[chopin]

The requirement of testable predictions would rule out an entire field of current theoretical physics. Not that I disagree with you (quite the contrary), but (almost) no paper on String theory would be accepted under that rule. Also, papers on pilot wave theory vs. Kopenhagen interpretation would come to mind.

[tagrun]

Science isn't a computer program based on some simple algorithm. I understand that it can be difficult to spot crackpot to a layman.

1. String theory doesn't assume 20 crazy things and its axioms aren't its only predictions 2. String theory does have a basic equation from which you draw many results, leading to falsifiable predictions that is not covered by standard model. Some of them may not practical with today's experimental tools, but that's not all of them. I take you haven't seen any string theory papers. I'm saying we're suddenly going to see superparticles this year at LHC, but it is entirely plausible that if they exist, LHC should eventually detect them. 3. You're probably talking about this http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466 recently posted on HN. In case you missed, that is an experimental paper.

[poelzi]

The BSM model is testable in every aspect. That the basic building blocks are just fucking small compared to a neutrino for example, is a physical problem. The model does not prevent you from measuring it, quite the contrary compared to many other unified models currently discussed.

You could for example find another plateau in FQHE and the model would be gone.