Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Current Thoughts in String Theory

Posted by michael on from the elephants-all-the-way-down dept.

DrLudicrous writes "The NYTimes is running a nice little synopsis of the current ideas in string theory. Apparently, there is still quite a bit of disagreement about how to interpret the various theories, with some string theorists supporting a semi-deterministic worldview a la Einstein (God does not play dice), while others believe our universe is just one possibility among many, with respect to various physical parameters."

2 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Fringe science, or valid? by mao+che+minh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Considering that we presently greatly lack the amount of energy required to test even the smallest of superstring theory claims, this debate is merely beginnning. Frankly, I still view superstring theory as a fringe science, considering the fact that it holds merit (many of it's hypothesis are built upon solid scientific foundations), but none of it's claims can yet be tested and verified.

    Still, intriguing stuff.

    1. Re:Fringe science, or valid? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'm not sure I'd completely agree with that. True, that sort of test would be ideal. However, while it is true we can't synthetically test it, that's not always necessary for it to have scientific value.

      Science isn't so much about finding the "material truth", it's about finding an appropriate "model". For instance, Newton wasn't wrong per se, his model was just incomplete. We still use his model for predicting the majority of practical behaviours outside of experimental physics. Einstein came up with a better model, but we know it isn't complete because relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatable. Still, those models work in their respective applications.

      If superstring theory is able to work at predicting all behaviour we can observe, it doesn't really matter if the concept is correct. In other words, if two different phenomena (conceptually) always produce the exact same results, does it matter if our model is based on the "real" one or the ficticious one?

      True, there is a desire to know the "truth" of a given situation, but a model that works for all observable phenomena is certainly sufficient for most reasons we use science. Requiring that we create a phenomenon that we can't normally observe is useful for testing the truth of the model, but not necessary its practicality.