John: I believe, however, that the discussion to date is marred by the assumption that string theory has nothing testable about it. That seems unlikely to me. Advances in physics typically involve new theories that do not replace old ones but, instead, encompass and extend them. Thus, for example, Einstein's theory of relativity does not disprove Newtonian mechanics; it accounts for everything that Newtonian mechanics does and adds predictions, e.g., concerning the observed position of Mercury, that cannot be deduced from Newtonian mechanics alone. Unless I am much mistaken, no physicist would be taking superstring theory seriously if the math weren't consistent with already established findings predicted by previous theories.
Superstring theory, to my knowledge, has no testable hypothesis. It is a physical theory argued from mathematics alone. Its sole predictive value, to my limited knowledge, is that it "predicts" gravity. Again, from mathematics alone.
Unlike Superstring, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was vindicated after *observation* confirmed its prediction of how gravity bends light passing around the Sun. There was a testable hypothesis. Same goes for Quantum Mechanics ... testable results.
Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
