Is string theory in trouble?

newscientist.com ^ | 17 December 2005 | Amanda Gefter

[RightWhale]

None of this will change the nature of science. It might change the way we think about science, but to assert that just because we cannot detect other universes means they are metaphysical or to assert that science must explain all the multiverse is to demand too much and is inappropriate of pragmatism.

[RightWhale]

I can't get my head around infinity.

A finite universe is just as bad, maybe worse for most who get migraines when they try to reflect on things beyond the front yard.

[samtheman]

None of this will change the nature of science.

I agree. What do you think of calling this kind of speculation "natural philosophy"?

[RightWhale]

Excellent suggestion. I wonder if it will catch on in this precision prepacked retail unit McDonalds world.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

It was the Supper Suck.

No! No! It was the Super Suck.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Thank you. Wow...my remote descendants may have some chance of being sucked into another universe. How nifty!

Make me feel better for them and tell me that when they do this they are not transformed into some kind of speed of light energy states or fractured into subatomic particles when they pass though the boundary. I suppose we can't even assume that physical laws as we experience them necessarily apply on the far side of the frontier?

[jwalsh07]

Einsteins insertion of the cosmological constant to avoid a creation event is almost exactly analagous to the multiverse insertion to expalin the anthropic prinicple.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Flying monkeys and exploding grapefruits = a static multiverse

[ItsForTheChildren]

Now, if I can just find a school which offers that as a major...

Here ya go.

Pole Dancing 101

[r9etb]

the experimental method still works for events inside our universe, which are the only events we can see or test anyway

Be careful of dangerous assumptions, especially ones that contain the word "only." You're basically saying that "extra-universal" things could never be detected. I think that, at root, you can only make such a claim if you believe that ours is the only physical universe there is. But if we suppose that other universes do exist, then there's a potential for interaction between them, and that should create observable phenomena -- for example, the guy being interviewed offers a couple of potential things to look for.

The question I have is: would numbers such as pi, or e, be subject to the same "anthropic adjustments" as, say, Planck's constant or the cosmological constant? Would math be equally applicable across all parts

[webstersII]

"You are right. It's not an argument, or an explanation. It is a speculation. "

Actually it's just mental masturb@tion.

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from 2005.