Comment on: If the grand unified theory exists, what if it is untestable?

Bigthink — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:34:02 +0100

No. Science would not change and we would not be happy with only "mathematical evidence". The reason is that there is no such thing as "mathematical evidence".

It would simply be a logical fallacy to attribute certain equations to nature without being able to test it.

However, in practice this probably won't be an issue. Your statement basically boils down to the grand unified theory not having any measurable effects different from existing theories. The consequence of this is that it would be meaningless. Say for example that the unfalsifiable GUT lets us fully understand why the fundamental constants have the values they have, but is otherwise identical to current theories. If it is unfalsifiable, this means you are claiming they are fundamentally fixed and can never be modified by any experiment.

Does this understanding have much practical value? Enough to throw the scientific method overboard? Not really.

For there to be any point in adopting a new theory it must be able to let us predict nature with greater accuracy. This implies a changing phenomenon that we can predict and measure and thus it will be testable if we have any reason to want to adopt it.

Comment on: If the grand unified theory exists, what if it is untestable?

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:23:13 +0100

The problem is "If a Grand Unified theory was realized, would it be accepted?" Those who have devoted their lives to our current understanding of our Universe will not appreciate the change. It will be a change because there are too many unexplainable variances we can already understand to allow us to believe our current understanding is correct.

Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: If the grand unified theory exists, what if it is untestable?

Comment on: If the grand unified theory exists, what if it is untestable?