Is “Strings” a Dud Theory?

Re: # 12 by bjkumar:

WOW!

sattar #11

{{It quipped that string theory `does not even rise to the level of being wrong` – a quote attributed to Heizenberg (?) regarding some unrelated issue …}}

It was Wolfgang Pauli who said of an unclear paper that ``It is not even wrong``.

Clearly string theory holds a great deal of fascination for individuals who are fascinated by such things as strings, but to the average joker – who should perhaps be strung for being callous – the term merely invokes images of the common yarn!

No matter how you color it and no matter how you spin it – it is extremely difficult to weave it into clothing respectable enough to cover oneself without uncovering one’s ignorance.

I must admit that although I did live in those long-ago times you mentioned (the mid 1990’s (if one could legitimately call life before chowk as such)) I unfortunately missed out on all that upbeat feeling that apparently got generated in high volumes. But I am sorry the theory was unable to unify fundamental forces. As we are painfully aware from the numerous discussions held here daily on the sub continental partition theory, fundamentalists are far too strong and extremely difficult to unify – they are dividers, not uniters!

I like this Leonard Susskind guy you mention – who says “I often joke….”. People who often joke are the ones who always have the last laugh – especially when they are telling those jokes and the audience has already bolted.

I am also impressed by this guy Peter Woit who wrote the book “Not Even Wrong”. What a smart fellow – by not even being wrong, he can have the best of both worlds – he does not have to prove being right and he does not get his behind whipped for being wrong because – he is not even wrong! Corollary statements can then be suitably developed for other life situations – like the lady singer singing: “If loving you was wrong, I don’t wanna be right!” Now she can be right and wrong at the same time.
I think the String scientists have the best of both worlds – they don’t have to prove anything because they have never said they were right (or wrong) to begin with. They have mastered the art of sitting on the fence – on one side is right, on the other is wrong. They dangle sometimes an arm or a foot or another body organ to one side or other – just to confuse simple folks like me. They tantalize us, they excite us, they represent true glamour in more myriad ways than the beauty queens of Bollywood! Then they yank that foot, or arm, or head right back!! Darn!

Alas, they merely string us mortals along! (All of us, except for that Kaal guy, of course – who is still waiting for that momentous occasion when somebody can make him to lose his caution and get swept up in (in fully justified) excitement and he will until then take a wait and see position.)

I am glad you decided not to name this article “Is String Theory Dead?” because there is nothing worse than a dead string – even in theory. I am glad all those prominent mathematicians and physicists are working on this theory to keep it alive – they probably have developed some specialized medical knowledge – let’s call it stringology – and thanks to the untiring efforts of all those stringologists, it will not only stay alive but will become a strong string, at least in theory! The world will be grateful and so would be the family members and financially dependents of those scientists.

Perhaps the “universe on a string” is the best thing to happen to the universe since Archimedes came down with that lever shaft and unceremoniously moved it. But the shaft has the disadvantage that it is too rigid – unlike the string which can be flexed, loosened and tightened as needed to keep folks like me from guessing what the heck it is up to!

I also personally like the idea of ten or eleven dimensions. I mean, just imagine the possibilities, I could conduct a mischief in one dimension and immediately hide into another. They will never find me – and if they do, I can point toward another dimension and triumphantly say:

“No, it was not I. It was one of those other guys – there, right there! Don’t you see him?! Darn, you are SO dimensionally challenged!”

And you see, Dr. Gill, many times I do feel like a tiny particle. Since I am a devoted fan of yours, tell me where O where is my “super partner”?! Find me that super partner, string my super partner along, and I assure you I will not allow anybody to call it a dud theory.

But a time frame shorter than the suggested three hundred years is highly desirable.

Recently read an article mocking the string theory. Scientifically, this article made just as much sense as the string theory itself … so must claim ignorance on both accounts.

The article did seem to make intuitive sense (use of intuition may be a careless approach, I admit) about speculative nature of string theory. It quipped that string theory `does not even rise to the level of being wrong` – a quote attributed to Heizenberg (?) regarding some unrelated issue …

I was reminded of a line from a country song. There is this long, drawn out guitar twang … followed by this line sung out in heavy country accent … “it’s always something”. What does it mean? Perhaps no one knows ...

Everybody, even sikhs, seem to know everything about string theory. I havn`t got clue as to what the heck it is, and this fact is causing me inferiority complex.

As of now, I prefer to think of string theory as pure speculation. It`s so good, its implications so delicious, that it`s easy to lose caution and get swept up in (in fully justified) excitement.

#7

I see.

bjkumar #6

See Falsifiability and
Karl Popper.

#1 Manto

The scientists left the ``3. Falsifiable`` for the lawyers!

But you forgot one more:

``4. Deniable``

That one is normally the domain of the politicians.

However, if one can pull deniable falsifications - therefore juggling the difficult art of being a lawyer and a politician at the same time - now THAT is a class act!

The String theory should be proven AND testable in about 10 years...

Team of Theoretical Physicists Develop a Test for String Theory - 2007-02-01

For decades, many scientists have criticized string theory, pointing out that it does not make predictions by which it can be tested. Now, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, the University of California, San Diego and The University of Texas at Austin have developed a test of string theory.

Their test, described in the Jan. 26 Physical Review Letters, involves measurements of how elusive high-energy particles scatter during particle collisions. Most physicists believe collisions will be observable at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is set to turn on later this year at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics, commonly known as CERN.

Re: # 2

I am disappointed too. This lengthy article doesn’t even summarize essential elements of the String theory in lay language. Tough reading and then feel cheated

For once I would agree with you, grudgingly though.

``String theory is criticized by its critics mainly because they claim that it doesn’t make any testable predictions. The few predictions that it does make are the ones which other existing theories had already made. So in their opinion, string theory is not scientific in the usual Popperian sense because it cannot be falsified. Empirical verification is the key point. If this is so obvious to the critics, why are string theorists so oblivious of it? Actually, it is not as simple as that. The string theorists believe the theory is testable but we do not have the right kind of equipment yet for this purpose.``

---

Well, while writing this reply ... a super string GHOST is sitting besides me. The presence of Ghost is testable but not now ... as science can invent such right kind of equipment that could successfully verify the presence of that Ghost...!!!

By the way Mr. Gill ... What do you think (According to Masadi you cannot think ... so you please come up with your own opinion) .... Is theory of Gravitation scientific...??? Which empirical test has found the existence of Gravitation...??? All known experimental tests only tell that objects fall towards earth ... or towards other massive heavenly bodies. All that which we can test is not more than that objects fall towards earth ... and with such and such uniform rate. There is no empirical proof about the ``existence`` of any such thing as Gravitation. So whats your opinion regarding the ``sciencibility`` of Gravitation...??? And if Gravitation is non-empirical concept then why it is science?

Dreams exist or not...??? What is the empirical proof or evidence for the existence of dreams...??? You will see dreams when you shall close your eyes and when you will not be in your proper senses. Can any ``empirical`` test be performed with closed eyes...??? And when ``researcher`` is not in proper senses...??? So tell about simple fact that
``dreams exist`` ... science or not...???

Who has empirically verified the existence of ``electrons``...??? All that we do verify is not more than that we just verify certain ``observable`` or ``noticeable`` phenomenon which only can be properly explained or accounted for if we (non-empirically)``theorize`` the existence of such ``hypothetical`` thing a ``electron``. So please tell us existence of electrons is science or not...???

If science has so many non-empirical foundations then why those ``TOP`` ``scientists`` whose references you quote are deciding their matters on the basis of present or even future possibility of ``empirical tests``...???

If West has made so much visible progress then it does not mean that all their authentic knowledge or science is absolutely correct.

Thanks and regards!

Khuram

What is totally baffling is how Mr. Gill the so-called ``free`` thinker is generating article after standardized (nonsensical) article and getting published on here, while others presenting original thought and a critical viewpoint are being either censored or given a very hard time. Mr. Gill`s article presents the standard expression of pseudo literary work what has unfortuantely become the norm in our parts of the world. Read through his articles, what is he doing? He is merely tabulating what others have seen or written about, even reproducing their arguments. Is there any thought or even an attempt at thought in these articles? None whatsoever. Even then, they are third rate reproductions/summaries of complex subjects, that neither help the writer nor the reader think beyond superficial levels. Gill mian, change your style, put some thought in your writings even if it means reducing the frequency of your submissions. What do you care, they are going to publish your articles regardless so quit making a damn fool of yourself with such meaningless submission at the rate of two every week.

Respectfully submitted,

The definition of a ``science`` and hence ``scienfitic`` is that a theory should be :

1. Testable

2. Verifiable

or

3. Falsifiable

We may decide whether a theory is right or wrong... but as far as I can see there is no denying that String Theory is scientific. I believe religious (and/or national, cultural, imagined identity) beliefs are the only real exception to the rule of science, simply because religious beliefs, being belief, is not falsifiable.