Is string theory still considered to be at the "cutting edge" of science?

@tomr,

As recently as 2010, Greene published a book entitled "The Hidden Reality--Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos." He doesn't seem shy about glibly using words like "reality" and phrases like "laws of the cosmos." Sounds very authoritative, eh? According to the book's promotion:

Quote:

string theory opened up a new can of worms, hinting at the possible existence of multiple universes and other strange entities. The possibility of other universes existing alongside our own like holes in “a gigantic block of Swiss cheese” seems more likely every day.

http://www.briangreene.org/?page_id=26

More likely "every day," eh?

As noted above, he now says: "My own research has migrated from highly mathematical forays into extra-dimensional arcana to more applied studies of string theory’s cosmological insights..."

Good for him. Math aint physics.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Unfortunately, String Theory can't be tested, proven or demonstrated and thereby insulates itself from the rigor of the scientific process which has made science so valuable.

This is not entirely true.

There is one possible way in which string theory can be tested. It goes like this:

If strings make up the fundamental aspect of particles then if we can isolate a string and manipulate it by changing it's vibration we should get it to change it's properties.

For example if a certain string makes up a certain quark. If we can isolate that string and change it's frequency that quark might transform into a different kind of quark (another we are familiar with)

If we can do this then it proves string theory is correct.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

If we can isolate that string...

Heh, big-ass IF, Krumps. It's been said that we would need to build a particle accelerator as big as the galaxy in order to have a chance at "seeing" (which doesn't include "isolating" and then "manipulating") a string.

Like the man said: "String Theory can't be tested, proven or demonstrated...."

Or, as nobel prize winner Sheldon Glashow (quoted above) put it:

Quote:

...there ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?

0 Replies

What disturbs me most about all of this--and it's not just particle physics, astrophysicists do the same--it the mere existence of a mentality that begins theorizing by postulating things that, by the very hypothesis, can't be detected.

How is that mentality the least bit different than theology? How can that be the starting point of scientific theorizing? There is absolutely no empirical basis for it, and no discipline or limitation whatsoever to constrain it.

How can anybody think that's "science?" Even assuming that you, personally, thought these multiverses, undetectable strings, undetectable dark matter, etc., were quite possible, how could you justify incorporating those beliefs into a supposedly "scientific" (as opposed to a mystical or metaphysical) "theory?" Many scientists have bona fide religious convictions, but they don't use those beliefs as a means of "scientific" explanation.

I wouldn't put any more faith in that type of so-called "physicist" than I would a voodoo witch doctor.

To criticize non-atheists for not "believing" in that type of "science" strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. Which actually take more blind faith, and more indulgence of personal, subjective desires? Hard to say, isn't it?

1 Reply

@layman,

amen, bro

0 Replies

According to this study (submitted January, 2013) it ain't just string theory that is questioned among physicists. Basic issues of quantum mechanics still generate controversy.

Quote:

Foundational investigations in quantum mechanics, both experimental and theoretical, gave birth to the field of quantum information science. Nevertheless, the foundations of quantum mechanics themselves remain hotly debated in the scientific community, and no consensus on essential questions has been reached.

A sample question (with authors' comments)

Quote:

Question 9: What interpretation of quantum states do you prefer?
a. Epistemic/informational: 27%
b. Ontic: 24%
c. A mix of epistemic and ontic: 33%
d. Other: 12%

In light of the fact that epistemic and ontic interpretations constitute such radically different viewpoints, it is interesting to observe a virtual draw between these two interpretations....Our results show a great diversity of opinion, transcending the traditional lines of Bohr-versus-Einstein, nonrealist-versus-realist, and epistemic-versus-ontic.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069v1

1 Reply

@layman,

My two bits worth: The "ontic" interpretation really bites the big one.

For a more authoritative view, one might look to Steven Weinberg who is reportedly "considered by many to be the preeminent theoretical physicist alive in the world today," who recently said:

Quote:

“My own conclusion (not universally shared) is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws, and that we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is merely a good approximation”.

1 Reply

@layman,

String theory.
You talking guitar?

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

You talking guitar?

Heh, Osso, that would be more interesting, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

To me for sure. I'm dumb on that too, but I like the sounds, long time.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

You are not dumb. The irony here is that part of any explanatory claim for string theory rests on analogy with resonance as in stringed instruments. Testability is only one aspect of theory investigation, albeit a necessary one. Others include comprehensibility which often involves exploiting potential analogy with familiar systems. In philosophy of science this is called "exploring neutral analogy".

0 Replies

Quote:

The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics...[which] implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real...

In lay terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes. The theory is also referred to as MWI...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

You don't say. So what about this "theory?"

Quote:

MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation...

Mainstream? God help us. Why, I wonder, was this "theory" concocted? Well, says here:

Quote:

Since the role of the observer lies at the heart of most if not all "quantum paradoxes," this automatically resolves a number of problems; see for example Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, the EPR paradox, von Neumann's "boundary problem" and even wave-particle duality. Quantum cosmology also becomes intelligible, since there is no need anymore for an observer outside of the universe.

I get it now--yet another "epicycle" cooked up to "save the theory." What else is new?

1 Reply

@layman,

A little bit of experimental research experience might have gone some way to deflating your "lay" kibbitzing.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

experimental research

Yeah, that's the ticket! "Experimental research," sho nuff. How do I conduct an "experiment" which "researches" an infinite number of alternate universes? I know! I just move over to another universe for a spell, that it?

To once again quote the long-time string theory champion, Brian Greene (cited above):

Quote:

The dream of extracting unique predictions from string theory rapidly faded.

Susskind was arguing that if the mathematics does not identify one particular shape as the right one for the extra dimensions, perhaps there isn’t a single right shape...Our universe would then be just one of a vast collection, each with detailed features determined by the shape of their extra dimensions...

With or without string theory, the multiverse is a highly controversial schema, and deservedly so. It not only recasts the landscape of reality, but shifts the scientific goal posts....Most physicists, string theorists among them, agree that the multiverse is an option of last resort

But it solves the problem created by adhering to math which generates an infinite number of solutions. Can't he see that? If it can do that, who the hell cares about "recasting the landscape of reality" or "shifting the scientific goal posts?"

Minor concerns when compared to abandoning a theory to which vast resources have been committed over the last 30 years, ain't they?

1 Reply

@layman,

Theory generation starts with thought experiments about unexplained data. Testing of theories is an essential next step. But quite often the means for testing is not available, or not clear at the time of theory formulation. Every scientist is aware of those limitations. For a good example, look how long it took to test for evidence of "the Higgs Boson". And quite often a mathematical model underpinning the structure of a theory can pre-date the testing of that theory by centuries !

Theories are not about "truth" in any absolute sense. Accepted theories are stages of operational functionality in what we call "scientific progress".

3 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

...operational functionality...

Do tell.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Testing of theories is an essential next step. But quite often the means for testing is not available, or not clear at the time of theory formulation

Yeah, what happens when such testing is, by the very nature of the "theory," inherently impossible?

Let me repeat a quote (also cited above) from nobel-prize winning physicist Sheldon Glashow when referring to the "testability" of string theory--present or future:

Quote:

...there ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?

Sheldon, that's physics. Or so some say.

0 Replies

Quote:

Peter Woit (born September 11, 1957) is an American theoretical physicist. He is a Senior Lecturer in the Mathematics department at Columbia University. Woit graduated in 1979 from Harvard University with bachelor's and master's degrees in physics. He obtained his PhD in particle theory from Princeton University in 1985, followed by postdoctoral work in theoretical physics at State University of New York at Stony Brook and mathematics at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) in Berkeley. He spent four years as an assistant professor at Columbia. He now holds a permanent position in the mathematics department, as Senior Lecturer and as Departmental Computer Administrator.

Woit says:

Quote:

String theory not only makes no predictions about physical phenomena at experimentally accessible energies, it makes no precise predictions whatsoever

.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/is-string-theory-even-wrong/3

Well, then, so much the worse for any philosophy of science which puts any value on the ability to predict when it comes to evaluating what makes something a "scientific theory" as opposed to "mystical enlightenment," eh?

The string theory adherents are right: We need a brand new "philosophy of science."

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

@fresco,

Quote:
...operational functionality...

Do tell.

Well, Fresco, are ya gunna tell, or did those words just "sound good" when you applied them to multi-verse theories?

0 Replies

@layman,

As I said. You are doing well in the cutting and pasting class.

Your problem stems from your obsession with Einstein and his "thought experiments" which eventually led him to world acclaim and the Nobel Prize.
This obsession, having run out of steam on the original thread, is now being promoted virally by you the layman in order to exercise your disdain for all thought experiments. I might agree with your "authorities" about the status of some contemporary theories, but I doubt whether you have the philosophical wherewithall to understand the process of scientific modelling.

2 Replies

Is string theory still considered to be at the "cutting edge" of science?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know