as a theory?

Well they're not obsessing over that, that's why. You can call it a "theory" if you want, but I don't think that's appropriate for an untestable hypothesis, I regard it as inappropriately implying it is testable, and it isn't so why call it a "theory" other than to mislead?

Look:

Scientific Theory

Scientific theories are testable and make verifiable predictions.[9] They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive,[10] aiming for predictive and explanatory power. Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

What does that say theories are? so if a model is not testable then it doesn't qualify for the grandiose title "theory",

So stop it, say something interesting for a change.

 

[ding]

But the net energy of our universe may be (and looks as if it probably is) zero. So what you are saying may be nonsensical.

I'm not seeing the issue. Walk me through what you think the issue is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is string theory still worth exploring? | Roger Penrose and Eric Weinstein battle Brian Greene​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well they're not obsessing over that, that's why. You can call it a "theory" if you want, but I don't think that's appropriate for an untestable hypothesis, I regard it as inappropriately implying it is testable, and it isn't so why call it a "theory" other than to mislead?

Look:

Scientific Theory


What does that say theories are? so if a model is not testable then it doesn't qualify for the grandiose title "theory",

So stop it, say something interesting for a change.

Everybody calls it a theory. Some just attack -- the theory.

next

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well they're not obsessing over that, that's why. You can call it a "theory" if you want, but I don't think that's appropriate for an untestable hypothesis, I regard it as inappropriately implying it is testable, and it isn't so why call it a "theory" other than to mislead?

Look:

Scientific Theory


What does that say theories are? so if a model is not testable then it doesn't qualify for the grandiose title "theory",

So stop it, say something interesting for a change.

Your problem is what runs rampant here.

I mention what people call a theory and you set up an argument as if I am supporting string theory. Now, to step over your inane imbecilities here: What people are actually saying about "string theory"


02:08
"So String Theory does not at the moment answer the question of the quantum measurement problem and, I agree with Roger that that's a critical question that has faced quantum mechanics really since its Inception. So I agree that there are open questions that even String Theory, as it's currently formulated doesn't doesn't address. Has Roger addressed it with his approach that aspects of general relativity will be vital to the collapse of the wave function -- it's a powerful and interesting idea.

I've studied it. I'm not yet convinced of it, but it is among many ideas that people working in this Arena have put forward. I'm glad that people are working on this key question of quantum mechanics, but in terms of the importance of quantizing gravity, I would take a somewhat different perspective than Rogers. Quantum mechanics is an established part of the way the world Works. General relativity is an established part of the way the world works. If they can't play together if when you combine them you get nonsensical results, which was the state of play before String Theory gave us potential solution. Then your physical description of the world is fundamentally inconsistent and I don't think the universe is inconsistent and..."

 

[Wuwei]

Well they're not obsessing over that, that's why. You can call it a "theory" if you want, but I don't think that's appropriate for an untestable hypothesis, I regard it as inappropriately implying it is testable, and it isn't so why call it a "theory" other than to mislead?

Look:

Scientific Theory


What does that say theories are? so if a model is not testable then it doesn't qualify for the grandiose title "theory",

So stop it, say something interesting for a change.

I don't think it is known if string theory is testable. One hope is that it will unify gravity. If it does, then that seems to make it pass the "testable" requirement.