|
|
Igor wrote:
> Unfortunately, no. And it gets even better. This deep quagmire of
> terminology and seemingly empty mathematics still offers nary a single
> physical prediction after all these years.
Actually, it offers plenty of physical predictions, just not ones that
can be tested with current technology. And there is a good reason for
this, namely the vast number of possible vacua of the theory, each of
which gives rise to distinct low-energy QFT approximations. This fact
does not mean that string theory is wrong. By way of comparison, in the
time before Newton many physicists believed that a theory that
explained the motion of the planets around the sun should be able to
predict the specific size of the orbits we see. Of course we now know
that this is impossible; any other set of orbits would do just as well,
and our solar system is the way it is because of the arbitrary initial
state when the sun was created. The same may well be true of standard
model.
-Rotwang
|
|