Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Talk:String theory. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:String theory. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
||
Line 205:
::::: Again, Im not going to sort through all of your misconceptions and resolve them all for you, but what you say is wrong and ''demonstrably'' so. You can quote Smolin all day long, but these are quantitative questions that have been decided in ''papers'', not in popular-level books. The AdS/CFT is not in any way critical to these arguments and I didn't bring it up. The key point was that string theory possesses the same diffeomorphism symmetry as general relativity, and implies Einstein's equations as a low energy limit. Those are two unambiguous facts that are true of string theory as it exists today, not some dreamed about completion of it. They are pretty important things to know about it, and I cant guarantee I will continue conversing with someone who wont acknowledge these basic characteristics of the topic in question. Again, your wrong statements include your assertion that de Sitter space and moduli are "major unsolved problems". Does the actual literature written on these topics matter at all? I will leave a few recommended selections here. [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0701034v3] [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610102] [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503124v2] [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505160] – [[User:Isocliff|Isocliff]] ([[User talk:Isocliff|talk]]) 05:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
== Popper and testability ==
An editor named "8digits" keeps modifying the testability section and having the edits reverted. Rather than continuing with such fruitless activity, maybe he/she would care to discuss the issues here? First of all, s/he keeps asserting that Popper said that QM isn't testable. I find that very difficult to believe since it's manifestly false, and Popper wrote extensively on QM and its interpretation. Do you have a reference? [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC).
Do a google search on Popper on QM, like this one
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=popper+quatum+mechanics
I did put the references in, I left your stuff till you come up with something other then an introductory book.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 11:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::I've read quite a bit of Popper, including some of what he wrote on QM. There's nothing anywhere like what you're saying. "Do a google search" isn't a reference. Do you have one?[[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 03:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:I must say I'm slightly confused by what the article means by falsifying that a theory is quantum mechanical. The statement that a theory is quantum mechanical is a statement about how the theory is formulated. Quantum mechanics applied to any physical model will lead to falsifiable predictions (some of which will differ from the predictions made . But what is falsifiable is the combination of quantum mechanics and the specific model. Of course, when people say "quantum mechanics" they mean quantum mechanics plus certain well-known models (Harmonic oscillator, free particle, spin systems), and this combination can clearly be falsified. (For example by a double slit experiment.) But will a low-energy limit of string theory always result in these models? That is not entirely clear. (Some string theory models certainly will, but all?)
:8digits on the other hand seem to be confused by the well-known statement that it is impossible to falsify an interpretation of quantum mechanics (such as the Copenhagen interpretation). Clearly, string theory does not imply any specific interpretation, and as such it is irrelevant.
:On a similar note, it appears to me that the statement that that it "is enough the falsify Lorentz invariance to falsify string theory" is not entirely true. People have studied all sorts models that might appear as low-energy effective theories for string theory that break Lorentz invariance. One of the most notable being [[Horava-Lifshitz gravity]]. As such, observation of Lorentz violation will not falsify string theory (although it will falsify many string theoretic models).[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 13:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:: All string theories are fundamentally Lorentz invariant, or at least that's true of all the ones discussed in the article. It's true that many backgrounds break Lorentz invariance spontaneously, but that's a separate issue (and true in all Lorentz invariance theories). As for QM, if for instance it turned out that gravity wasn't quantized - something that could be tested in principle with something like the gravitational analog of the photoelectric effect - that would falsify string theory. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 03:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes string theories are Lorentz invariant at the fundamental level, but this does not necessarily imply that they do not spontaneously break Lorentz invariance at low energies. Consequently, observation of Lorentz violations will not automatically falsify string theory. (As witnessed by the reaction to the OPERA superluminal neutrino result: people generally do not see this as a threat to string theory even though it implies some sort of Lorentz violation.)
:::As for, QM, not all spectra in quantum mechanics as discrete. In particular, it is a hot topic for debate whether geometrical observables obtain a discrete spectrum in quantized theories of gravity. Varying results have been found in the explicit quantizations preformed in 2+1 dimensions. So, again observing gravity with a continuous spectrum will not falsify quantum mechanics.[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 08:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::ALL solutions break Lorentz invariance at low energies except the state that is perfectly empty vacuum everywhere in the universe all the time, and we don't live or do experiments in such a state. That's true in all Lorentz invariant theories, string theory is no exception. Nevertheless, Lorentz invariance is among the most precisely tested facts about nature, and it's extremely easy to falsify. By the way OPERA does falsify Lorentz invariance if it's correct; faster than light propagation means back in time propagation in L. inv. theories, and that's inconsistent with causality (which is part of all such theories). No one is talking about it falsifying string theory because it would falsify a lot more than just string theory. Regarding QM, it's true that not all quantities are discrete, but particle number is, always. If gravity is quantized, there are gravitons, and you cannot have 1/2 a graviton. This could - in principle - be tested by looking for a gravitoelectric effect for instance, just as the quantization of electromagnetism won Einstein the Nobel prize as explaining the photoelectric effect. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 12:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::The point is that there is no fundamental need for the vacuum state of a low energy effective theory corresponding to string theory to preserve Lorentz invariance. Put more explicitly. String theory is fundamentally Lorentz invariant in 10 dimensions. Compactification will break this symmetry, and I'm not aware of any principle to would prevent breaking this further than the 4d Lorentz group. Consequently, observing 4D Lorentz violation would not falsify all of string theory. (It certainly would falsify a lot of string models.)[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 14:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: "there is no fundamental need for the vacuum state of a low energy effective theory corresponding to string theory to preserve Lorentz invariance" - sorry, but that's pretty much the definition of "vacuum", so you're pretty much tautologically wrong (not that it matters much). "Compactification will break this symmetry" - like I said, ALL non-empty solutions to string theory (or any other Lorentz invariant theories) break Lorentz invariance. We aren't in a vacuum. According to you, does that mean we can't test the Lorentz invariance of the standard model? "Consequently, observing 4D Lorentz violation would not falsify all of string theory. " - observing spontaneous breaking wouldn't, but observing fundamental breaking would. Again, that's the case in ALL Lorentz invariance theories, not just string theory. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 04:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Of course we can test Lorentz invariance of the standard model. As can we test Lorentz invariance of any string theory model that has it. What I am saying is that not every string theory model needs to imply that there exist 4D Lorentz invariance. Hence string theory as a whole cannot be falsified by finding violations of Lorentz invariance. (Note that by your logic, violation of supersymmetry in the standard model would falsify string theory. That obviously is nonsense.) (Also note that from an observation of Lorentz violation (for example an anomoluous dispersion of the photon) you cannot tell whether it is caused by spontaneous or explicit breaking of the symmetry.)[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 15:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::: "Of course we can test Lorentz invariance of the standard model. As can we test Lorentz invariance of any string theory model that has it." All string theory models are Lorentz invariant, it's built into the theory at the level of the worldsheet action. "What I am saying is that not every string theory model needs to imply that there exist 4D Lorentz invariance." No non-trivial solutions to string theory are 4D Lorentz invariant. No non-trivial solutions to the equations of the standard model are 4D Lorentz invariant. You still havent identified a logical difference. "Hence string theory as a whole cannot be falsified by finding violations of Lorentz invariance." It's on exactly the same footing as any other theory with fundamental Lorentz invariance, like the SM. "(Note that by your logic, violation of supersymmetry in the standard model would falsify string theory. That obviously is nonsense.)" Yes, it's nonsense, and no, it's not my logic, it's apparently yours. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 11:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Of course, excitation of a theory are never lorentz invariant. The point I am making is that, the vacuum state of a low energy effective theory does not need to have the same symmetries as the vacuum state of the fundamental theory. For example, low energy effective theories for string theory do not need to have the same amount of supersymmetry as the fundamental theory. (Non Calabi-Yau compactifications of string theory have no supersymmetry in 4D) Similarly, the I see no reason why you could not construct compactifications that break Lorentz symmetry as well, causing Lorentz violating terms to appear in the low energy effective action.
:::::::: Anyway, the onus is on YOU to provide a source to back your claim that all low energy effective actions for all string theory models are Lorentz invariant. I am done trying to educate you in basic field theory.[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 15:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: [http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.39.683 Here] is a source that explicitly discusses the possibility of spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry in String theory and shows that it is possible. This invalidates your blanket claim that ALL string theory models are Lorentz invariant.[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: OF ''course'' it's possible to spontaneously break LI. As I've already tried to explain to you (on this page), all but a very, very special subset of solutions spontaneously break LI in ''all'' LI theories. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, typically they don't. (Spontaneous symmetry breaking is not the same thing as excited states not being Lorentz invariant) In many theories (QCD, QED, the SM) if you derive a low energy effective action of theory, that effective action will be Lorentz invariant. The point here is that the low energy effective actions for some string theory vacua will not be Lorentz invariant. This is contrary to what the sentence currently in the article seemingly claims. The most pressing problem here is that the sentence in the article is badly phrased, making a much broader claim than is supportable by facts or sources. What is true, is that there are consequences of Lorentz invariance of the fundamental theory that might be falsified at low energies. What isn't true (but which is suggested by the current sentence) is that string theory is falsified by any experiment that shows that the low energy effective action contains Lorentz breaking terms.[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 22:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Yes, they do. Forget string theory for a moment, take the standard model or any other LI QFT. Consider any state that isn't totally empty (i.e. anything other than the perfect, exact vacuum). Is that state LI? Nope, it's not. Now compute the effective action around that state. Is that effective action LI? Nope, of course not (a perfect example is the effective field theory of inflation, which is not LI because the background it expands around isn't either). The fact is, LI is a fundamental characteristic of string theory, and it's one that can be falsified. The Distler et al reference on WW-scattering is a perfect example and a more than adequate cite. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 05:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Please go learn what spontaneous symmetry breaking is. Spontaneous symmetry breaking, is the violation of a symmetry of the action in a vacuum state. The point I have been making is that there exist string vacua that violate LI. [[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 07:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Sorry to contradict you, but you're wrong. SSB refers to any situation in which some symmetry (usually of the underlying Lagrangian) is broken by a solution to the theory. It can happen in the vacuum state of the theory (or metastable minima, which are also sometimes referred to as vacua), but it also happens in just about every other solution to the theory. That's the standard terminology. I gave you a simple and good example (inflation and effective field theories). I can give you many more. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding 8digits' edits and Smolin's book. First, Smolin's view is not neutral. Second, I looked in his book, and he does not say that string theory cannot be falsified. Instead, he says that it makes no NEW falsifiable predictions, a partially valid criticism that is already discussed at some length in the article. As for Woit (an even less neutral source), if he says what 8digits says he does (I haven't looked as I don't have his book), then he's flat-out wrong. For instance, no one disputes that string theory reduces to general relativity at low energies - that's a basic feature of the theory - and GR is very easy to falsify. If string theory isn't science because it can't be falsified, so is general relativity, which is absurd. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 03:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
== Popper testability following from testability of dependent theories. ==
I have edited the following paragraph:
''All string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's [[General Relativity]] as a low energy limit.<ref>J. Polchinski, ''String Theory'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1998)</ref> Therefore, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance, or general relativity.<ref>N. Comins, W. Kaufmann, ''Discovering the Universe: From the Stars to the Planets'', W.H. Freeman & Co., p. 357 (2008)</ref> Hence, string theory is [[falsifiable]] and therefore scientific according to [[Karl Popper|Karl Popper's]] criterion.''
First, it constitutes original research (concerning philosophy) and so should not be included.
Secondly, this position doesn't really make sense. Suppose I have a theory that an invisible collection of magical pink elephants with unlimited power exist all around us, and they use their magical power to make general relativity hold all the time. They will always do this because it is their purpose in life which they never waver from.
This theory can be falsified by showing general relativity is false. But, I do not think it is scientific in the sense of popper (it's differences with general relativity cannot be falsified.)
In any case, as previously mentioned, this constitutes original research and so has no place here. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 13:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:I respectfully disagree, and this precise issue was discussed at length years ago in the context of this sentence (or a very close variant) in this article. The consensus was that this does not constitute original research, or in fact research at all, because it follows trivially and immediately. If string theory is falsifiable, and Popper says falsifiable theories are scientific, then pointing out that therefore string theory is scientific according to Popper is not original research. A is B, and B is C, therefore A is C is not research.
:As for your example, it is in fact scientific according to Popper. Whether or not your unicorn theory can be distinguished from another theory (GR) isn't part of and has no relevance to Popper's definition of science. Indeed, I don't know how you'd propose to implement such a criterion - how would you decide which theory was the original, and which just a copy that can't be easily distinguished from it? Popper's criterion to first approximation is just falsifiability. Try reading some Popper, or just thinking about how you would differentiate science from religion (and remember, neither temporal order nor existing evidence are relevant here - this is supposed to be a criterion that applies to abstract theories, not society, or theories plus evidence). Anyway, we're not debating whether Popper's definition is the best one. I'm reverting your edit. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 03:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
::I find your viewpoint on this very interesting. (I'm serious.) However, I remain unconvinced that Popper would consider my elephant theory scientific. Anyways, as you point out, that is not the point. The point is whether or not this constitutes original research, and it does. Going from A->B, B->C to A->C is not allowed on wikipedia. (This is synthesis of published ideas.) Encyclopedia statements don't exist in an abstract axiomatic framework, and so such deductions are not uncontestable. If I find a published quote by Albert Einstein that "every single day it rained in in 1901, I wore a rain jacket", and another published source which asserted that "it rained in Dhaka, Bangladesh on February 3rd, 1901", it would not be valid for me to state without citation that Albert Einstein wore a rain jacket on Februrary 3rd, 1901, because it depends on my interpretation of the statements I am synthesizing. That string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper is an interesting idea, but Wikipedia is not the place for this to be advanced. I will revert the edit. Why not just give a citation for the claim? Or would you consider it appropriate that Wikipedia is the only advocate for this position? [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 12:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
:::To keep things simple, I have just removed your final sentence. That is, I have left in your cited statements, and just removed the uncited conclusion you consider obvious. So it is still making a point you think is interesting (and I agree), but not doing so in such a way that the article is presenting a new viewpoint or perspective that is not given elsewhere. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 12:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: Your example isn't at comparable, because C doesn't follow from A and B given the standard English interpretation of those statements. The situation here is different. String theory is falsifiable, that's obvious and it's cited. Popper said scientific theories are those that are falsifiable again cited. To point out the obvious fact that string theory is therefore Popper falsifiable is clearly not research, nor is it an unjustified synthesis. Suppose we re-wrote the section to say that string theory is falsifiable, and Popper says that falsifiable theories are scientific, and... period. Any reader will immediately draw the missing conclusion themselves, because it's completely obvious, but would be left wondering why the writer of the article didn't finish their thought. It would be incoherent and do a worse job of explaining what it seeks to explain.
::::Here's wiki's statement on disallowed research/synthesis: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." First, note that there is no prohibition there against what you termed "original synthesis". Second, this standard is clearly met here, because the Comins and Kauffman source clearly intended this. Here's a quote from that book: "[A lot of stuff explaining how string theory tries to describe gravity and matter, including some specific falsifiable predictions that have passed observational tests]...Superstring theories are, so far, consistent with observations, but it remains to be seen if any of them will continue to maintain consistency with future observations and to correctly predict observable things that have not yet been seen." Obviously they view string theory as science (like any non-zealot that knows anything about it, but never mind), and equally obviously they regard falsifiability as an important part of that, since they mention it explicitly and at some length.
::::Finally, let me point out that this statement has been in this article for years, and further, that this precise issue was discussed back then, and the consensus was that this statement is simply an obvious logical step and does not violate wiki's guidelines. It's not "my' statement, and you are the one coming in and suddenly deleting it after years of it being there. So I think the onus is entirely on you to establish beyond doubt that it shouldn't be there, and you haven't done so. I've undone your edit. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 13:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
::::One thing I forgot to address - "Or would you consider it appropriate that Wikipedia is the only advocate for this position?" The problem is that there can't be any doubt in any informed and neutral person's mind that string theory is science. String theory is done by scientists in science departments with funding from science granting agencies. The US National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy regularly and routinely fund string theory research, and there are hundreds or thousands of string theorists with permanent research positions at most of the best educational and research institutions around the world. As we've established, it's falsifiable - in fact much more easily so than many of the theories that scientists spend lots of their time on (scientists spend a lot of time trying to develop ideas, play with toy models, work with pure math, etc.). So there really shouldn't be any debate about whether it's science. The only reason there is any debate as far as I know is that two individuals with (for some reason) a very strong dislike for string theory wrote popular books about it. Smolin doesn't actually say it isn't science, and doesn't say it isn't falsifiable, he just says it doesn't make new testable predictions. Woit I'm not sure of, but his view is very far from neutral, and it's obviously not representative of what actual scientists and science policy professionals believe.
::::In any case, it's not so easy to find statements in print like "string theory is Popper falsifiable" because it's totally obvious, so people aren't going to bother to publish things like that. And more or less the whole point of an encyclopedia is to make scientific or specialized knowledge more accessible and clear to the public. That inevitably requires some translation and synthesis. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 13:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The statement is logically incorrect.
Whether it has been here for years is irrelevant.
If it is not available such statements that "string theory is Popper falsifiable", then it is original research and not allowed.
Beside it is wrong, the claims of string theory are much more then just QM and GR. QM and GR might be right and string theory wrong. Also it is misleading as Poper had grave doubts that QM was falsifiable? I think it should have a better reference then this beginners book you quote.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]])
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 13:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
:You keep saying Popper doubted QM was falsifiable. That's news to me, and you've provided exactly zero evidence for it. Popper was an expert in QM, he wrote extensively about it. I've read some of what he wrote, and I've never seen the slightest hint of what you say. So I think you're just flat-out wrong. Provide a reference to show otherwise, please. That the statement has been there for years is relevant because it was discussed at length before, and the consensus among several editors was that it does not constitute "research". Your assertion that it does is in conflict with wiki's guidelines quoted just above. As for this: " QM and GR might be right and string theory wrong" it illustrates a complete failure to comprehend what's being discussed here. Yes, QM might be right and string theory wrong. That's not relevant. The relevant point is that QM might be WRONG, and if so, string theory is wrong. That's sufficient to demonstrate that string theory is science according to Popper. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 11:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
::Indeed, how long a statement has been here does not affect whether it needs a citation. (Indeed, we should be most suspicious of statements which haven't had citations found for them for several years, despite strong feelings that they should remain in the article.)
::If you would really like a list of subjects that science departments have engaged research in which popper did not consider scientific let me know. This is part of the problem I have with your viewpoint... it misses the fact that "scientific according to popper" is a technical statement in philosophy, which cannot be supported by intuition like this.
::I have now put in a cited statement that there are critics which consider string theory unfalsifiable. I know you think that its "obvious" that it is falsifiable but, in reality, I believe the extent to which string theory is falsifiable is a much discussed/debated topic. Your viewpoint seems to be that one side in that debate is obviously wrong, and you may be right about that, but this isn't the place to take a side.
::Honestly, I am not here to say string theory is unfalsifiable. I think one can make interesting points that it might be. The "A is B, B is C, so A is C" deduction you've carried out trivializes the issue in a way which ignores the actual state of discourse on the topic. This is why you are having trouble with citations.
::Really, the most sensible thing would be for Popper to not be mentioned in this article at all, except possibly in a separate "philosophy of string theory" section, which it unfortunately seems we don't have enough citations to write. He was a 20th century Philospher who is not alive today and has written nothing about string theory. This is another reason you are having trouble finding citations directly talking about Popper's criterion applied to string theory.
:::Well, I've tried a compromise by leaving your sentence and citation in. I changed the "However" to a "Despite this", because your summary of Woit's assertion directly contradicted the two (now three) sentences that came right before. In any case, looking at page 207 of Woit's book (I managed to find a copy), it's incoherent. In fact he contradicts himself in two successive sentences.
:::Quote from Woit: "...superstring theory is at the moment unarguably an example of a theory that can't be falsified, since it makes no predictions." OK, Woit thinks ST makes no predictions, noted. Next sentence: "No one has come up with a model within the superstring theory framework that agrees with known facts about particle physics." So let's see - it doesn't make any predictions, and its predictions don't agree with facts about the world. That's known as having your cake and eating it too. Do we really want to quote something like that in an article meant to make this clear? It's muddled nonsense.
:::And let me point out again that Woit is not a scientist, doesn't know string theory, and evidently (based on the fact that he seems to devote much of his life to trashing it) is an anti-string ideologue. So Woit saying something isn't really a very good guide to the facts, or good evidence that there is a real debate. Smolin is slightly more respectable (although he too has a very strong anti string motive, and in any case, he doesn't say it isn't testable, just that it doesn't make new testable predictions). [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 11:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
::::I've removed your uncited statement again. This is a statement that not everyone agrees with. It's a statement whose relevance to the article is questionable.
::::You shouldn't be looking for the opinions of scientists on this issue, by the way.... its not a scientific question but a philosophical one, which is the primary reason it shouldn't be addressed at all in the article. If philosophy was all "A is B, B is C, so A is C", then Popper would not have been as prolific as he was... he would have just written one paper about falsifiability and everything else would have been an obvious consequence. Popper himself wrestled throughout his life with questions of which theories in science could be considered "falsifiable" (including things that all scientists agree are part of "science", such as evolution and natural selection) which could similarly be trivialized by the logic you have used here (aspects of heredity are falsifiable so evolution is falsifiable, etc.)
:::: I am now getting the impression that you seriously believe that all physicists believe that string theory does not have issues with falsifiability. This is not even true for all string theorists, some of whom are consider it an interesting mathematical framework to study, and remain unconvinced of what its ultimate ability to impact physics will turn out to be. There are plenty of "real physicists" who criticize string theory as unscientific. That's not the point. I'm not here to criticize string theory---I think string theory is pretty cool, actually.
::::Right now, the problem with this article is that there is a statement regarding the status of string theory under a technical philosophical criterion of a 20th century philosopher which is present in the article (problem number 1, but whatever...) and has no citation (unacceptable).
::::Perhaps at this stage it would be wise for us to consult some Wikipedia editors unfamiliar with this article for their opinion on whether the sentence you are defending is acceptable as is? [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 12:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: Go ahead and consult other editors. Please stop altering the article and edit warring until a consensus is reached. Better yet, look back in the history talk page and find the discussion among several people of precisely this statement, where it was decided that it does not constitute original research and this wording was decided on. There ARE of citations, so I don't know what you're talking about. The citations say that A) string theory is falsifiable, and B) Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability. That string theory is therefore science by Popper's standard is not "research" and does not require a citation, it is a patently obvious conclusion that follows trivially from the previous two statements (neither of which seems to be in dispute). The debate among physicists is not over that, it's over whether that's the right standard, or whether string theory is good science, etc. All of that can and should be and mostly is discussed in the article.
:::::As for Popper, he struggled with theories that were in a gray area with regards to falsifiability, like evolution. This isn't anywhere close to that - there's nothing even slightly gray about it. Lorentz invariance for instance is one of the most easily falsifiable predictions any theory can make. Same goes for QM. In both cases there are tests that are more precise than any others in the history of human thought. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 13:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
An additional comment: the examples given in the article (QM, Lorentz invariance, GR) are just a few of many. String theory predicts the existence of strings, their scattering amplitudes, the existence of extra dimensions, etc. All of those are obviously falsifiable predictions. Unlike QM etc. they aren't falsifiable right now in the sense that we could do an experiment today to falsify them, but that's because of current technological limitations and has nothing to do with Popper's criterion (which is a criterion one applies to theories, not to the state of human technology on Dec. 15th 2011). If you like, this shows that Popper's criterion is rather weak - but it is still the most widely used definition of science I'm aware of (and the best in my opinion), and therefore it is clearly relevant to the question of whether string theory is science. If there's going to be a discussion of whether string theory is science in this article, it should be mentioned. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 13:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
: The update by 8digits is a big improvement, primarily because the paragraph is now about string theory, instead of being about 20th century philosophy. I have removed the last sentence ("Critics argue that these two issues make string theory de-facto untestable") because it is uncited and I think it is a bit unbalanced, not giving the other perspective as well, and because it is uncited.
: I don't plan to stop updating the article. I feel I am working to improve the article. I have worked hard to discuss the issue with you and I am not the only person who thinks you are wrong.
:To keep things simple, I will try to focus on just a few issues per response. Maybe that will help us have a productive discussion. The issues for this response are: 1) the fact that Popper should not be in this article (except possibly in a separate "Philosophy of String Theory" section) and 2) that your simplistic reasoning regarding poppers criterion is original research, and unlikely to comport well with the body of Poppers work.
: Regarding 1). In your earlier responses, you pointed out lots of reasons why string theory is part of science. Like, it is done in science departments, with science funding, etc. These have nothing to do with Popper. But they do have something do with what we consider to be science. Similarly, the views of most scientists today regarding string theory are not expressed in terms of Popper. Scientists do not typically discuss or care about what Popper would think about string theory. They often care about other things (like whether the scientists have evidence that string theory is correct, or whether they can imagine that happening, or whether string theory is having a positive impact on physics overall, etc.) which may or may not be related to Popper. This is why you find it so hard to find a citation of a scientist talking about popper and string theory in the way you want: most don't care. Maybe they should, but they don't. This is why it shouldn't be in the article at all. How Popper's criterion applies to string theory is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. For better or for worse, our current understanding of what constitutes science comes from "what scientists consider science", which has very little these days to do with Popper (although, no doubt, he affected today's scientists' views greatly through is impact on the intellectual discourse on the subject).
:Regarding 2) Your logic really would trivialize lots of things that Popper did not consider trivial. Evolution really does imply that horses don't give birth to rabbits (and vice versa). That horses don't give birth to rabbits is falsifiable. Therefore, according to your logic, Evolution is falsifiable. What is wrong with my reasoning? Why doesn't this show Evolution is falsifiable? Stay on point mind you, the question is not whether Evolution is similar to string theory, the question is whether A is falsifiable, B implies A, always means B is falsifiable (since the original paragraph was depending on this logic being "obvious" and thus not requiring a citiation.) Not only is it not obvious, it is false. Or which is it: does evolution not imply that horses don't give birth to rabbits? Or is it that horses don't give birth to rabbits not a falsifiable statement? [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 18:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
::8digits deleted an entire paragraph about string theory, including citations, and replaced it with an uncited opinion that is redundant with the material that immediately follows that paragraph (the string harmonics section). That's a "big improvement", according to you? You're not displaying a neutral POV here, nor are these edits making the article better, clearer, or more correct.
::In case you didn't notice Popper is already mentioned elsewhere in the article (not by me). I agree with you that most physicists don't care much about Popper. On the other hand, I think it's the case that Popper's criterion is the best definition of "science" we have ("done by scientists", while useful in ridiculous debates like "is string theory science", is circular). I think most people that care would agree with me that Popper is the best definition we have. So if we're going to discuss whether string theory is "testable" or "science", it makes a lot of sense to mention Popper.
::I agree that Popper/not Popper is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one, but I don't understand why you think that's a problem. The wiki article isn't science, it's about science, so mentioning philosophy of science is very reasonable.
::Regarding evolution, the issue that bothered Popper is whether in fact evolution actually predicts things like horses don't give birth to rabbits ("fossil rabbits from the pre-Cambrian" is actually famous quote, though I think that was Haldane). Once that is clear, it's perfectly clear that evolution is falsifiable. The trouble is that evolution, full stop, is such a general phenomenon - it's essentially tautological that it takes place - that it's not obvious that it actually predicts that (a world in which horses give birth to rabbits could conceivably contain evolution). In the end Popper decided (correctly, I think) that evolution does make such predictions, or rather the more specific theory that evolution by natural selection is the origin of species does. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 19:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
:::The reason I considered the edit a big improvement is because the paragraph was now actually---kind of---an on-topic introductory paragraph to the section it is heading. The previous paragraph was no such thing. It was about a topic most string theorists have no interest in, and so should not be in the article at all, let alone '''the introductory paragraph''' for a section which is '''not''' titled "the philosophy of string theory". I agree the new paragraph is not NPOV (and I even deleted the last sentence of it because of that) and a better paragraph would be more NPOV, discuss the issues with the testability of string theory in a neutral way mentioning possibilities and current limitations, without discussing the Popper criterion, which most scientists do not concern themselves with today. Would you like to collaborate on such a paragraph? I would not be opposed to discussing the fact that string theory implies well-testable and well-tested theories like QM, etc. I just don't like the connection with Popper (which I do think is a leap, but, more relevantly, is not really well-suited here).
:::(In fact, part of the silliness with the Popper statement is it sets up the idea that this is what string theorists have resigned themselves too: string theory is "popper falsifiable" for some technical reason. In fact, there are actually interesting avenues through which string theory might actually be verifiable in a way scientists would care about.) [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 23:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: I agree that Popper falsifiability isn't all that compelling - as I said before, it's a rather weak criterion. Nevertheless, I think it is important to have in there because it shows definitively that string theory is science according to the most widely used and accepted definition of "science". Given that people keep trying to add references to Woit and others that assert that string theory isn't science, I think this is worth pointing out. I really (despite honestly trying) can't understand your arguments for why you think it's off topic or irrelevant, it's a statement about falsifiability in a section about testability, so it seems about as relevant as it gets.
::::: This seems like the crucial point of disagreement. I'm not going to edit right now to show I'm serious about compromise (I'm putting in a dummy edit in case it's necessary to get your attention). I think that Popper's criterion is not a widely used definition (among scientists) of what constitutes science. I have never had a serious conversation with other scientists about science in which Popper came up. It has only come up in discussions of Philosophy (in relation to Kuhn, etc.). The word "scientific" has several common uses among modern scientists (e.g., rigorous, applied to studies, testable by experiment, applied to ideas, etc.) and it hardly ever means "falsifiable in the technical sense of Popper". I think that string theory is obviously science in the sense you pointed out earlier---done by scientists in mainstream science departments at most universities, etc, and that Popper's criterion doesn't add anything to the discussion. I for one am not arguing that string theory is not science. I think there are interesting questions about the extent to which string theory makes new predictions which may be tested in the near future---questions which don't have an "definitely no, definitely yes" answer, which the section this paragraph heads does a reasonable job of discussing. Can you be convinced to consider a paragraph which does not reference Popper, but addresses the predictability/testability issues associated with string theory in a reasonable way showing the possibilities (while acknowledging current limitations)? [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks for that. I actually *have* had numerous conversations with other scientists about Popper. Personally I find his criterion quite useful, because I think it captures the essence of science: you test theories by trying as hard as you can to falsify them. If you fail, you have a little more confidence in that theory. You never really verify anything, the best you can say is that evidence is *consistent* with theory (so I'm not sure what you mean by "testable by experiment" other than Popper). So I can't agree with your "hardly ever", that's not been my experience at all (although of course I recognize that I myself might be the cause of that).
:::::: Regarding not mentioning Popper, it just seems rather silly not to. I think it's important to point out that string theory can be falsified. For instance, Woit says explicitly that ST cannot be falsified (and then contradicts himself in the next sentence), and I have personally encountered several people that were convinced by that, plus seen many more such assertions on the internet. So I think there's a real misconception that's been perpetuated by a few ideologues, and I think countering that mistake with facts - however self-evident or irrelevant they might seem to you - is a good idea. But once you go that far, adding a single sentence or phrase that completes the thought by pointing out Popper's criterion seems clearly indicated. It's not like there's a word limit, or this is a huge block of text. And remember, this article is not intended just for professional scientists who might not need such guidance, it's for everyone. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 02:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Regarding the more interesting avenues, I'm in complete agreement. I would be happy to collaborate on including/improving that. There used to be a sentence following the Popper one that got deleted. I'm going to edit it back in. It leads into the following sections, which are about "positive" predictions, things that string theory predicts but few or no other theories do. See what you think. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 01:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: I think this is a big improvement, in part because I think it acknowledges the irrelevance (from the perspective of a modern scientist) of the claim of Popper falsifiability... but this is of course why I think the paragraph should be reworked to avoid discussing Popper at all. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: (I must admit I remain dissatisfied with the fact that the Popper sentence consists of a deduction... however obvious you think it is, I find that uncited deductions stick out in Wikipedia articles like sore thumbs, marking inappropriate homes for statements not noteworthy enough (or possibly not valid enough) to be made anywhere else. But in this case it has more serious problems with inclusion that I feel we have more common ground on)
::::By the way, I can see the argument for moving or merging some of that discussion with the criticism subsection. The way it's structured now is as follows: first it explains briefly why testing string theory directly is hard, then it points out that it's easy to falsify but hard to verify, then it describes some ways it might be verified, and then it goes into more detail on why it's hard to test. That's a little convoluted, and can probably be organized better. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 01:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: It's only Popper falsifiable in a trivial sense. According to this trivial sense the only way something isn't falsifiable is if it doesn't build upon any science theory at all, and conversely any bizarre theory is science if it builds on any other science theory. We should remove that sad paragraph [[User:Bhny|Bhny]] ([[User talk:Bhny|talk]]) 01:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: I agree but Waleswatcher's response is that this is the correct sense in which things are or are not Popper falsifiable, and your characterization is correct (see my "pink elephant theory" above). I don't see a way of reconciling this disagreement (whether or not this is correct application of Popper's criterion), except that maybe we can all agree that '''if''' this is the correct application, than it certainly makes it a less crucial concept to include in the article (since it is so far from what scientists care about on a day to day basis)??[[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 01:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: There's no such thing as "Popper falsifiable in a trivial sense". A theory is either falsifiable or not. And you cannot decide if theory A "builds on" theory B or if instead B builds on A, because the temporal order in which A and B were thought of is irrelevant to whether or not they are scientific theories. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 02:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: All theories are falsifiable by this usage, that's why it has no meaning [[User:Bhny|Bhny]] ([[User talk:Bhny|talk]]) 02:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: All ''scientific'' theories are falsifiable, that's precisely the point. Religion, among other things, is not. Please note that this is a very well established and discussed point, Popper is famous for a reason. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 02:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
When you say "There's no such thing as 'Popper falsifiable in a trivial sense'", you're conducting research in philosophy. Whether that is true or false could be the subject for philosophical debate. How about this: give us '''one single citation''' of Popper using '''his''' criterion in any situation parallel to these toy examples (where an obviously ludicrous theory is concatenated with a single falsifiable statement to produce a "scientific" theory). If there are no such examples I recommend reconsidering whether this is truly an immediate consequence of Popper's writings. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 04:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Your paragraph above "Regarding not mentioning Popper..." you make it clear that you think that the statement about Popper should be here precisely because you think it is an interesting point which has been overlooked outside of Wikipedia. This is exactly the kind of statement which can't be present in an encyclopedia article without citation. I'm removing the paragraph again in light of this. Before replacing it consider the consensus appears to be building in favor of the irrelevance of the point to the article. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 04:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:Edit: instead of removing the paragraph, I will await the outcome of the Mediation. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
=== Mediation ===
I have listed here a mediation dispute on this question, I hope everyone treats it in good faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/16_December_2011/
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 04:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Wpegden appears to have deleted the above link and the autosig, so I've added it back. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 20:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:I don't think I did, if I did so I assure you it was unintentional!! [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
To all concerned - the mediation was declared closed by the mediator (Thehistorian10), but unfortunately with an ambiguous and self-contradictory "ruling", rather than by reaching a consensus. The other mediators at the Mediation Cabal believed the case to be so badly mishandled that they have banned Thehistorian10 from serving as a mediator. That notice is (or was) here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThehistorian10&action=historysubmit&diff=470485475&oldid=470482748 . There is an ongoing discussion as to re-open the mediation case elsewhere here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal . I'm ambivalent. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 20:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:There's no doubt that case was a mess. I had no idea how Mediation cases are supposed to go but its clear from reading the guidelines after-the-fact that apart from massive general communication problems basic guidelines were ignored.
:Obviously it would be best to avoid having another mediation, though. Is the paragraph at a point right now where we are basically happy with the content we've decided on? Maybe it would help to keep in mind that I consider string theory part of science (I've said this many times on this page from the very beginning) for reasons like "it is done by scientists", etc. and have no intention of defending any statements to the contrary. In part because it seems to me that there may be dispute regarding the status of string theory and Popper in the literature (among reasonable, non-crazy scientists), I think it is more appropriate to remove dubious criticisms in the article calling string theory "not science" than to work to have defenses against that criticism based on Popper falsifiability in the article. (On the other hand, I think there is essentially no dispute in the literature on whether string theory is "science".)
:That said, if you are unsatisfied at where we're at now and feel another mediation is appropriate to settle it, I completely accept that given the violations of the Mediator. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
=== Contrary Source ===
[http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0543 Here] is a reputable source (article written by a string theorist published in the American Journal of Physics) which takes the opposite position as the one made by the "obvious" sentence. So I think its safe to say it is not obvious and so should remain removed. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 20:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:Your previous argument was that mentioning Popper is a bad idea because scientists don't care about it and therefore it's too uninteresting to belong in the article. As evidence, you produce an article that mentions Popper falsifiability? That source ''undermines'' your argument.
: Are you now suddenly moving the goalposts and questioning that string theory is falsifiable? That is a fact that is already multiply cited, and can be cited further ad infinitum. This author - along with Woit, already discussed - apparently failed to understand that fact, and therefore comes to an incorrect conclusion regarding Popper. But the existence of this article ''strengthens'' the argument for including the phrase about Popper in the article. If you like, your citation can be mentioned as disagreeing, or can go in the criticism section. I'd oppose that - since it's manifestly wrong, just like Woit - but it's an option we can discuss.
:Several sources already state explicitly that string theory is falsifiable. Multiple sources state that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability. Still others state that Popper considered general relativity falsifiable and therefore science, and everyone (?) agrees (and in any case it's multiply cited) that string theory reduces to GR, and that if GR was falsified, so would be string theory. From there, it's a trivial synthesis to say that string theory is Popper falsifiable. There is nothing new in that. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 20:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:: No, I am not changing my point or moving the goal post. As I said before, I consider the status of string theory with regards to Popper a philosphical statement, and, as such, one that should have citations from philosophy journals. I am not advocating using this citation to say that "string theory is not scientific according to Popper." I am not even using this citation to say you are wrong. I am using this citation to demonstrate the statement you are trying to make about Popper is not an obvious statement, and so constitutes original research. The relevant quote from the article is "So far string theory has failed to meet Popper’s criterion." It seems the statement is not obvious to him either, right? And I have always said that what I disagree with is that string theory is falsifiable "in the technical sense of Popper", which is what this article is speaking to. This point can still be found in our discussions of the issue. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 21:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Let me put it this way. Which of the cited statements that you list do you think Emam disagrees with? Or do you think there is just something wrong with him that he comes to the opposite conclusion as the one you consider "trivial"? And how can we be sure that you are right about there being something wrong with him, without citations supporting your synthesis? [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 21:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
::: There are plenty of citations that support the synthesis, that's precisely the point. There is nothing original there, it follows trivially from the cited facts presented. From reading his paper, it seems that Emam is referring to tests of the high energy predictions of string theory (since he says that technology may eventually become available). He is correct that such tests are needed to convincingly ''verify'' string theory, as is already discussed in the article. He is wrong that such tests are needed to ''falsify'' string theory, a fact that you seem to agree with. Since the latter (rather than the former) is Popper's criterion, he is also wrong about Popper. If I had to guess, I would say that he disagrees that Popper's criterion is merely falsifiability - but that is very easily established by citations which I'm happy to add if requested. [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 22:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:::'''At this point''', we have had an active discussion in which you are the only person defending your viewpoint, and a mediator has suggested that the statement should be removed without citation. Is your plan to ignore the mediators suggestion and continue edit warring by replacing the uncited statement, in spite of the mediation? [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 21:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: There is an active mediation case ongoing that has not been resolved. Only one of the two mediators has even commented, the comment is ambiguous with regard to precisely what s/he believes should be deleted, and s/he hasn't yet responded to a request for clarification. Modifying the article at this point is not in good faith, and can be interpreted as a sign that you are not interested in the outcome of the mediation case (which, I will note, was not started or requested by me). [[User:Waleswatcher|Waleswatcher]] ([[User talk:Waleswatcher|talk]]) 22:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Mediator said today- ''I would like anything to do with the (alleged) falsifiability of string theory to be removed, until such a time as sources - which can be agreed on by ALL parties in this dispute - are found. That is my final word on the matter.''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/16_December_2011/#Mediator_notes]] [[User:Bhny|Bhny]] ([[User talk:Bhny|talk]]) 17:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:Cites added to fulfill the mediator's request (one is new and states that Popper's criterion is falsifiability, the other two were already there, and state that string theory is falsifiable. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 18:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::What about the part where the moderator said ''sources - which can be agreed on by ALL parties in this dispute'' [[User:Bhny|Bhny]] ([[User talk:Bhny|talk]]) 18:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::: So far as I know, no one has not "agreed on" (whatever that means) ''any'' of those sources. 8digits didn't seem to think highly of the Comins' source since it is an introductory text - although he had no problem citing Woit, a popular book written by a non-scientist - so I added the Distler paper, which is written by four professional researchers and published in the premier physics journal. The Distler cite is just as explicit at Comins (it says in the abstract that observations could falsify generic models of string theory). I haven't seen any objections. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 18:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: I have removed the citation, as it does not support the sentence it is attached to. The sentence it is attached to says that string theory is meets Poppers definition of a scientific theory. The citation does not even mention string theory once. You are saying that readers should read citations A, B, and C and connect the dots and realize that D holds (where D is the statement that string theory is scientific according to Popper, a statement which does not appear in any of your citations). You believe this is obvious but the consensus, including the view of the moderator, is that it is not. So the statement should go.
:::::How in the world could it mention string theory? It was written before string theory was discovered. It says in very simple, plain English that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability. That's obviously relevant and important to that sentence, so why did you delete it? There's another, separate issue regarding whether or not part of that statement is an "improper synthesis". If so, the appropriate action is to remove the phrase regarding Popper until a cite can be found for it. But there can be no argument that so long as the article mentions Popper's criterion, the cite you removed is relevant. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 19:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::::When this conversation started there were some reasonable points raised by all sides. That ceased to be the case a long time ago. I seem to recall that when I pointed out a reputable source indicating that string theory is '''not''' scientific in the sense of Popper, you managed to assert (should I say, convince yourself?) that this strengthens your argument that the statement "string theory is scientific according to Popper" should be included in the article, without a citation. I am honestly starting to wonder if you are just trolling at this point. Certainly you are not working to achieve a reasonable consensus on the situation and improve the article.
::::The point that everyone in the present discussion (including the mediator) agrees to '''except for you''' is a very simple one: the statement that string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper cannot be in the article without a citation that says explicitly that string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper. I believe you understand that this is what the disagreement is, which leads me to the conclusion that you are willfully acting as if you don't so that you can ignore the consensus and view of the mediator (since you are still posting the sentence without a citation which explicitly supports the sentence). In my view, consensus is now as close as it ever will be. Walsewatcher is the exception that proves the rule. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 19:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: I'm sorry you feel that way. Part of the problem here is that there is no agreement among you and 8digits on what should be done. Multiple people reverted 8digit's edits prior to this starting, and you have stated positions that explicitly disagree with him/her on what should be done. From the beginning I've tried to focus the discussion on what I think we agree is the only possibly gray area - the second half of that sentence where it mentions Popper.
:::::: At this point I'm willing to propose a compromise. We can delete the second half, at least for now, but keep the first. Further, I think we should keep the cite to Popper, since it is clearly relevant as per my response above. I'll edit the article now to reflect that. I do ''not'' agree that this is (or was) an improper synthesis, I'm simply worn out under the edit war you have maintained, and I think it's better at this point to reach a consensus compromise rather than return in a while and find the article mangled even further. Please let me know if you are happy with the article as it will be in a moment. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 19:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
What you are doing Waleswatcher, is making a mockery of the mediation process. You have till the 6 January to provide evidence of this claim of yours. Note I do not like the references you have picked to support the other two sentences, can you please add more to show the mediator.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 01:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Sorry, but - what?? YOU'RE the one who edited the page while the mediation was still ongoing - mediation that YOU requested. You asked that it be respected, but then YOU went ahead and edited the page before the mediation was anywhere close to concluded (closely followed by Wpegden and Bhny, who did the same). Not only that, you barely participated on the mediation page. Now you accuse me of making a "mockery" of it? Talk about hypocrisy.
:What we ought to do is restore the page to as it was before this process started, since it is still ongoing. Would you like me to do that, 8digits?
:As for the references, you've made it clear that no matter what I add you will never be satisfied. You've lost all credibility in this. At least Wpegden is honestly trying to improve the article. I have no idea what you're trying to do to it. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 06:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
::Please try me, add a few more references which you did say you would do.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 11:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Please Waleswatcher, can you list some references to support your case, the ones you are using now are a combination of beginners book or rticles that have only minor associations with your claims.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 01:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC) [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]])
:The Comins reference is a physics textbook written by professional (astro)physicists. It says explicitly that string theory is falsifiable for precisely the reasons stated in the article (plus some more). The Distler reference is an article written by four professional researchers, published in the premier peer-reviewed physics journal, and has at least 18 citations in other research articles. The Distler cite is just as explicit at Comins - it says in the abstract and in the text that certain observations would falsify generic models of string theory, full stop. The title is "Falsifying Models of New Physics via WW Scattering". How exactly you manage to twist that as having only a "minor association" with "my" claims I have no idea - the word "falsify" is in the ''title'', and string theory is mentioned in the ''abstract'', and the topic is precisely how to falsify it using quantum mechanics and unitarity. The third reference is to an article by Popper, who is widely considered to be an authority on Popper. So no, I'm afraid I cannot fulfill your request to add higher quality references, because these are already of the highest possible quality. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 04:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
:One more comment on that. A while back when the primary citation for this was Comins (and Polchinski, but never mind), 8digits objected to it on the grounds that it was an introductory textbook. So, I added Distler, which is as far from a intro textbook as you can get... and 8digits still objects. I can only conclude that s/he simply won't be satisfied no matter what references are added.
:I'll also point out that 8digits has repeatedly added uncited claims to the article, and for a while insisted vehemently that Popper thought quantum mechanics was unfalsifiable. But when challenged, s/he simply shifted ground (since that's of course not the case, Popper was very familiar with QM and its predictions). So it seems to be part of a pattern. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 05:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You have no reference to support your view that to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics.
:What??? That's the entire ''point'' of the Distler paper. That's what it is ''about.'' (It's also stated in the Comins reference - and every text on string theory spends a major part of its material explaining how to quantize the string.) I'm sorry, but it seems very clear from your comments and questions that you are not approaching this in good faith. I'm going to stop responding to your comments from now on, unless someone else supports them or shares your concerns. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 02:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
For your statement to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify fundamental Lorentz invariance, you quote this article
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0604/0604255v4.pdf
which part exactly of this article supports this view.
Also which part of this article supports your view that all string theory models are falsifiable, it is your quote and reference.
Discovering the Universe: From the Stars to the Planets [Paperback]
Neil F. Comins (Author), William J. Kaufmann (Author)
5.0 out of 5 stars
Discovering the Universe: From the Stars to the Planets engages students with an inquiry-based exploration of the universe and the scientific process. Developed with a “big picture” approach, the text first explains how the stars, the galaxies, and the entire universe formed, and then discusses planets and other components of our solar system. Students follow this natural conceptual progression within a proven learning method designed to address misconceptions and build a deep understanding of science and the world around us.
Really this is your reference that to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify general relativity?
Also which part of this book supports your view that all string theory models are falsifiable, again it is your quote and reference.
:Already done ''on this page''. You ignored it. Now you're asking me to give quotes again? No. It's page 519, or just scroll up. As for GR, the fact that string theory reduces to GR is in Polchinski, GSW, BBS, and every other text on string theory. It's the reason people care about string theory in the first place. These are truly basic facts about string theory. They're elsewhere in this wiki article, even. Do you want me to reference our own article? <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 12:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Page numbers and quotes would be appreciated for this book.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 14:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC) [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]])
Did you read this part of the conclusion of the article you quoted with the word *could* emphasis added "Theories which *could* violate the bound include those which violate Lorentz invariance [21], or unitarity [22]."
This article in other words is saying *could* not necessarily that it will.
:So? It seems you've still failed to understand the basics of this discussion. Yes, some Lorentz or unitarity violating theories might NOT violate that bound. But any theory that DOES violate the bound is necessarily Lorentz or unitarity violating. In other words, data that shows the bound is violated FALSIFIES any theory that is Lorentz invariant and unitary, such as string theory. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 04:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
There are some other interesting quotes from the article too which I will quote in full so you cannot accuse me of cherry picking.
"Indeed, if the scale of quantum gravity is as high as the Planck scale, it becomes interesting
to ask the question as to whether or not the theory is, even in principle, falsifiable. One possibility is that the mathematical structure leads to unique low energy predictions.
However, in the case of string theory, recent progress seems to indicate that this is not a likely scenario. Another possibility is that there are low energy, non-Planck suppressed, consequences of some underlying symmetries. Symmetries link the UV and the infrared (IR) by distinguishing between universality classes. However, string theory does not seem to have any problems
generating the low energy symmetries manifested at energies presently explored. Indeed, given the enormous number of string vacua it may be that string theory can accommodate whatever new physics is found at the TeV scale by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
Thus it seems that decoupling may have the effect of rendering string theory unfalsifiable."
:I see you chose to stop your quote right at that point, which is exactly cherry picking since the next sentence begins "However" and goes on to explain precisely how to falsify it (which is, after all, the subject of the article). Transparent sophistry like that simply undermines your position even further, 8digits. Anyone can read the article for themselves, it's available free on the net. It says string theory can be falsified, that's the whole point. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 04:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not think this article supports your case good enough, to be used the way it is.
Now let me get on to our logic.
This is what is written in the article.
"all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[39] or general relativity.[40] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable."
Let me reword it and make the following statements.
"all GR theory models contains Newton's Physics at ..... Therefore, to falsify GR, it would suffice to falsify Newton's Physics. Hence, all GR theory models are falsifiable."
I do not think the logic is good enough.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 13:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC) [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]])
:What? Are you trying to say that GR is falsifiable because it contains Newton's theory as a limit? If so, you're right (and that further supports the points made in the article). If not, I have no idea what you're trying to say. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 04:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
::These are evasions not answers.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 13:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC) [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]])
::Waleswatcher, the GR example should convince you that your viewpoint is incorrect. Popper wrote specifically about General relativity as an example of a theory meeting his notion of "scientific". He believed that GR was falsifiable because of new predictions it made which could be tested (i.e., light curving around the sun), and not because of its Newton-laws limit. That Popper never made a claim about a theory such as GR being falsifiable based on predictions made by previously established theories should convince any fair-minded observer that this is a leap of logic which is not "trivial" or "obvious" (and, in fact, probably not a valid application of Popper's criterion at all). [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 18:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
::: Thanks for your comment, but I don't agree. I think that Popper would have agreed with me that the fact that GR reduces to Newton suffices to guarantee its status as a scientific theory. If you read his criteria for what constitutes science, which are very simple, concise, and written in plain English, that's clear. Popper was trying to distinguish between theories like GR and "theories" like Marxism and astrology. There would have been no doubt in his mind regarding the scientific status of GR, regardless of whether the technology at the time was adequate to conclusively rule it in or out compared to Newton.
::: Of course GR also makes predictions that contradict Newton, and testing those predictions (and thereby falsifying either GR or Newton) was obviously crucial for it to replace Newton as the dominant theory of gravity. Popper quite rightly focussed on those tests, the first of which occurred in 1919 when Popper was young. This article, after mentioning that string theory is obviously scientific by Popper's standard (as well as any other I've ever heard of), should certainly go on to point out that string theory does in fact suffer from the difficulty that it's hard to test with experiments that distinguish it from other putative theories of quantum gravity. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 19:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: I don't think this really a reasonable perspective. If Popper considered "including a falsifiable theory" as a way that a theory could be falsifiable, there would be at least one example of him applying his criterion in his way. The most reasonable explanation for him never having done so, is that he didn't consider this a valid application of his criterion. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 21:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: Quite possibly he DID apply it that way: I haven't searched, and neither had anyone else to my knowledge. But quite possibly not, because from what I've read Popper thought it was obvious that theories like this in physics were scientific. I don't think there would be any question in his mind about string theory, because it clearly meets the criterion he carefully laid out, just as GR and special relativity did. Popper was very aware of the hierarchical nature of physical theory - he commented how Newton superseded Kepler, then SR took the place of Newton, and GR took the place of SR. In each case each theory included the former as a special case. All were obviously falsifiable, both because they included the previous theory and because they made new predictions. String theory is no different. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 23:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: You say "from what I've read Popper thought it was obvious..." . So then there's a simple resolution to this dispute after all... tell us where you've read these things!!! [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::: The link that's in the article now is concise, that's the best place to start. If you want more detail, read ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'', online here http://www.cosmopolitanuniversity.ac/library/LogicofScientificDiscoveryPopper1959.pdf Browsing through it again, I found several relevant passages. p.66 "We can put this more briefly by saying: a theory is falsifiable if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty." It follows trivially that if theory A contains (the predictions of) theory B, and if the class of potential falsifiers of B is non-empty, then A is falsifiable. On page 106 Popper considers a toy model where one has a set of theories, some of wich are "dependent theories" in the sense of the title of this section of the talk page. Popper considered all the theories to be falsifiable - it's just that some are more easily falsifiable than others (that section is about degrees of falsification). Finally, you might read section 3 (page 9). Popper outlines four lines on which to test theories: 1) logical consistency, 2) establishing whether or not it's a scientific theory, 3) determining whether the theory would be a scientific advance if it survives, and 4) testing it with experiment. It is only in 4) that the issue of ''new'' predictions comes up. Step 2) (whether the theory is scientific) is independent of data and experimental technology, it's a question about the theory as an abstract, stand-alone construct (deciding if a theory is scientific is what he calls the problem of demarkation). His answer? Scientific=falsifiable=at least one prediction that could be falsified. That's it. It's ''very'' simple, and string theory obviously meets this criterion. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 14:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: Aha. I thought you meant you had a secondary source on this. Popper's work itself can easily argued both directions... this is why you are doing original research. For example, he makes it clear in section 3 that he only envisions people trying to falsify new theories by trying to falsify predictions made not by pre-established theories. This calls into question whether new theories without new predictions should be considered scientific. To take a simple example: Freudian psychoanalysis could easily be argued to be predicated on the assumption that everyone has a brain. This is clearly a falsifiable, but also a trivial and "preestablished" statement. And Popper certainly didn't Freudian psychoanalysis to be falsifiable. In general, you have this problem, that with your logic, one could make an argument that almost anything is falsifiable (including, say, Christianity, if we consider it to predict that all new people are not messiahs, which implies they have human parents, which is a falsifiable statement, since if its false we can find babies appearing out of nowhere.) In general, I have trouble imagining a common nonscientific world-view that I couldn't argue is falsifiable using this kind of logic. The example on 106 doesn't help your case, since each theory considered introduces new falsifiable predictions above its dependent theories. My problem is: I know of no evidence that Popper thought his criterion could validly be applied in this trivial way, and 2) if he thought so, I think he would have pointed it out, or some person in the world other than you would have noticed this and written something about it. So far, you appear to be the only person in the world I can find who thinks this is clearly a valid application of Poppers criterion. '''And thats the point.''' Even if you are right (which I don't believe) it can't be in Wikipedia when it is the only place the statement is being made.[[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 03:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Popper's work ''cannot'' be argued in either direction. It's crystal clear, he was very good at that and very careful. In the part of section 3 I think you're referring to he's not discussion demarkation (determining whether a theory is scientific), he's discussing comparing the theory against alternatives. As for your Freudian example, Popper would agree that if you add/include "everyone has a brain" in the theory that might make it falsifiable (depending on precisely what you mean by "everyone"), but - by the criteria he explains later - only to a very small degree. Indeed, that simply points up the issue that we've discussed already, that Popper discusses, and that's already in the article - you need relatively unique predictions that get verified to start having real confidence that the theory is correct. But that's a separate issue from whether the theory is science, both according to Popper and logically. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 15:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: Wow. So, let me get this straight: you think we should have the statement that "Freudian pyschoanalysis is scientific according to Popper" in the article on Freudian psychoanalysis? I could set it up exactly the same way as you are defending here, but with brains instead of general relativity. Why should this be here if that should not be there? We could go around and add these little paragraphs to hundreds of articles: Christianity, ESP (also depends on brains), astrology (depends on basic astronomical facts like the rising of the sun), phrenology (depends on everyone having a head), etc. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::: You're not arguing in any sort of serious way anymore - you're just trying to knock down strawmen. Putting words in my mouth and then attacking them doesn't get us anywhere.
::::::::::: If you're actually in earnest, the difference is that "everyone has a brain" is not really part of Freudian analysis - it's a fact about anatomy or biology, not psychology. The fact that string theory is quantum and general relativistic, on the other hand, is the essential, fundamental feature of the theory. It's why string theory is interesting. It's the single most important thing about it. And, on top, it's a precise, highly falsifiable prediction that emerges in a very non-obvious and unexpected way. The two are not at all comparable. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::: You're missing my point. My point is that we agree more than you think; we both think the trivial logic A is B, B is C, so A is C cannot justify calling something "scientific according to Popper" in a Wikipedia article. Rather, you think all of these other things matter for your sense of whether or not its appropriate (the other things being: its "why string theory is interesting", its "the single most important thing about it", and, especially, "it emerges in a very non-obvious and unexpected way", etc.). This demonstrates why the the trivial logic in the Wikipedia article is unacceptable. The point is that whether it something is scientific according to Popper (or, for the sake of agreement, lets say, whether this is a meaningful/interesting statement, unlike the corresponding statements for Christianity, etc.) is not as trivial as the language you are defending makes it sound. The fact that all of these factors go into your viewpoint of whether it is disingenuous to call something "Popper Scientific" illustrates why Wikipedia cannot be the home for a 3 sentence deduction representing the only place in the world where String Theory is "shown" to be so. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 14:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::: We're just going around in circles. The facts are these: string theory is interesting primarily because it's a quantum theory of gravity, it's falsifiable (multiple cites) because it reduces to GR, is Lorentz invariant and quantum (multiple cites) and because it makes unique new predictions (cites), professional researchers think those facts are interesting enough to write papers and books about, Popper says that all falsifiable theories are scientific (multiple cites), therefore it's a trivial synthesis to state that string theory is science according to Popper. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 12:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::: Wow, this still? Let me try to boil this down: String theory is not "shown" to be scientific in any particular place because it's status as a scientific theory is not seriously questioned in the scientific community (its correctness, on the other hand, is). If it were not science, there would not be O(1000) or more papers published in peer reviewed physics journals like Physical Review, MIT's course on string theory would be classified as math or something else instead of physics, and so on. Its quite easy to agree that ordinarily the claim that a given scientific theory is, in fact, science would not be noteworthy, but its obvious why this case is an exception: because there is a widely-selling popular-level physics book, as well as one of the most trafficked physics blogs on the internet, claiming otherwise. Im not opposed to having this book, as well as Smolin's, included in the article; since they surely have some significance (though not much in the way of rigorous content bearing on the scientific question itself). However, as long as the claim that string theory is not science is being presented, the article also deserves an explicit recitation of Popper's criterion, as well as the rigorously derivable properties of string theory that show unambiguously that it fits that criterion.
::::::::::: I noticed earlier that the phrase "de facto untestable" was criticized. Let me say that this was my phrase, and I basically chose it as a compromise with whatever was in there before – I dont remember exactly what the previous language was that I replaced, but it seemed too clearly wrong to stand. I choose this language because it does represent a claim about string theory that is not rigorous, and thus may take on varying shades of truth, depending on what a more detailed study of the landscape of phenomenologically viable solutions yields. That string theory is ''testable'' and that it is science according to Popper's criterion are empirical facts. That it may not be feasible to test ''in practice'' is more subtle, and thats what that language I chose was hoping to convey. I dont agree that string theory is de-facto untestable (or at least I think its too early to claim that), but this is at least a claim that is not rigorously ruled out, and I think it accurately captures what many of the more skeptical physicists think, yet it is distinct from the wrong statements that string theory fails to be science. <font color="#5a8fa8"><i>isocliff</i></font><font color="#3e4a77"><b>__</b></font> 06:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Isocliff|Isocliff]] ([[User talk:Isocliff|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Isocliff|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::::::: Isocliff, the dispute currently is not whether string theory is science. Personally, I consider string theory within the realm of science, for reasons like "it is done by science departments". Indeed, I think this issue is clear in the article. The first line is, after all: "String theory is an active research framework in particle physics..." No one is saying its Math or English.
:::::::::::: Instead, the issue is that there is a paragraph which states as fact that string theory is "falsifiable". This is not an undisputed statement in the literature. (In fact, my estimation is that the majority of sources call it "unfalsifiable", but it is difficult to make judgements of these kinds). In any case, I have provided several high quality references on the mediation page stating that string theory is not falsifiable. As these are all recent citations, it doesn't matter what you or I personally believe. Wikipedia can't be picking winners and losers among the available citations, regardless how rigorous a case you feel you can make for one side or another. The only option is to state that the issue is in dispute and give both sides, with citations. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Poppers demanded that to be scientific all statements had to be falisfied, let us again check what is written in the article.
"all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[39] or general relativity.[40] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable."
Popper stated that (A) "Tomorrow it will rain" is a scientific statement because it can be falsified.
He also stated that "Tomorrow it will not rain" is a scientific statement again because it can be falsified let us call it (B)
I could make the following statement call it (C) "Tomorrow it will rain" or "Tomorrow it will not rain". This statement Popper stated was not scientific as it was not falsifiable.
Yet if I put your logic I get the following.
"all (C) statement contains (A) and (B). Therefore, to falsify (C), it would suffice to falsify (A) or (B). Hence, all (C) is falsifiable."
Clearly this statement is wrong.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 09:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC) [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]])
:You're desperately grasping at straws now. You've replaced "or" with "and" in the hopes no one notices. Your theory (C) is not falsifiable, because "tomorrow it will rain OR tomorrow it will not rain" contains all possibilities. But the theory "tomorrow it will rain AND tomorrow it will not rain" is very falsifiable - in fact it's automatically falsified since those two statements directly contradict each other. But even if they didn't, with AND in between falsifying either statement falsifies the theory. That's the case with string theory. String theory is unitary AND reduces to GR AND Lorentz invariant, so falsifying any of those properties falsifies string theory. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::Here is your exact words....
Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[39] or general relativity.[40]
I simply replaced in this statement
"string theory" with (C)
"quantum mechanics" with (A)
I could have put something in "fundamental Lorentz invariance" but choice not too
"general relativity" with (B)
The OR comes from you. There is no AND.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 13:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC) [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]])
:I can't understand what you're asking, sorry. Try again. ST is quantum mechanical AND general relativistic AND ... Therefore falsifying any of those falsifies string theory - that's really basic logic. The "example" you gave was a theory that was (A) OR (B), not (A) AND (B). <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 22:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Read the next line please which I quoted in my previous post.
By the way string theory is certainly much more then "quantum mechanical AND general relativistic AND ... " but that is another error.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 03:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC) [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]])
I have no idea what you're talking about. You're not making sense. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 04:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
What is not clear to you.
[[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]]) 13:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC) [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits|talk]])
| |||