Posted: Apr 27, 2010 10:37 pm
by newolder
num1cubfn wrote:
newolder wrote:
num1cubfn wrote:
Life wrote:Theoretical physicists claim that string theory makes astoningnishly accurate predictions but which cannot be tested in the laboratory, therefor do not follow the scientific method and are thus unfalsifiable(?).

I'd like to know how one ascertains the accuracy of said predictions if they cannot be tested in the laboratory.

For example, a prediction (by a theory) about a distance, z metres, to the 1042th significant figure cannot be tested currently in any laboratory. Such a distance is 10 million times smaller than the realm where stringy physics is argued to begin and 10-27 times finer than the lhc's, femtometre resolution.

Thanks for that, that's amazing lol. Are you then agreeing with me? I can understand that there are things that we can't test, but what I'm asking is, if we can't test it how can we know that it's accurate.

Yes and no. ;)

Such theory seems unfalsifiable at first glance (& hence has no part in science). Yet we may reject a particular theory if the theory is shown (maybe years down the road) to have internal contradiction or other, scaled-up, predictions do not match even at current scales of cruder measure.

In other words, the theory can be as accurate as it likes but if it fails by contradiction or by not matching what we already see - it'll remain only as an interesting, but failed, idea.