Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Possible test of String Theory (ST)

http://www.physorg.com/news88786651.html

Good explanation of the applied philosophy of science, as well.

I've no stake in the game so I don't care about the outcome. But I must confess a small smile will creep across my face if string theory is buried.

I'm still betting on a holographic projection created by a single fractal formula.

Because if history has taught us anything ... it is what I will call the Morgan variation on Occam's Razor.

Occam's said ... choose the simplest ... Morgan says choose the one that renders humans the least important.

So called "String Theory" is NOT a theory by any scientific criteria. It is at most a hypothesis and probably only a conjecture . The idiots in the popular press are the ones who dubbed it "Theory". Anyone who knows anything about scientific inquiry knows that it takes a long time and a lot of testing before even a hypothesis can be raised to the level of a theory. The "String Conjecture" as I like to call it has not had one test to date. Tests are in the works, however, there has yet to be any data other than mathematical reasoning to support it. Yes, it is good at predicting, and that is another test of a "Theory" but each prediction hangs on the successful completion of verifying tests of the hypothesis or conjecture.

I really dislike it when the popular press takes over the role of scientific inquiry. Every legitimate scientist should pound it into some people that this is not their role and, it is the duty of every legitimate scientist to correct each other on the proper labeling of an inquiry.

Hi ConstantWatching,

In some ways I must agree with you about string theory, but in others I just can't.

For the record let me say that I do not think that string theory is either right or wrong. I feel that the issue is more complex than that. I do believe that as a grand theory that it is premature. One might say "it is not ready for prime time".

You say: "So called "String Theory" is NOT a theory by any scientific criteria."

I just cannot agree with this. ST is a theory and not "just a theory." It is well motivated and if it seems to be weak, that is only because as we have learned many things over the last thirty years and the theory has had to adapt - as it must. For an explanation see the page:

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3a.html

(The other pages at this site are worth a read)

I have to, sort of, agree with you when you say: "The idiots in the popular press are the ones who dubbed it "Theory"."

The people of the Fourth Estate are not all stupid. In fact most of them are of normal intelligence. The problem with the press is that their goals are very different from those of scientists. As a group they want to sell newspapers (and ad space) and individually they are after Pulitzer prizes and the other trappings of fame. So objectivity is not high on their lists of priorities. A headline such as "String Theorist Explain Sexuality" would serve thier purposes and really irritate scientists that read it.

You said: "I really dislike it when the popular press takes over the role of scientific inquiry." Amen to that, however -

Not to be overly picky, but when you say "Every legitimate scientist should pound it into some people that this is not their role and, it is the duty of every legitimate scientist to correct each other on the proper labeling of an inquiry." it seems to me that you are doing, in a sense, what the press is doing and you are complaining about.

This statement might be construed as you dictating to the scientific community what their proper role should be and how they should speak. Is that what you really meant to say?

Dr. R

String Theory, (isn't it now known as M-Theory?) is incredibly interesting inasmuch as the mathematics apparently describe a universe consistent with all that's known about the one we happen to live in, and actually provides a home in which general relativity and quantum mechanics can live in harmony. What a great pity that (according to all that I've read) there's no prospect of experimental verification. It might all be true, and we would never know!

What you've read is incorrect. There are now numerous tests that have been proposed.

Try googling "Testing String Theory" for a taste of what is hopefully to come.

Thanks for the tip, DA.

First read this:

http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/cover/?page=2

Title: Testing String Theory

Discusses: (1) Gravity-Wave Test (2) Particle-Accelerator Test (3) Laboratory Gravity Tests (4) Dark Matter Searches

Summary:

String theory predicts:

...(1) The existence gravitational waves of certain frequencies. The Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory has been in use since 2002, and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, called LISA, is expected to be launched several years from now.

...(2) The existence of 'sparticles' (high mass particles) . LHC (Cern) may reveal these. The discovery of sparticles would support String Theory, but not confirm it.

...(3) Slight deviation from the inverse square law at the microscopic/atomic scale. Many laboratory experiments have been conducted. As yet no evidence of deviation has been found.

...(4) The existence of neutralinos, the sparticle partner of force-carrying bosons, a leading candidate for dark matter. The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search, Minnesota is among other projects conducting the search.

Bottom line:

"If the signals LISA and its successors pick up are those expected by string theorists, they will verify that some version of string theory is the correct quantum theory of gravity"

Now go here:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=219

"Kaku?s article is entitled Testing String Theory, and is a thoroughly intellectually dishonest piece of writing, designed to mislead anyone without expertise in what is at issue here. He succeeded in misleading whoever wrote the blurb for the article which goes: ?No experiment has ever allowed us to test whether any of the assumptions of string theory are true. That is about to change.? No it?s not. None of the experiments Kaku mentions will ?allow us to test whether any of the assumptions of string theory are true?.

As I?ve explained in detail on other occasions, the simple fact of the matter is that string theory does not make any predictions, unless one adopts a definition of the word ?prediction? different than that conventional among scientists. A scientific prediction is one that tells you specifically what the results of a given experiment will be. If the results of the experiment come out differently, the theory is wrong. String theory can?t do this, since it is not a well-defined theory, but rather a research program that some people hope will one day lead to a well-defined theory capable of making predictions."

I have exchanged emails with Dr. Kaku and attended several of his lectures. He is one person and does not represent the state of string theorists any more than the pope represents all of Christianity.

I respect his accomplishments and opinions. That does not mean I agree with all of them all of the time nor does it mean, far more importantly, that his colleagues agree with him: Many do not.

String theory, itself, is not fully testable in that we do not yet know how to test it. But some of its predictions are testable and will be tested as soon as possible.