Agrajag

It should be noted that until a scientific idea has stood the test of repeated attempts at experimental falsification it cannot be called a Theory.
String 'theory' so far has made very few testable predictions and it is only with the activation of the LHC that we will begin to subject a small subset of these to scrutiny.

In the case of string 'theory' the epithet is inaccurate, but string hypothesis or M hypothesis just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Nevertheless if we are talking about formal scientific nomenclature then calling it a theory would be as premature and potentially inaccurate as calling an unknown bird's egg a Duck.

theyeti

There is no formal scientific nomenclature for ranking and defining theory, hypothesis, conjecture, law, etc. These terms have been used in different fields and at different times to mean different things.

Call it the String Thingamabob if you want. The descriptor you attach to it does not say anything one way or another about its merits. Debating what to call it is a waste of time.

theyeti

James T

Reminds me of a philosophical paper regarding the various attempts to redefine the meaning of words. In this instance we have string theorists redefining the meaning of the word theory in order to convey an idea about their area of study which is false. One concern is that Intelligent Design could pass the same hurdles that String Theory does. Is that something that people here feel comfortable with?

Schneibster

Should be called "string physics," as I've pointed out numerous times before. Since you don't have that as a selection, I declined to vote.

It's valid physics or more properly a large number of different valid physics- we just haven't managed to find a way to make it predict what we see unambiguously. But most people who've looked it over agree it does predict the physics we see- just not unambiguously. A theory of this type should predict the universe we see; and it should do so uniquely. It does predict what we see, but not uniquely. They're working on that.

The Dagda

That's it exactly when you talk about language, it's assailable if you understand the mathematics, otherwise you merely meet with a wall of how can you criticise it when you don't understand the deep underlying complexity of it. But then why would you understand the deep underlying complexity of it unless you were a string theorist and thus already heavily invested in it. Successful criticisms of the theory have actually come from ex String theorists such as Smolin and Woit.

I say that because I have discussed the topic with people who study it and they are always quick to point out the lack of understanding in others, its the only subject where no matter how much experience you have in physics, unless you speak the language you are lost. I mean I've seen experimental physicists quite happily discuss the ins and outs of an interpretation that they don't actually have much in depth knowledge about. But faced with String theory they are told they cannot dispute something they don't understand, that's a terribly incestuous field nay? Unlike say an aspect of field theory or particle physics which most people can discuss with any formal physics education. It is as field much more of a nation unto itself than anything else in physics.

There appear to be two sorts of scientists, those who accept string theory and those who accept string hypothesis. Personally I think those who accept it as a theory are abandoning their science for a mythology atm. One thing I've noted though is that string theory used to be funded mainly by physics departments, this is no longer the case, it tends to more often be funded by maths departments these days, as it should, it isn't even science, it's not even wrong. Do I think that will always be the case? Probably who can say, is it a dead end, maybe? Is it useless, probably not.

Here's an example of why it seems to me mere mathematical manipulation, take a problem with gravitational equations that explode into infinities (AKA the problem with general relativity and Quantum mechanics) draw it on a graph: you can't Euclidean geometry appears unable to deal with it. So instead of acknowleding you can't quite picture it because your knowledge lacks something. Take the graph paper screw it up into an incredibly tight ball, so tight that it curls up on itself in higher dimensions and is invisible and then draw it, hey presto: the problems resolve themselves. Brilliant in other words just invent a situation that's completely untestable to mitigate a problem. If renormalisation - removing infinities from equations with a mathematical trick - wasn't worrying enough now we're adjusting space time to such an extent that eventually given just the right tweaking the maths fits. See to me you should be modelling reality not reshaping reality to fit a model, especially when the "theory" seems so fundamentally untestable. I have no problem with inventive hypotheses at all, its when they start punching above their weight it bothers me.

If you ask me they're making it up as they go along, with no experimentation to back anything up, and so there claims simply become more complex and unfathomable, a house of cards with M-theory at the top, a hypothesis, based on a hypothesis which draws all its conclusion from nothing but pure imagination. Sounds like a house of cards to me.

That might be true outside of science, but I'm afraid there is a formal prerequisite for a scientific theory and that is falsifiability and evidence, string theory has neither. I've lost count of the number of times scientists have painfully pointed out the difference between theory in common usage and theory in science. String Theory does not measure up at all. It's a major bone of contention in physics atm, whether it should even be called science at all unless it ponies up something other than maths.

Not heard of LQG yet then? And yes string theory is under a barrage of criticism, and is becoming less popular, where do you live the moon?

Actually to be frank there are a myriad of different theories that attempt to resolve the problems between quantum mechanics and general relativity, although some are more interpretations than theories. If you ask me its about time people stopped obsessing about a 40 year old "theory" that has got nothing to show for itself and started investing in other areas, but then who am I to say that? Glad they are though.

I'd hasten to add even if they pan out which seems unlikely they will not elevate string "theory" to the lofty heights of theory as they are in no way direct evidence of the theory, they are only evidence that other small and rather selective parts of models have at least some credibility. The idea that string theory is testable is still completely unsubstantiated. The truth is String Theory requires energy levels that are unachievable on any scale on Earth, and likely will ever remain so.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=510

Woit an active critic of the so called provability of String Theory. As of yet no one has determined any way to verify string theory.

Friar Bellows

How is Loop Quantum Gravity "more testable" than String Theory?

GenesisNemesis

I don't really care what it's called, but String Theory sounds about right.

Antiplastic

Did you miss the post immediately above yours where someone pointed out that there is no special definition of "theory" in science?

but there is no theory of ID, and there are, AIUI, several versions of string theory.

Could it be that what really exercises you to make this comparison is that (you think) ST is a bad theory, and not "not a theory"? Just like, someone who doesn't like a painting might say, for emphasis "I can't believe you call that 'art',", when what they mean is, they know darn well that it is art, they just think it is not very good art.

James T

Oddly enough my response was to that post. Ever heard of framing the issue? Perhaps my response just passed you by.

James T

While I take your point, and don't deny that it may be better to convince the faithful of the error of their ways from the inside, at some stage a theory / conjecture / voodoo must interface with the rest of the world, or the real world, before it has any meaning. The string hypothesis has not met this hurdle ... in how many decades?

Why must I buy into intellectual masturbation to know it is wrong? God knows how far I'd have to buy into religion to know the error there.