Exposing the Fallacy of String Theory: A Critical Analysis

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of string theory and its origins. It is mentioned that string theory was developed as a result of the failure of the Standard Model to include gravity. The idea of vibrations and resonance was incorporated into string theory, but this was not an original concept as it had been previously used by Theosophy. The conversation also touches on the lack of empirical evidence for string theory and the potential for it to be just a philosophy rather than a complete theory. It is noted that string theory requires a large number of parameters, but it does have the ability to produce a graviton. Overall, the conversation questions the validity and potential of string theory as a scientific theory.
  • #1
pelastration
165
0
Debunking String Theory.

Why not starting to debunking the String dream?

String theory is the result of the failure the Standard Theory gave. The concept of atoms, electrons and other elementary particle being little balls of spheres failed. There was a need to change the approach.
Almost everyone knew that vibrations (and i.e. resonance) was essential. That approach was already used in the 1800's by people in (religious) Theosophy. Theosophists based there ideas on ancient Indian books.
So the idea of vibration was nothing original at all, it was just old wine in new sack.
And - myself - agree on that.

But String Theory pretends to be an "accident" ... and the real theory will only appear in 2050!.
Now that's great. What a statement!
Already today the Guru's know that the are right ... but they have not concept. It's like building a house without a architectural plan. And we see also that a number of these Guru's (sorry Lubos my friend) refer to God. Is string theory a scientific religion?

Another remarkable thing is that String Theory mixes an number of things. Can you imagine that gravitation is due to open strings ... which hang somewhere in the blue! Now if something should be (inter)connected that must be strings related to gravity.

So in String Theory there is a lot of hokus-pokus.

What's your idea?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Why not starting to debunking the String dream?

Probably because there aren't many here who understand anything about string theory beyond media popularizations.

Besides, there's nothing to debunk -- String theorists freely admit that there isn't any empircal evidence of the theory.


String theory is the result of the failure the Standard Theory gave.

I hate to go off on a tangent, but I don't understand this comment. The only failure of the Standard Model of which I'm aware is that it doesn't include gravity. It certainly doesn't treat elementary particles as little spheres.
 
  • #3
Hurkyl said:
Besides, there's nothing to debunk -- String theorists freely admit that there isn't any empircal evidence of the theory.
So ... shouldn't be String Theory in the Theory development Thread? :tongue2:
 
  • #4
This is a hot issue for some physicists. Technically, until ST can produce a testable hypothesis, it is a philosophy.
 
  • #5
  • #6
At least in my mind, the ability to make testable, quantifiable predictions is what sets apart a theory from a philosophy. A complete theory makes such predictions. String theory has that ability, it is merely incomplete.
 
  • #7
This is not what some argue. It is said that ST may never be testable. One such claim is made in the linked Nova program.
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking said:
This is not what some argue. It is said that ST may never be testable. One such claim is made in the linked Nova program.
Agreed, it may never mature to a complete theory. I am quite disturbed by the near-infinite number of possible solutions. It makes it look very ad hoc... Pick a number, any number, and I can come up with a formula that predicts it. Perhaps it will end up in the philosopical scrap pile some day. But for now, it still has enough popular support to retain the cloak of respectability.
 
  • #9
pelastration said:
String theory is the result of the failure the Standard Theory gave. The concept of atoms, electrons and other elementary particle being little balls of spheres failed

If you mean the Standard Model, it never used any such concept. The elementary particles in the SM are treated as dimensionless points. That may be an idealization, but it does not lead to any problems and was not the reason people went to strings.
 
  • #10
selfAdjoint said:
If you mean the Standard Model, it never used any such concept. The elementary particles in the SM are treated as dimensionless points. That may be an idealization, but it does not lead to any problems and was not the reason people went to strings.
Thanks for the comment. But SM put a number of elements by hand and that made scientists look for other models.
My essential critic on String Theory is that there is no concept behind. Cfr. the TV video. Remember that on SST I said - and Paultr agreed - that everything could be explained with only one string. And it is more easy to start from one string than starting from billions and billions of strings.
 
  • #11
pelastration said:
Thanks for the comment. But SM put a number of elements by hand and that made scientists look for other models.
My essential critic on String Theory is that there is no concept behind. Cfr. the TV video. Remember that on SST I said - and Paultr agreed - that everything could be explained with only one string. And it is more easy to start from one string than starting from billions and billions of strings.

I don't believe anybody's explanations of what string theory can explain; they all have a lot of unexpressed contingency in them: "We explain it all, given that we explain anything." Reminds me of the "Field Theory" in John Crowley's novella "In Blue", which perfectly postdicted every feature of the past but never could predict anything at all.

The in-by-hand of the Standard Model is its 19 parameters. Given the shape of the theory (which is NOT put in by hand) you have to specify 19 numbers to bring it down to individual cases. And yes, this is one reason for interest in string theory, which has no free parameters. The other reason is that it easily produces a graviton, which no previous quantum theory had successfully done.
 
  • #12
Chronos said:
Agreed, it may never mature to a complete theory. I am quite disturbed by the near-infinite number of possible solutions. It makes it look very ad hoc... Pick a number, any number, and I can come up with a formula that predicts it. Perhaps it will end up in the philosopical scrap pile some day. But for now, it still has enough popular support to retain the cloak of respectability.

As I understand some objections, this still misses the point. Even if ST is complete it may never be testable.

One other thought, there is a certain elegance to the notion that the last theory in physics may remain forever philosophical. In a way this wouldn't surprise me. After all, at the deepest level physics is a subject of philosophy.
 
  • #13
pelastration said:
So ... shouldn't be String Theory in the Theory development Thread? :tongue2:

It's enjoying a provisional science status. :smile:

I seem to recall hearing about some possible tests of ST. Maybe I can dig up that info again. :confused:
 
  • #14
I seem to recall hearing about some possible tests of ST. Maybe I can dig up that info again.
Isn't there some huge collider being built that may determine the existence of supersymmetry? Sorry, it's been a while since I read Greene.
 
  • #15
The LHC (Large Hadron Collider) is being built at CERN, which straddles the French-Swiss border. It is expected to be powerful enough to detect the Higgs particle, and perhaps see evidence for supersymmetry. Or it could rule out supersymmetry.
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking: I am actually the proud owner of The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It's quite an interesting philosphy.
 
  • #17
and a great show!
 
  • #18
Didn't Einstein say that an elegant theory should be understandable by a child? In this regard, string theory's arcaneness appears to border more on obfuscation than intelligibility.

The inability to be visualized or otherwise intuited much beyond its basic tenets of multidimensionality and duality reveals superstrings as part of a theory for elite theoreticians, not for the physicist in general.

The questions are begged as to who eventually will claim to know the true unified theory, what reviewer in turn will keep them honest, and how the theory itself will be tested universally.

(Kaku must have written about this.)

I must review "The Elegant Universe," though. Can one order it through PBS?
 
  • #19
String theory is probably right in its view that the smallest distance is 10^-34 metres.
I believe this because if one cubic metre of space is made from 10^102 cubes with dimension 10^-34 metre,then there can be 10^110 Joules per cubic metre if there is one particle of wavelength 10^-34 metres in each cube.This is close to one
quantum mechanical estimate of 10^114 Joules per cubic metre.
 
  • #20
Didn't Einstein say that an elegant theory should be understandable by a child? In this regard, string theory's arcaneness appears to border more on obfuscation than intelligibility.

Even if Einstein is correct, it still doesn't follow that the search for that theory must be so simple.
 
  • #21
Last edited:

1. What is string theory and why is it considered a fallacy?

String theory is a theoretical framework in physics that attempts to explain the fundamental nature of matter and energy. It proposes that the most basic building blocks of the universe are tiny, vibrating strings rather than point-like particles. However, it has faced criticism for not being testable or falsifiable, which goes against the scientific method.

2. How does string theory differ from other theories in physics?

Unlike other theories in physics, such as quantum mechanics and general relativity, string theory attempts to unify all the fundamental forces of nature into one framework. It also introduces extra dimensions beyond the three spatial dimensions we are familiar with.

3. What evidence supports or refutes string theory?

Currently, there is no direct experimental evidence to support or refute string theory. Some mathematical equations have been developed that are consistent with the theory, but they do not definitively prove its validity. On the other hand, the lack of testable predictions and the absence of empirical evidence have been used to criticize string theory.

4. How has the scientific community responded to string theory?

The scientific community has had mixed reactions to string theory. Some researchers have embraced it as a promising avenue for unifying physics, while others have expressed skepticism and criticism. Some have even argued that string theory is not science at all, as it cannot be tested and does not make falsifiable predictions.

5. Is there any potential for string theory to be proven or disproven in the future?

It is difficult to predict the future of string theory, as it is still a developing field of research. Some scientists believe that advancements in technology and experimental techniques may one day provide evidence for or against string theory. Others argue that it may never be possible to prove or disprove the theory, making it more of a philosophical or mathematical pursuit rather than a scientific one.

Similar threads

I Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Nicolai digs back into string theory-supergravity, E8, octonions
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
17
Views
5K
Dax discussions of Beyond SM theories/including newcomer questions
    • Beyond the Standard Models
5
Replies
174
Views
17K
I'm sorry, marcus, but strings continue to dominate high energy theory
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
Is Alan Turing given too much credit when it comes to computers?
    • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
29
Views
3K
It all began with an end - New theory on origin and future of the universe
    • Cosmology
Replies
10
Views
5K
Introduction To Loop Quantum Gravity
    • Beyond the Standard Models
9
Replies
311
Views
160K
String irrelevant to quantizing General Relativity (quantum spacetime geometry)
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
4K
Twoness: A Theory for the Basis of Order found in Ancient Wisdom
    • General Discussion
3
Replies
82
Views
9K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 266)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top