# Is "String Theory" essentially just unprovable mathematical noodling? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 25, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737 "2005-11-25T22:29:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/41 "2005-11-27T20:21:48Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Another fun article aimed at the general public in The New York Times and falsifiability Cool. I had skimmed that article but missed the part about the CERN collider. Let’s see what happens. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/42 "2005-11-28T03:00:04Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > And saying that an extra 10 or 20 or 99 extra dimensions exist on an incredibly small scale is? Actually, yes, since it might explain why we live in a universe with four visible dimensions. Inventing new things to solve a problem is different from explaining an experimental result by adding lots of kludges. Neutrinos got posited in just this way, before they were detected. > [@](#): > > I understand that we don’t have experimental evidence which falsifies or goes against string theory, but there haven’t been any definitive hypothesis made and tested by string theory. Given the widely varrying number of extra dimensions thrown out by various proponents of string theory, in some ways, couldn’t you make string theory say almost anything? I would suspect not, since a theory that can explain anything clearly explains nothing. Good physicists would steer clear of such a theory, and the string theorists may be wrong, but they are competent. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/43 "2005-11-28T09:25:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I would suspect not, since a theory that can explain anything clearly explains nothing. Good physicists would steer clear of such a theory, and the string theorists may be wrong, but they are competent. But let’s be honest, I don’t think that a single participant in this thread can actually fully follow a complete evolution of any given flavor of string theory, and physicists are human beings with a lot of emotions and drives beyond just being good physicist. Consequently, I say we wait for some more evidence before lauding it as any sort of advancement. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/44 "2005-11-28T13:50:32Z")
String theory **is** falsifiable. If we built a particle accelerator having a circumference similar to the orbit of the planet Pluto, or of the entire galaxy, and we still couldn’t detect [superpartner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry) particles, string theory as currently formulated simply could not be correct, and would need radical reworking. Hopefully, those superpartners will be detected at much more accessible energies, perhaps even in the Large Hadron Collider in 2007. String theory asks _what if_? Specifically, it asks _what if_ 6 or 7 dimensional Calabi Yau space was compactified into our 3 dimensions? _If_ that was the case, _then_ the different harmonics of the same tiny, ultra-tense superstrings would (apparently) look exactly like the familiar particles we see around us. Having got this far, the search is on for some _observable_ consequence of this which we can test in our everyday 3-D life. Just because the tests are not availbale **yet** does not, I think, condemn the entire enterprise to pseudoscientific irrelevence: the word I would use is [_proto_scientific](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience), which _all_ eminent theories necessarily start out as. Of course, a string theorist would say that its most successful prediction is that of _gravity_ and that string theory, like relativity before it, really is _too good to be false_. When asked what he would think if the confirming tests for relativity came out negative, Einstein replied that God may be subtle, but He isn’t plain mean. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/45 "2005-11-28T14:17:30Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > compactified You’re kidding, right? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/46 "2005-11-28T14:22:15Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > You’re kidding, right? Sorry, am I using the verb incorrectly? The noun is [Compactification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_%28physics%29). ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/47 "2005-11-28T14:29:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Sorry, am I using the verb incorrectly? The noun is [Compactification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_%28physics%29). Evidently you’re using it correctly. I never heard the term before - it just sounds a little bit too much like the mangled verbification of a certain President. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/48 "2005-11-28T14:41:00Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > Evidently you’re using it correctly. I never heard the term before - it just sounds a little bit too much like the mangled verbification of a certain President. Heh heh. Let’s not talk about his [Lies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_superalgebra). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/49 "2005-11-28T15:05:46Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > I’m not really qualified to discuss string theory, but it seems to me from what I’ve read that string theory arises from various well confirmed scientific theories like quantum mechanics and relativity, and is much less ad hoc than an Invisible pink unicorn theory. The theory is mathematically consistent, again AFAIK, and aspects of it can be explored through mathematics. > > Even Brian Greene, string theory’s biggest booster in the popular media, admits and laments the fact that we cannot as yet empirically test string theory. But why should that mean that the attempt to construct the theory using mathematics is somehow invalid? As long as string theorists are honest about what they’re doing and don’t pretend that their theories are as well confirmed as Quantum Mechanics, where’s the harm. String theory may be testable someday. Why not have a well developed theory ready for that happy day? I’m a big fan of Popper, but I think he’d roll over in his grave if he knew that his criteria of demarcation was being used to stifle intellectual inquiry. Just because something’s pre-scientific doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting and worthwhile. Just think how long atomic theory had been around in one form or another before someone finally came up with a scientific way to test it–more than two millenia. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/50 "2005-11-28T17:16:09Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Just because the tests are not availbale **yet** does not, I think, condemn the entire enterprise to pseudoscientific irrelevence: the word I would use is [_proto_scientific](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience), which _all_ eminent theories necessarily start out as. Look, I’m not being dismissive of string theory, I’m just saying that we shouldn’t hail it as the most important advance of the century until it’s been experimentally demonstrated. A lot of other good theories have fallen by the wayside under the face of experimental evidence, and the same may happen with string theory. Again, I acknowledge that it’s interesting and hopeful, but until it has empirical support, I just cannot get that excited about it. I still respect it and the people that are working on it. Again, we’ll see what happens with CERN in 2007. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/51 "2005-11-28T17:25:43Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Just think how long atomic theory had been around in one form or another before someone finally came up with a scientific way to test it–more than two millenia. That’s a bad example. Democritus’ atomic theory was derived in a nonscientific way. He was kind of right, but for the wrong reasons. String theory, even if it is wrong, has a stronger basis. I agree it is early to call string theory an advance, though it is an advance in theory. I suspect that even if something about it is falsified by an experiment, the insight gained by looking at things in this way will prove valuable. And I think protoscientific is an excellent description of it at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Citizen\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Citizen\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Citizen_Bob)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/52 "2005-11-28T22:22:49Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > No, they wouldn’t. ID is _fundamentally_ untestable. The statement “God did it” can apply to any possible state of affairs. String theory is _practically and temporarily_ untestable. We simply haven’t thought of tests we can possibly do yet. And as DSeid points out, string theory may be tested sooner than the pessimists think. But Larry, I personally know some of these string theorists. They ALL hold, with crazy ambition, to the Copenhagen interpretation of Heinsenberg (as in QM). They do NOT believe that string theory is fundamentally testable/falsifiable. They just want a to build a simpler set of equations that takes care of more — String Theory, by their definition is just a universal mathematical model. If Oakum’s Razor works, that’s all the proof they need. They don’t care that it is not TRULY scientific, other than indirect verification through other theories that end up being subsets. That’s just the way they think - I’ve argued til I was blue in the face, and that’s what I get from them in the end every time. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/53 "2005-11-28T23:30:31Z")
> [@Citizen Bob](#): > > But Larry, I personally know some of these string theorists. They ALL hold, with crazy ambition, to the Copenhagen interpretation of Heinsenberg (as in QM). They do NOT believe that string theory is fundamentally testable/falsifiable. They just want a to build a simpler set of equations that takes care of more — String Theory, by their definition is just a universal mathematical model. If Oakum’s Razor works, that’s all the proof they need. They don’t care that it is not TRULY scientific, other than indirect verification through other theories that end up being subsets. That’s just the way they think - > I’ve argued til I was blue in the face, and that’s what I get from them in the end every time. You may be right, **Citizen Bob**. As I said, I’m not really qualified to discuss this. Most of the math and physics in string theory is over my head, which extends only through basic calculus and a little college physics. Most of what I know about string theory comes from reading [The Elegant Universe](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375708111/102-7020714-0112921?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance) and following the debate in Scientific American and similar magazines. I wouldn’t be surprised if these sources overstate the case for string theory. That being said, I’m wondering what you think of **DSied’s** posts and links. They seem to describe some plausible tests for string theory. Even if those tests are not practical, they would show that the theory is at least potentially testable. Also, It was my understanding that the Copenhagen interpretation was just a philosophical approach to Quantum mechanics, that explained or dealt with some of the quantum weirdness like wavepacket collapse, but wasn’t really necessary to actually do or test QM itself. Again, I may very well be wrong here. Finally, even if the most pessimistic slant is given to string theory, and it turns out that it can never be tested, I would still hold that it is worth study. It may indeed mean that science is returning to its classical greek roots, where we merely create hypotheses that explain the phenomena and preserve the appearences of things. But this need not be a worthless endeavour. A mathematical theory that resolves the contradictions between QM and Relativity would still be an impressive achievement, even if it never went beyond the realm of mathematical speculation. Mathematical consistency and explanatory depth would lift string theory beyond the level of some random ad hoc hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/54 "2005-11-29T00:50:18Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yes, the Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory for example. It can also explain all observed phenomena, and also has the flaw that nobody has figured out a way to test it. This is the whole point of the OP. String theory doesn’t appear to be anymore scientific than a religious explanation. > > As Cisco points out, our entire exploration of space and utilisation of sattelite communications has hinged on a working theory of gravity. Which theory of gravity may be partly false in its fundamentals. In fact, some of the key mechanisms are unknown in any case. Maybe perceptible gravity isn’t really strictly a function of concentrations of matter, & we’re just dealing with something we still don’t understand at all. But it works for us. We can at least apply the math successfully to do what we’ve been doing. That doesn’t change the fact that science isn’t just there to invent new toys & engines of wealth. Understanding how the world works is a pretty cool thing in its own right. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/55 "2005-11-29T15:30:56Z")
> [@Citizen Bob](#): > > But Larry, I personally know some of these string theorists. They ALL hold, with crazy ambition, to the Copenhagen interpretation of Heinsenberg (as in QM). They do NOT believe that string theory is fundamentally testable/falsifiable. They just want a to build a simpler set of equations that takes care of more — String Theory, by their definition is just a universal mathematical model. If Oakum’s Razor works, that’s all the proof they need. They don’t care that it is not TRULY scientific, other than indirect verification through other theories that end up being subsets. That’s just the way they think - > I’ve argued til I was blue in the face, and that’s what I get from them in the end every time. That is the biggest load of malarkey I have read today. (Which is saying something since I just got here from the [theOnion.com](http://theOnion.com).) I, also, know some of the physicists that work in string theory and have heard and had discussions with nobel laureates on this subject and all of them, bar none, want and are trying to devise tests to prove/falsify the string theory. Some of them feel that it may not be possible to test the theory, but none of them think what you have stated, “If Oakum’s Razor works, that’s all the proof they need.” Your assertations go against all scientific inquiry and the standards/ethics of being a scientist. So, I am going to ask for a cite for your comments, or a retraction. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/56 "2005-11-29T15:35:52Z")
Among philosophies, science enjoys a wonderful and unique circular foundation: it is never wrong because potentially being wrong is part of what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Citizen\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Citizen\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Citizen_Bob)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/57 "2005-11-29T15:59:49Z")
> [@GreyMatters](#): > > That is the biggest load of malarkey I have read today. (Which is saying something since I just got here from the [theOnion.com](http://theOnion.com).) > > I, also, know some of the physicists that work in string theory and have heard and had discussions with nobel laureates on this subject and all of them, bar none, want and are trying to devise tests to prove/falsify the string theory. Some of them feel that it may not be possible to test the theory, but none of them think what you have stated, “If Oakum’s Razor works, that’s all the proof they need.” > > Your assertations go against all scientific inquiry and the standards/ethics of being a scientist. So, I am going to ask for a cite for your comments, or a retraction. I’m glad you see my point! It goes against all scientific inquiry and the standard & ethics… but read the book - its what they hold to. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/58 "2005-11-29T16:05:24Z")
> [@Citizen Bob](#): > > I’m glad you see my point! It goes against all scientific inquiry and the standard & ethics… but read the book - its what they hold to. No, he said **your** assertations (sic) do so. String theory **is** falsifiable: if the supersymmetric partners of our familiar particles are not found in particle accelerators which _should_ find them (and the LHC is not yet powerful enough to provide the test, nor even will it be in 2007), string theory would be demonstrably **wrong** since it _relies_ on supersymmetry. I think you are constructing a strawman out of arguments you didn’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/59 "2005-11-29T16:08:50Z")
> [@Citizen Bob](#): > > I’m glad you see my point! It goes against all scientific inquiry and the standard & ethics… but read the book - its what they hold to. Your sarcastic comments are not improving your position. I am not agreeting with you and your attempt to twist my words is a joke. Please, provide a cite for your comments. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737/60 "2005-11-29T17:08:32Z")
> [@GreyMatters](#): > > Your sarcastic comments are not improving your position. > > I am not agreeting with you and your attempt to twist my words is a joke. > > Please, provide a cite for your comments. Yes, because he’s a drama queen, he just wants to start shit with physicists, and he comes in to threads on String Theory and lies his ass off to upset you. :smack: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-essentially-just-unprovable-mathematical-noodling/332737.md?page=4)