The Good and Bad of String Theory

The Good and Bad of String Theory

The most celebrated theory in modern physics faces increasing attacks from skeptics who fear it has lured a generation of researchers down an intellectual dead end.

In its original, simplified form, circa the mid-1980s, string theory held that reality consists of infinitesimally small, wiggling objects called strings, which vibrate in ways that yield the different subatomic particles that comprise the cosmos.

Advocates claimed that string theory would smooth out the conflicts between Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics and the result would be a unifying "theory of everything," which could explain everything from the nature of matter to the Big Bang to the fate of the cosmos.

Over the years, string theory has simultaneously become more frustrating and fabulous. On the one hand, the original theory has become very complex, one that posits an 11-dimensional universe, far more than the four-dimensional universe of Einstein. The modified theory is so mathematically dense that many Ph.D.-bearing physicists haven't a clue what their string-theorist colleagues are talking about.

On the other hand, new versions of the theory suggest our universe is just one of zillions of alternate, invisible universes where the laws of physics are radically different. String buffs claim this bizarre hypothesis might help to explain various cosmic mysteries.

But skeptics suggest it's the latest sign of how string theorists, sometimes called "superstringers," try to colorfully camouflage the theory's flaws, like "a 50-year-old woman wearing way too much lipstick," jokes Robert B. Laughlin, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at Stanford. "People have been changing string theory in wild ways because it has never worked."...>

http://www.rednova.com/news/space/137255/the_good_and_bad_of_string_theory/index.html

the incredible string band, and Cat's Cradle.

That bucket holds no water.

actual scientific experiments. Hollywood is so up on all the latest science, ya know.

What's the big deal if string theory turns out to be a dead end? That happens in science all the time. Comes with the territory.

The objections of people like Laughlin would be more interesting if they mentioned what direction they think we "should" be pursuing.

An objection I've often heard to String Theory is that it is, in many ways, difficult or impossible to test. And that IS a problem.

However, it's likely to be a problem with any competing theories as well. Our current level of understanding is already pushing the limits of our testing ability, so whatever the next step is, it is likely to be even harder to test.

It should be remembered that we succesfully used Newtons laws of gravity for two hundred years before Einstein gave us an inkling of just how gravity does what it does (via General Relativity.) While the specifics of String Theory have yet to be verified, the model they provide for how the universe works seems to be proving quite accurate.

Until some other Theory does a better job of modelling the universe, Strings seem to be the way to go.

While the specifics of String Theory have yet to be verified, the model they provide for how the universe works seems to be proving quite accurate.

As far as I know, there is no indication whether the underlying model of String theory is accurate or not. Not only is string theory hard to test, but it's not clear that it even can make predictions at all.

--Peter

(I'm far from being a physicist, btw) From what I've read is that from the basic concept of strings, the characteristics of the hitherto most basic particles just naturally arise. With it the otherwise random seeming differences in their weights, etc. suddenly have a reason to be what they are. Further, it can provide some ideas about why they operate as they do. To me it sounds like its preditions have a good fit with our current observations in the same way that Newtons theories fit with the motions of planets and falling objects.

Admittedly I'm not up on the latest news. Are there competing theories? Are there gaping holes in String Theory?

Far from it.

But what you state is the motivation behind it all: finding a theory that can explain why the proton mass and charge are what they are, why the electron mass and charge are what they are, and so on.

No predictions have come out of string theory yet, and recent directions in string theory research are heading towards where it might not be able to make any substantive predictions at all.

There are some "competing" theories (one is called "loop quantum gravity", but otherwise I know essentially nothing about it), but string theory has dominated theoretical physics for 20 years with little to show for the huge amounts of time and energy spent on it.

--Peter

I love this stuff, even if 99% is over my head. Thanks. :)

I may be able to dig up more tomorrow.

--Peter

If career advancement requires that theoretical physicists work on string theory (and based on my readings, that is the case), then no one has time to develop competeting theories.

This has been going on for twenty years now. And while this is not a tragedy, it may be a tremendous waste and it does slow down the advancement of science.

There are signs, though, the perhaps the hegemony of string theory may finally be on the wane.

A major problem with recent developments in string theory goes beyond string theory's old problem of being virtually impossible to test. The new problem appears to be that it makes no predictions at all, much less testable ones.

A good source to keep up with the critics of string theory is this blog by physicist/mathematician Peter Woit: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

--Peter

.. also has a great review of "What the Bleep"... heh heh

I am also glad to hear that I am not the only one suckered into seeing that piece of trash film.

Thanks for the link. That was from before I discovered his blog, otherwise I would have known to avoid that movie like the plague.

--Peter

That's a "Doctor Who" quote.

But skeptics suggest it's the latest sign of how string theorists, sometimes called "superstringers," try to colorfully camouflage the theory's flaws, like "a 50-year-old woman wearing way too much lipstick," jokes Robert B. Laughlin, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at Stanford. "People have been changing string theory in wild ways because it has never worked."

Methinks Mr Laughlin might have drawn an analogy hitting a bit closer to home -- like a 50+ year-old Nobel physicist with a prescription for Viagra because "People have been changing string theory in wild ways because it has never worked."

Yep, I like that one MUCH better.

This gets beter and better...

the lipstick analogy seems to fit better to be honest...I mean it was an analogy about camouflage/adding on to make something look better...too much makeup on an old person fits it pretty well.

doesnt always have to be sexist just becuase its female.

I suspect its this type of innate bias thats holding things up creatively speaking...

And ironically this type of analogy, combined with the information about the gender, age and profession of the speaker, has awakened a whole other set of prejudices... :-)