Where Does Theoretical Physics Fit In?

[Kahalachan]

Does it count as pseudo or proto-science?

Are such ideas like string theory or multiverses just ambitious hypotheses?

As far as I know string theory doesn't deserve the title "theory" since there is not enough evidence. The strings haven't been observed or supported at all. I know they hope to support it with particle acceleration.

It seems there is a fine line between supernatural and the belief in something outside of our universe.

I will classify the notion that the universe is conscious because electrons or photons behave differently when observed, to be pseudo-science. The idea that we are connected through quantum consciousness and can read each other's minds, as suggested by What the Bleep Do We Know? is a supernatural concept.

But how do we classify the notion that there are extra-dimensions or other universes?

 

[Puppycow]

I don't think string theory is pseudoscience, but it may not be relevant science, either. If there's absolutely nothing you can do with it except on paper, and no way to test it, then its value is limited.

(Not that I know anything about string theory other than a layman's knowledge gleaned through various media)

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Is mathmatics a true science or a pseudo science?

I would think Theoretical Physics is true science based on the mathematics involved, if the answer above is yes.

 

[Cuddles]

Theoretical physics is mostly just maths. I suppose you could call it proto-science, but certainly not pseudoscience. Basically, theoretical physics comes up with ideas. No-one ever pretends it is established fact and so there is nothing pseudo about it. A lot of theoretical stuff really is just pure maths and has nothing to do with science at all (and often nothing to do with the real world).

Things like string theory get a bad name because of the constant misundertanding of the media and laypeople. Firstly, there is evidence. String theory describes exactly as much as the standard model. This should be obvious to anyone. It was thought up based on the data that we already have, so if it didn't decribe what we already know it would have been immediately thrown out. Secondly, it makes predictions. We can't test most of them yet, but they are there. String theory is science, not pseudoscience. In any case, string theory is obsolete. It has been replaced by M-theory and also other competing theories such as quatum loop theory.

There really is no comparison between theoretical physics and garbage like "What the Bleep". Theoretical physics works the maths and says what could happen if certain assumptions are true (often these assumptions are nonsense and are done simply out of curiosity). Woo makes no attempt at any maths and simply usees long words in the hope no-one listening realises what utter crap they are spouting. At it's worst, theoretical physics blurs the line between physics and maths, it never goes near the line between physics and woo.

 

[Kahalachan]

Theoretical physics is mostly just maths. I suppose you could call it proto-science, but certainly not pseudoscience. Basically, theoretical physics comes up with ideas. No-one ever pretends it is established fact and so there is nothing pseudo about it. A lot of theoretical stuff really is just pure maths and has nothing to do with science at all (and often nothing to do with the real world).

Things like string theory get a bad name because of the constant misundertanding of the media and laypeople. Firstly, there is evidence. String theory describes exactly as much as the standard model. This should be obvious to anyone. It was thought up based on the data that we already have, so if it didn't decribe what we already know it would have been immediately thrown out. Secondly, it makes predictions. We can't test most of them yet, but they are there. String theory is science, not pseudoscience. In any case, string theory is obsolete. It has been replaced by M-theory and also other competing theories such as quatum loop theory.

There really is no comparison between theoretical physics and garbage like "What the Bleep". Theoretical physics works the maths and says what could happen if certain assumptions are true (often these assumptions are nonsense and are done simply out of curiosity). Woo makes no attempt at any maths and simply usees long words in the hope no-one listening realises what utter crap they are spouting. At it's worst, theoretical physics blurs the line between physics and maths, it never goes near the line between physics and woo.

Oh yeah I forgot that M-theory is the unification of all the string theories out there.

I know M theory describes as much as the other sciences, but doesn't it seem to lack parsimony and Occam's razor? It is simpler to just state the facts that physics has discovered without stating that membranes are responsible.

I get what you mean by blurring the boundaries of math and reality. When a science does this, what is its classification? Since the predictions made haven't been observed yet, it seems like calling it a hypothesis is more appropriate.

 

[Cuddles]

I know M theory describes as much as the other sciences, but doesn't it seem to lack parsimony and Occam's razor? It is simpler to just state the facts that physics has discovered without stating that membranes are responsible.

Occam's razor isn't everything. It can be useful, but you cannot judge any science soley on Occam. In any case, it depends very much on what you define as "parsimony". Is it simpler to have a fairly large set of fundamental particles or is it simpler to assume that they are all caused by varying a few parameters of something more fundamental?

That aside, just stating the facts is basically pointless. The whole reason for science existing is that we don't just see what does happen, but predict what else will happen. For example, the difference between Kepler and Newton was that Kepler simply described the motion of the planets while Newton came up with a reason for this behaviour. This is the big difference between ancient philosophers and modern scientific method. We don't just want to know what happens, we want to know how and why. If membranes turn out to be the best answer, so be it.

I get what you mean by blurring the boundaries of math and reality. When a science does this, what is its classification? Since the predictions made haven't been observed yet, it seems like calling it a hypothesis is more appropriate.

When a science does this it is classified as theoretical physics.
Seriously though, it depends on your usage of "theory". A lot is made, especially on this forum, about the exact meaning of "theory" and "hypothesis". However, this is not the only meaning of "theory". It is also used to distinguish between "theoretical" and "practical". The "theoretical" in theoretical physics does not refer to theory as in "a hypothesis supported by evidence", it simply means that it is not experimental work.

Possibly M-theory should be called M-hypothesis to avoid confusion, but it just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

 

[Dumbledore]

The real problem

Theoretical physics is a science, it is a specialization of physics in fact. The real problem is that people who don't understand the concepts like to use them and manipulate them to support their own personal form of BS. If I hear the term quantum healing one more time I am going to scream. Like any field theoretical physics is done by legitimate physicists, you have always have quacks spouting off bizarre unsupported ideas, unsupported by the laws of physics, but you have that in every field.

 

[rockoon]

String Theory is no worse than Gauge Theory - they both address supersymetry, and string theory exists to eliminate the infinities inherent in other models.

 

[Kaon]

Does it count as pseudo or proto-science?

As a theoretical physicist (or student thereof), I'm a bit shocked and saddened to see such a question! Clearly some things need to be clarified here.

Are such ideas like string theory or multiverses just ambitious hypotheses?

As far as I know string theory doesn't deserve the title "theory" since there is not enough evidence. The strings haven't been observed or supported at all. I know they hope to support it with particle acceleration.

It seems there is a fine line between supernatural and the belief in something outside of our universe.

I will classify the notion that the universe is conscious because electrons or photons behave differently when observed, to be pseudo-science. The idea that we are connected through quantum consciousness and can read each other's minds, as suggested by What the Bleep Do We Know? is a supernatural concept.

But how do we classify the notion that there are extra-dimensions or other universes?

There seems to be a strong association between theoretical physics and string theory. This probably comes from a lot of the media attention garnered by this particular branch of theoretical physics. It is, however, far from the only part of theoretical phyiscs, but let me start with some basics.

Theoretical physics is the part of physics that deals with developing and improving models of the physical reality. It has primarily two functions: develop models to explain that which has been observed, and to expand on these models in a consistent and falsifiable manner so that they may one day be tested by experiments. Loosely speaking.

It should already be clear to the observant reader that theoretical physics pretty much span the entire spectrum of physics. Let me give you some examples of what kind of research theoretical physicists are involved with. All these are from Oxford University's current research areas in theoretical physics. Note that some areas spill over into chemistry and biology.

* Theoretical Astrophysics
- Stars
- Stellar atmospheres
- The Galaxy
- Galaxies
- CMB
- Astroparticles

* Nuclear structure theory
- Collective motion and clustering in nuclei
- Decay theory
- Inverse problems

* Elementary particle physics
- Quantum Field Theory
- Two-dimensional Field Theory
- Conformal Field Theory and Quantum Gravity
- String/M-Theory
- Lattice Field Theory
- Phenomenology of EW and Strong Interactions
- Physics beyond the Standard Model
- Particle astrophysics and cosmology

* Condensed matter
- Statics and dynamics of structure and phase transitions in surfaces
- Quantum entangled and disordered systems, aspects of noise in biological systems
- Coherence, correlations and disorder in quantum and classical systems
- Low-dimensional strongly correlated quantum systems
- Strongly correlated systems: Kondo physics versus internal degrees of freedom
- Constraints, correlations and topology in condensed matter and statistical physics
- Statistical (and some quantum) physics of complex systems
- Driven quantum systems and low dimensional strongly correlated quantum systems
- Soft and Biological Matter

As one can clearly see, string theory (or M-theory for those who prefer that) is in no way the sole or dominant area of theoretical physics. This should also (hopefully) clarify any misconceptions people might have that theoretical physics is some sort of fringe branch of physics with pseudo-scientific tendencies. Also, the above list is not necessarily complete, by no means!

I would also like to quote Cuddles who made an important point:

Seriously though, it depends on your usage of "theory". A lot is made, especially on this forum, about the exact meaning of "theory" and "hypothesis". However, this is not the only meaning of "theory". It is also used to distinguish between "theoretical" and "practical". The "theoretical" in theoretical physics does not refer to theory as in "a hypothesis supported by evidence", it simply means that it is not experimental work.

This is also a widely used meaning of "theoretical" that should be noted.

Finally I thought I ought to mention something about theoretical vs. mathematical physics. Yes, theoretical physics can, and often do, involve a great deal of mathematics. It is not, however, exclusively a series of mathematical exercises. So even though mathematics is the primary tool of the theoretical physicist, it is not the exclusive one.

 

[Kahalachan]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Now, just to make sure I've got it all down and understand the science of theoretical physics correctly I'll use an analogy.

Darwin first proposed natural selection based on his observations on nature. He couldn't see DNA and he preceeded Mendell. In its infancy, evolution was very similar to theoretical physics in that it made predictions, understands the limitations of its time based on evidence, but some of the actual experimental evidence was lacking.

So Darwinian evolution was one good theory on biology. Lemarckian evolution was also a good theory on biology. Of course Darwinian evolution ended up being right.

The different theoretical physical ideas floating around are more like evolution in its beginnings. Not that it's not scientific or intends to overstep scientific boundaries, but it lacks some knowledge and evidence to make it an extremely powerful and decisive theory.

Edit: I am speaking mostly in terms of ideas involving extra dimensions and universes.

 

[rockoon]

You might like to check out the ekpyrotic model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic

 

[Kahalachan]

You might like to check out the ekpyrotic model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic

Thanks. It seems interesting. I knew about brane cosmology I didn't know about the ekpryotic model.

The idea about extra dimensions or things beyond our universe sets off my "woo detector" but of course it can misfire

P.S. I like how these forums use the word "woo". I never heard of it before JREF and it sounds like the best word to use. Heh heh.

 

[Cuddles]

As a theoretical physicist (or student thereof)

Unclean!

So Darwinian evolution was one good theory on biology. Lemarckian evolution was also a good theory on biology. Of course Darwinian evolution ended up being right.

Not to derail or anything, but technically Lamarckian evolution was never a good theory. There are many very simple observations that disprove it. Even if Darminian evolution had never been thought up, Lamark's idea would never have lasted long.