Is String Theory Real Science or Just Speculation?

[ideasrule]

Since Evo allowed discussion of the term "theory", I'll take a risk here and talk mainly about evolution.

I'm not puzzled that creationists keep repeating the same, stupid arguments, like saying "evolution is just a theory" while having no idea what a theory is. For people who refuse to accept reality, ignorance is not surprising.

What I am surprised by is scientists' willingness to say that they're not 100% certain the theory of evolution or the big bang theory is true. If someone asks a scientist, "Are you 100% certain you gave me the right address?", you'd hardly expect him to reply, "Well, nothing's known for sure; we could live in the Matrix, or God could have manipulated the atoms in my brain so that I remembered the wrong address." Anybody who makes that reply would be immediately called a smartass. So why do scientists, when talking about theories supported by many decades or centuries of evidence and not just the memory of a single person, say nothing is known for certain?

I'd ask everybody here to stop this. When we tell others how sure we are that evolution is real, we should firmly say that there we are absolutely, 100% certain. Saying something like "oh, but we can't PROVE that god didn't temper with the evidence" is not called being honest; it's called being misleading and being a smartass.

 

[Evo]

I'd ask everybody here to stop this. When we tell others how sure we are that evolution is real, we should firmly say that there we are absolutely, 100% certain. Saying something like "oh, but we can't PROVE that god didn't temper with the evidence" is not called being honest; it's called being misleading and being a smartass.

If we had enough evidence to say anything with such certainty, it would no longer be called a theory, it would be a law.

 

[humanino]

I'd ask everybody here to stop this.

The problem is with people not understanding even basic statistics although it is useful even in daily life.

 

[Anticitizen]

There is one prediction that I know of - it predicts a certain value for the highest possible temperature achievable, which I believe is quite a bit higher than the Planck temperature. I don't think there's much chance of testing it, but if we develop a method and achieve a temperature higher than the Planck temperature, then it would go some ways into supporting it (but not proving it, unless the max temperature ceiling we hit is exactly in line with string theory predictions, and even then it would only verify part of the theory).

 

[humanino]

it predicts a certain value for the highest possible temperature achievable

It looks quite suspicious as such. If you could be more specific, maybe ?

 

[Superstring]

What if supersymmetry is discovered? That would be a good case for string theory being more than philosophy.

 

[russ_watters]

Since Evo allowed discussion of the term "theory", I'll take a risk here and talk mainly about evolution.

I'm not puzzled that creationists keep repeating the same, stupid arguments, like saying "evolution is just a theory" while having no idea what a theory is. For people who refuse to accept reality, ignorance is not surprising.

What I am surprised by is scientists' willingness to say that they're not 100% certain the theory of evolution or the big bang theory is true. If someone asks a scientist, "Are you 100% certain you gave me the right address?", you'd hardly expect him to reply, "Well, nothing's known for sure; we could live in the Matrix, or God could have manipulated the atoms in my brain so that I remembered the wrong address." Anybody who makes that reply would be immediately called a smartass. So why do scientists, when talking about theories supported by many decades or centuries of evidence and not just the memory of a single person, say nothing is known for certain?

I'd ask everybody here to stop this. When we tell others how sure we are that evolution is real, we should firmly say that there we are absolutely, 100% certain. Saying something like "oh, but we can't PROVE that god didn't temper with the evidence" is not called being honest; it's called being misleading and being a smartass. [emphasis added]

It is precisely because most crackpots live entirely within those error margins that scientists need to properly frame them. If scientists don't insist on such precision, crackpots will nail them for it and the general public who can't tell the difference will be swayed even further toward the crackpot side. Yeah, it's a double standard that being right once is all a crackpot needs, while a scientist must be right all the time - but it is one that scientists need to accept to win that fight.

 

[humanino]

What if supersymmetry is discovered?

Supersymmetry already has been found in nuclei for instance, so you need to specify that you refer to supersymmetry at a fundamental level, like a supersymmetric version of the standard model of particle physics. On the other hand, string theories only need supersymmetry on the worldsheet, not necessarily in the target space, so our spacetime might not be supersymmetric in string theories. It's not that simple unfortunately.

 

[junglebeast]

Some people on this thread have claimed that string theory is not a theory because it makes no predictions. I would like to point out that falsity of that argument...and I can do so without needing to know any details in the theory.

Simply knowing that string theory is a mathematical model which has equations that are not equivalent to the standard model or GR is sufficient to see the truth in this -- if the mathematics are not equivalent (ie, they cannot be rearranged to be identical to the standard model or GR) then that means there are two equations for the same thing which produce a different number for the output given the same input.

This is a difference in prediction, even if it is something subtle such as a slightly different result for the amount of energy produced during some chemical reaction, rather than some profound insight.

The problem is not that the theory does not make predictions, but that we currently lack the technology necessary to run the experiments necessary to run the distinguishing experiments. Again, it does not require any knowledge of string theory to assert this last statement -- it is evident from the fact that string theory has not been wholly accepted by the experts in that field that they have not been able to perform the defining experiments yet, otherwise it would have been accepted or rejected already.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If we had enough evidence to say anything with such certainty, it would no longer be called a theory, it would be a law.

Like Hooke's Law. There is no convention to the naming convention.

 

[vanesch]

If someone asks a scientist, "Are you 100% certain you gave me the right address?", you'd hardly expect him to reply, "Well, nothing's known for sure; we could live in the Matrix, or God could have manipulated the atoms in my brain so that I remembered the wrong address." Anybody who makes that reply would be immediately called a smartass.

Nevertheless, that is the answer you almost all the time get from me in real life, if you ask if I'm 100% certain. It made my thesis adviser go crazy, when I said such things in front of a serious audience and some or other person asked me "yes, but are you 100% SURE about that ?" ("Don't mind, Patrick's being philosophical here..." he said then )

(see my signature )

 

[vanesch]

Some people on this thread have claimed that string theory is not a theory because it makes no predictions. I would like to point out that falsity of that argument...and I can do so without needing to know any details in the theory.

Simply knowing that string theory is a mathematical model which has equations that are not equivalent to the standard model or GR is sufficient to see the truth in this -- if the mathematics are not equivalent (ie, they cannot be rearranged to be identical to the standard model or GR) then that means there are two equations for the same thing which produce a different number for the output given the same input.

This is a difference in prediction, even if it is something subtle such as a slightly different result for the amount of energy produced during some chemical reaction, rather than some profound insight.

The problem is not that the theory does not make predictions, but that we currently lack the technology necessary to run the experiments necessary to run the distinguishing experiments. Again, it does not require any knowledge of string theory to assert this last statement -- it is evident from the fact that string theory has not been wholly accepted by the experts in that field that they have not been able to perform the defining experiments yet, otherwise it would have been accepted or rejected already.

As far as I understood, the problem with string theory (but I don't follow those things since a few years anymore) was/is that it can make any predictions you like, depending on how you tweak it, and that even in that case, it is not really known how to get them out, those predictions. Maybe things changed in the mean time.

 

[Focus]

Some people on this thread have claimed that string theory is not a theory because it makes no predictions. I would like to point out that falsity of that argument...and I can do so without needing to know any details in the theory.

Simply knowing that string theory is a mathematical model...

Theory in mathematics refers to a collection of thoughs, such as Galois theory, probability theory and catastrophe theory. It is perfectly just calling string theory a theory because it too is a collection of thoughts.

 

[Anticitizen]

It looks quite suspicious as such. If you could be more specific, maybe ?

Sorry, I don't know the math. That is something I read in a NOVA article about the theoretical highest temperatures allowed in different schools of physics, here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html

After rereading it, seems I had it backwards: string theory predicts a highest temperature several orders of magnitude lower than the Planck temperature, not higher. So maybe testing it wouldn't be out of the question for too long.

 

[humanino]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html

Thanks for the clarification. Honestly it is not a very good article.

wikipedia states that the Hagedorn temperature should not be interpreted as a highest possible temperature, but as a temperature where a phase transition occurs. As far as I can tell, this is the most traditional interpretation. Hagedorn himself held this (correct) view about hadronic reactions (which would later become QCD). In the general case, it is not strictly impossible that a maximal temperature occurs but this is a rather unconventional point of view. One must admit that the situation is far from clear in string theory, and much has been and is still speculated about the Hagedorn temperature. In fact, one may also insist in describing the physics beyond the phase transition in the language before the phase transition and interpret the same physical phenomenon by claiming that the temperature can not increase anymore, although only because one would fail to introduce new appropriate degrees of freedom.

I do not feel qualified to discuss such technical issues. Thanks again for the clarification.

 

[junglebeast]

I just discovered a TED talk video on string theory which I think would benefit everyone following this discussion.

It presents in a clearly understandable way

* why string theory exists
* what it means in terms of representation of the universe
* graphical models of what the universe may "look like" at a small scale in terms of strings
* specifically, how it can be tested and verified

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdE662eY_M&feature=channel

 

[robheus]

Theory in mathematics refers to a collection of thoughs, such as Galois theory, probability theory and catastrophe theory. It is perfectly just calling string theory a theory because it too is a collection of thoughts.

Yeah, but not every collection of thoughts can be called "scientific".

 

[robheus]

An argument against why string theory is not (yet) a scientific theory is that for a scientific theory you need a unique formulation of the theory, and the theory need to be able to be experimentally verifiable at least in principle.
As of yet, string theory is unconfirmed and also there is not (yet) a unique formulation of the theory.
Instead of a theory I would call string theory a mathematical framework in which maybe the right unique formulation of the theory will come up, which makes definite predictions than can be tested for.

 

[Pythagorean]

ID is not science. It's more of an unobservable interpretation of observations.

I was under the impression that String Theory IS science. It is a (possibly) observable interpretation of observations (That doesn't automatically make it correct, mind you).

String theory does not make a completely unfalsifiable claim. The theory (greatly simplified) is that particles are made of more fundamental "particles" called strings. I'm not sure how you could judge whether it was possible to verify this without verification itself. I'd also thought that CERN had some experiments that (at the least) could be either suggestive or damning for string theory.

If proper theory and experimenting are taking place by people genuinely interested in the answer (rather than people assuming a conclusion and trying desperately to prove it) than it is science, isn't it?

 

[WaveJumper]

It seems there is a party among the string theorists - first near explained phenomenon:

http://www.physorg.com/news166097923.html

 

[z0rn dawg]

If we had enough evidence to say anything with such certainty, it would no longer be called a theory, it would be a law.

Many times "theory" and "law" mean the same thing in science. This is coming straight from a man who has a PhD. in a natural science (I believe bio). So, uncertainty has nothing to do with calling something a theory or law.

String theory, unfortunately, hasn't been 100% proven. I think it was Hawking who described what a good scientific theory is, but one of the major components is the ability to make a prediction and that prediction coming true. String theory predicts that under certain conditions (in a particle accelerator) a graviton should exist. To my knowledge, they haven't found one yet. So, I guess believing that string theory is true despite 100% scientific proof could make it a religion. Or at least some sort of philosophy, which is what religion kind of is anyway.

There's a difference between ID and ST. I don't know how to describe that difference, but it's there. Math backs up ST, whereas no math I've seen backs up ID. There are definitely other reasons that I'm not smart enough to think about right now, but this one stands out.

 

[tauon]

the correct way to view this is that string theory is a scientific hypothesis.
comparing string theory with religion is rather ludicrous.

what separates a scientific theory from a hypothesis is that a theory is backed up by experimental evidence.
string theory has yet to make any concrete new predictions compared to the current scientific theories (the standard model and general relativity), and the correlative predictions that it does seem to make are for now experimentally unverifiable due to technological limitations.

furthermore, the mathematics of string theory seem to have certain practical applications with condensed matter physics: it seems to be an adequate mathematical model for explaining [high-temperature] superconductivity.

 

[JoeDawg]

While some fans of string theory may be commited to it, beyond what is strictly justified... which is where I think the religion accusations come from, Intelligent design is little more than an intutition supported by highly superficial evidence.

 

[SixNein]

String theory is a mathematical model... a theory based on mathematics.
Relativity is a mathematical model... a theory based on mathematics supported by empirical evidence.
Intelligent design is less a theory, than an unsupported hypothesis. Its basically an argument from ignorance... which many would call a logical fallacy.

Theories usually offer an explanation within a larger framework, either empirical or logical.
Without getting too bogged down in semantics and inappropriate word usage. I would say that Einsteins theory of gravity, which involves an coherent explanation (curvature of spacetime) as well as mathematical model, supported by empirical evidence, is a good example of what a scientific theory can be. Some theories are more useful, than others obviously.

Although I accept evolution, I could create a simple mathematical argument for intelligent design.
If anyone worked to create mathematical support for intelligent design, would it really matter? If it does not matter for intelligent design, then why does it matter for string theory?

I think science and religion share some qualities because they require the belief of accuracy, and they have a deep fundamental desire to recruit nonbelievers.

 

[Kurdt]

Although I accept evolution, I could create a simple mathematical argument for intelligent design.

If anyone worked to create mathematical support for intelligent design, would it really matter? If it does not matter for intelligent design, then why does it matter for string theory?

I think science and religion share some qualities because they require the belief of accuracy, and they have a deep fundamental desire to recruit nonbelievers.

Why don't you create that simple theory and post it here for review.

 

[D H]

Although I accept evolution, I could create a simple mathematical argument for intelligent design. The foundations of my argument would be based up an ontological proof by Kurt Godel.

That isn't science. It's philosophy. Science does not prove things quite the way mathematicians and philosophers do. A scientific theory has to be logically sound and it is to conform with reality. Mathematicians and philosophers can create sets of axioms that might or might not have a thing to do with reality and see where those axioms lead. They'll follow this trail as long as the new theory continues to yield interesting results, hard but soluble problems, and no inconsistencies pop up. That this theory ("theory" in mathematics means a consistent body of knowledge) is contradicted by reality: So what?

Suppose some experimentalist comes up with a test that conclusively shows there are no curled up dimensions. The results are confirmed multiple times. Physicists will have to place string theory in the trashbin of falsified theories. Mathematicians may well continue working in this area because it has opened up some very interesting avenues of research. That it is contradicted by reality: So what?

 

[Evo]

Thread closed. It has been sufficiently explained, repeatedly, why string theory is acceptable science.