Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Talk:String theory. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Talk:String theory. |
||
Line 260:
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.166.231.161 |81.166.231.161 ]] ([[User talk:81.166.231.161 |talk]]) 08:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP2 --> <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC) -->
== New intro to prediction section ==
:: "If we can come up with an example of an falsifiable prediction for the outcome of an experiment we believe could be performed in the next few decades where a string-theorist and non-string-theorist would give different predictions, it would be a great addition to the article." Not just to the article, to string theory - and if I knew of such a thing I wouldn't be wasting my time here, I'd be writing it up for publication. As I hope the article makes clear, the absence of such a prediction is probably the biggest single problem string theory has. Quantizing gravity simply doesn't have much effect at "low" energies, for the simple reason that gravity is a very weak force and hbar is a very small quantity. That makes any form of QG really, really hard to test. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That's great. I'm serious. I think we are close to consensus. Personally I feel the point on the swampland is a bit out of place in that paragraph, but we don't always get what we want, right? I'm completely fine with this so long as the introduction makes it clear, that, as you say, these do not correspond to unique predictions and that the absence of such a unique prediction remains a major problem for string theory. My issue has been that I didn't feel the paragraph were were discussing was clear on this (I personally mistook the sentence as being intended to give a possible example of such a unique falsifier, and was not able to get clarity on this issue by following through to citations, which is why I was so insistent about following guidelines on citations). I have rearranged the paragraph slightly and finished the paragraph with a sentence that clarifies what we're agreeing on here. (I removed the "de-facto untestable" line to preserve balance). I hope you like this change. I can't emphasize enough, this has been a very heated and sometimes antagonistic debate, but I think maybe we've reached a resolution we can all be happy with. I know we're in the habit of edit warring, but I have tried to be careful and not revert edits you have made. I've also tried to be balanced and careful in rewriting the paragraph. If you have some issues with it, can you try discussing it with me before reverting it back wholesale? [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
: I'm pretty much OK with your wording. I re-wrote it some in an attempt to eliminate what I think were some redundancies and awkward words, hopefully while still keeping it clear. Please check and see what you think. I'm a little worried about the Gross cite because I can't watch it and I don't know what he said exactly. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the rewording, just have a comment on the second part. It now reads:
:''However, these predictions are not necessarily unique to string theory...'''
and the things listed in the previous sentences (confirming a swampland model or observing positive curvature) are not predictions, but ways of falsifying it. (I'm making a statement about the grammar not the science.) That was the reason for my cumbersome wording.
I didn't watch the video. The previous phrase supported was
:''Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge'''
and the new phrase is
:''and finding a way to experimentally verify string theory via unique predictions remains a major challenge.'''
which is indeed slightly different. Seems like a weaker statement though, which is why I didn't check it yet. I will try to check it or try to come up with a better one in the next few days. Feel free to add a tag if you feel the phrase is too different from the previous one. [[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
: I don't agree with that - they ''are'' predictions in the standard sense of that term, just not (perhaps) unique or particularly spectacular ones. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not what I mean. I mean that (pay attention to the grammar) "confirming a swampland model" is not a string theory prediction, and that's how the previous sentence is currently written. (string theory predicts we '''won't''' do this. Instead, it is a way of falsifying it.) There is a corresponding prediction ("no swampland models will be confirmed"). That's why before I had the following sentence saying something like "the predictions corresponding to these falsifiers" or whatever. This is just a wording issue.[[User:Wpegden|Wpegden]] ([[User talk:Wpegden|talk]]) 23:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
== Missing word? ==
This sentence, "This is because strings themselves are expected to be only slightly larger than the Planck length, which is almost orders of magnitude smaller than the radius of a proton, and high energies are required to probe small length scales."
appears to lack a word between "almost" and "orders". [[Special:Contributions/89.204.154.73|89.204.154.73]] ([[User talk:89.204.154.73|talk]]) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It should be "twenty orders of magnitude". I fixed it [[User:Bhny|Bhny]] ([[User talk:Bhny|talk]]) 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
| |||