Talk:String theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Other falsifications

The following sentence was recently added to the article:

Other potential falsifications of string theory include the swampland and observations of positive curvature in cosmology .

The part of this sentence referring to the cosmological curvature is currently contradicted by the section of this article on cosmological curvature, which states that a negative experimental result would not necessarily falsify the prediction. Based on my reading of the sources, I believe the situation is similar for swampland issue (positive experimental results are possible, but results which would falsify string theory are not given in the papers). Can anyone give quotes from the articles describing experimental results that would falsify string theory? Otherwise this sentence must be changed/removed. Wpegden (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) The sources do appear high-quality, (except for "The String Theory Landscape: Prospects for Predictivity", which appears to be an unpublished set of presentation slides, without a bibliography, etc.) Can we find any quotes in the published sources supporting the statements in the sentence? Wpegden (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"The part of this sentence referring to the cosmological curvature is currently contradicted by the section of this article on cosmological curvature, which states that a negative experimental result would not necessarily falsify the prediction." You've misread it. An observation of positive spatial curvature would falsify string theory according to those sources. An observation of negative or zero (to within the observational error bars) curvature would be consistent with it. As for the swampland, you've again misunderstood. The whole point of the swampland paper is that there are effective field theories that look consistent, but that string theory predicts are in fact inconsistent and therefore cannot exist. Observing one would therefore falsify string theory. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing understanding these articles with you. I'm interested in getting quotes from them supporting the statement being made so that we have a sentence which is supported by good citations for it. Remember, we can't be interpreting primary sources. We need direct clear quotes supporting the statements made in the article. Do you have the quotes?Wpegden (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not interested in understanding these articles? Really? Then what in the world are you doing editing this page? You cannot edit the content in an article when you do not understand it. Wiki is not a list of verbatim quotes, it's an encyclopedia. All wiki articles are interpretations of their sources. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing understanding these articles with you. I recommend you re-read Wikipedia's guidelines on citations, which make it clear that we cannot be engaged in interpretation of primary sources.Wpegden (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotations - click on the link to Denef's talk and you'll see he lists positive curvature in a list of possible falsifications of string theory (there are a bunch of others there as well, by the way). For the swampland there's already a wiki page on it. That's the place to include more detail if you think it needs it (and it's badly written as it stands now, could use work). For positive curvature, it's already briefly explained in this article why positive curvature could falsify string theory. Here's a quote from an article on the topic: "This leads to falsifiable predictions for cosmological observables, the sharpest of which is that the spatial curvature cannot be positive [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]." Waleswatcher (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, you've given us a quote for one of them. Which source is that? Can you expand the quote so that it is clear to all editors that the article is saying that this leads to predictions which can falsify string theory in general? And then we can remove the tag for that citation.

Now, what are the quotes for the rest of the sources? "Go read the article" is not a substitute for quotes. (I suggest you read Wikipedia's guidelines on citations, especially the importance of not engaging in any interprertation of primary sources). The unpublished source is unreliable regardless of whether we get quotes from it, so I would focus on getting quotes for the others instead.

I'm not advocating adding more detail to the article. I'm advocating you providing quotes, here on this talkpage, so that editors can verify that we have good citations for the statements we are making.Wpegden (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

When you said you weren't interested in understanding the sources, you excluded yourself as qualified to edit this (or any other) article. Without comprehension, you cannot write or edit the article, so please stop doing so until you attain it. Meanwhile, here are more quotes: "it was recently suggested [1] that the landscape of consistent theories of gravity one obtains in string theory is by far smaller than would have been anticipated by considerations of semiclassical consistency of the theory. The space of consistent low-energy effective theories which cannot be completed to a full theory was dubbed the ‘swampland’. Certain criteria were studied in [1] to distinguish the string landscape from the swampland. For example, one such criterion was the finiteness of the number of massless fields (see also [2] for a discussion of this point). In this paper we propose a new criterion which distinguishes parts of the swampland from the string landscape." Waleswatcher (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from the Denef reference: "Is string theory falsifiable? Yes." That's followed by a list of potential falsifiers. Here's one: "Landscape vs. swampland considerations [Vafa]". OK? I'm now removing your tags. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop intentionally misquoting me. I told you that I am not interested in discussing understanding these articles with you. This is because I have lost respect for your ability to correctly judge your understanding of the articles you reference, and we are not supposed to be interpreting primary sources anyways. Regardless of our beliefs regarding our own abilities to interpret the articles, we need to have clear direct quotes from published sources which can be seen by a nonexpert reader of the article to verify the statement it is attached to. The quote you provided above regarding the swampland does not rise to this criterion (where does it say it provides a "falsifiable" prediction?); you are thus engaged in the interpretation of primary sources. Also, which sources are these quotes from? The Denef reference is unacceptable unless you can tell me where it has been published. Have you read Wikipedia guidelines on citations? You seem unfamiliar with these issues (using only published sources and not interpreting primary sources.)Wpegden (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your task is simple according to established Wikpedia guidelines. You need to provide quotes from each source used that clearly says that string theory can be falsified via the cosmological curvature or the superswamp. It would be kind of you to provide page numbers so that is easier for other editors to verify the quotes. I will create a new heading for you so that we can all see what the quotes are without having to wade through any mess of whatever tangential arguments you may be interested in having here.

Quotes for the citations

This section is here for us to place quotes from the sources used in the sentence

Other potential falsifications of string theory include the swampland and observations of positive curvature in cosmology .

to verify the same sentence. Please say which source each quote is from, so that we know which have been verified. (It would be kind to give page numbers for each quote.) Wpegden (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Vafa and Vafa et al papers say in plain, direct terms that string theory forbids certain otherwise consistent looking effective field theories. That's the subject of those papers. The whole point is that string theory makes a testable prediction - it forbids these theories. That's exactly the definition of a falsifiable prediction, something that's forbidden. There is no "interpretation" here - this is basic reading comprehension. As for the Denef quote, it's from a talk given at a conference. It appears on the conference website. Whether that counts as "published" by wiki's definition I don't know - but in any case it says verbatim that string theory is falsifiable for these (swampland+positive curvature) reasons as well as others, so it ought to satisfy you that my "interpretation" of these papers is accurate, even if you're incapable of comprehending them yourself.

Your request for quotes has now been fulfilled ad nauseum. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Denef source is considered published by wiki's standards: " Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)...". Waleswatcher (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on the sources in journals first. Once we have quotes for those it won't matter so much if we can't have the Denef source (we can seek some outside opinions on that if it becomes necessary). I'm going to simplify our job of finding quotes for each source by making headings for each separate reference we need to verify. There are 4 published sources used in the sentence, I'll make a heading for each source. Wpegden (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote from The String Landscape and the Swampland

Here we need to give a direct verbatim quote (with page number, please) from the source verifying the statement that the swampland provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory.

That's the first reference for the swampland. Find a quote yourself, or move it, I don't care.

Quote, from the ABSTRACT: Recent developments in string theory suggest that string theory landscape of vacua is vast. It is natural to ask if this landscape is as vast as allowed by consistent-looking effective field theories. We use universality ideas from string theory to suggest that this is not the case, and that the landscape is surrounded by an even more vast swampland of consistent-looking semiclassical effective field theories, which are actually inconsistent. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote! Can you give a quote which directly supports the statement that the swampland provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory? Remember, these quotes should be checkable by any reader of the article! Wpegden (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, not by ANY reader - by any reader capable of comprehending the basic point of the passage. This is an article on a technical subject. The references for it are necessarily technical. That is precisely what it says, and if you can't understand it, you shouldn't be editing this article for content. And in any case, even you now agree that the Denef source establishes that the swampland is a potential falsifier, and this is the original reference for the swampland, which by itself is sufficient justification for its inclusion. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me refer you to the Wikipedia policy on this, so that we don't have to try to make policy on the fly. The requirement is

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

This reference is technical, as you say, and in this case, appears to be technical in a way that someone without specialist knowledge cannot verify the statement. (In an effort to keep this discussion well-organized enough to follow for all of us, I have created a separate section to discuss the Denef source below). Wpegden (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I have this straight. You won't accept the swampland article because it's too technical and you claim not to be able to understand it. At the same time, you won't accept the Denef citation because it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Waleswatcher. I am concerned that this article cannot be checked to verify the claim it is supporting. As for the Denef presentation slides, I'm concerned that it is not subjected to any editorial oversight of any kind.Wpegden (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, so that's a "yes". That makes it clear (again) that you are unreasonable. I think you need to take a break from editing this article. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote from The String Landscape, Black Holes and Gravity as the Weakest Force

Here we need to give a direct verbatim quote (with page number, please) from the source verifying the statement that the swampland provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory.

Already given above.

Fine, I'll move it for you. It's on the first page. [1] is the other swampland ref.

it was recently suggested [1] that the landscape of consistent theories of gravity one obtains in string theory is by far smaller than would have been anticipated by considerations of semiclassical consistency of the theory. The space of consistent low-energy effective theories which cannot be completed to a full theory was dubbed the ‘swampland’. Certain criteria were studied in [1] to distinguish the string landscape from the swampland. For example, one such criterion was the finiteness of the number of massless fields (see also [2] for a discussion of this point). In this paper we propose a new criterion which distinguishes parts of the swampland from the string landscape.

Thanks very much for the quote! can you give a quote where indicates that the swampland makes falsifiable predictions for string theory?Wpegden (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's right there, wpegden. It's says exactly that, that's the whole point. Try to understand what it says. Not to mention the Denef source, which says "Is ST falsifiable? Yes." and lists the swampland as a reason. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Waleswatcher, I am not disagreeing with you that the Denef source says this. For this source, we need a clear sentence saying this. Remember, these quotes should be checkable by any reader of the article!Wpegden (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Denef refers to the swampland, so we should include a citation to the papers that define the swampland. In addition, as these quotes show these two sources say exactly what is stated in the article, just in slightly technical language. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's remember that Wikipedia policy is that

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

sources which cannot be seen to support a statement without technical knowledge can't be used. I've created a separate section below discuss the Denef source.Wpegden (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's quote from a conference talk by Vafa, http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/conf/simonswork4/talks/Vafa.pdf

"Gravity is always the weakest force...This is a very predictive criterion. For example, it predicts that the LHC will not find U(1) interactions with very weak coupling constants." Waleswatcher (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Observing the landscape with cosmic wakes

Here we need to give a direct verbatim quote (with page number, please) from the source verifying the statement that the cosmological curvature provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory.

p.2: This leads to falsifiable predictions for cosmological observables, the sharpest of which is that the spatial curvature cannot be positive [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

That's from http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2261, and earlier paper by the same authors. Feel free to replace with that reference if you like. Note that it references SIX other earlier papers by various authors. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quote! Can you give one where it says that this makes predictions which can falsify string theory? Wpegden (talk)

Quote from Discovering the Universe: From the Stars to the Planets

Here we need to give a direct verbatim quote (with page number, please) from the source verifying the statement that the cosmological curvature provides potentially falsifying predictions for string theory.

p. 519: Some additional predictions of superstring theories include the following: The universe cannot have positive curvature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleswatcher (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quote!! My first reaction is that this quote seems like it could be verified by a nonexpert reader of the article, which is exactly what we need! Wpegden (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether the Denef presentation slides are a reputable source

I've created this section so that we can address the issue is whether the source [1] is acceptable.

I think there are several simple cases to be made that is not acceptable. For example, it counts as a Questionable source according to Wikipedia guidelines because it "lacks meaningful editorial oversight". (We have no indication that there was any peer-review of these slides, and I don't know of any Academic situation where presentation slides are subjected to peer-review or editorial oversight.) Wpegden (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The standards you are trying to apply here are unreasonable and unjustified by wiki's guidelines. If applied across wikipedia, they would invalidate just a large fraction of all the references in wiki articles. The Denef source is a talk given at a scientific conference and subsequently published on the web. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, but it is a published and obviously reliable guide to Denef's views on this topic, and Denef is an expert (he was a professor at Harvard and is currently a professor on Belgium, with many peer-reviewed publications on string theory). Such sources are perfectly admissible by wiki's standards - go read them, since you seem to be unfamiliar with them. Moreover, it is only one of several sources that all corroborate the same set of facts.

By the way, the article includes many other sources which aren't peer-reviewed or even written by experts on string theory. The book by Woit, for example, is a popular account written by a non-expert. Are you questioning that too? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Waleswatcher. Book which are not self-published are subjected to editorial oversight (by the editors in the publishing-house). I am trying to think of a way in which the presentations slides are subjected to editorial oversight and cannot come up with any. Can you think of any? Wpegden (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Editorial oversight? That's a laugh - you've obviously never published a book. And in any case editors at a popular press have no ability to judge the scientific content, so that's irrelevant. Regarding Denef, the conference organizers can be considered having editorial oversight, since they (a) invited Denef to speak, (b) asked for his slides, processed them, and placed them on the web. Finally, "editorial oversight" is not a necessary criterion. For example, web pages and recordings are perfectly acceptable on wiki. And here's wiki's policy in the only place I can find that even mentions that phrase:

That's not the point of editorial oversight. The point of editorial oversight is to ensure that something is generally fit and worthy of publication, not that it is correct. I have no indication that the conference organizers reviewed the slides before the talk. (And, for what its worth, I assure you that this never happens). If you can give any evidence of that they did I am happy to accept the citation.Wpegden (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

None of that applies to the Denef citation. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the Denef citation has "meaningful editorial oversight".Wpegden (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The conference organizers are themselves experts on the topic, they invited Denef to give that talk, they chose to publish it, and then they published it on the conference website. That's much more meaningful than the oversight that's provided by the editor of a popular press. It obviously meets that standard (not that it even needs to, since there's nothing questionable about this.) Waleswatcher (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Whaleswatcher, I honestly don't understand what's going on with you. Let's recap what's happened. You added a new sentence to the article which I liked. I tried to look at the sources you added to support it and couldn't find any reference to "falsifying" string theory, except in the presentation slides. (I don't own a copy of the "Discovering the Universe" book; this is why its always nice to provide quotes before being asked). What did I do? I made a minor few-word change to the article that preseved 99% of your edit and the citations you gave, so that it read better (just in my opinion) and seemed to me more clearly supported by the citations.

What did you do? You reverted the edit and dug in. You acted hostile when asked for quotes, and it was like pulling teeth to get you to give them. You initially gave a single quote (without stating where it was from) that was supposed to verify all 5 of the sources in the sentence. Eventually you gave a second quote (again, without indicating the source). It wasn't until I made section headings *for* you for each source that you actually started giving quotes corresponding to each citation.

When I suggested that some sources could be improved because I doubted non-specialist readers could use them to verify the statement in the article, you once again became beligerent, telling me that I should halt editing the article altogether.

You've removed tags I added to the article indicated quotes had been requested, before you had provided quotes for all of the sources.

You've removed tags on the article indicating that a discussion was taking place on the talkpage regarding the issue. (Somehow, you're so sure that you're right about everything, but at the same time seem to have an inexplicable fear of people knowing that there's a discussion taking place on the talk page regarding the wording of the sentence and applicability citations. It's an odd combination.)

Finally, you seem to have a level of contempt for readers of this Wikipedia article which I cannot understand. You think it is your job to add sentences to the article, and their job to find support for it in the literature. When presented with the possibility that a set of presentation slides intended to accompany a talk whose transcript/audio/video we do not have access to might not be the most helpful possible citation for readers of this article, you---once again---dig in, cry foul, and act as if I am personally trying to ruin your day with this suggestion. Rather than, for example, trying to find a source that would be more helpful for readers of the article.

In spite of all of this, we have made some progress. We now have a reliable secondary source (which is the perfect thing to have) which seems to support the statement that positive curvature would falsify string theory with a quote that any nonspecialist reader of the article should be able to verify. (I don't have the Discovering the Universe book but am trusting your quote at this point.) But, inexplicably, I have the sense that you resent this progress; that you feel that I was unreasonable to request a quote, that readers of the article are not better off for having it, and that, in general, your goal should not be to find similarly reliable and helpful sources for the other part of the sentence you added, and for material you add to this article in general. It seems you'd rather be arguing.

Speaking of which, I'm sure you have lots more digging in and complaining to do. Please do so below below this passage, after my signature, instead of splitting it up. Wpegden (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The record is all right there for anyone masochistic enough to read it. The "minor few-word change" you made so that the article "read better" was flat-out wrong. Here's what you wrote:

"a number of such potentially verifiable predictions (such as the swampland[40] [41] and observations of positive curvature in cosmology[39][42] [43]) have been proposed".

That's exactly the opposite of the truth, and directly contradicts the references. Do you now see why I reverted it? (I should hope so, since you just added a quote that says "the universe cannot have positive curvature".)

As for the tags, you added something like five to a single sentence. I addressed all of them - because you forced me to waste my time doing so. Now the tags all gone, all your manufactured "issues" are settled, and the sentence is exactly as I made it in the first place, with just the minor matter of several hours wasted.

The article is a mess. There's a ton of work that needs to be done on it. But instead of allowing constructive edits, you obstruct, obfuscate, demand quote after quote after quote, complain that you can't understand the references, demand mediation, and generally do your best to prevent the article from improving. To make matters worse we have 8digits that comes in and more or less randomly alters the article every now and then (you'll note that essentially every single one of 8digits edits has been reverted, by a whole range of editors).

Am I complaining? Sure am. I'm an expert on this topic, I care about it, and I want to see the article be well written and reflect reality. Please help, or if you can't at least leave well enough alone. Waleswatcher (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

My edit that these are potentially verifiable predictions was "exactly the opposite of the truth", and "directly contradicts the references"? I'm afraid that your well-developed sense of expertise has led you not to read the sources you provided. For example, from "Observing the Multiverse with Cosmic Wakes" (in the abstract):

These features represent the first verifiable prediction of the multiverse paradigm and might be detected by current experiments such as Planck and future CMB polarization missions. A detection of a bubble collision would confirm the existence of the Multiverse, provide compelling evidence for the string theory landscape, and sharpen our picture of the Universe and its origins.

Meanwhile, in spite of the "hours of work" you apparently spend coming up with 4 quotes (how this takes so much longer than checking for yourself that they support sentence you attached them to is beyond me) we still don't have a single quote from any source explicitly referencing any experimental predictions made by string theory via the "swampland" at all, let alone one which references a prediction which it says is falsifiable. To follow up and learn more about that part of the sentence, your viewpoint is that Wikpedians should be directed to the single phrase "Landscape vs. swampland considerations" appearing in a bulleted list in a set of presentation slides. Wpegden (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it directly contradicts them. All of them. What you wrote was not that signals of bubble collisions are a verifiable prediction. What you wrote was instead that "observations of positive curvature in cosmology" is one of the verifiable predictions of string theory. That is wrong. It is totally wrong. It is the opposite of the truth. According to all of those references, an observation of positive curvature (which is not a bubble collision, it's something the refs say is incompatible with bubble collisions) would falsify string theory. Do you understand that? Waleswatcher (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, you are right, I did not notice the word positive in your sentence when I changed falsifiable to verifiable. (I had read it as saying "falsifiable predictions ... observations of negative curvature in cosmology" instead of "falsifications ... observations of positive curvature in cosmology"). If I had, I would have changed "positive" to "negative". That was my oversight, which I did not notice until now, and I apologize.

I have previously said I believe that, in light of the quote you gave form the Discovering the Universe book, we now have citations to write that negative curvature is a falsifiable prediction. I also believe that we have the citations to write that that negative curvature is a verifiable prediction. These are nonequivalent separately interesting statements. My intention when I edited the article was to change the first statement to the second. But no matter, you seem to have a much stronger preference for the other statement. Fine with me, now that we have the quote.

I think it is a bit silly to think we should be satisfied with the reference situation for the swampland statement. So far all we have directly addressing the issue is the item from the bulleted list in the presentation slides.Wpegden (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that. Please note how long it took for you to realize it, though - it took multiple sets of back and forth comments, several direct quotes, etc. etc. That's been the pattern all along - you seem to be so strongly biased in one direction that it's very difficult to reason with you, and it takes a large amount of time and effort to get you to acknowledge even very, very clear and unambiguous points.

The swampland discussion is exactly the same. The quotes from the primary sources are perfectly clear and unambiguous - but you either cannot or will not understand them. Then we have a published, reliable secondary source that fully supports the view expressed in the article. I've posted another quote above from a talk by Vafa (the author of the original swampland paper) that again clearly supports it. This goes far beyond wiki's standards for citations - there is no basis to contest this at all.

Why don't you try to fix the swampland wiki article? It's a confusing mess right now. That would be productive and you might turn up some more sources that you think are easier to understand, plus it would provide another resource for readers of this article without bogging it down too much. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the situation. I did not misunderstand the citations you gave. I did not insist that the falsifiable statement vis-a-vis cosmological curvature could not stay. Rather, I instantly accepted the quote you gave for the citation which said that string theory implies that "the universe cannot have positive curvature". The error you are latching onto, is in my intial edit where I did not change positive to negative. Since I don't make a habit of digging when people edit my changes away, we have not even been arguing about my initial edit until I gave my recap of what all had happened, and since you reverted my edit within a matter of minutes, it was not until you reposted the quote that I realized what the edit actually was. We have been arguing about what quotes are acceptable for the sentence in the article now.

Which sources for the swampland statement do you think rises to the level of Wikipedia guidelines that they can be easily verified by educated readers without specialist understanding of the material? Is it just the presentation slides, or do you feel there are other sources that reach this level?

There's something I feel you should realize. Sitting where I'm sitting, it is very difficult for me to fathom claims of your expertise in this topic. Linking to a bunch of sources and telling readers and other editors to "go read them, its obvious" is behavior consistent with the notion that you are an layman enthusiast with access to google who sometimes gets in a little over your head. It would not be hard to convince me that you do have expertise. With expertise in these issues, you should be able to give a simple coherent explanation of how the swampland leads to falsifiable predictions that any reader of this article (or the swampland article, if you put it there) would understand. You have not even attempted to do so. You have given no indication of what quantities one would measure, and what measurements would violate which predictions of string theory. (Note that this is done for the cosmological curvature, in the corresponding section of this article.) It's hard to escape the conclusion that you're having trouble producing such an explanation.Wpegden (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to convince you of anything, Wpegden, including manifest errors that you made, or the obvious interpretations of perfectly clear passages. Your characterization of my actions ("go read them") is so wildly far off as to be beneath comment, as this page amply attests. The swampland sources are right there already in the article, they all meet and exceed all of wiki's guidelines. There may be more refs in the swampland wiki page (and no, I didn't create it), and there are certainly more out there somewhere. The quote from the Vafa talk that I put above is yet another, not that we need one. Feel free to find more of you want, but I think three citations is more than enough.

Falsifiable predictions from the swampland are simple - if we observe any theory that's in the swampland, we've falsified string theory (at least according to those sources). That's the whole point, it's the meaning of the term "swampland". A simple, specific example that's accessible with current tech and could (if string theory is false) happen any time would be discovering a 5th force that is weaker than gravity. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow I'm glad I pushed this issue. So, you've given nothing that goes beyond the statement that string theory reduces to previous theory (newtonian physics and general relativity, etc.) at low energies. If this statement has no more content than this from a practical standpoint, as I've suspected all along, than I'm puzzled at what it adds over the previous sentence in the article, but no longer confused as to why we can't find secondary sources which believe this is statement worth making. Wpegden (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, what? How does "string theory forbids any force that is weaker than gravity" merge in your mind into "string theory reduces to GR, is LI, and is QM"? Gravity could be perfectly well described by GR, but there could be a weaker force. If so, (these references claim that) string theory is falsified because such theories are in the swampland, even though they look perfectly consistent as a low energy effective theories. Or, gravity could fail to be described by GR, but with no weaker force. If so, string theory is falsified because in ST gravity is described by GR. Two very different potential falsifications. I think you need to take a deep breath now and step away from editing this article for a while. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"no longer confused as to why we can't find secondary sources which believe this is statement worth making." You're no longer confused? How interesting. There's one small problem - we did find such a source, the one we've been discussing here all day. That's the one this section is named for, the section you created. (Plus there's now another given above, as if we needed it.) Are you ever going to contribute anything positive to this article? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you really don't understand the the point or are just pretending not to. At issue is whether there is any experiment performable with current or soon-to-be-available technology for which we predict a different outcome now than we did before the invention of string theory. It seems the answer to this question is: "no". (Or at least, you can't think of any, which I won't hesitate to agree might not be the same thing.) Separately, I recommend you look up the meaning of "secondary source". Wikipedia has extensive guidelines on this. Are you saying these presentation slides are a secondary source? Wpegden (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wpegden, string theory does make such a prediction according to these sources. I just gave you an example. According to the swampland papers, string theory predicts that there cannot be (and hence that we will not discover) a force weaker than gravity. Therefore, if we discover such a force tomorrow, we have falsified string theory. No other theory that I'm aware of makes this prediction (not that it matters anyway for falsifiability), and this is not at all the same thing as saying that string theory reduces to GR etc., because having a force weaker than gravity is fully consistent with reducing to GR etc. I think you are again misreading something, but I can't tell what it is - so can you please take a deep breath, go away for a while, come back, read this again slowly and carefully, and then tell me if you are still confused? Thank you. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the secondary source issue, I really don't know what you're talking about. The Denef reference is a secondary source by both the standard academic definition and by wiki's. I just checked, as you asked me to, and wiki's definition is: "a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." Denef is discussing information originally presented elsewhere, in the Vafa reference. I ask you again - are you ever going to make a positive contribution? Waleswatcher (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked for an example of an experiment for which we predict a different outcome now that we have string theory than before we had string theory. You say the experiment is, go look for a force weaker than gravity, and that before string theory the outcome we predicted was who knows, you might find one, and now it is you will not? Whatever you claim your background is, you must not be an experimentalist. go look for a force weaker than gravity is not an experiment. and you might find one is not a prediction for an outcome of an experiment. Here's an example of a falsifiable prediction for an experimental result that I know you are familiar with. The experiment is point a suitable telescope towards point Y near the edge of the boundary of the sun and look for star X which is currently behind the sun. The novel prediction of GR which would not have been made before it is you will find the star. The previous prediction would have been you will not see the star.

I was getting really excited to find out what the experiment was going to be for string theory. It's disappointing that it doesn't seem like we can come up with one right now.Wpegden (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

before string theory the outcome we predicted was who knows, you might find one, and now it is you will not?" Yes, that's correct. That's a quintessential example of a falsifiable prediction. It's precisely how Popper defined scientific theories - as theories that forbid certain observations, and hence are falsifiable. That's why it's in the sentence about falsifiable predictions. (Your example is one where two theories make conflicting predictions, which is the ideal case since one gets falsified no matter what the result is.) The next sections are about verifiable or unique predictions (not a well-defined concept, but never mind for now). As the article says, to be convincing you need something like that, not just failing to falsify the theory.

Normally I'd be surprised that we're still having this conversation - how many times have I gone over this with you? - but I guess I'm getting used to it. Do you have any remaining objections to this... sentence? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you not to deliberately misrepresent what I wrote? I did not disagree that the "5th force" example you gave is falsifiable. I disagreed that it is a prediction that is different from what we would have made before string theory (and, thus, I questioned how much the sentence added to the paragraph). If you can set up any specific experiment which was intended to test for a mysterious 5th force weaker than gravity (we seem to be discounting for the moment that many physicists believe such a force does exist, but whatever, I don't care) and asked a string theorist and a non-string theorist (or pre-string-theorist) to make predictions for the outcome of the experiment, both would predict the same outcome.

By the way, this doesn't represent the 'ideal case' because I only require the string theory prediction to be falsifiable, not the non-string theory prediction. Does that make sense to you? (In fact I would be happy with a case where the string theorist makes a falsifiable prediction for the outcome of an experiment for which a physicist before string theory would have no idea what to expect. We don't seem anywhere close to this either, unfortunately.)

If we can come up with an example of an falsifiable prediction for the outcome of an experiment we believe could be performed in the next few decades where a string-theorist and non-string-theorist would give different predictions, it would be a great addition to the article. I guess the fact it's not already in the article should have tipped me off that no one has any such examples.Wpegden (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good - you agree that's a falsifiable prediction, so you agree the sentence is correct. As for that being a prediction made "before" string theory, that's simply not true as far as I know. If you want to insist on it the burden of proof is squarely on you to find a source that says so. But that would be rather pointless for two reasons: (1) you won't find it because it doesn't exist, and (2) even if I'm wrong and you did it wouldn't much alter either the relevance or the factual accuracy of the sentence at issue. But be my guest. I don't know what you mean that many physicists think there is such a force - but if they do, the testability of string theory is really in very good shape, because (these sources claim) it makes a sharp prediction and it would then be in direct conflict with evidence, which is pretty much exactly what you're hoping for.

Misc quote discussion

You're simply trying to create more and more work for me. I've already given you the quotes, you can move/copy them yourself into your sections. There is no justification for ignoring the Denef source, which is a published source by wiki's standards, and from an expert in the field (was a professor at Harvard for 6 years or so, and was and is an active researcher in the field). Waleswatcher (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to move/copy them for you if you tell me which sources they are from. Being able to provide quotes to verify sources for other editors is a necessary part of providing citations for sentences.Wpegden (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"This source failed verification"?? Are you kidding me? It's been up on the page for exactly how long, wpegden? Declaring that and removing the source (after a few hours) is totally unreasonable. In fact it might be regarded as vandalism. Not only that, that source is described by TWO OTHER SOURCES, quoted on the talk page at YOUR request, as saying precisely that. Reverted. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. I interpreted your statement "Find a quote yourself, or move it, I don't care" to mean that you thought the source could be removed instead of finding a quote. My mistake! Wpegden (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)