Talk:String theory/Archive 5

Other falsifications
The following sentence was recently added to the article:
 * Other potential falsifications of string theory include the swampland and observations of positive curvature in cosmology.

The part of this sentence referring to the cosmological curvature is currently contradicted by the section of this article on cosmological curvature, which states that a negative experimental result would not necessarily falsify the prediction. Based on my reading of the sources, I believe the situation is similar for swampland issue (positive experimental results are possible, but results which would falsify string theory are not given in the papers). Can anyone give quotes from the articles describing experimental results that would falsify string theory? Otherwise this sentence must be changed/removed. Wpegden (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) The sources do appear high-quality, (except for "The String Theory Landscape: Prospects for Predictivity", which appears to be an unpublished set of presentation slides, without a bibliography, etc.)  Can we find any quotes in the published sources supporting the statements in the sentence? Wpegden (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The part of this sentence referring to the cosmological curvature is currently contradicted by the section of this article on cosmological curvature, which states that a negative experimental result would not necessarily falsify the prediction."  You've misread it.  An observation of positive spatial curvature would falsify string theory according to those sources.  An observation of negative or zero (to within the observational error bars) curvature would be consistent with it.  As for the swampland, you've again misunderstood.  The whole point of the swampland paper is that there are effective field theories that look consistent, but that string theory predicts are in fact inconsistent and therefore cannot exist.  Observing one would therefore falsify string theory.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in discussing understanding these articles with you. I'm interested in getting quotes from them supporting the statement being made so that we have a sentence which is supported by good citations for it.  Remember, we can't be interpreting primary sources.  We need direct clear quotes supporting the statements made in the article.  Do you have the quotes?Wpegden (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're not interested in understanding these articles? Really?  Then what in the world are you doing editing this page?  You cannot edit the content in an article when you do not understand it.  Wiki is not a list of verbatim quotes, it's an encyclopedia.  All wiki articles are interpretations of their sources.    Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in discussing understanding these articles with you. I recommend you re-read Wikipedia's guidelines on citations, which make it clear that we cannot be engaged in interpretation of primary sources.Wpegden (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Quotations - click on the link to Denef's talk and you'll see he lists positive curvature in a list of possible falsifications of string theory (there are a bunch of others there as well, by the way). For the swampland there's already a wiki page on it.  That's the place to include more detail if you think it needs it (and it's badly written as it stands now, could use work).  For positive curvature, it's already briefly explained in this article why positive curvature could falsify string theory.  Here's a quote from an article on the topic: "This leads to falsiﬁable predictions for cosmological observables, the sharpest of which is that the spatial curvature cannot be positive [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]."   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good, you've given us a quote for one of them. Which source is that? Can you expand the quote so that it is clear to all editors that the article is saying that this leads to predictions which can falsify string theory in general? And then we can remove the tag for that citation.


 * Now, what are the quotes for the rest of the sources? "Go read the article" is not a substitute for quotes. (I suggest you read Wikipedia's guidelines on citations, especially the importance of not engaging in any interprertation of primary sources). The unpublished source is unreliable regardless of whether we get quotes from it, so I would focus on getting quotes for the others instead.


 * I'm not advocating adding more detail to the article. I'm advocating you providing quotes, here on this talkpage, so that editors can verify that we have good citations for the statements we are making.Wpegden (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

When you said you weren't interested in understanding the sources, you excluded yourself as qualified to edit this (or any other) article. Without comprehension, you cannot write or edit the article, so please stop doing so until you attain it. Meanwhile, here are more quotes: "it was recently suggested [1] that the landscape of consistent theories of gravity one obtains in string theory is by far smaller than would have been anticipated by considerations of semiclassical consistency of the theory. The space of consistent low-energy eﬀective theories which cannot be completed to a full theory was dubbed the ‘swampland’. Certain criteria were studied in [1] to distinguish the string landscape from the swampland. For example, one such criterion was the ﬁniteness of the number of massless ﬁelds (see also [2] for a discussion of this point). In this paper we propose a new criterion which distinguishes parts of the swampland from the string landscape."  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from the Denef reference: "Is string theory falsifiable?  Yes." That's followed by a list of potential falsifiers. Here's one: "Landscape vs. swampland considerations [Vafa]". OK? I'm now removing your tags.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop intentionally misquoting me. I told you that I am not interested in discussing understanding these articles with you. This is because I have lost respect for your ability to correctly judge your understanding of the articles you reference, and we are not supposed to be interpreting primary sources anyways.  Regardless of our beliefs regarding our own abilities to interpret the articles, we need to have clear direct quotes from published sources which can be seen by a nonexpert reader of the article to verify the statement it is attached to.  The quote you provided above regarding the swampland does not rise to this criterion (where does it say it provides a "falsifiable" prediction?); you are thus engaged in the interpretation of primary sources.  Also, which sources are these quotes from?  The Denef reference is unacceptable unless you can tell me where it has been published.  Have you read Wikipedia guidelines on citations?  You seem unfamiliar with these issues (using only published sources and not interpreting primary sources.)Wpegden (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your task is simple according to established Wikpedia guidelines. You need to provide quotes from each source used that clearly says that string theory can be falsified via the cosmological curvature or the superswamp.  It would be kind of you to provide page numbers so that is easier for other editors to verify the quotes.  I will create a new heading for you so that we can all see what the quotes are without having to wade through any mess of whatever tangential arguments you may be interested in having here.

Quotes for the citations
This section is here for us to place quotes from the sources used in the sentence
 * Other potential falsifications of string theory include the swampland and observations of positive curvature in cosmology.

to verify the same sentence. Please say which source each quote is from, so that we know which have been verified. (It would be kind to give page numbers for each quote.) Wpegden (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Vafa and Vafa et al papers say in plain, direct terms that string theory forbids certain otherwise consistent looking effective field theories. That's the subject of those papers. The whole point is that string theory makes a testable prediction - it forbids these theories. That's exactly the definition of a falsifiable prediction, something that's forbidden. There is no "interpretation" here - this is basic reading comprehension. As for the Denef quote, it's from a talk given at a conference. It appears on the conference website. Whether that counts as "published" by wiki's definition I don't know - but in any case it says verbatim that string theory is falsifiable for these (swampland+positive curvature) reasons as well as others, so it ought to satisfy you that my "interpretation" of these papers is accurate, even if you're incapable of comprehending them yourself.

Your request for quotes has now been fulfilled ad nauseum.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Denef source is considered published by wiki's standards: " Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)...".  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's focus on the sources in journals first. Once we have quotes for those it won't matter so much if we can't have the Denef source (we can seek some outside opinions on that if it becomes necessary).  I'm going to simplify our job of finding quotes for each source by making headings for each separate reference we need to verify. There are 4 published sources used in the sentence, I'll make a heading for each source. Wpegden (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote from The String Landscape and the Swampland
Here we need to give a direct verbatim quote (with page number, please) from the source verifying the statement that the swampland provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory.

That's the first reference for the swampland. Find a quote yourself, or move it, I don't care.


 * Quote, from the ABSTRACT: Recent developments in string theory suggest that string theory landscape of vacua is vast. It is natural to ask if this landscape is as vast as allowed by consistent-looking effective field theories. We use universality ideas from string theory to suggest that this is not the case, and that the landscape is surrounded by an even more vast swampland of consistent-looking semiclassical effective field theories, which are actually inconsistent.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote! Can you give a quote which directly supports the statement that the swampland provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory? Remember, these quotes should be checkable by any reader of the article! Wpegden (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, not by ANY reader - by any reader capable of comprehending the basic point of the passage. This is an article on a technical subject. The references for it are necessarily technical. That is precisely what it says, and if you can't understand it, you shouldn't be editing this article for content. And in any case, even you now agree that the Denef source establishes that the swampland is a potential falsifier, and this is the original reference for the swampland, which by itself is sufficient justification for its inclusion.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me refer you to the Wikipedia policy on this, so that we don't have to try to make policy on the fly. The requirement is
 * A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
 * This reference is technical, as you say, and in this case, appears to be technical in a way that someone without specialist knowledge cannot verify the statement. (In an effort to keep this discussion well-organized enough to follow for all of us, I have created a separate section to discuss the Denef source below). Wpegden (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me make sure I have this straight. You won't accept the swampland article because it's too technical and you claim not to be able to understand it.  At the same time, you won't accept the Denef citation because it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal?   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Waleswatcher. I am concerned that this article cannot be checked to verify the claim it is supporting.  As for the Denef presentation slides, I'm concerned that it is not subjected to any editorial oversight of any kind.Wpegden (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, so that's a "yes". That makes it clear (again) that you are unreasonable.  I think you need to take a break from editing this article.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote from The String Landscape, Black Holes and Gravity as the Weakest Force
Here we need to give a direct verbatim quote (with page number, please) from the source verifying the statement that the swampland provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory.

Already given above.

Fine, I'll move it for you. It's on the first page. [1] is the other swampland ref.


 * it was recently suggested [1] that the landscape of consistent theories of gravity one obtains in string theory is by far smaller than would have been anticipated by considerations of semiclassical consistency of the theory. The space of consistent low-energy eﬀective theories which cannot be completed to a full theory was dubbed the ‘swampland’. Certain criteria were studied in [1] to distinguish the string landscape from the swampland. For example, one such criterion was the ﬁniteness of the number of massless ﬁelds (see also [2] for a discussion of this point). In this paper we propose a new criterion which distinguishes parts of the swampland from the string landscape.

Thanks very much for the quote! can you give a quote where indicates that the swampland makes falsifiable predictions for string theory?Wpegden (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's right there, wpegden. It's says exactly that, that's the whole point. Try to understand what it says. Not to mention the Denef source, which says "Is ST falsifiable? Yes." and lists the swampland as a reason.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Waleswatcher, I am not disagreeing with you that the Denef source says this. For this source, we need a clear sentence saying this.  Remember, these quotes should be checkable by any reader of the article!Wpegden (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Denef refers to the swampland, so we should include a citation to the papers that define the swampland. In addition, as these quotes show these two sources say exactly what is stated in the article, just in slightly technical language.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's remember that Wikipedia policy is that
 * A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. 
 * sources which cannot be seen to support a statement without technical knowledge can't be used. I've created a separate section below discuss the Denef source.Wpegden (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's quote from a conference talk by Vafa, http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/conf/simonswork4/talks/Vafa.pdf
 * "Gravity is always the weakest force...This is a very predictive criterion. For example, it predicts that the LHC will not find U(1) interactions with very weak coupling constants."  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Observing the landscape with cosmic wakes
Here we need to give a direct verbatim quote (with page number, please) from the source verifying the statement that the cosmological curvature provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory.
 * p.2: This leads to falsiﬁable predictions for cosmological observables, the sharpest of which is that the spatial curvature cannot be positive [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

That's from http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2261, and earlier paper by the same authors. Feel free to replace with that reference if you like. Note that it references SIX other earlier papers by various authors.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the quote! Can you give one where it says that this makes predictions which can falsify string theory?  Wpegden (talk)

Quote from Discovering the Universe: From the Stars to the Planets
Here we need to give a direct verbatim quote (with page number, please) from the source verifying the statement that the cosmological curvature provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory.


 * p. 519: Some additional predictions of superstring theories include the following: The universe cannot have positive curvature.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleswatcher (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quote!! My first reaction is that this quote seems like it could be verified by a nonexpert reader of the article, which is exactly what we need! Wpegden (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether the Denef presentation slides are a reputable source
I've created this section so that we can address the issue is whether the source is acceptable.

I think there are several simple cases to be made that is not acceptable. For example, it counts as a Questionable source according to Wikipedia guidelines because it "lacks meaningful editorial oversight". (We have no indication that there was any peer-review of these slides, and I don't know of any Academic situation where presentation slides are subjected to peer-review or editorial oversight.) Wpegden (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The standards you are trying to apply here are unreasonable and unjustified by wiki's guidelines. If applied across wikipedia, they would invalidate just a large fraction of all the references in wiki articles. The Denef source is a talk given at a scientific conference and subsequently published on the web. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, but it is a published and obviously reliable guide to Denef's views on this topic, and Denef is an expert (he was a professor at Harvard and is currently a professor on Belgium, with many peer-reviewed publications on string theory). Such sources are perfectly admissible by wiki's standards - go read them, since you seem to be unfamiliar with them. Moreover, it is only one of several sources that all corroborate the same set of facts. By the way, the article includes many other sources which aren't peer-reviewed or even written by experts on string theory. The book by Woit, for example, is a popular account written by a non-expert. Are you questioning that too?  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Waleswatcher. Book which are not self-published are subjected to editorial oversight (by the editors in the publishing-house).  I am trying to think of a way in which the presentations slides are subjected to editorial oversight and cannot come up with any.  Can you think of any? Wpegden (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Editorial oversight? That's a laugh - you've obviously never published a book.  And in any case editors at a popular press have no ability to judge the scientific content, so that's irrelevant.  Regarding Denef, the conference organizers can be considered having editorial oversight, since they (a) invited Denef to speak, (b) asked for his slides, processed them, and placed them on the web.  Finally, "editorial oversight" is not a necessary criterion.  For example, web pages and recordings are perfectly acceptable on wiki.  And here's wiki's policy in the only place I can find that even mentions that phrase:


 * That's not the point of editorial oversight. The point of editorial oversight is to ensure that something is generally fit and worthy of publication, not that it is correct.  I have no indication that the conference organizers reviewed the slides before the talk.  (And, for what its worth, I assure you that this never happens).  If you can give any evidence of that they did I am happy to accept the citation.Wpegden (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.


 * None of that applies to the Denef citation.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please explain to me how the Denef citation has "meaningful editorial oversight".Wpegden (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The conference organizers are themselves experts on the topic, they invited Denef to give that talk, they chose to publish it, and then they published it on the conference website. That's much more meaningful than the oversight that's provided by the editor of a popular press.  It obviously meets that standard (not that it even needs to, since there's nothing questionable about this.)    Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whaleswatcher, I honestly don't understand what's going on with you. Let's recap what's happened.  You added a new sentence to the article which I liked.  I tried to look at the sources you added to support it and couldn't find any reference to "falsifying" string theory, except in the presentation slides.  (I don't own a copy of the "Discovering the Universe" book; this is why its always nice to provide quotes before being asked).  What did I do?  I made a minor few-word change to the article that preseved 99% of your edit and the citations you gave, so that it read better (just in my opinion) and seemed to me more clearly supported by the citations.


 * What did you do? You reverted the edit and dug in.  You acted hostile when asked for quotes, and it was like pulling teeth to get you to give them.  You initially gave a single quote (without stating where it was from) that was supposed to verify all 5 of the sources in the sentence.  Eventually you gave a second quote (again, without indicating the source).  It wasn't until I made section headings *for* you for each source that you actually started giving quotes corresponding to each citation.


 * When I suggested that some sources could be improved because I doubted non-specialist readers could use them to verify the statement in the article, you once again became beligerent, telling me that I should halt editing the article altogether.


 * You've removed tags I added to the article indicated quotes had been requested, before you had provided quotes for all of the sources.


 * You've removed tags on the article indicating that a discussion was taking place on the talkpage regarding the issue. (Somehow, you're so sure that you're right about everything, but at the same time seem to have an inexplicable fear of people knowing that there's a discussion taking place on the talk page regarding the wording of the sentence and applicability citations.  It's an odd combination.)


 * Finally, you seem to have a level of contempt for readers of this Wikipedia article which I cannot understand. You think it is your job to add sentences to the article, and their job to find support for it in the literature.  When presented with the possibility that a set of presentation slides intended to accompany a talk whose transcript/audio/video we do not have access to might not be the most helpful possible citation for readers of this article, you---once again---dig in, cry foul, and act as if I am personally trying to ruin your day with this suggestion.  Rather than, for example, trying to find a source that would be more helpful for readers of the article.


 * In spite of all of this, we have made some progress. We now have a reliable secondary source (which is the perfect thing to have) which seems to support the statement that positive curvature would falsify string theory with a quote that any nonspecialist reader of the article should be able to verify.  (I don't have the Discovering the Universe book but am trusting your quote at this point.)  But, inexplicably, I have the sense that you resent this progress; that you feel that I was unreasonable to request a quote, that readers of the article are not better off for having it, and that, in general, your goal should not be to find similarly reliable and helpful sources for the other part of the sentence you added, and for material you add to this article in general.   It seems you'd rather be arguing.


 * Speaking of which, I'm sure you have lots more digging in and complaining to do.  Please do so below below this passage, after my signature, instead of splitting it up. Wpegden (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The record is all right there for anyone masochistic enough to read it. The "minor few-word change" you made so that the article "read better" was flat-out wrong. Here's what you wrote:
 * "a number of such potentially verifiable predictions (such as the swampland[40] [41] and observations of positive curvature in cosmology[39][42] [43]) have been proposed".

That's exactly the opposite of the truth, and directly contradicts the references. Do you now see why I reverted it? (I should hope so, since you just added a quote that says "the universe cannot have positive curvature".)

As for the tags, you added something like five to a single sentence. I addressed all of them - because you forced me to waste my time doing so. Now the tags all gone, all your manufactured "issues" are settled, and the sentence is exactly as I made it in the first place, with just the minor matter of several hours wasted.

The article is a mess. There's a ton of work that needs to be done on it. But instead of allowing constructive edits, you obstruct, obfuscate, demand quote after quote after quote, complain that you can't understand the references, demand mediation, and generally do your best to prevent the article from improving. To make matters worse we have 8digits that comes in and more or less randomly alters the article every now and then (you'll note that essentially every single one of 8digits edits has been reverted, by a whole range of editors).

Am I complaining? Sure am. I'm an expert on this topic, I care about it, and I want to see the article be well written and reflect reality. Please help, or if you can't at least leave well enough alone.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 06:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My edit that these are potentially verifiable predictions was "exactly the opposite of the truth", and "directly contradicts the references"? I'm afraid that your well-developed sense of expertise has led you not to read the sources you provided.  For example, from "Observing the Multiverse with Cosmic Wakes" (in the abstract):


 * These features represent the first verifiable prediction of the multiverse paradigm and might be detected by current experiments such as Planck and future CMB polarization missions. A detection of a bubble collision would confirm the existence of the Multiverse, provide compelling evidence for the string theory landscape, and sharpen our picture of the Universe and its origins.


 * Meanwhile, in spite of the "hours of work" you apparently spend coming up with 4 quotes (how this takes so much longer than checking for yourself that they support sentence you attached them to is beyond me) we still don't have a single quote from any source explicitly referencing any experimental predictions made by string theory via the "swampland" at all, let alone one which references a prediction which it says is falsifiable. To follow up and learn more about that part of the sentence, your viewpoint is that Wikpedians should be directed to the single phrase "Landscape vs. swampland considerations" appearing in a bulleted list in a set of presentation slides.  Wpegden (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it directly contradicts them. All of them.   What you wrote was not that signals of bubble collisions are a verifiable prediction.  What you wrote was instead that "observations of positive curvature in cosmology" is one of the verifiable predictions of string theory.  That is wrong.  It is totally wrong.  It is the opposite of the truth.  According to all of those references, an observation of positive curvature (which is not a bubble collision, it's something the refs say is incompatible with bubble collisions) would falsify string theory.   Do you understand that?  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Waleswatcher, you are right, I did not notice the word positive in your sentence when I changed falsifiable to verifiable. (I had read it as saying "falsifiable predictions ... observations of negative curvature in cosmology" instead of "falsifications ...  observations of positive curvature in cosmology").  If I had, I would have changed "positive" to "negative".  That was my oversight, which I did not notice until now, and I apologize.
 * I have previously said I believe that, in light of the quote you gave form the Discovering the Universe book, we now have citations to write that negative curvature is a falsifiable prediction. I also believe that we have the citations to write that that negative curvature is a verifiable prediction.  These are nonequivalent separately interesting statements.  My intention when I edited the article was to change the first statement to the second. But no matter, you seem to have a much stronger preference for the other statement.  Fine with me, now that we have the quote.
 * I think it is a bit silly to think we should be satisfied with the reference situation for the swampland statement. So far all we have directly addressing the issue is the item from the bulleted list in the presentation slides.Wpegden (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for acknowledging that. Please note how long it took for you to realize it, though -  it took multiple sets of back and forth comments, several direct quotes, etc. etc.  That's been the pattern all along - you seem to be so strongly biased in one direction that it's very difficult to reason with you, and it takes a large amount of time and effort to get you to acknowledge even very, very clear and unambiguous points.


 * The swampland discussion is exactly the same. The quotes from the primary sources are perfectly clear and unambiguous - but you either cannot or will not understand them.  Then we have a published, reliable secondary source that fully supports the view expressed in the article.  I've posted another quote above from a talk by Vafa (the author of the original swampland paper) that again clearly supports it.  This goes far beyond wiki's standards for citations - there is no basis to contest this at all.


 * Why don't you try to fix the swampland wiki article? It's a confusing mess right now.  That would be productive and you might turn up some more sources that you think are easier to understand, plus it would provide another resource for readers of this article without bogging it down too much.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're misrepresenting the situation. I did not misunderstand the citations you gave.  I did not insist that the falsifiable statement vis-a-vis cosmological curvature could not stay.  Rather, I instantly accepted the quote you gave for the citation which said that string theory implies that "the universe cannot have positive curvature".  The error you are latching onto, is in my intial edit where I did not change positive to negative.  Since I don't make a habit of digging when people edit my changes away, we have not even been arguing about my initial edit until I gave my recap of what all had happened, and since you reverted my edit within a matter of minutes, it was not until you reposted the quote that I realized what the edit actually was.  We have been arguing about what quotes are acceptable for the sentence in the article now.


 * Which sources for the swampland statement do you think rises to the level of Wikipedia guidelines that they can be easily verified by educated readers without specialist understanding of the material? Is it just the presentation slides, or do you feel there are other sources that reach this level?


 * There's something I feel you should realize. Sitting where I'm sitting, it is very difficult for me to fathom claims of your expertise in this topic.  Linking to a bunch of sources and telling readers and other editors to "go read them, its obvious" is behavior consistent with the notion that you are an layman enthusiast with access to google who sometimes gets in a little over your head.  It would not be hard to convince me that you do have expertise.  With expertise in these issues, you should be able to give a simple coherent explanation of how the swampland leads to falsifiable predictions that any reader of this article (or the swampland article, if you put it there) would understand.  You have not even attempted to do so.  You have given no indication of what quantities one would measure, and what measurements would violate which predictions of string theory.  (Note that this is done for the cosmological curvature, in the corresponding section of this article.)  It's hard to escape the conclusion that you're having trouble producing such an explanation.Wpegden (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's hard to convince you of anything, Wpegden, including manifest errors that you made, or the obvious interpretations of perfectly clear passages. Your characterization of my actions ("go read them") is so wildly far off as to be beneath comment, as this page amply attests.  The swampland sources are right there already in the article, they all meet and exceed all of wiki's guidelines.  There may be more refs in the swampland wiki page (and no, I didn't create it), and there are certainly more out there somewhere.  The quote from the Vafa talk that I put above is yet another, not that we need one.  Feel free to find more of you want, but I think three citations is more than enough.


 * Falsifiable predictions from the swampland are simple - if we observe any theory that's in the swampland, we've falsified string theory (at least according to those sources). That's the whole point, it's the meaning of the term "swampland".  A simple, specific example that's accessible with current tech and could (if string theory is false) happen any time would be discovering a 5th force that is weaker than gravity.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow I'm glad I pushed this issue. So, you've given nothing that goes beyond the statement that string theory reduces to previous theory (newtonian physics and general relativity, etc.) at low energies.  If this statement has no more content than this from a practical standpoint, as I've suspected all along, than I'm puzzled at what it adds over the previous sentence in the article, but no longer confused as to why we can't find secondary sources which believe this is statement worth making. Wpegden (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, what? How does "string theory forbids any force that is weaker than gravity" merge in your mind into "string theory reduces to GR, is LI, and is QM"?   Gravity could be perfectly well described by GR, but there could be a weaker force.  If so, (these references claim that) string theory is falsified because such theories are in the swampland, even though they look perfectly consistent as a low energy effective theories.  Or, gravity could fail to be described by GR, but with no weaker force.  If so, string theory is falsified because in ST gravity is described by GR.  Two very different potential falsifications.  I think you need to take a deep breath now and step away from editing this article for a while.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "no longer confused as to why we can't find secondary sources which believe this is statement worth making." You're no longer confused?  How interesting.  There's one small problem - we did find such a source, the one we've been discussing here all day.  That's the one this section is named for, the section you created.  (Plus there's now another given above, as if we needed it.)  Are you ever going to contribute anything positive to this article?  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't tell whether you really don't understand the the point or are just pretending not to. At issue is whether there is any experiment performable with current or soon-to-be-available technology for which we predict a different outcome now than we did before the invention of string theory.  It seems the answer to this question is: "no".  (Or at least, you can't think of any, which I won't hesitate to agree might not be the same thing.)   Separately, I recommend you look up the meaning of "secondary source".  Wikipedia has extensive guidelines on this.  Are you saying these presentation slides are a secondary source? Wpegden (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wpegden, string theory does make such a prediction according to these sources. I just gave you an example.  According to the swampland papers, string theory predicts that there cannot be (and hence that we will not discover) a force weaker than gravity.  Therefore, if we discover such a force tomorrow, we have falsified string theory.  No other theory that I'm aware of makes this prediction (not that it matters anyway for falsifiability), and this is not at all the same thing as saying that string theory reduces to GR etc., because having a force weaker than gravity is fully consistent with reducing to GR etc.  I think you are again misreading something, but I can't tell what it is - so can you please take a deep breath, go away for a while, come back, read this again slowly and carefully, and then tell me if you are still confused?  Thank you.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the secondary source issue, I really don't know what you're talking about. The Denef reference is a secondary source by both the standard academic definition and by wiki's.  I just checked, as you asked me to, and wiki's definition is: "a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere."  Denef is discussing information originally presented elsewhere, in the Vafa reference.  I ask you again - are you ever going to make a positive contribution?   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked for an example of an experiment for which we predict a different outcome now that we have string theory than before we had string theory. You say the experiment is, go look for a force weaker than gravity, and that before string theory the outcome we predicted was who knows, you might find one, and now it is you will not?   Whatever you claim your background is, you must not be an experimentalist.  go look for a force weaker than gravity is not an experiment.  and you might find one is not a prediction for an outcome of an experiment.  Here's an example of a falsifiable prediction for an experimental result that I know you are familiar with.  The experiment is point a suitable telescope towards point Y near the edge of the boundary of the sun and look for star X which is currently behind the sun.  The novel prediction of GR which would not have been made before it is you will find the star.  The previous prediction would have been you will not see the star.


 * I was getting really excited to find out what the experiment was going to be for string theory. It's disappointing that it doesn't seem like we can come up with one right now.Wpegden (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * before string theory the outcome we predicted was who knows, you might find one, and now it is you will not?" Yes, that's correct. That's a quintessential example of a falsifiable prediction.  It's precisely how Popper defined scientific theories - as theories that forbid certain observations, and hence are falsifiable.  That's why it's in the sentence about falsifiable'' predictions.   (Your example is one where two theories make conflicting predictions, which is the ideal case since one gets falsified no matter what the result is.)  The next sections are about verifiable or unique predictions (not a well-defined concept, but never mind for now).  As the article says, to be convincing you need something like that, not just failing to falsify the theory.


 * Normally I'd be surprised that we're still having this conversation - how many times have I gone over this with you? - but I guess I'm getting used to it.  Do you have any remaining objections to this... sentence?   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to tell you not to deliberately misrepresent what I wrote? I did not disagree that the "5th force" example you gave is falsifiable.  I disagreed that it is a prediction that is different from what we would have made before string theory (and, thus, I questioned how much the sentence added to the paragraph).  If you can set up any specific experiment which was intended to test for a mysterious 5th force weaker than gravity (we seem to be discounting for the moment that many physicists believe such a force does exist, but whatever, I don't care) and asked a string theorist and a non-string theorist (or pre-string-theorist) to make predictions for the outcome of the experiment, both would predict the same outcome.
 * By the way, this doesn't represent the 'ideal case' because I only require the string theory prediction to be falsifiable, not the non-string theory prediction. Does that make sense to you? (In fact I would be happy with a case where the string theorist makes a falsifiable prediction for the outcome of an experiment for which a physicist before string theory would have no idea what to expect.  We don't seem anywhere close to this either, unfortunately.)


 * 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. I guess the fact it's not already in the article should have tipped me off that no one has any such examples.Wpegden (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good - you agree that's a falsifiable prediction, so you agree the sentence is correct. As for that being a prediction made "before" string theory, that's simply not true as far as I know.  If you want to insist on it the burden of proof is squarely on you to find a source that says so.  But that would be rather pointless for two reasons: (1) you won't find it because it doesn't exist, and (2) even if I'm wrong and you did it wouldn't much alter either the relevance or the factual accuracy of the sentence at issue.  But be my guest.  I don't know what you mean that many physicists think there is such a force - but if they do, the testability of string theory is really in very good shape, because (these sources claim) it makes a sharp prediction and it would then be in direct conflict with evidence, which is pretty much exactly what you're hoping for.

Misc quote discussion
You're simply trying to create more and more work for me. I've already given you the quotes, you can move/copy them yourself into your sections. There is no justification for ignoring the Denef source, which is a published source by wiki's standards, and from an expert in the field (was a professor at Harvard for 6 years or so, and was and is an active researcher in the field).  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy to move/copy them for you if you tell me which sources they are from. Being able to provide quotes to verify sources for other editors is a necessary part of providing citations for sentences.Wpegden (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"This source failed verification"?? Are you kidding me? It's been up on the page for exactly how long, wpegden? Declaring that and removing the source (after a few hours) is totally unreasonable. In fact it might be regarded as vandalism. Not only that, that source is described by TWO OTHER SOURCES, quoted on the talk page at YOUR request, as saying precisely that. Reverted.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please accept my apologies. I interpreted your statement "Find a quote yourself, or move it, I don't care" to mean that you thought the source could be removed instead of finding a quote.  My mistake! Wpegden (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Brane World scenario section
This section is poorly written.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.3.11 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2010‎ (UTC)

Construction
In the criticism section one could add string theory as a construction in order to combine gravity in the quantum world.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.231.161 (talk) 08:16, 19 February 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.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 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? 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.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 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. 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.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 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.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". 89.204.154.73 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be "twenty orders of magnitude". I fixed it Bhny (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

" The theory has yet to make novel experimental predictions at accessible energy scales, leading some scientists to claim that it cannot be considered a part of science"
First of all, the citation is to a popular book by Peter Woit, who is not a scientist (at least not a professional one), so the cite is inadequate. More importantly, the sentence does not reflect the real status of the debate over string theory, isn't NPOV, and doesn't belong at the very beginning of the article.

There is a very important problem with ST not making novel experimental predictions that can be easily tested, and that should be mentioned somewhere near the beginning. But the idea that ST isn't science is absurd - it's funded by science agencies, studied by faculty and students in physics departments, tens of thousands of papers on it are published in scientific journals, it's a quantum theory of gravity, and it makes falsifiable predictions. So, I'm going to replace this sentence, keeping the part that points out the serious issue (testability) while moving the part about science to the "Criticism" section, or simply dropping it.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 22:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should be very clear that predictions are a problem.  It is silly to be saying it is not part of science. Certainly, one book is not enough for this.  The Wikipedia guideline here is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary citations." Wpegden (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not true, Peter Woit got his BS and Master's Degree in Physics from Harvard University, he got his PhD in particle theory from Princeton University so he's definitely a valid source.
 * --129.2.129.155 (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2012
In "Extra dimensions" -> "Number of dimensions" -> paragraph 2 The phrase: [...]completely different type of mathematical quantity

should be replaced with:

[...]complex number, which includes an imaginary part representing a factor of (-1)^(1/2)

I don't know how to typeset it, but (-1)^(1/2) should look like "the square root of negative one". This is a very simple correction, and should eliminate the "which?" tag. There is only ONE "completely different type of mathematical quantity" that relates to String Theory, and it is a complex-valued quantity. Keep the following in mind: 1) Real Numbers are a subset of the Complex Number Set. Although the number 7 is a member of the Complex Number Set, it is not (barring semantics) refereed to as a complex number. 2) Any so-called "mathematical quantity" that falls outside the Complex Number Set does not have any relevance to String Theory as it is understood today.

71.134.236.38 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources? It's basic math Jo-Jo!... if you really want some good references, take an Intermediate Algebra course at your local community college. This is not mysticism, it's mathematics. It is just a language.

New String Theory Website for the general public
Please can you add a link to the "External Links" section to Why String Theory? (http://www.whystringtheory.com). This is a new online resource.

Why String Theory? aims to provide the general public with an introduction to the mysteries of string theory.

You’ll learn where string theory came from, why people research it and what they hope to find out. No prior knowledge of higher physics or mathematics is assumed, but nevertheless there is sufficient depth of material for you to be able to gain a true insight into current developments.

The site is supported and funded by the Royal Society and the University of Oxford.


 * Yes check.svg Done The resource appears to be informative so I have been bold and added the external link. Thanks for the suggestion. Michael   An  on  18:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh...
Isn't quantum theory just a multidimensional version of exactly this in the first place - one where the electron expands not into a string of any type, but a puffy cloud? An infinite cloud that can be bent, stretched, recompacted, etc by external influences, sure - but isn't that what string theory has happening anyways? What's the difference, other than string theory is trying to give simpler math at the end of the day? Zaphraud (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Typical quantum mechanics describes an electron itself as a point particle. The trick is you can't actually pinpoint its location, so you have to describe it in terms of its probabilistic location, which is that infinite cloud you speak of. In short, point particle with a location determined by a wavefunction. String theory says that the particle is not a point, but rather it is continuous in (in typical string theory) one dimension. This is actually more or less equivalent to saying that one particle is an infinite number of particles connected by an infinite number of connections (like little quantum springs), and each one of those infinite particles is quantized and thus has its position determined by a wavefunction. Roughly, string theory really boils down to one simple claim - make Schrodinger's equation an integral. One more point - an electron isn't really a string. Strings are strings. The electron itself and its properties are all more or less consequences of how the string is moving and what way it wraps around spacetime and whatnot. So normal quantum mechanics say that an electron is somehow intrinsically distinct from, say, an antidownquark, but string theory says they're made of the same thing and you can transform one into the other by changing how the string vibrates.KagakuKyouju (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In layman terms, string theory is what?
I'm no physicist. Reading this article tells me close to nothing about what string theory is. I understand that we are at a very abstract level but nonetheless, there should at least be a section in here explaining string theory to someone who is not a particle physicist or the like. Even the Overview section, in my opinion, is too technical/complex.

188.61.27.214 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Acnicolet


 * There's a small article Introduction to M-theory which is mostly about string theory. It could do with work and a possible renaming Bhny (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The String Theory is not science
Wikipedia and the science community in general is just a joke now. How is the String Theory science? Having something in journals and being funded does not make something scientific. Scientists can put whatever they desire in journals and fund whatever they desire. What makes something scientific is having empirical testability.

You can't show that something is scientific by pointing out what some authority figures say, that's just an appeal to authority. Authority figures can believe whatever they want and historically authority figures have been completely wrong about many things.

Right now the string theory matches the exact definition of pseudoscience (a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status).

The String Theory is a mathematical model that cannot be empirically tested, meaning it's mathematical speculation.

The String Theory has no falsifiable predictions. Things like General Relativity aren't falsifiable predictions because even if General Relativity is found to be inaccurate some how, you could just adjust the mathematics in the String Theory to match into the new observed phenomena (the string theory can be adjusted to match into virtually any low-energy prediction).

To help people understand: - If the String Theory is completely wrong and false and there are no 1-Dimensional strings, you would still be able to adjust the mathematics to match into General Relativity (and many other things)

So adjusting the mathematics to match into General Relativity and other low-energy observations tells us nothing about whether the String Theory is true or false.

Testing General Relativity isn't equivalent to testing the String Theory. Even if 1-Dimensional Strings are completely non-existent we could test and have General Relativity just fine.

Using the String Theorist's pseudo-scientific reasoning we can claim that anything that pre-assumes General Relativity must be scientific. Meaning if I claim that aliens in another dimension exist and it pre-assumes General Relativity that makes it a scientific claim some how (you can falsify it by falsifying General Relativity), it doesn't matter if I can't empirically test the existence of the aliens in the other dimension.

I'm still waiting for any String Theory fan to give a valid reason as to how the String Theory is scientific instead of just using an appeal to authority. --129.2.129.155 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * you can post your question here WP:Reference_desk/Science. This page is for discussions about improving the article Bhny (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * String theory is inspired by and based on verified theories and evidence from experiment, it has testable consequences, and it has led to many other discoveries and theories in mathematics, geometry, and physics. And at the very least, it provides a context in which verified scientific theories make sense. Even if you can't prove whether it's true or false, it's certainly scientific. Of course, this largely depends on your definition of science, but that's a question of semantics and philosophy.KagakuKyouju (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Even if you can't prove whether it's true or false, it's certainly scientific." Right. It has led to more mathematical results, but it has not led to (testable) physical ones. That's the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.241.139 (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has a criticism section. You are welcome to contribute here as long as it is from reliable, published sources and not personal opinion. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Unintelligible
String theory is ..... what? Can someone make this article's lead more accessible to the general reader? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Little things...
As presented on Wikipedia, String Theory and its cousins are based on the fundamental axiom: Strings exist. This is fundamental in that, if there were no strings, there could be no string theory. In just over 40 years there have been zero testable predictions that support or refute the existence of strings. That's fine, but there have also been no conceivable experiments, real or imagined, that could falsify their existence in the foreseeable future. When sufficient energy levels are reached that could refute them, the lower energy bound is increased and the theory is altered.

Its predictions are mutable and the theory non-falsifiable. Mutable means the theory changes to match empirical evidence so as not to be refuted. Non-falsifiable means that even if it was wrong, it can never be proven wrong. These are real problems. Science, to quote Wikipedia, is:

"a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of   testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3]" The theory is very interesting, but to present a non-falsifiable theory as science is misleading. As it sits, string theory and cousins are based on a fundamental axiom that, due to both the energy requirements and the mutability of the theory itself, will remain non-falsifiable for the foreseeable future. Despite any internal consistency, as it sits, string theory is a system formulated on faith. Lay readers deserve to know this. Is there some kind of an article wide label akin to:

"This article presents conjecture (suppositions)."

While any theory is by definition a conjecture, in places the article presents itself as a viable alternative to empirically supported models. I think such labels would help remind readers of the current state of things. There are several science articles on Wikipedia that could use such headers. From a purely neutral point of view we need to maintain the line between empirically supported science as we know it and conjecture - even if the conjecture has a lot of math and is intriguing.

Thoughts, ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcfahrenbruck (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The intro was a bit light on criticism. I added "... say that it is a failure as a theory of everything" which is sourced below in the criticism section. The article starts by saying it is a "theoretical framework" which I think infers that it is conjectures. Bhny (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You might find the following Peter Woit links interesting.
 * Physicists Finally Find a Way to Test Superstring Theory
 * Forty Years of String Theory
 * String Theory and the Scientific Method
 * They each touch on important (I think) aspects of this hairy issue. — Sowlos 09:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the refimprove tag ?
The rationale for placing a "refimprove" tag at the top of the article is unclear. There is no explanation in the edit history, and there is no explanation on this talk page. This article has 52 references, and therefore the same number of in-line citations. It also links to an ample body of literature (and maybe some other materials) available in the "Further reading" and "External links" section. This article may not actually need a refimprove tag. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoever added that tag should have posted something. Tagging and running is not good form. However, after taking a look, I suppose it has something to do with so many sections carrying no citations, several others only carrying one, and usage of the present sources in such a sparse manner (there are only 52 inline citations for a very large article). I even found an unsourced explanation in reference #15. — Sowlos 10:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Criticisms" section
I think this section can be improved. In the current version, three specific criticisms are mentioned, but the first ("High energy") just says unification theories are hard to test because of the high energies. That seems like a very generic fact, not a specific criticism of string theory. As the article says "It is widely believed that any theory of quantum gravity would require extremely high energies to probe directly, higher by orders of magnitude than those that current experiments can attain". Since this is widely believed to apply to any theory of quantum gravity, is it really appropriate to list it as a criticism of string theory? Notice that the article already has a Section on "Testability and experimental predictions" that mentions the same thing, so it's redundant. I suggest moving the words in the existing "High Energy" paragraph of the "Criticisms" section up to the "Testability" section. It would be okay to refer to this again, in passing, in the criticism section, but make it clear that it's not specific to string theory.

Having done that, I think the remaining Criticisms section could be beefed up with some more of the actual criticisms that have been raised specifically about string theory, such as those discussed in Penrose's book (e.g., degrees of functional freedom, questions about actual finiteness), and also criticisms of the "multiverse" aspects.

In addition, I think this might be the appropriate place to at least mention some of the methodological and sociological concerns that critics have raised regarding string theory. For example, the criticisms claiming over-hyped pronouncements in the popular media, concerns about too much focus on one particular (and highly speculative) avenue of research, lack of any clear principles or understanding of what string theory actually is according to its own proponents, excessive reliance on formal mathematical and aesthetic criteria rather than being guided by experiment, indeed being more about mathematics than physics, etc.

Also, I think the current section on "Number of solutions" could be clarified. It refers to "lack of uniqueness of predictions due to the large number of solutions", but this seems like an obtuse way of describing the actual criticism, which is (rightly or wrongly) that string theory (in its present state) makes no testable predictions at all. This seems like a more direct and clear way of expressing the criticism, rather than saying "critics charge that string theory has a large number of solutions, so its predictions lack uniqueness". (If I predict that either the American league or the National league team will win the world series, would that be best described by saying my prediction lacks uniqueness, or by saying I haven't really made a prediction at all?)Longerboats5 (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me begin by saying that I agree with much of what you say. I agree that the point about high energies is not a criticism of string theory per se, and I think it's fine to move most of this discussion to the section on "Testability and experimental predictions". I also think it should be mentioned in passing in the "Criticisms" section. I agree that the section should probably discuss the sociological concerns that critics have raised. Since these criticisms are more subjective, the best way to do this would be to include quotes from prominent critics.


 * On the other hand, I disagree with what you're saying about some of the technical points that Penrose has raised in his book. I would argue that some of his points are not completely accurate, and I think that discussing these points in the article would give them undue weight. For example, the point about the discrepancy in degrees of freedom in the AdS/CFT duality is a very idiosyncratic view expressed in Penrose's book. As far as I know, there is no other critic who has questioned the correctness of the duality in this way. On the other hand, there are literally tens of thousands of articles which study various aspects of AdS/CFT and find that it works exactly as expected. In many cases, we have a detailed understanding of exactly how the degrees of freedom in string theory map to degrees of freedom in the boundary conformal field theory.


 * As the article says, the real problem with string theory is that it has a very large number of solutions. Given a particular compactification of the theory, it's possible to come up with predictive models, and indeed, there are models with large extra dimensions that have been ruled out by the LHC. The problem is that there are many different compactifications of string theory that lead to realistic models of low-energy physics, and therefore it's probably not possible to uniquely predict coupling constants and particle masses from string theory.


 * One does sometimes hear the claim that "anything goes" in string theory, but this is not quite true, and I'm afraid that treating it as a legitimate criticism would compromise the technical accuracy of the article. There are definitely some observable phenomena that are not predictions of string theory. For example, if the Fermi satellite discovers violations of Lorentz invariance near the Planck scale, then string theory would not be a viable fundamental theory. Similarly, if we ever discover that the fundamental constants are time-dependent, then string theory could not be right.


 * So to summarize, there are ways in which the "Criticisms" section could be improved. String theory models are in general very difficult to test, and the article should reflect this fact. But I think it's difficult to include all of these criticisms without compromising accuracy as some of these criticisms are known by the experts to be invalid. Polytope24 (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should avoid giving undue weight to technical criticisms that have been stated by just one individual (e.g., Penrose's degrees of freedom arguments). The focus should be criticisms that have been voiced in multiple sources. On the other hand, I'm not sure the article needs to necessarily exclude criticisms of string theory solely based on the fact that string theorists (even in "tens of thousands of papers"!) believe the criticisms are invalid.  Indeed one of the meta-criticisms is the alleged group-think mentality, whereby a whole community is mistaken about something, so I'd be wary of using the "all string theorists know this criticism is invalid" criterion to decide - even if we were trying to decide, which of course we aren't.  We're not here to pass judgement on the validity of the criticisms, merely to report them, in a balanced way, if they meet the notability and verifiability criteria.  It's tricky, because there are notable, reputable, and verifiable sources (e.g., Penrose) that have voiced criticisms, and yet we may decide not to mention them to avoid giving undue weight to ideas that the experts know to be invalid.  I suppose an alternative would be to mention those criticisms and then include caveats explaining that string theorists do not regard them as valid criticisms - but that might get tedious.  Having said that, I guess it's okay to omit criticisms that are unique to any single individual, so I'd agree to not mentioning (for example) the degrees-of-freedom arguments - unless someone finds additional sources for it.


 * I think lack of falsifiability is a criticism that has been voiced by many people, including string theorists themselves. For example, the section could include some quotes from Weinberg, such as "Since the 1980s string theory has not come up with a prediction of anything new that we could then verify in the laboratory in a way that could convince us that string theory is right", or "The critics are right. We have no single prediction of string theory that is verified by observation. Even worse, we don’t know how to use string theory to make predictions. Even worse than that, we don’t really know what string theory is."  Many people, even many prominent string theorists, have made similar comments, so I think it would be okay for the Criticisms section of this article to convey a stronger sense of this criticism.  Right now the article gives the impression that the theory is criticized for making too many predictions, whereas I think the general sense of the criticism is that no one has identified any firm prediction of string theory.  Maybe it's semantics, like my baseball analogy, between too many predictions = no prediction.  I understand your desire not to give the impression that "anything goes" in string theory. There's obviously some structure to each of the possible solutions of each possible development of string theory (so to speak), but I think the criticism is that there is enough flexibility so that it can't really make any firm prediction.  We could cite Rovelli's comments on this:


 * "The main shortcoming of string theory is definitely its failure, so far, to produce any concretely verifiable physical prediction. To be sure, string theory has provided numerous “predictions”, like short scale modifications of the gravitational force, black holes at CERN, dielectron resonances, or the existence of supersymmetric particles at low energy, but so far all these “predictions” have been falsified by observation. The theory has survived these failed predictions, because they were not solid predictions, but only hints of possibilities, effects compatible with the theory, but not necessary consequences of the theory. The real problem is that the theory does not appear, so far, to have any verifiable necessary consequence at accessible scales... If there is an accurate string description of the real world, then there are probably so many of them to make the discovery of the right one virtually impossible and in any case devoid of predictive power."


 * To me, this kind of wording better conveys the sense of the criticism than the current wording in the article about "too many solution", which makes it sound like an over-abundance of goodness.


 * By the way, I would be wary of citing things like Lorentz invariance or gravity as falsifiable "predictions" of string theory. I know people sometimes say things like that, but I don't think those statements are taken by many people to represent the kind of predictions that Weinberg (for example) says are lacking.Longerboats5 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That describes many of string theory's shortcomings as as scientific theory succinctly and would make for a very good quote in the criticism section, however if we collect a few reputable sources essentially saying the same thing (which is not hard), we can put it in our own words. —  Sowlos  07:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Theory" vs. "research framework"
I'm going to go ahead and change the first sentence to say that string theory is a "physical theory" rather than a "research framework". If anyone disagrees with this description, I'd be happy to discuss it here.

My worry is that using the term "research framework" will give the impression that there are many different types of string theory. This is a very common misunderstanding. When physicists talk about "string theory" they're talking about a unique mathematical structure that cannot be modified without spoiling its consistency. There are, of course, many different models constructed from string theory, but these are all just solutions of the same ten-dimensional theory. The existence of these solutions does not make it a framework rather than a theory. You could argue, I suppose, that the existence of string theory is still conjectural in the sense that we don't have a non-perturbative formulation of the theory, but this does not mean that string theory is merely a research framework.

208.46.240.4 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It goes way back to this edit [. There is an ambiguity with the word "theory". String 'theory' is not a theory in the sense of a 'group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing'. So we agreed to replace 'theory' with 'mathematical framework' and eventually 'research framework'. [[User:Bhny|Bhny]] (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't there be untested theories? Under your definition, most of the quantum field theories that physicists study are not really theories... 208.46.240.4 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * scientific theory - "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." String theory just isn't a theory in that sense of the word. Bhny (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, so string theory is not a theory in that sense. Neither is supersymmetric gauge theory, supergravity theory, Chern-Simons theory, Seiberg-Witten theory, Liouville field theory, noncommutative quantum field theory, or any number of other things that physicists call "theories". 208.46.240.4 (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Quantum field theory says it is "a theoretical framework", it doesn't say it is a theory and most of your links don't say they are theories. Anyway it is best not to be ambiguous, and "theory" in a science article would seem to mean scientific theory Bhny (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is appropriate to say that quantum field theory is a "theoretical framework" because the term "quantum field theory" does not refer to a specific theory for describing nature. Rather, it is a huge class of theories obtained by quantizing classical field theories. The resulting theories include all the ones I listed above, as well as more phenomenologically interesting ones like ordinary Yang-Mills theory.


 * The difference between quantum field theory and string theory is that while there are lots of different quantum field theories, there's only one unique mathematical structure called string theory. This is an important point that should be emphasized in the article.


 * The definition in the scientific theory article is obviously trying to distinguish between the notion of theory used in science and the colloquial notion of theory. That's fine, but it doesn't capture all the different ways in which the term "theory" is used in science. As I've been saying, it's very common in mathematical physics to use the term "theory" for a particular collection of mathematical data (a state space, an algebra of observables, etc.) even if such a "theory" is not a realistic model of physics. This is absolutely standard and, I think, completely appropriate for an article on string theory. 208.46.240.4 (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I can corroborate what 208.46.240.4 is saying regarding the use of the term "theory" in science. As a child I was taught that the term "theory" in science was reserved for well-tested and established sets of ideas, but as a professional scientist I can say with certainty that that is not at all how the term is used among actual scientists. (And considering that the title of the article - and the universally accepted name for the subject - is "string theory", it's a bit silly to argue that it is not a theory.)

However, I do not entirely agree that string theory is as unique as 208.46.240.4 says it is. While the five SUSY string theories are probably all related to each other by dualities, that's not exactly the same thing as saying that they are the same theory, nor is it well-understood how bosonic string theory is connected to them. Then there are theories like the little string theory on NS5 branes, non-critical string theories, confining gauge theories and whatever it is that is holographically dual to them, etc.

So I do think there's an important point that "research framework" may have helped get across, namely that we don't really know what kind of string theory describes the world, if any, and that much of the research in the field is not focused on that question specifically, but rather on understanding the mathematical breadth and structure of the theory.

Let me add that I think 208.46.240.4's edits to this article have been excellent across the board, and have significantly improved it. Thanks very much!  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments and praise! You're right that there are different kinds of string theory if you count bosonic string theory, noncritical string theories, etc. I am open to suggestions on how we could include these topics in the article.


 * I also strongly agree with what you're saying about string theory research. Much of the current research focuses on the mathematical structure of the theory and the relationships between different mathematically interesting QFTs. In my recent edits, I've been trying to change the emphasis of the article to focus on these topics. 208.46.240.4 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we ok with going back to "research framework"? Waleswatcher agreed that it helped and as he says there are 5 string theoriesBhny (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I changed it back to framework, but I'm still not completely comfortable with this phrase. I think the article needs more work to emphasize the uniqueness properties of string theory. There's a lot of confusion about this point. For example, Bhny writes that "there are 5 string theories", but this completely misses the point that Waleswatcher was making. These five string theories are all supposed to be "equivalent" in some sense so that there's really only one string theory. If you're going to talk about multiple string theories, you're talking about things like bosonic and noncritical string theories, which are not viable theories of particle physics. 208.46.240.4 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to vote that string theory is a theory. I'm fairly sure physicists in general define 'theory' as 'a mathematically consistent model of something happening', regardless of whether or not it makes any attempt to be accurate to the real world. Pretty much, anything with a lagrangian is a theory, by a physicist's definition. Whether or not string theory really describes all real-world particles completely, and whether or not it makes any testable predictions, is not the issue. And if you insist on testable predictions, keep in mind that string theory does make many testable predictions - they're simply not feasible with current technology. Much like nobody was going to make a higgs boson back when Higgs first talked about it. KagakuKyouju (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Three spatial dimensions implied (in inflation)?
See my question in: Talk:Inflationary epoch. I'm not sure string theory in considered contradictory to inflation. I think not. Short answer: Yes or no? Please answer my question I point to there, or at least not duplicate. If more appriopriate here (lengthy discussion likely) then point people to here if appropriate. comp.arch (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)