Supersymmetric string theory is just that! A theory!

**~~Ostronomos~~** · 08-08-12, 11:44 AM

Does anyone have the foresight to verify this assertion?

**rpenner** · 08-08-12, 12:16 PM

First of all, it's unscientific in the extreme to say "Just a theory." The best theories are the best summaries of hundreds of thousands of man-years of experiment and observation. They are not blind guesses that something might be, but detailed predictions about how things behave.

String theory is the detailed exploration of the mathematical and logical consequences of certain physical postulates.

The String hypothesis is that this universe is more closely modeled by the predictions of string theory than The Standard Model of particle physics.

On the plus side, string theory is compatible with all sorts of pieces of the standard model and it has gravity. On the minus side, string theory has not yet been developed to the point to ask if the Standard Model is a possible low-energy consequence of the string hypothesis being true, and with the exception of gravity the experimental record has not found evidence that requires physical theories beyond the standard model.

So if the string hypothesis is confirmed, then string theory will replace both General Relativity and the Standard Model as a single best summary of all human knowledge about the behavior of the universe. And if it is rejected it will have been an interesting dead end in physics -- one that led to development of new mathematical techniques that have real applications. But right now there is a gap between what we know of string theory and what we know about the universe and physicists are working on both sides of that gap to confront string theory with experimental results that will point to it being better or worse than the Standard Model.

**origin** · 08-08-12, 12:18 PM

Uh, WTF are you talking about. I can verify that a theory is a theory because, uh, what else would it be?

Can you verify that a hickory nut is just that! A nut!!!

Golly, this is fun...

**~~wlminex~~** · 08-08-12, 02:24 PM

rpenner: You are correct. The String Theory is the "String hypothesis". The demanding rigors of the scientific method (including experimentation, other than math) have yet to elevate it to a theory.

**AlphaNumeric** · 08-08-12, 03:03 PM

Anyone who pulls the "It's just a theory" thing out of their backside deserves as much ridicule as the creationist religious ignorance hicks who try it with 'the theory of evolution'.

**prometheus** · 08-08-12, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by wlminex

rpenner: You are correct. The String Theory is the "String hypothesis". The demanding rigors of the scientific method (including experimentation, other than math) have yet to elevate it to a theory.

Calling it a hypothesis does string theory an enormous disservice, and just goes to show you have no understanding of it whatsoever (as if we didn't know). It's about time you looked up the difference between "theory" in common parlance and "theory" in scientific vernacular.

**OnlyMe** · 08-08-12, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

Anyone who pulls the "It's just a theory" thing out of their backside deserves as much ridicule as the creationist religious ignorance hicks who try it with 'the theory of evolution'.

Is that "just a theory", or a fact?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

**~~wlminex~~** · 08-08-12, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by prometheus

Calling it a hypothesis does string theory an enormous disservice, and just goes to show you have no understanding of it whatsoever (as if we didn't know). It's about time you looked up the difference between "theory" in common parlance and "theory" in scientific vernacular.

Prom: For some further elucidation, please review steps in the Scientific Method, re: observation, experimentation, etc. Please provide me additional input on whether strings have actually been observed (or only hypothesized) and experiments (other than math) regarding verification of the hypothesis. Thanks for your assistance/wlminex

**prometheus** · 08-09-12, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by wlminex

Prom: For some further elucidation, please review steps in the Scientific Method, re: observation, experimentation, etc. Please provide me additional input on whether strings have actually been observed (or only hypothesized) and experiments (other than math) regarding verification of the hypothesis. Thanks for your assistance/wlminex

Strings predict a lot of things that we observe. Gravity comes out quite naturally, and the standard model of particle physics does too with a bit more work. What strings can't do at the moment is provide a prediction that is not provided by other theories.

**brucep** · 08-09-12, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by OnlyMe

Is that "just a theory", or a fact?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

You called GR 'just a theory' in comments directed to me. By not resisting you reveal the FACT you don't know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific vernacular and what constitutes a scientific theory.

**~~Ostronomos~~** · 08-09-12, 09:47 AM

Taken from link:

The Need for Experimental Falsifiability in String Theory
By Andrew Zimmerman Jones and Daniel Robbins

Some scientists claim that because string theory currently fails the test of falsifiability, it’s not “real science.” Traditionally, an experiment can either confirm or refute a theory. An experimental result yields positive evidence if it supports the theory, while a result that contradicts the hypothesis is negative evidence.

**OnlyMe** · 08-09-12, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by brucep

You called GR 'just a theory' in comments directed to me. By not resisting you reveal the FACT you don't know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific vernacular and what constitutes a scientific theory.

Brucep, you know that in context, what I posted in that conversation, was not intended, in that way.

I was, at that time, making a distinction between what has been proven to be fact and what remains theory. And though I have not gone back to re-read any discussion, I believe that I also later admitted I had been commingling, the geodesic and frame-dragging effects, which have been observed and proven to exist, with the underlying theory GR and the curvature of space/spacetime, which remains a successfull theoretical model.

Even if I did say, "just a theory" I don't believe I put it in any kind of quotes, at the time. It is one thing for reasonable people to have a difference of opinion and interpretation, and quite another to twist the meaning and context, when quoting another. I will assume your above reference is the product of a continued miscommunication/misunderstanding, rather than intentional.

As for the current post you seem to be objecting to, my comment had less to do with the just a theory part of AlphaNumeric's comment, than it did to his categorizing, those who use it. I fully agree with what I understood his intent to be. I just saw a sliver of humor in his subjective assessment.

Question — Does anyone really deserve to be ridiculed? Does ridicule ever lead to better understanding? I am sure that there are a variety of reasonable answers to both of those questions. I have not found either to be constructive mechanisms of communication, myself.

**AlphaNumeric** · 08-09-12, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyMe

Question — Does anyone really deserve to be ridiculed? Does ridicule ever lead to better understanding? I am sure that there are a variety of reasonable answers to both of those questions. I have not found either to be constructive mechanisms of communication, myself.

Perhaps I spend too much time watching atheist YouTube videos, where this issue comes up a lot, but the 'it's just a theory' line is wheeled out so often by creationists and sometimes even relativity deniers that it really shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what science terminology is. No, not the sort of terminology where 'de Rham cohomology' takes 20 Wiki pages, 4 text books and a degree to explain, the sort of basic qualitative terminology anyone can understand by reading a dictionary or doing a single Google research. Ideas which are ridiculous are, by definition, worthy of ridicule.

**OnlyMe** · 08-09-12, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

Perhaps I spend too much time watching atheist YouTube videos, where this issue comes up a lot, but the 'it's just a theory' line is wheeled out so often by creationists and sometimes even relativity deniers that it really shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what science terminology is. No, not the sort of terminology where 'de Rham cohomology' takes 20 Wiki pages, 4 text books and a degree to explain, the sort of basic qualitative terminology anyone can understand by reading a dictionary or doing a single Google research. Ideas which are ridiculous are, by definition, worthy of ridicule.

Alpha, I did not mean any of that, as criticism. I spent enough years of my life in the same frame of mind. In the end I think, that it had a greater impact on me, than anyone on the other end. But that's me.

Anyway, no offense was intended.

**~~Ostronomos~~** · 08-10-12, 08:51 AM

Strings themselves are made out of energy.

**~~wlminex~~** · 08-10-12, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ostronomos

Strings themselves are made out of energy.

. . . . subplanckian energy . . . ?

**prometheus** · 08-10-12, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by wlminex

. . . . subplanckian energy . . . ?

You wrote only 2 words and still managed to make your statement nonsensical. Congratulations!

**superstring01** · 08-10-12, 01:16 PM

A theory is the highest graduation point in science. It's where facts go to mean, demonstrate and prove things. If you say "just a theory", I know that you're just a fucktard.

~String

**~~wlminex~~** · 08-10-12, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by prometheus

You wrote only 2 words and still managed to make your statement nonsensical. Congratulations!

Thank you Prom!! But, it was NOT a statement . . . it was a query (i.e., ?)

**AlphaNumeric** · 08-10-12, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyMe

Alpha, I did not mean any of that, as criticism. I spent enough years of my life in the same frame of mind. In the end I think, that it had a greater impact on me, than anyone on the other end. But that's me.

Anyway, no offense was intended.

I wasn't having a go. Sorry, the lack of voice inflection on line makes it hard to convey implication. Perhaps we should all do as the Elcor in Mass Effect and open all posts with a comment about the inflection it should be read in. Such as [Feigned interest] or [Passionate hatred] or [Poorly disguised contempt] or [Extreme apathy].

Originally Posted by wlminex

Thank you Prom!! But, it was NOT a statement . . . it was a query (i.e., ?)

[Patronising impatience] That doesn't mean it wasn't nonsensical. If I said "Squirrel trumpet?" or "Ambivalent dishcloth?" would the question mark after them somehow make the posts okay? The fact you picked 2 words you think have some vague connection to the subject doesn't make your comments any more incoherent. As usual.