Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 93:
Line 93: + +
→The falsfiability section makes no sense: reply
::My understanding of the quote (and I am inexpert in the physics side of string theory) is that at the time, Kaku understood the parameter space of string theory to be so large that it was not falsifiable: given any experiment, there were enough constants such that by adjusting them as needed the theory could be reconciled with any experimental result. I know that in a more recent book Kaku claims string theory to be falsifiable, so perhaps we should reconsider the inclusion of this outdated information. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:02, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
::My understanding of the quote (and I am inexpert in the physics side of string theory) is that at the time, Kaku understood the parameter space of string theory to be so large that it was not falsifiable: given any experiment, there were enough constants such that by adjusting them as needed the theory could be reconciled with any experimental result. I know that in a more recent book Kaku claims string theory to be falsifiable, so perhaps we should reconsider the inclusion of this outdated information. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:02, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
:::But the point of the quote and its absurdity remains: it seems to me that Kaku thought a lack of falsifiability is a sign of robustness! That sentiment sums up the string theorists well, I'm afraid.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 24 June 2009 (EDT)