Well, no, it’s not, but … we didn’t think many people other than Peter Woit had noticed.

Many have rather pursued a war on falsifiability to protect it.

Ethan Siegel in Forbes distinguishes between a mathematical theory and a physical theory. Can we make testable predictions of string theory, which we should be able to do fora physical theory?

The answer, so far, is no. The first one is a huge problem: we need to get rid of six dimensions to get back the Universe we see, and there are more ways to do it than there are atoms in the Universe. What’s worse, is that each way you do it gives a different “vacuum” for string theory, with no clear way to get the fundamental constants that describe the Universe we inhabit, which is the second prediction. The third prediction has come up empty, but we would need to achieve energies that are ~1015 times higher than what the LHC can produce to rule out string theory entirely and falsify it. Moreover, supersymmetric particles is not a unique prediction of string theory; finding them would only mean that string theory isn’t ruled out, not that it’s right. And the last prediction is only a mathematical one, not a physical one. It doesn’t give us anything specific to look for or test about our Universe.

Although there was an entire conference on it earlier this month, spurred by a controversial opinion piece written a year ago by George Ellis and Joe Silk, the answer is very clear: no, string theory is not science. The way people are trying to turn it into science is — as Sabine Hossenfelder and Davide Castelvecchi report — by redefining what “science” is. More.

We’ll let Siegel tell the rest of that, but—if we are into predictability—here’s a prediction:

If string theory flunked all the tests, many cosmologists would still believe it. It’s one of those beliefs they just need. You watch. For why see Cosmology, the skinny

Re redefining what science is, all I ask is, in that case it’s all on the table whether the rest of us are expected to fund it. Any reasonable person ought to want to fund a war on polio. An effort to theorize that the universe has dozens of dimensions? Aw, there’s got to be a rich old lady somewhere who can be persuaded not to leave her entire fortune to her cat, only half of it … ?

*See also:* In search of a road to reality

The bill arrives for cosmology’s free lunch

and

If ID theorists are right, how should we study nature?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Of related note:

According to Godel, even if the universe were to be described by just one mathematical equation, that one equation would still be incomplete in its description of the universe. Even Stephen Hawking admits as such:

In other words, even if the universe were able to be described by one mathematical equation, “ we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable”.

But the universe is not found to be governed by just one overarching mathematical theory but is found to governed by two very different mathematical theories. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Yet, the belief that there should be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics does not follow from the math itself, but is a belief that is born out of Theistic presuppositions. And since that belief is a thoroughly Theistic presupposition, I hold that Christ offers the correct, empirically backed, solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’

In other words, since only God can offer genuine ‘completeness’ to a single mathematical equation, if only one equation were to have been found to govern the universe, then I hold that only God can offer ‘completeness’ to these two seemingly diametrically opposed equations of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

What is interesting about the split between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is the exact place where they split. Specifically, Special Relativity, which unifies with Quantum Mechanics in Quantum Electrodynamics, and General Relativity reveal two very different ‘qualities of eternity’ (as predicted in Christian Theism). In particular, The Black Holes of General Relativity are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder. Whereas Special Relativity is associated with the singularity of creation and order, i.e. the extreme (1 in 10^10^123) thermodynamic order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang.

It is also interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:

Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity (Gravity), and Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED), were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:

Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics/Special relativity (QED), with Gravity, I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:

Verse: