Natural science has reached its natural boundaries

[lesliedellow]

Sorry if I jump in here, but I think physics might be reaching a natural limit. I quote:

"The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result."

I wonder if the problem can be quantified by for example counting the amount scientific papers quote untestable modells and comparing it over time. Is anyone interested in such a project or perhaps knows which organisation could finance such a test?

No physics is not reaching a natural limit. String theory looks as if it might have been a wild goose chase, but people who have spent most or all of their professional careers pursuing that goose may be reluctant to give up the chase.

There are, however, alternatives being explored, such as loop quantum gravity. At the end of the nineteenth century there were physicists voicing the opinion that physics might just about have got things wrapped up. Little did they know what was just around the corner.

 

[LaraLara]

No physics is not reaching a natural limit.

How do you proof that? I made a suggestion how my claim could be proofed and disproofd (i moved the discussion a bit to a new treat).

 

[lesliedellow]

How do you proof that? I made a suggestion how my claim could be proofed and disproofd (i moved the discussion a bit to a new treat).

The mere fact that gravity and quantum theory contradict one another means that there is work yet to be done in reconciling the two. You yourself mentioned the fact that their are protests about the untestability of some trends in present day physics, and that means there are physicists around for whom testability is important. Eventually string theory must come good, or meet its end when somebody comes up with a theory showing greater promise.

That is just the way things are in this messy world. Counting published papers is unlikely to help, because most of them will probably be about research in less sexy areas of physics, such as new materials for use in semiconductors, with less heat dissipation.

It is just unfortunate that there are currently physicists who want to pursue a career in pure mathematics, whilst calling it science

 

[LaraLara]

The mere fact that gravity and quantum theory contradict one another means that there is work yet to be done in reconciling the two. You yourself mentioned the fact that their are protests about the untestability of some trends in present day physics, and that means there are physicists around for whom testability is important. Eventually string theory must come good, or meet its end when somebody comes up with a theory showing greater promise.

That is just the way things are in this messy world. Counting published papers is unlikely to help, because most of them will probably be about research in less sexy areas of physics, such as new materials for use in semiconductors, with less heat dissipation.

It is just unfortunate that there are currently physicists who want to pursue a career in pure mathematics, whilst calling it science

Ok, I read now about the multiverse theory and the opposition seems to be realy strong ("a theory that is always right can not be tested").

As for the problem you mentioned it might be possible to restrict the counting to journals that are specialized on publicising cosmolic papers but it would require a lot of thought to be sure that everything remains random. Counting references will propably be better than counting papers and they need to be counted against testable concepts of cosmology not against testable concepts of general physics. Its sounds like a rather daunting undertaking.