|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
If string theory doesn't predict anything that isn't also predicted by the standard model, then how is it distinguishable from the standard model?
First of all, there are many string theories, not just 1. Different theoreticians are taking different assumptions about the properties of the strings.
They're different from the Standard Model because they do not fully overlap. When a string theorist is doing his research, he first assumes physical properties of the strings. Next, he tries to show how strings with these properties would look like anything already described in the Standard Model. Then, he tries to see what else the string theory says.
So the idea that string theories are equivalent to the Standard Model is a misunderstanding. They only agree with the Standard Model in so far as the fundamental assumptions have been tweaked to force agreement somewhere.
Once the theorist can demonstrate that he's describing something physical, then he looks to see what else it describes. If it makes predictions that are at odds with the Standard Model in any way, that particular string theory is discarded.
So it's like the string theory starts out by tracing the Standard Model, then tries to color it in while staying inside the lines.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If not, doesn't this make string theory the god of the gaps, where it kinda just makes stuff up about what can't be known?
I don't think that a fair description. String theorists are not throwing up their hands and calling it "magic" or "god's work". They're working their asses off to try to find a portion of their theory that can be tested. They're not just throwing out some nonsense that can't be openly refuted and claiming to be the next Einstein.
String theorists are motivated by the fact that the Standard Model is incomplete. Not only is it incomplete, but also there's no clear hint as to which direction to hunt for the ideas that will complete it. The Standard Model is an open ended collection of ideas that explain a whole heap of a lot, and quite well. However, it doesn't explain everything, and has some glaringly frustrating omissions (like resolving QM with GR). String theories are guesses as to what the next step might be...
If anything, string theories are trying to chase down the God of the Gaps to kill it.
|
Reply With Quote