(Viewed 1,744 times)

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

UNSTRUNG

It is the best of times in physics.

The New Yorker is running a story on whether String
Theory is really a scientific theory or just an abstract exercise in math designed to churn out papers and Ph.Ds for the established academics. The article reviews two current books, by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit, laying out the case against string theory." From the article: "Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet... not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far just a set
of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing...

----------

Physicists are on the verge of obtaining the long-sought Theory of Everything. In a few elegant equations, perhaps concise enough to be emblazoned on a T-shirt, this theory will reveal how the universe began and how it will end. The key insight is that the smallest constituents of the world are not particles, as had been supposed since ancient times, but strings tiny strands of energy. By vibrating in different ways, these strings produce the essential phenomena of nature, the way violin strings produce musical notes.

String theory isnt just powerful; its also mathematically beautiful. All that remains to be done is to write down the actual equations. This is taking a little longer than expected. But, with almost the entire theoretical-physics community working on the problem presided over by a sage in Princeton, New Jersey;the millennia-old dream of a final theory is sure to be realized before long.

The very long aticle can be found here:
www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/061002crat_atlarge

===========

I have always had a problem with the string theory, aside that I'm no physicist. It really does not explain things, just proposes a "what if" scenario. I doubt that it can ever be proved, but smarter individuals than I are working on it.

[Maddad]

psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm

My problem with string theory is the name. It is not a theory. A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural word. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted. A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study.

String theory is not a theory; it is not even a hypotheses. Not only is it not well established from consistent observations, there is no subjecting it to testing, no ability to disprove it. A basic tenant is that you must be able to disprove an idea for it to be called science. We do not prove ideas in science. Instead, we make them stronger by failing to disprove them. The hype about strings totally misses this requirement, and so falls under the category of philosophy instead of science.