|
|
|
|
|
|
by smegel
3840 days ago
|
|
|
> And at what point in its development and study do you abandon a theory that nobody has yet invented a way to test? Perhaps a better question is at what point does philosophy become physics? Finding a way to test the theory, and doing so, may be such a point. |
|
|
String theory's critics are sure that it isn't. I've even heard it said that it only has the prominence it has because a noisy generation of physicists elbowed out competing projects.
If you don't have a testable theory in the short term, should you carry on trying to refine that theory in the absence of evidence, or should you spend more time on competing theories that perhaps have more chance of being open to experimental verification in a reasonable time frame?
The list of open, unsolved, and unexplained issues in physics isn't small. Continuing to prioritise one theory and gambling that it works out eventually is a classic sunk-cost error.