|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
>>> a single damned one. There is no possible experiment, even
>>> hypothetically, which would prove or disprove string theory.
>
>> This is no longer true.
>
> Can you mention some predictions and tests of string theory?
GIYF. I can't follow the math, but
http://www.universetoday.com/72531/scientists-say-they-can-now-test-string-theory/
http://www.physorg.com/news88786651.html
http://www.physorg.com/news202553083.html
Googling "string theory test" brings up a bunch, but I haven't looked at
many of them. Indeed, I myself thought it was a fundamental attribute of
string theory that it could describe every possible set of physical laws, or
some such.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |