A discussion in another thread started the rusty old gears in my head turning about this topic.  Specificaly the concept of String Theory, and the glaring lack of any faslifiable evidence for it.  The book "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit was mentioned and I found the preface to that book on-line and read it.  I have not read the book in its entirety, nor do I have much of a grip on string theory, brane theory, or any other cosmological concepts -- heck, this old stargazer doesn't understand the Big Bang all that well.  But, Woit's assertion that many string theorists are willing to change the ground rules for scientific thought (evidence, or falsifiability not needed; the idea is good enough) is very disturbing to me.  I thought I'd throw this out here on the Cosmology forum to see what folks think while I do my own research (now I gotta go buy another book or three . . .) .

The answer is easy taken at face value, but more difficult given the context in which you present it.

It's still scientific to engage in conjecture if you go about it methodically and at least some of the supporting tenets are falsifiable.

I don't think it's the method that String Theory critics object to as much as it is the label: it is NOT theory, by the strict scientific definition.

A disturbing development is the misuse of terminology. The more the label theory is (mis)applied in the sense of idea, rather than as a falsifiable scientific theorem, the weaker the stricter meaning becomes. Soon you have first the non-scientists confusing the two, then even working scientists and mathematicians doing so. Before long, you have what we currently have: Working scientists discussing what is essentially the mathematical underpinnings of a thought experiment becoming the fodder of Discovery Channel documentaries and trade-press popularizations masquerading as a true theory.

Confusing, and sad.

Woit's point seems to be that many physicists working on strings and superstrings are actively encouraging the breakdown of the difference between what constitutes a true theory and the thought experiments you mentioned.  If that is the case then the difference between science and belief would be getting very blurry. 

I want to make it very clear that when I mention belief I am not talking about religon, but about any idea, or set of convictions based on criteria other than data and evidence.  The greatest strength of the scientific method is that it has always realized that humans are creatures who have beliefs, and its rigors have forced scientists to work beyond their personal beliefs to deliver evidence.  As Woit points out, string theory (oops there's that word again, how easy it slips out) has gone more than 3 decades without producing any falsifiable predictions, or any observations.  Are we beating a dead horse?

zachsdad:

Are we beating a dead horse?

No, its a valid question as our society seems to be blurring the lines of philosophy, mathematics, and science much more easily these days and terminology has become less precise in a world where language itself is becoming dominated by abbreviations and acronyms.

One of the problems with "String Theory" research and other cosmological ideas is that they seem to be dominated by a mathematical approach rather than an observational one.  Mathematical proofs are based on deductive means from hypotheses to theorem while science proceeds from hypothesis to theory by empirical means.  A math problem is solved when the equation is balanced or, if you will, the numbers come out right.  There is no need to confirm the investigation by observational study or experimentation to come to a conclusion that one's equations are correct.

If the three dimensions we know of, or even four if you will, will not allow one to make the numbers work than adding another dimension, or two, or three, or however many are needed to balance the equation that is perfectly acceptable.  As a great many physicists strive for the holy grail of a Unified Field Theory we can expect to see ever greater and complicated mathematical solutions to arise and be tested by deductive reasoning.

There certainly is nothing wrong with thought problems, or mathematical models either.  Both can and have led to important discoveries.  But as was mentioned there is a breakdown in terminology between the disciplines and even within each as the promoters of these particular ideas seek some sort of credibility.  It certainly is more "sexy" to label one's work as a theory and not a hypothesis.   

One cannot really expect the public to understand the nomeclature if the scientific community doesn't know or use it either.  Remember, some of us are old enough to remember when Science was the magic word to be conjured up when one is seeking credibility.  Anyone remember Social Science?  The word is still used in such a way today: wintness Scientology.

Where is all this going?  I certainly do not have a clue so I am going to retreat to my telescope and just enjoy the view of what I think I am looking at for as long as they will let me. 

L

There's theories, and then there's theorums. Maybe a better term for it would be the "String Hypothesis".

Yet it seems to me that this is the way most theories are developed... beginning first with a mathematical model that provides a possible answer to a problem. Modern science demands that experimentation should be used to validate a hypothesis. However Greek philosophers did not believe in experimentation, but used purely abstract reasoning to make their deductions, and that certainly got them a long way.

A great example of using elaborate mathematics to fit what is observed is the Ptolemaic model of the universe, which was geocentrism. Complex machines were built that demonstrated the movement of the planets and sun around Earth, that actually seemed to work. Yet despite the apparent success of these demonstrations, the model was later proven to be false!

The real problem with trying to verify the ideas of string "theory" is that our current technology is not capable of developing an experiment to validate it. In order to probe incredibly small things we need to use even smaller things. Or devise a way to shatter larger things and measure the effects of the smaller stuff coming out. There may be other ways too, but point is if it were technically feasable, it would have been done. In a sense this idea is ahead of its time.

Maybe string theory is ahead of its time but in my humble opinion I think its just wrong.   The beautiful idea of making everything out of vibrating strings is rally cool.  when you can derive some aspects of relativity its even cooler.  Then other versions give  you aspects of the standard particle model.  But when trying to find a way the strings vibrate to give you both at once...there is that infinite haystack to sift through.  The whole exercise is an effort to find a single needle that fits two theories that we know are incomplete.  When a theory can predict only that there are an infinitude of posibilities thats the equivenlent to dividing by zero.  absurdity.

I'm admittedly old school.  Theories should explain measurements that have already be made and/or should inspire experiments that produce new measurementws that confirm or disprove the theory.  negative results often provide more valuable information than positive results toward getting to the truth.  String theory has contributed nothing to this process.

It may be that some of the new string mathmatics will open up new avenues toward a unified theory.  My bet is that if found, it  wont look lmuch like vibrating strings.... but  who knows.

ph

ri

This is an interesting question.  Religion doesn't belong in the science classroom because it isn't testable.  While I believe the big bang suggests a supernatural agent brought the universe into existence, there is no scientific test to support this idea.  However, when I listen to lectures from Cal Tech, Stanford, etc teaching the multiverse and string theory in science courses I have to question why the double standard exists.  This same pattern was evident when I was in medical school, but I never heard any criticism from my classmates.         

I agree. While I do not object to the subject of string hypotheses being discussed in science classrooms, I do object to it being called theory. It is not falsifiable; ergo it is not theory ... it is conjecture.

There is, and should be, considerable room in science for conjecture. It should not be paraded about as anything else, however.

The rules are more lenient for popularizations, such as articles in Astronomy Magazine, Sky & Telescope, and the like. The rules are more strict for scientific journals. Even so, the label theory is routinely applied to string hypotheses and I think that's just plain wrong.

In terms of education the String hypothosis would make and excellent, real world, example of how the process works and why the checks and balances of testability and falsifiability (if that's even a word?) are so important.

But, in the real world, why are scientists treating String differently than other hypothisis?  Or are they?  Woit seems to believe that they are.

Oh, they definitely are. My idea about it (!) is that it's a seductive "new deal" for mathematicians and theoretical physicists.

Q: What to do when the SSC is canceled and the LHC is still in the planning stages?

A: Visit Fantasyland and come up with a spiffy new idea!

Q: OK, in what area?

A: How about Cosmology (no one ever tests you on that!)?

Q: Is grant money available?

A: Buckets of it, if the idea seems far out enough and requires boatloads of math to understand.

Maybe I'm just getting cynical.

But, even if it turns out to be The Way Things Work, how and when are we likely to know that and who on Earth can explain it in plain English? Granted, this is somewhat akin to the early reception that Einstein got with Relativity, isn't it? The difference is, his thought experiments actually made sense and were testable (he crawled way out on a limb with some of his predictions, but he made them and stuck by them).

At least with testable hypothises we can reap the benifits of the technological and engineering advancements required to do the testing.  It seems to me that the money being spent to fund the folks doing String "research" could be better utilized elsewhere.  And that's not a statement I make lightly.  I think most scientific research is has a terrific payback.

I don't know why I am even weighing in here, must be I am bored or something. I have absolutely no idea what String Theory is, and to tell the truth I don't want to know. But from your average Joe on the street (me) I must admit, from what I have read and seen, just about anyone can come up with something about our universe, how it began, where it is headed and how it will get there without much proof.

I've just read some articles in Astronomy about Bubble Universes, more than one out there. We don't even have all the evidence in on this one yet now someone says there are many more out there and they may bump into each other. LOL What a hoot.

Another article a while back stated the BBT is repeating over and over, never to end due to a layering of the universe. I know I may not have explained that one correctly, but my point is, how the heck do these people come up with this stuff.

I am just starting to come to grips on the BBT and understand what is entailed in all of this. At least it has some validity to it, but all this cosomlogical stuff, basically it puts me to sleep when trying to read it.   

Just my opinon guys.

 I am sadly ill-equipped to opine on String Theory, however I couldn't resist posting a link to the New Yorker cartoon that deals with the issue.

 Enjoy!

 http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?sitetype=1&sid=123525&did=4