Read jeff's post.whydoyouwanttoknow said:So, um, the answer is that it's not a theory?
jeff is our unofficial string-spokesman here at PF
he says it is a "Research Program", as opposed to a theory
he indicates he believes, for various reasons, that it is a very promising program
String may in time become a well-developed scientific theory and
make unequivocal predictions of definite numbers that can be tested
In which case it will be possible to prove wrong.
the criterion of a scientific theory is that it bets its life on predicting
the outcome of future measurements
(if it can accomodate any future measurement it has no meaning as science----it is more of a daydream or a poem)
So when String becomes clear enough and definite enough that it could be shot down or refuted by some empirical observation it will be a scientific theory and it will be running the daily risk that this entails.
General Relativity was published in 1915 and by 1919 there was the first test, which could have invalidated it but didnt, and it continues to be testedeven today with things like Gravity Probe B satellite, and it could be found to be off by even a little----in the sixth decimal place, like----at any time but it hasnt yet. That is a theory.