
Will string theory finally be put to the experimental test? - pseudolus
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-string-theory-finally-be-put-to-the-experimental-test/
======
pdonis
What this article means by "experimental test" is "whether or not string
theory can incorporate inflation". Which is not an experimental test at all--
if it's any kind of "test", it's a theoretical test.

------
chmaynard
This post by Peter Woit, a string theory skeptic, may be relevant:

[https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11675](https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11675)

~~~
owenversteeg
The most important bit:

"It seems to be very hard to get some people to understand that the number of
“tests of string theory” is not “very few” but zero, for the simple reason
that there are no predictions of string theory, generic or otherwise."

What's the counterargument to that, then? I'm curious!

~~~
peteradio
I think the other comment puts it well. String theory is a model builder or a
model factory. Models are testable, factories should be viewed from the point
of view of the user. Physics theorists are the users here, some think the
testable models it puts forth are rubbish, others think it puts forth good
models. Would you say Math itself is rubbish because it allows for such models
to exist? I don't think so. I think string theory (as a model factory) might
be the best tool for finding minimal elegant testable theories that satisfy
known constraints, after all isn't that what science, especially Physics is
really doing?

~~~
jcranmer
If the string theory framework has yet to come up with a verified model nearly
40 years later, is it really that good of a framework?

~~~
empath75
The problem is that it's produced _many_ verified models that could work with
all of known physics. The problem is coming up with a test that distinguishes
them somehow.

~~~
pfdietz
It hasn't produced any model that reproduces the confirmed predictions of the
Standard Model, so no, I don't think your claim there is true.

~~~
peteradio
This might be interesting to you:

[https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22559/how-
does-s...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22559/how-does-string-
theory-reduce-to-the-standard-model)

~~~
pfdietz
What that says is that String Theory can predict anything, therefore it can
predict the Standard Model. This is not a good look for a "theory".

~~~
peteradio
That's what I'm trying to get across, its not a good "theory" its a model
factory. Forget the "theory" in string theory, its not predictive yet, but it
will be once we have established the parameters of our low energy world well
enough. What it does do, is define what a theory of everything probably looks
like and that helps theorists agree on what proper measurements even look
like.

~~~
pfdietz
If it allows one to predict anything, then it is totally useless. It doesn't
help theorists do anything but extract $$$ from gullible funding agencies.

The notion that "it will be once we have established the parameters of our low
energy world well enough" is not supported by any evidence, unless you are
saying "once we have given it the correct theory to imitate, it will imitate
it correctly". A sheet of paper could do that, though.

------
ssivark
String theory is a _framework_ (to build models) and not a _model_. It cannot
be falsified anytime in the near future — if certain models happen to be
falsified by observational/experimental constraints, then the framework
provides ways to construct other models circumventing the constraints.
Likewise, even if this particular experiment provides support for the models
under consideration, clever theorists will probably construct other non-
stringy models explaining the same result. So take everything with a pinch of
salt.

Now, “falsification” itself is a silly/naive cartoon-ish framework for how to
do science. It has its uses, but we mustn’t cling to it too much (which would
be cargo culting). We certainly have many other useful approaches as well.

In fundamental physics, unlike models of other limited domains, experimental
results/constraints over history keep composing on top of each other. So, it
is very hard to build a theory that satisfies _every one of the past
constraints_. In a sense, string theory is the _only_ example we’ve managed,
on that front. Other “alternatives” consider a much more limited domain
(quantum gravity), for better or for worse.

Whether we must continue investing effort/resources on that front is a
_political_ question, not a scientific one. And that is a complicated
question, with many aspects to consider. Let’s please not get hung up on the
“falsification” bugbear. If we were really nitpicky about falsification, we
would completely cease doing/studying/researching psychology, economics and a
whole host of complex topics.

~~~
throwqwerty
>Now, “falsification” itself is a silly/naive cartoon-ish framework for how to
do science. It has its uses, but we mustn’t cling to it too much (which would
be cargo culting). We certainly have many other useful approaches as well.

i don't understand your point. you're saying something like "even though GR
supersedes Newton it doesn't falsify Newton, and Newton is still useful". yes
incorrect theories can still be useful but that doesn't make them correct. As
soon as i use Newton for very fast things (or very small things) and i get
poor results that is falsification of the claim that Newton is a GUT. maybe
that isn't an interesting claim (though certainly there are a lot of theorists
that are interested in that claim) but that's subjective not formal.

~~~
pvarangot
That's because broken theories can be used as frameworks to predict outcomes
in coarser grained slicing of systems. Falsification is used when it comes to
modelling but as a scientific test or rigor it's still important to pursue it
because it finds the limit of your theories.

------
Koshkin
Does this mean, in particular, that the inflaton field has not yet been
successfully modeled in string theory?

------
BoiledCabbage
Will Betteridge's law of headlines finally be wrong?

no.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

