threemae,
Thank you for the heads-up. I must say, trolls suck.
help me out a bit here. Physics and string theories, QM and Relativity are not my bag. But I would like to follow this debate a bit better. Can someone highlight what is meant by contradictions between QM and Relativity in regards to string theory? What is ST proving between the two?
HUH?.. You guys are a hoot. Well, I do have to admit, my arguments are 10 years old - its possible that I only see the negative now after all that has been said in the past.
If CERN at HUGE energies (or future tech) can give super-symmetry a shot in a few years, then I would have to concede it might be a feasability/falsifiability experiment - excluding other theories that also explain actual observations. [Everything you could possibly want to know on mainstream Superstring experimental ideas: http://www.superstringtheory.com/experm/index.html ]
[QUOTE=Citizen Bob]
HUH?.. You guys are a hoot.QUOTE]
We are a hoot? We are?!?
You make false witness to the state of scientific inquiry of string theory. Then you link to a site that proves you wrong and you claim we are a hoot?
Pick up a mirror and stare into it for a little while, Mr. Owl. There you will find the hoot you are looking for.
Are you saying that there are two groups of string theorists? Where one group believes that testing String theory is possible and the other does not?
It appears to me that what **Citizen Bob ** was saying is that of the String theorists he has associated with, none believe what they are doing is testable. Obviously this would mean they are not following scientific process and just searching for an untestable mathematical model - wouldn’t their goal be to look for the simpliest form of the model (Occum’s Razor)?
Wikipedia String Theory:
If the theory has not made any “falsifiable predictions” how is it falsifiable? I understand that a theory is falsifiable if it “admits the possibility of being proven false” but if the entire theory has not made any “falsifiable predictions” yet, how is the theory as a whole considered falsifiable?
Actually, I’m on your side, and I was kidding about you getting off jerking physicists chains around.
No. I am saying Citizen Bob has no idea what he is talking about.
Parts of the String Theory ARE testable and that is exactly what the super colliders, that cost billions of dollars, are being made for. Governments are stupid, but I doubt they would be spending all that money on something that the scientists that will be using them claim is useless.
However, some parts are possibly not proveable. More to come…
Looking forward to the “more to come…” One thing you might want to explain is how something could be proveable/testable if not all parts of it are proveable, because to me that says that I could prove that ocean waves cause religious fundamentalism without proving the connection.
All kidding aside…
Math, Physics and Chemistry are human made abstractions. We develop these abstractions into abstract models/theories that help us understand and predict what is actually happening.
Since the dawn of science, there have been many abstract models that have tried to describe our physical reality. Each model lasted as long as it continued to describe/predict the reality we observed. The observe part of the preceding sentence is the crux of our current conversation and it is also the reason why I am confused by the conversations about the provability of the String Theories out today.
Lets take the abstract model named Chemistry as an example. We use Chemistry each and every day to accomplish many different tasks. Chemistry is totally awesome at predicting the outcomes of interactions of matter at the atomic level. Each time it is used, the predictions of the model are really, really accurate. The predictions are so accurate and consistent that Chemistry is an accepted model, is considered an un-falsified theory and we have moved on.
But, I ask you has every aspect of this model been observed/proven at the physical scale that it is occurring? Lets look at a very important part of the abstract model, Chemical Bonding, to answer that question.
There are at least two types of Chemical Bonds, Ionic and Covalent. These are small abstract models that describe how atoms combine to form a completely different compound. We all know this and accept it as fact, and many of us have used this model to predict the outcome of mixing different elements together.
Has there been an experiment that observed the ACTUAL “sharing of electrons” in a Covalent Bond? Has there been an experiment that ACTUALLY counted all the individual electrons of two atoms, combined them, and then counted the electrons of the result and proven electrons were transferred from one to the other in an Ionic Bond? The answer is no because, for exactly the same reason people claim String Theory is not provable, the scale this is taking place on is out of range of our technology to detect/observe.
So, you may ask, why is it that no one is screaming that Chemistry is an unproven theory? The answer is because on the scales that we CAN observe things the abstract model of Chemistry continues to give us a nearly accurate prediction of the real outcome. We can measure the predicted energies produced by the bonding on scales we can observe and using the abstraction we call Math scale these observations all the way down to single electron transfer.
The same thing is happening with String Theory right now. It is making predictions about things we can observe. So far these predictions have been right.
The first problem in our quest to “prove” String Theory is we have not been able to create experiments that can possibly show us all/most of the actual, real outcomes predicted by the model that we CAN observe. When we can devise tests that can show us, on the scales we can observe, all the outcomes String Theory predicts, we will accept it as a “proven” theory or we will falsify it if it fails to make predictions that match outcomes.
The second problem with observing ALL the aspects of the abstract model, String Theory, is that the “strings” are smaller than their Planck scale and, given our current understanding of reality, cannot be observed. This is a fairly undisputed aspect of this particular problem within the scientific community. This is where all the hoopla regarding the provability/falsifiability of the String Theory comes into play.
Because the “strings” described are smaller than their Planck scale and cannot be observed then, whoa, lets put everything on hold, claim it is a bad theory and stop right there?
I think not.
For around the last hundred years, humans have been using the abstractions Chemistry and Physics to describe the interactions of atoms with great success. Yet, it has only been within the last 15 years or so that we have actually been able to physically observe an atom on the scale it exists on. In fact, until tunneling microscopes were invented the scientific community’s opinion was that it was physically IMPOSSIBLE to observe an atom on its scale of existence. Yet, there was no stopping humans from continuing the development of the abstract models that predicted the outcomes of an atom’s interactions. Far from it, and thankfully as well, because it was this continued development of the abstract models that gave us the tunneling electron microscope that was then used to observe the atom for the first time.
The real question here is NOT whether the String Theory is testable/falsifiable because it is at the sub-atomic level. The theory has predictions on scales we can observe and if it fails to agree with the reality we can observe then it will fail as a theory. The part that is not testable yet is the observation of a single “string” or the interactions of the “strings” on its scale of physical existence. I agree that at this time it is not possible to observe a “string” on the scale it physically exists on. But, just like with atomic theory, that does not mean it is a useless endeavor to continue to develop and use the String Theory until is proven wrong or another, better abstract theory comes along.
The real question is whether Planck scaling is the end all be all describer of what is and is not physically observable. My opinion is that all we have to do is dig a little deeper.
GreyMatters, could you put up a cite to what has been tested and/or proven?
You sure about that?
Citizen Bob has already provided us with a nice, layman type site that talks about the current successful predictions of the String Theory.
Here are some pages from that site:
citecite
Also, String Theory predicts all the particles in the Standard Model. However, the String Theory model predicts more particles than the Standard Model, not just the predicted superpartner particles. (E8XE’8’ predicts hundreds of as yet undetected particles.) String Theory successfully predicts these particles and this has been tested and proven, just not completely since there are more particles in the String Theory model than have as yet been observed. This is one reason for the continuing development of more super colliders. The new colliders will produce, maybe, the particles that String Theory predicts that the Standard Model doesn’t. cite cite
And, here is a page talking about Planck scales: cite
Yes.
I think I may have missed a step around here.
Isn’t the location of an electron a (quantum?) statistical probability? If so, then wouldn’t the explanation in general chemistry represent the Occam’s Razor of electron theory?
The position is uncertain. The more accurately you know its position (such as “around two nuclei”), the more uncertain you must be in its momentum (and therefore energy). This causes all kinds of problems in explaining chemical bonds: Schrodinger’s equations for such large systems are simply intractable, and thus cannot themselves be tested. That does not make chemistry unfalsifiable as a whole.
Because it is “simpler”? You misrepresent Ockham’s Razor (fourth variant spelling in ths thread!) if so. OR is all about the number of entities necessary for an explanation: “simplicity” alone is not the crucial factor (after all, just saying that something is “magic” is simplest of all!).
General chemistry cannot explain the fundamental physics of chemical bonding. Similarly, general physics cannot explain Planck scale phenomena. A more fundamental theory is required: further entities (eg. supersymmetric strings) are necessary. If the consequences of supersymmetry are not observed in furture apparatus which should observe them, string theory will have failed a test.
This is more a matter of perspective and reliance on the abstraction Math as an observational tool than a difference in our understanding of the situation. I think, anyway.
Physically we can not observe, directly a specific electrons actions or a “string.” And, with both there may be a real, physical barrier, the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Planck scale of a “string,” in our ultimate ability TO directly observe what the abstraction is telling us is happening. However, with the wonderful abstraction we call Math and abstract modeling we can overcome these barriers and scale from our physical level of direct observational ability to the actual level of activity the different abstract models, Chemistry and String Theory, describe.
As our ability to reconcile these things becomes more accurate and precise, the more we consider the description to actually, physically BE what the abstraction description says it is, always keeping in mind that the description is an abstraction and can always be wrong.
So, then is the abstraction we call Math a reliable observational tool that can be used to cross physical barriers that may not be physically crossable?
IMHO, ultimately yes, presently not entirely.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle
Doesn’t Occam’s Razor say “Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler”? From my limited understanding, for general chemistry purposes defining the location of an electron is “ok” because, in general, it works. Of course it’s not precise, but isn’t saying where an electron is an “equally predicitve theory” for general chemistry?
If I’m reading you right, then it comes down to the question of whether a theory is capable of being mathematically consistent, but still wrong. Do I understand you correctly, or am I over generalizing?
There is more to it than that, but I will focus, I think, on what you are asking…
Not exactly “still wrong”, but rather right and wrong at the same time. I am of the opinion that all our scientific theories will be forever right until they are proven wrong, and ALL of them will be proven wrong when the next right one is developed and then, in the end, the “ultimate question of life, the universe and everything” is developed. (Sorry, I couldn’t help it.)
Take an accepted, currently used example: Newtonian Physics. On the physical scale this abstraction was developed for it is dead on accurate. But, on further, deeper observation of the physical universe it begins to fail. A new theory is developed. That theory is incomplete. Then another, still incomplete. So, here we are trying to develop the next theory.
So if String theory is just a step in the right direction, if not all aspects of the theory can be tested wouldn’t it be difficult to make the next step? Or, are you postulating that eventually we will figure out a method to test for the multiple dimensions that string theory predicts?