Will there ever be experimental data for string theory?

>>8994850
NO

>>8994850
Yes.

dubs say no. It is a horrible trend in physics.

>>8994855
checked, rekt, and correct

>>8994855
fucking checked

>>8994850
If you listen to people supporting ST then we should have had evidence like 10 years ago.

>>8994855
This

>>8994850
Holometer experiment for the fucking win

>>8994850
Who cares. The math is more interesting anyway.

>>8994850
This happens when maths try to do physics, or when psychians gets horny by maths...shit like 21 dimensions and other bullshit start to show up...

>>8994859
respect

>>8994850
>ever
..."ever" is a long time.
String-theory experiments will require very clever
high-energy equipment that does not now exist,
and will be costly.

>>8994850
Sure, you just need a bigger collider. Maybe the size of the solar system or so?

>>8994850
I doubt it.

>>8995127
To prove string theory experimentally you will always need a bigger particle collider than the largest one available. In perpetuity. String theory is a god of the gaps.

>>8994850
We have all the historical data which agrees with ST. As for some predictions made exclusively by ST, the most likely candidate is SUSY, but even that can require ridiculous energy levels so we might be fucked for centuries.

>>8995252
Science is not about doubt or belief.
Lrn2science fgt pls

>>8995415
Spoken like a true brainlet.

>>8995256
To prove the Standard Model, you will always need a bigger particle collder than the largest one available. In perpetuity. The Standard Model is a god of the gaps.

>t. you if the electroweak unification energy was just out of the range of the LHC rather than 246 GeV

>>8994850
The question is irrelevant.

For every time someone makes an experimental observations that does not quite mesh with current string theory the string theoreticians tweak some of the dozens of parameters available and voila, it fits once again.

There are too many tweakable parameters for string theory to be falsifiable. It is therefore not real science. And when they now demand an exception from the scientific process for reasons of "elegance", you know all credibility went out of the window.

>>8994855
jewish scientists BTFO

>>8996332
>There are too many tweakable parameters for string theory to be falsifiable.


That is not true. String Theory is a not one theory, it is pretty much its own subject focusing on the study of things called string theories. Different string theories behave in a variety of different ways.

None the less, all string theories share some universal characteristics. Disprove one of these and you have disproved all string theories.

who gives a fuck about physicists
string theory has brought a lot to the mathematics table, and that's where it really shines

>>8996436
>>8996436
that's what i like about it too. it's what got me into math.

>>8994850
There is a lot of experimental data ABOIT string theory. Tends to indicate that the theory is not going to make it.

Also, shouldnl't it just be "string hypothesis?"