Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Exotic Matter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6854481" data-attributes="member: 177"><p>I don't mind blunt - I've been wrong before, and I am sure I'll be wrong again. I hope I will not be like Einstein and not ever admit an error. But, be blunt, not everyone agrees with you. Or, in another way to put it, there are a few too many dodges to make me comfortable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I will grant you that if you do an experiment at high energy, but well below the Planck energy, and see such resonances, then yes, you'd have evidence for strings. Except... you might not see those things, and failing to see them doesn't invalidate the theory. </p><p></p><p>The models that predict these are based in perturbative string theory, no? That's explicitly an approximation, and to my understanding it is not at all clear that you expect that behavior in reality (which, as far as we can tell, is not perturbative). Last I read, M-Theory, in general, does not require such resonances. And there's a bazillion ways to collapse the multiple dimensions required by string theory down into 3d models that give particular predictions of what resonances you see - so, if you run an experiment, and it fails to show the resonances, you just say, "Well, I have the wrong perturbative series/compactification, but string theory hasn't been disproven!"</p><p></p><p>And, if you do somehow manage to run a test up a Planck energies, you still have an issue - more conventional theory also predicts that you will see some really strange things there (like black hole states), so you can't tell if what you are seeing is string theory, or something else.</p><p></p><p>Thus, the whole thing leans to the non-falsifiable. If you can always dodge and say that your theory is still correct, there's an issue.</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile, the most recent stuff I saw on quark-gluon plasmas coming our of the LHC *failed* to match the string models used to describe them. And no SUSY, though that should have been seen in Bs decay. </p><p></p><p>Back in the 1980s, Feynman stated concerns that there was rather too much hype and groupthink surrounding string theory, and I don't see a lot of evidence that's gone away. How many times does a model we've been trying to develop for 40 years have to fail to meet expectations before we collectively stop apologizing for it? So, as you say above - yes, I think it fair to say that at this point string theory is over-represented, and we should start putting more legitimacy on other avenues of thought. While there may be some people here or there working on other things, it seems to me that the community as a whole really has all the eggs in one basket.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6854481, member: 177"] I don't mind blunt - I've been wrong before, and I am sure I'll be wrong again. I hope I will not be like Einstein and not ever admit an error. But, be blunt, not everyone agrees with you. Or, in another way to put it, there are a few too many dodges to make me comfortable. I will grant you that if you do an experiment at high energy, but well below the Planck energy, and see such resonances, then yes, you'd have evidence for strings. Except... you might not see those things, and failing to see them doesn't invalidate the theory. The models that predict these are based in perturbative string theory, no? That's explicitly an approximation, and to my understanding it is not at all clear that you expect that behavior in reality (which, as far as we can tell, is not perturbative). Last I read, M-Theory, in general, does not require such resonances. And there's a bazillion ways to collapse the multiple dimensions required by string theory down into 3d models that give particular predictions of what resonances you see - so, if you run an experiment, and it fails to show the resonances, you just say, "Well, I have the wrong perturbative series/compactification, but string theory hasn't been disproven!" And, if you do somehow manage to run a test up a Planck energies, you still have an issue - more conventional theory also predicts that you will see some really strange things there (like black hole states), so you can't tell if what you are seeing is string theory, or something else. Thus, the whole thing leans to the non-falsifiable. If you can always dodge and say that your theory is still correct, there's an issue. Meanwhile, the most recent stuff I saw on quark-gluon plasmas coming our of the LHC *failed* to match the string models used to describe them. And no SUSY, though that should have been seen in Bs decay. Back in the 1980s, Feynman stated concerns that there was rather too much hype and groupthink surrounding string theory, and I don't see a lot of evidence that's gone away. How many times does a model we've been trying to develop for 40 years have to fail to meet expectations before we collectively stop apologizing for it? So, as you say above - yes, I think it fair to say that at this point string theory is over-represented, and we should start putting more legitimacy on other avenues of thought. While there may be some people here or there working on other things, it seems to me that the community as a whole really has all the eggs in one basket. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Exotic Matter
Top