| Torillian said: @Soleron Ahhh....so this is the device meant to help prove string theory that I flippantly heard about on the Daily Show. I wanted to read up on it, but I didn't hear what the guy said. If they can prove string theory in a physical experiment and not just as a mathematical solution that would be amazing. |
The problem with string theory is that it "works". That is, it can be made to fit with every experiment done so far. To prove it and make it a scientific theory, it must make predictions about things we don't know. Then, when we use things like the collider to get new evidence, the predictions can be compared with the real evidence and we can see whether the theory is scientifically sound as opposed to just a good model.
@bardicverse: Creationism is not a scientific theory because, per above, it doesn't make any testable predictions - it can be added on to to fit with all current evidence. The Big Bang did make predictions, primarily the cosmic microwave radiation background, observations of galaxies and the proportions of elements in the universe.
Since the Big Bang is the best scientific theory we have, we must therefore design experiments that assume its existence. If it turns out none of our current models work because the Big Bang is false, that is also valuable data. The Big Bang theory has been useful to come up with new science even if it isn't true. Creationism is not a theory that would allow us to create new science by accepting us - in fact it is a dead end that says, "Accept this and do not experiment any more because it was all part of God's plan."
