Is String Theory a threat to science itself?

[William Parcher]

Review of the book, Hiding in the Mirror by Lawrence Krauss.

Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, has a reputation for shooting down pseudoscience. He opposed the teaching of intelligent design on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. He penned an essay for the New York Times that dissed President Bush's proposal for a manned Mars mission. Yet in his latest book, Hiding in the Mirror, Krauss turns on his own—by taking on string theory, the leading edge of theoretical physics. Krauss is probably right that string theory is a threat to science, but his book proves he's too late to stop it.

When I asked physicists like Nobel Prize-winner Frank Wilczek and string theory superstar Edward Witten for ideas about how to prove string theory, they typically began with scenarios like, "Let's say we had a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way …" Wilczek said strings aren't a theory, but rather a search for a theory. Witten bluntly added, "We don't yet understand the core idea."

 

[Donks]

I'm not sure it is a threat to science. The problem with it, from my extremely meager understanding, is that it does not yet rise to the level of theory. I do wonder (hoping Spacefluffer could answer), does it make testable predictions? If so, are these predictions testable in practice in the near future, or are they testable only in theory (like "accelerator the size of the Milky Way")?

 

[William Parcher]

I'm not sure it is a threat to science. The problem with it, from my extremely meager understanding, is that it does not yet rise to the level of theory. I do wonder (hoping Spacefluffer could answer), does it make testable predictions? If so, are these predictions testable in practice in the near future, or are they testable only in theory (like "accelerator the size of the Milky Way")?

The point/question is that String Theory may have as much to do with science as does Intelligent Design. String Theory becomes falsifiable when we build a galaxy-sized accelerator and ID becomes falsifiable when we interview the intelligent designer?

 

[logical muse]

Is String Theory a threat to science itself?

No.*






*What does it mean, "a threat to science itself"? Is something capable of destroying science? What is this "science" that is under threat? I always thought that science was a process of discovering knowledge. Is that what's being threatened? Will we have to abandon science and adopt a new process of discovering knowledge? Which one did you have in mind? Do I have any more questions to ask? Perhaps divination will be the new method, once the strings have laid waste to science.

 

[Donks]

The point/question is that String Theory may have as much to do with science as does Intelligent Design. String Theory becomes falsifiable when we build a galaxy-sized accelerator and ID becomes falsifiable when we interview the intelligent designer?

I see a fundamental difference between ID and string theory. Assume the only way to test String Theory is to build an accelerator the size of the galaxy. Not something that can be done anytime soon. But it is a testable prediction. How do you go about testing the prediction of "there is a supernatural creator?"

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Funny, i brought this subject up a month ago and was instantly flamed for it .

I personally believe in String Theory(or rather M-Theory). And i feel pretty bad for believing it since it isn't a theory yet.

But atleast i acknowledge that it is is a belief, and that it isn't a theory yet.


No, my stance on this is that currently it is a hypothesis, searching for an experiment/prediction they can make to substantiate their hypothesis.

I have also been told(from various parties, can't remember who, and i can't say they are credible) that some of the particle accelerators currently in production would be able to do those tests.

For instance, i think(an idea here) that the next generation(that is, the one being build now) of particle accelerators will be able to find evidence for "Super Symmetry", which would, afaik, make M-Theory a theory, and not just a hypothesis.

As for destroying science? no way, currently it is bordering on philosophy yes, but it isn't actually fighting Quantum Gravity or other alternatives, so it can't hurt or destroy science in and off itself.


I personally think, and hope, that M-Theory can soon be made a real theory. But i acknowledge that i may very well be wrong.

Sincerely
Tobias

Hmm, i think i had 2-3 physics questions lined up, and now i forgot what they were

 

[William Parcher]

String Theory as a threat to science must be thought of as if ID is also a threat to science. Neither is falsifiable. ID theorists are claiming that they are engaged in science... the string theorists might claim the same (though at least some are saying that it is a half-hatched chicken). The "threat" is that the non-professional world might look at what string theory presently is (whatever it is) and declare it good science or at least a view into the working behavior of those that produce good science.

So... the threat is that an unfalsifiable working idea is science. It might threaten to expand the lay definition of science to include unfalsifiables.

If you understand science, then it isn't any threat because the concept of the necessity of falsifiability always remains intact. But then, by the same token, ID ought not to be any threat either.

Why are we intrigued (yet tentative) with string theory and yet thoroughly disgusted with ID? String theory may be just as false as ID.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

String Theory as a threat to science must be thought of as if ID is also a threat to science. Neither is falsifiable. ID theorists are claiming that they are engaged in science... the string theorists might claim the same (though at least some are saying that it is a half-hatched chicken). The "threat" is that the non-professional world might look at what string theory presently is (whatever it is) and declare it good science or at least a view into the working behavior of those that produce good science.

So... the threat is that an unfalsifiable working idea is science. It might threaten to expand the lay definition of science to include unfalsifiables.

If you understand science, then it isn't any threat because the concept of the necessity of falsifiability always remains intact. But then, by the same token, ID ought not to be any threat either.

Why are we intrigued (yet tentative) with string theory and yet thoroughly disgusted with ID? String theory may be just as false as ID.

If Ed Witten was trying to get String Theory into public schools.. then i would agree.

He isn't, so i won't.

 

[William Parcher]

If Ed Witten was trying to get String Theory into public schools.. then i would agree.

He isn't, so i won't.

I was going to go on and say that String Theory (ST) might hold some darling ground because it isn't being foisted onto public school curricula by school boards like ID is. I didn't mention it. But would anyone really want to vomit if a high school physics teacher brought up ST when discussing models of the universe and the issue of the inability to marry quantum mechanics with classicism? Mentioning to schoolkids that there are professional physicists working on a Theory of Everything (TOE) called ST isn't quite the same as mentioning that professional biologists are also "working" on a Theory of Supernatural Creator. If unfalsifiability is the clay feet of ID, then it is also true for ST... yes?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

String Theory as a threat to science must be thought of as if ID is also a threat to science. Neither is falsifiable. ID theorists are claiming that they are engaged in science... the string theorists might claim the same (though at least some are saying that it is a half-hatched chicken). The "threat" is that the non-professional world might look at what string theory presently is (whatever it is) and declare it good science or at least a view into the working behavior of those that produce good science.

I, for one, still don't understand how either ID or String Theory are "threats to science". Even a bad theory that gains wide acceptance isn't a threat. It's happened before, and science marches on.

When people protest ID, it's about religion in public schools, as Tobias implied. It's a First Amendment threat.

 

[Diamond]

String theory isn't a threat to science, so much as it is a threat to scientists who would be better spending their time on something testable (even in theory). As some one has said already, String Theory is a hypothesis.

The problem is that String Theory isn't "fruitful". There are no testable predictions. That makes it an expensive case of abstract reasoning.

The most interesting proposal which would help things along is the so-called Higgs Boson, whose properties explain why matter has mass. If that is found, there may yet be a way forward to quantizing gravity.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I was going to go on and say that String Theory (ST) might hold some darling ground because it isn't being foisted onto public school curricula by school boards like ID is. I didn't mention it. But would anyone really want to vomit if a high school physics teacher brought up ST when discussing models of the universe and the issue of the inability to marry quantum mechanics with classicism? Mentioning to schoolkids that there are professional physicists working on a Theory of Everything (TOE) called ST isn't quite the same as mentioning that professional biologists are also "working" on a Theory of Supernatural Creator. If unfalsifiability is the clay feet of ID, then it is also true for ST... yes?

I would still claim it was science. But even though i say it is still science(barely), it shouldn't be in public schools. Because, quite honestly, what possible gain we anyone get from having M-Theory in public schools? And also because then public schools would also have to teach MOND and Quantum Gravity. It doesn't make sence to have public schools teach 3 different "theories" that aren't even scientific theories yet....

As far as i know, and please correct me if i'm wrong, String Theory is closer to being able to make a testable prediction than Quantum Gravity is.

 

[Alkatran]

Small difference: String "theory" is potentially falsifiable. I would have a problem if they tried to teach it in high school, although I must admit it wouldn't be as much of a problem as I have with ID. String theorists don't lie about already shown scientific results.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Oh, and just a note.. I believe every theory in existance have gone through this stage that String Theory is in now.

I mean, newton got the idea to unify the attraction we saw on earth, and the movement of the earth moon and the planets, into gravity. But he should as hell didn't have a theory with testable predictions instantly, and i'm sure he had stuff to iron out before going public.

Even if it haven't been the case for all prior theories, i think it will be the case for every new theory from now on. You have to go to the hypothesis stage, and let scientist fool around for some time. But just because they haven't found something yet, and they can't make it into a proper theory yet, it doesn't mean that it is hurting science.

I think the auther of that book or article or what it was should quantify how Einsteins search for a Theory Of Everything hurt science.. once he have done that, he can prove that String Theory is doing the same.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Small difference: String "theory" is potentially falsifiable. I would have a problem if they tried to teach it in high school, although I must admit it wouldn't be as much of a problem as I have with ID. String theorists don't lie about already shown scientific results.

I wouldn't mind it as something the student can just choose to have, as an extra module besides physics class.. I don't think it is a good use of the students time, but i don't see a problem with it as long as it isn't forced.. Nor do i see a problem with having ID as an extra module besides religion/philosophy class.

ID != science(not even a hypothesis)
ST == science(though not a theory yet)-

 

[William Parcher]

I, for one, still don't understand how either ID or String Theory are "threats to science". Even a bad theory that gains wide acceptance isn't a threat. It's happened before, and science marches on.

When people protest ID, it's about religion in public schools, as Tobias implied. It's a First Amendment threat.

Well, the concept of "threat" can be expanded. The funding for ID studies is coming almost exclusively from religion-based entities. We can see that and might say that idiots will lay red carpets for other idiots. The funding for ST is coming from a whole different source realm. This is from a realm that would never give a dime for ID theory funding.

Let's skip the religious connotation of ID and only focus on its utility as functional science. ID is unfalsifiable and opposes our present understanding that biological causation is naturalistic. ST is unfalsifiable and opposes our present understanding that our universe is 3-dimensional.

There are now forks in the road. Each group (ID & ST) is saying that the world might truly be different than we are thinking. Both groups hold out their hands like beggars asking for funding. The science-based world pours coins into the ST hands and the religion-based world does the same into the ID hands. But who the hell knows if ST is a wild goose chase or snipe hunt? At what point do you "pull the plug" on ST?

Does the scientific community and its funders then look backwards upon ST (after investing $$) and say to their collective selves, "We should have ditched the whole thing when they told us that falsifiability could be bought for only the price of a galaxy-sized accelerator." Hot diggety!

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Well, the concept of "threat" can be expanded. The funding for ID studies is coming almost exclusively from religion-based entities. We can see that and might say that idiots will lay red carpets for other idiots. The funding for ST is coming from a whole different source realm. This is from a realm that would never give a dime for ID theory funding.

Let's skip the religious connotation of ID and only focus on its utility as functional science. ID is unfalsifiable and opposes our present understanding that biological causation is naturalistic. ST is unfalsifiable and opposes our present understanding that our universe is 3-dimensional.

There are now forks in the road. Each group (ID & ST) is saying that the world might truly be different than we are thinking. Both groups hold out their hands like beggars asking for funding. The science-based world pours coins into the ST hands and the religion-based world does the same into the ID hands. But who the hell knows if ST is a wild goose chase or snipe hunt? At what point do you "pull the plug" on ST?

Does the scientific community and its funders then look backwards upon ST (after investing $$) and say to their collective selves, "We should have ditched the whole thing when they told us that falsifiability could be bought for only the price of a galaxy-sized accelerator." Hot diggety!

Please read post #14 which would be my reply to your post.

Also, a galaxy sized accelerator isn't required.. we can find higgs-bosons and supersymmetry with particle accelerators that are being build now, or at the latest with the following generation.

Sincerely
Tobias.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Of course String Theory is not a "threat to science". The only thing which could be a threat to science would be clear-cut evidence that the scientific method, or its assumptions, was fundamentally flawed.

String theory is an attempt at going beyond the currently known theories, an attempt at not only explaining what has already been explained, but to explain more. So far, the "theory" (I hesitate to call it that for various reasons) has already provided new insights. Let me quote from Wkipedia:

Work on string theory has led to advances in mathematics, mainly in algebraic geometry. String theory has also led to insight into supersymmetric gauge theories, which will be tested at the new Large Hadron Collider experiment.

The whole Wikipedia article can be found here.

 

[William Parcher]

Also, a galaxy sized accelerator isn't required.. we can find higgs-bosons and supersymmetry with particle accelerators that are being build now, or at the latest with the following generation.

Wilczek should hand his Nobel Prize to you. That moron thinks that you need a galaxy-sized toy to do the job. Is he on drugs or just slow?

 

[William Parcher]

Of course String Theory is not a "threat to science". The only thing which could be a threat to science would be clear-cut evidence that the scientific method, or its assumptions, was fundamentally flawed.

String theory is an attempt at going beyond the currently known theories, an attempt at not only explaining what has already been explained, but to explain more. So far, the "theory" (I hesitate to call it that for various reasons) has already provided new insights. Let me quote from Wkipedia:


The whole Wikipedia article can be found here.

Okay, how about the threat of ST being that nobody can ever recognize (or admit) that it is going nowhere. So, the best thing about ST is that it enriches other sciences without ever being what it is supposed to be?

Is that like saying that the most presently-noteworthy attribute of my wife and the mother of our children is her tits? Don't answer that