# Is string theory taken seriously by mainstream physicists **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 10, 2009, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194 "2009-02-10T06:45:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![WoodenTaco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/45deac/32.png) [@WoodenTaco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WoodenTaco)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/21 "2009-02-11T07:43:29Z")
**Chronos** , I’m with you on the democratic argument, which sounds off to my ear. However, I’m not sure you’re reading his bit about “proofs” correctly. I think he is articulating your general point, responding to Smolin’s argument that string theory doesn’t rest on rigorous proofs. If you look at the sentences just before and after the part you quoted, I think this is clear. > [@](#): > > For example, there are crucially important results in string theory (such as the fundamental fact that quantum-gravitational scattering is finite, or the gauge/gravity duality mentioned above) for which rigorous proofs have not been found. But there are proofs, and there are proofs. In fact, there are almost no results in realistic quantum field theories that have been rigorously proven; physicists often take the attitude that reasonably strong arguments are enough to allow us to accept a claim, even in the absence of the kind of proof that would make a mathematician happy. Both the finiteness of stringy scattering and the equivalence of gauge theory and gravity under Maldacena’s duality are supported by extremely compelling evidence, to the point where it has become extremely hard to see how they could fail to be true. Now, you might disagree over whether you think there is compelling evidence for some of the unproven elements of string theory. But unless I’m misreading you (or Sean, or you and Sean both), then I think he agrees with you on the standards of proof in physics. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/22 "2009-02-11T09:34:06Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Personally, if I’m going to be taking a dose of snake oil, I’d rather take one that claims to cure as much as possible, so if I’m forced to choose, I reluctantly prefer the string model, but others prefer not to assume that gravity is unifiable without evidence, and so prefer loop quantum gravity. Have you tried what I like to call [SurfToE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything)? (I don’t think anyone else calls it that, but Lisi is a surfer, so the pun seems natural.) Don’t understand the first thing about it, but it does have the advantage of not requiring numerous extra dimensions of which we have no evidence. And (I think) no free parameters. ---
**Author:** ![Petrobey\_Mavromihalis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@Petrobey\_Mavromihalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Petrobey_Mavromihalis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/23 "2009-02-11T10:29:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Petrobey Mavromihalis** :There are some variants of string theory which do predict plausibly-observable consequences– Just wanted to say that this is the first time I have ever been quothed. Or should that be “I hath ever been quothed”? Anyway, interesting answers. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/24 "2009-02-11T15:54:39Z")
> [@nivlac](#): > > The Smolin book is good, as is the one by [Woit - Not Even Wrong](http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092764/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234290205&sr=8-1). You’ll find some very compelling arguments about the business and worthiness of string theory. FWIW Of the two books, I found _Not Even Wrong_ much harder to follow. It’s more of a maths-oriented perspective, than the more physical _The Trouble with Physics…_. Also the writing is quite a bit more “dry”. So I recommend _The Trouble with Physics…_. ---
**Author:** ![put\_down\_the\_sabre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/da6949/32.png) [@put\_down\_the\_sabre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/put_down_the_sabre)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/25 "2009-02-11T16:13:50Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > On the one hand, it’s not a theory. A theory has to be testable… This is a commonly-believed myth. Theories alone (without so-called auxiliary/helper hypotheses) are generally untestable. Take the Newtonian theory of gravity, F=Gmn/(r^2). How is that testable all by itself? pdts ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/26 "2009-02-11T18:53:37Z")
> [@put\_down\_the\_sabre](#): > > This is a commonly-believed myth. Theories alone (without so-called auxiliary/helper hypotheses) are generally untestable. > > Take the Newtonian theory of gravity, F=Gmn/(r^2). > > How is that testable all by itself? > > pdts I’m not sure what you mean. The standard test (suitable for undergraduate physics-major labs) is using 1-kg or so masses on a torsion balance ([Torsion spring - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balance)). For the record, when I did it, results matched Newton’s law to within experimental error. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/27 "2009-02-11T18:57:06Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean. The standard test (suitable for undergraduate physics-major labs) is using 1-kg or so masses on a torsion balance ([Torsion spring - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balance)). > For the record, when I did it, results matched Newton’s law to within experimental error. Well, if you didnt publish your results in a peer reviewed journal it doesnt count 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/28 "2009-02-11T19:37:38Z")
I’ve heard a bit about the surfer’s theory, but I’ve never been particularly clear what the physics of it is supposed to be. From what I’ve gathered, it consists mostly of “So there’s this really big mathematical object that’s, like, way cool… What if that, like, explains all of physics, dude?” While E8 is certainly way cool, the details of how precisely it leads to a physical Theory of Everything are somewhat lacking. **put down the sabre** , you can also test Newton’s theory of gravity by calculating the acceleration both of the Moon and of an object near Earth’s surface (such as an apple) and showing that both are consistent with the same mass for the Earth, or by showing that it (along with Newton’s other laws of motion) leads to the already-experimentally-verified Kepler’s laws for planets orbiting the Sun. Which is, in fact, how Newton himself tested it. ---
**Author:** ![put\_down\_the\_sabre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/da6949/32.png) [@put\_down\_the\_sabre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/put_down_the_sabre)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/29 "2009-02-11T21:51:35Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’ve heard a bit about the surfer’s theory, but I’ve never been particularly clear what the physics of it is supposed to be. From what I’ve gathered, it consists mostly of “So there’s this really big mathematical object that’s, like, way cool… What if that, like, explains all of physics, dude?” While E8 is certainly way cool, the details of how precisely it leads to a physical Theory of Everything are somewhat lacking. > > **put down the sabre** , you can also test Newton’s theory of gravity by calculating the acceleration both of the Moon and of an object near Earth’s surface (such as an apple) and showing that both are consistent with the same mass for the Earth, or by showing that it (along with Newton’s other laws of motion) leads to the already-experimentally-verified Kepler’s laws for planets orbiting the Sun. Which is, in fact, how Newton himself tested it. Really? Does Newton’s theory of gravity make those predictions, or does it only make predictions with helper hypotheses like … device X measures the mass of the test object (eg, apple) the orbits of the planets can be measures with devices Y and Z etc etc. In order to get to the outright empirical prediction, which usually takes the form of a reading on a dial – after all, scientists don’t just _see_ the orbits of the planets, rather they lie at the end of a chain of inferences – theories need all kinds of helper hypotheses. pdts ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/30 "2009-02-11T22:11:39Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean. The standard test (suitable for undergraduate physics-major labs) is using 1-kg or so masses on a torsion balance ([Torsion spring - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balance)). > For the record, when I did it, results matched Newton’s law to within experimental error. She means that theories may only be tested within the context of certain assumptions that are assumed to hold, hence the Popperian view of how science progresses, as refutation of false conjectures, is incorrect. The “auxilliary hypotheses” that **put down the sabre** mentions are things that everybody takes for granted when testing a theory, and are just “assumed away”. The upshot of this is that no theory is really tested in isolation, and in doing your lab experiment, you were really assuming quite a lot more than what appears on the surface. Take this: assume Newton’s theory implies we should observe P, (i.e. N –\> P). We test P and find that it doesn’t hold. By _modus tollens_ it seems that we have falsified Newton’s theory. But have we? The real implication is (N /\ A –\> P) where A are a load of auxiliary hypotheses. Concluding ¬N from ¬P is now not sound, as it may be A where the problem lies. Still, a little autistic to bring it up, when it was clear what **Chronos** meant 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/31 "2009-02-11T22:14:56Z")
OK, sure. What’s wrong with these “helper hypotheses”, as you call them? If the string model worked and made testable predictions with the help of “helper hypotheses”, I would have no problem calling it a theory. It doesn’t, though, so I don’t call it one. ---
**Author:** ![put\_down\_the\_sabre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/da6949/32.png) [@put\_down\_the\_sabre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/put_down_the_sabre)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194/32 "2009-02-11T22:21:00Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, sure. What’s wrong with these “helper hypotheses”, as you call them? If the string model worked and made testable predictions with the help of “helper hypotheses”, I would have no problem calling it a theory. It doesn’t, though, so I don’t call it one. Helper hypotheses: using a tuning fork makes strings vibrate in a sympathetic mode. when a string vibrate in a certain mode, the sky turns white. Testable? pdts [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-string-theory-taken-seriously-by-mainstream-physicists/485194.md?page=1)