Slashdot Mirror
Why String Theory Is Not Science (forbes.com)
StartsWithABang writes: Earlier this month, a conference was held devoted to the question of whether untestable scientific ideas like string theory and the multiverse are actually science or not. While many opinions were stated and no one changed their mind, the answer is apparent: unless you're willing to change the definition of science to include "this thing that isn't science," then no, string theory is not science. It's a theory in the sense of a mathematical theory — like set theory, group theory or number theory — but it isn't yet a scientific theory. Of course, it could become science, but that would require that it actually do the things a scientific theory does: make testable predictions that can be validated or falsified.
No. Climatology, even if you are the biggest skeptic, makes testable predictions all the time. For example, predictions that the earth will be two degrees warmer in 100 years. That is completely testable: it will take 100 years to test it, but that's irrelevant.
An untestable theory is one that can never be tested, even with infinite time and resources. For example, "the universe was created as-is five minutes ago." Maybe that's true, but there's no way to test it. Even if you had a time machine, it still couldn't be tested. There is no experiment that can be imagined to test this.
In the case of string theory, the author claims that string theory makes no predictions that distinguish it from the standard model. That is, if you perform an experiment, you will not know if it is supporting string theory, or if it's just a natural result of the standard model.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
David Deutsch argues that it is core:
https://www.ted.com/talks/davi...
Also, string theory is surely as testable as quantum mechanics. It's just currently impossible to say which is more valid.
There are too many floaty numbers inserted and whenever the numbers don't work more floaty numbers and dimensions are added in to make the "theory" work. Books written about this "Not even Wrong", "The Trouble with Physics". There may be others, those are just two I am familiar with.
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even...
http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-...
Only I can judge you.
The author claims that there is no test that can be done that would prove String Theory true as opposed to other theories.
Unfortunately the author has proven many times that he does not understand particle physics in previous posts. The problem with String Theory is that there are far too many possible theories to consider (last count I heard it was around 10^500) to make detailed, concrete predictions. The second that we get an experimental signature for something like String Theory that number would collapse and theorists would be able to start studying the detailed predictions of a vastly smaller number of models. This would undoubtedly lead to some clever theorist coming up with signatures unique to String Theory which other, competing models would not have.
If you can't come up with ANY difference it would mean that the theories must be mathematically equivalent for all situations which are possible. We have had this happen in physics before. Matrix mechanics and wave mechanics are both different ways of doing the same Quantum Mechanics. Nobody worries about which is the "right" way because both make mathematically equivalent predictions.
You do not understand what evolution is. "Create life" is not in the description.
Everything you said just annoys me.
Liberals don't receive any more money from government than do Conservatives. I can't speak for everyone, but WE don't ask for "bigger government" just to get more -- a lot of us might not get welfare. We just have a bigger tribe; meaning, we care about things beyond our family, team, church, country. People. None of us want "more regulations" -- just the RIGHT ones. You know who sponsors most of the regulations? Big companies. You know who does MOST of the Medicare fraud? About 70% or more (if memory serves) by large institutions. "Big" government means nothing. There are about 1 million people employed due to Bush (OK, half of them, maybe) who are in the security, intelligence, and other cloak and dagger organizations. I want that to shrink because MY THEORY of human behavior is the best security is being fair to people and they will not blow you up because they have a shared future and a stake in the community they are now a part of. It's not 100% perfect, but it's a lot better (with historic justification) than the security via intimidation and heavy handed law enforcement.
"view it as a humanitarian crisis so you can convince yourselves (ie rationalize) you are doing the right thing despite fleecing citizens through idiotic taxes, regulations, etc." None of those whine points have much to do with each other. How is Climate Change NOT going to cause a humanitarian crisis? People who can't eat or who are displaced by rising tides or drought will go where they can survive. Not being able to live is a Humanitarian issue, a million people migrating is a crisis. Regardless of "Liberalism" or "Democrat" -- it's going to happen.
"idiotic taxes, regulations, etc. whose costs get passed down to them despite being levied on evil oil companies."
So by this logic, no taxes and no regulations would make things great. I don't like idiotic taxes. Government pays 54% of the bill for medical care in this country, and we spend about 4 times more per person than Germany. I'd much rather pay about 10% more in taxes and stop fearing sickness or retirement. So we pay MORE to get crap. Your co-pay usually is the real value of the service, and the Insurance companies negotiate and pay, then charge the doctors and hospitals more for insurance and pay radio show hosts to talk about torte reform. If they were good for the system; why would they have incredibly huge profits? Paying less than you paid for the insurance is how you make profit. It's an idiotic system. Hospitals also can vary over 9 times in cost for the same procedure -- the competitive market to lower costs is not in effect.
What's idiotic is those Republicans who think they can have two Santa Klaus's. They can get stuff which they happily take advantage of, and not pay for it. Patriotism and fairy dust solves everything. So while you might hear about this or that wasteful boondoggle -- just understand those are tiny fractions of the budget, and usually it's due to a politician paying back a supporter on the country dime. Like the Republicans just in office paying 10X more for mercenaries and failing consultants to provide services that the military provided. That raked in a lot of cash. Just tell us where you would cut the budget to reduce the stupid. Would you let seniors die of starvation or go homeless? You want to shut down the military? How about roads and water? Education? Law enforcement? I mean, seriously, can you just look at a budget sometime and not see that things are allocated for things you get a benefit from?
"costs get passed down to them despite being levied on evil oil companies."
If something costs a certain amount, and every company gets charged the same amount, it becomes the cost of business. IF the costs get passed on, then people will need higher wages, companies that depend on Oil or whatever will raise prices. It's been shown that over time, it creates no real burden as the market adjusts to the higher prices of whatever good. Less oil might be used.
On the other hand, if th
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I'm a liberal and I'm not asking for big government at all.
Also you are speaking of a larger "tribe" as if you have some greater humanity than others. Well I don't trust you. I'd rather we have a society that has collectivised the protection of individual rights and doesn't require armchair warriors to bleat in comment sections to keep us safe or focus on causes to affect change.
You're not a liberal and are misusing the term.
I have studied what the scientists say about this for ten years. But I've also made a point of studying what the sceptics say, looking at the model results compared to actual reality and squaring the science with the hyperbolic press and political statements. Let me tell you, there's a huge discrepancy here. It's almost as if the science is (on the whole) being manufactured to order. This isn't new. It happens in social "science" all the time.