James T

Theory
Conjecture
or Voodoo

Interested in the general interpretation of this as a science.

skepticalbip

I know diddly about string ..... but my limited understanding of it is that it is an elegant mathematical system that can and does predict anything and everything. The downside is that, so far, it is incapable of predicting which of its predictions actually apply to our universe making it fairly useless as a predictive aid.

Possibly the best description I have heard of it is as a full employment program for mathematicians. Hopefully, one day it will evolve into an actual string Theory.

ajr89

It is most certainly not "string voodoo." The mathematics of string theory are based in reality and have answered some questions already. That alone brings it out of the realm of religion or, as you said, voodoo.

elevator

How about hypothesis? It seems to be lacking the evidence to call it a theory, so conjecture or hypothesis may be the most fitting description... it does at least have some mathematical support behind it (without me even attempting or pretending to understand it).

The Dagda

Some scientists put it as wishful thinking, some are less descriminatory, some exlusively String Theorists give it the full theory credentials. Me I think it's a hypothesis, it still remains untested, and maths alone is not science. String theory is slowly falling out of favour though and is being replaced by younger potentially more testable pretenders; will it survive as a mathematical curiosity only?

String theory is kind of indicative where physics is now, they have an ability to describe how things seem to be, but a less refined ability to measure it, some think quite rightly that's no excuse to forgo measurement entirely. The fact remains that as it stands it's a poor theory, so poor that some have classified it as "not even wrong".

Only string theorists really understand it, that's one of the problems with it, its so esoteric its only assailable from within, where as most fields are assailable from the discipline in general. I understand what they try to do at least, but would be completely unable to criticise it with any authority unless I did a PhD in it and not something else.

Fundamental particles called strings that are so small it is very likely we may never measure them, resolving issues with gravity by inventing dimensions we could never possibly perceive. It's not for me. It's much more a philosophy than a science as it stands.

James T

For a ""theory"" that has never made a testable prediction, seems reasonably assailable from without.

It occurred to me to think of string theory in terms of fairy tales, written in an unknown - but internally exceedingly complex - language. The similarities are striking.

RareBird

I don't like using words for things that we do understand for new things that we don't. Ergo, I feel about "string" as i feel about "black hole"--it's a foolish label that tends to prejudice perception of the greater and more powerful phenomenon. A black hole is not a hole and a string is not a twisted length of cotton.

Friar Bellows

Where did you get that idea? And what other "younger potentially more testable pretenders" are there?

faith_rifter

If it was a theory, we wouldn't be asking this question.

I'm no expert on strings, but if I recall correctly, there has not been a physical test for string theories that provides evidence to validate the hypothesis, aside from math.

WWJD4aKlondikeBar

So far in this thread I'm reading a lot of, "I don't understand it, but here's some anecdote about how much of a non-theory I think it is." While it is still just a mathematical theory at this point, there is no rush to move it up or down the lexicon of science until either a test is devised to falsify its claims or a different theory makes it obsolete with differing evidence.