Is string theory really science?

[kochanskij]

Thank you to all who posted an opinion about string theory. I am not saying that it is "wrong". I'm just saying that it is far from being proven correct.

In religion, one assumes that the Bible is true. If an observation is in conflict with it, we must figure out why the observation is wrong or our interpretation of it is wrong.
In String Theory, some scientists seem to assume the theory is true. If an observation is in conflict with it (like space having only 3 dimensions), they figure out why the observation is wrong (compactified dimensions or membranes).
If String Theory does not predict which of the 10^500 topologies extra dimensions should take, they assume there is an unseen universe for each one of them (landscape).
I think String Theory is sometimes being treated too much like the Bible, in that some people assume every word of it is true, no matter what observation shows.

We scientists understand the scientific process and the status of strings, but the general public does not. Popular writers like Brian Greene and Kaku should not say that string theory and its predictions are facts. They usually put string theory at the same level of confidence as relativity or quantum mechanics. These theories have been confirmed by thousands of experiments but string theory has been confirmed by none.

 

[juanrga]

Thank you to all who posted an opinion about string theory. I am not saying that it is "wrong". I'm just saying that it is far from being proven correct.

In religion, one assumes that the Bible is true. If an observation is in conflict with it, we must figure out why the observation is wrong or our interpretation of it is wrong.
In String Theory, some scientists seem to assume the theory is true. If an observation is in conflict with it (like space having only 3 dimensions), they figure out why the observation is wrong (compactified dimensions or membranes).
If String Theory does not predict which of the 10^500 topologies extra dimensions should take, they assume there is an unseen universe for each one of them (landscape).
I think String Theory is sometimes being treated too much like the Bible, in that some people assume every word of it is true, no matter what observation shows.

We scientists understand the scientific process and the status of strings, but the general public does not. Popular writers like Brian Greene and Kaku should not say that string theory and its predictions are facts. They usually put string theory at the same level of confidence as relativity or quantum mechanics. These theories have been confirmed by thousands of experiments but string theory has been confirmed by none.

Popular books denouncing the dishonesty of some string theorists have been published and gained attention in the media up to a point that today many laymen are sceptics about the real status of string theory (nonsense)

The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law

 

[suchal]

the string theory(means equation) clearly says that there must be 11 dimensions for string to move to make the system run. The equation is derived from approved physics equations and those are accepted by all physicists, then why some does not believe in string theory. if it is about that it can not be explained through experiments than the answer is that now the physics has reached such an extent that our power, energy, logic, vision and resources are too small to small, whereas we are too big to do experiment with strings.

 

[griswold]

What do you think of this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051

There is interview with Dr James Gates, a string theory scientists, he says (or he and other scientists from his area) that computer code (one used in error correcting in computer science) - "Doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code," first invented by Claude Shannon in the 1940's, has been discovered embedded WITHIN the equations of superstring theory

So this is like food for thought for all those who support idea that our universe is simulation :)

 

[RoshanBBQ]

the string theory(means equation) clearly says that there must be 11 dimensions for string to move to make the system run. The equation is derived from approved physics equations and those are accepted by all physicists, then why some does not believe in string theory. if it is about that it can not be explained through experiments than the answer is that now the physics has reached such an extent that our power, energy, logic, vision and resources are too small to small, whereas we are too big to do experiment with strings.

I was watching http://www.amnh.org/news/tag/isaac-asimov-memorial-debate/ and Brian Greene said something along the lines of "I do not believe in string theory. I think it might be our best bet so far, and I'm enthusiastic about it."

You have to remember that belief in science comes from observation. A lack of observation does not mean it's not science, however. It just means you should not believe it. Science, in part (a large part), is the search for observations -- it isn't only a statement about what should currently be believed. So of course string theory is science.