Talk:String theory

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the String theory article.
Please use this page only for discussion relevant to improving the article and refrain from discussing your thoughts on string theory. If you have technical questions about string theory try the Reference desk. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

Brane World scenario section

This section is poorly written.

Construction

In the criticism section one could add string theory as a construction in order to combine gravity in the quantum world.

Formula?

What's the central formula of this theory? I mean, there has to be something likem a Lagrange density or something similar... --91.4.236.151 (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To start, check out the pages on Nambu-Goto action or Polyakov action. Isocliff (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking over this article and the talk page. Im thinking this article could benefit from a little more meat, i.e. specific formulas. This question came to mind, and seems to reinforce the need. Im thinking the article could benefit from at least a few of the basic formulas, i.e. how the p-brane worldvolume action generalizes the point particle worldline action, and just a few basic statements about the Nambu-Goto action and Polyakov action.... Im aware that this article shouldn't be a treatise on all the math of string theory, but these definitely seem appropriate. Thoughts? Isocliff (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How to test it.

One way to test string theorys predictions about hidden dimensions would be to produce photons with a wavelength shorter than the size of the hidden dimensions. The energy problem can be solved by firing multiple laser beams at a single nanoparticle, heating it to locally extreme temperatures. The ultra-hot nanoparticle would radiate a small number of ultra-short photons, but the photons would make up in energy what they lack in numbers. Since string theory predict that gravity and electromagnetism unify in hidden dimensions, the test should involve gravimeters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.249.18 (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Correct"

From the lead section:

"Five major string theories were formulated. The main differences among them were the number of dimensions in which the strings developed and their characteristics. All of them appeared to be correct, however."

I find the statement "All of them appeared to be correct" slightly strange and at odds with the rest of the article, which says that the theory has not even made any testable experimental predictions. So, in what sense is "correct" being used? 86.179.1.213 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's being used in a theoretical sense Dauto (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And what does correct mean in a theoretical sense? (I think this sentence should be rephrases.)TR 05:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(OP) I agree. Perhaps it just means "consistent"?? 86.160.208.79 (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there have been no further comments, and pending clarification of exactly what it means, I have removed the sentence. At the moment I feel it does more harm than good because to the ordinary reader "correct" means "an accurate model of the real physical world". 86.160.212.182 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

How is the string theory scientific?

This article claims that the string theory is a scientific theory even though the string theory does not adhere to the scientific method (has no testable predictions) and is by definition pseudo-scientific.

It's possible for something to be falsifiable and still have no testable predictions. According to this article I can say that anything is scientific if it relies on the truth of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics even if it has no testable predictions, which is obviously nonsense.

Using this article's reasoning we can conclude that Intelligent Design is scientific.

So why are the authors of this article biased towards making the string theory appear scientific? --96.255.71.164 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're just misinformed. String theory has testable predictions. Dauto (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol....so then tell me which testable predictions have been produced in peer-reviewed journals? These wikipedia authors are so foolish and idiotic...so will you all consider Intelligent Design to be scientific then? I can think of many ways to falsify Intelligent Design...

What a joke Wikipedia and it's authors are

--96.255.71.164 (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has a lot of criticism and the intro doesn't say that it is a "scientific theory", it says it's a research framework that is a contender for a theory of everything. I think it's safe to call it scientific research. Bhny (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It would also be safe to call it a scientific theory but the article chooses to be conservative which is fine. Dauto (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If anything the article leans heavily to the conservative side. String theory is falsifiable which by definition means that it makes experimental predictions. The only question is how novel or significant those predictions are, which is debatable and under active research. So the last sentence of the first paragraph seems to be incorrect. Isocliff (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In what way exactly is the sentence wrong? It says "testable predictions". Obviously string theory makes predictions. Isn't the big problem that the predictions haven't been testable?

(the weasel words- "some scientists" need to be fixed) Bhny (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol...how does this particular article lean conservative? These Wikipedia authors are biased towards making the string theory appear scientific. This entire time no one has refuted any statement I made. It's possible for something to be falsifiable and have absolutely no testable predictions. This article claims that if you can show that General Relativity is false then you can falsify the string theory. Maybe one of the string theory's testable predictions is gravity LOL--96.255.71.164 (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well one important example is gravity and general relativity. These can be viewed as "obvious" today or "postdictions", but its still true that every time we test general relativity, as in the recent frame-dragging experiments by Gravity Probe B, we are doing experiments that could falsify string theory if they produced the wrong result. The same can be said of the experiments that have been done in recent years verifying the exactness of the Lorentz symmetry. So one could make a case that the ways to test string theory are so far not yet sufficiently convincing, but its wrong to assert categorically that its untestable, unfalsifiable, unscientific, or anything like that.

LOL...are you trying to say testing gravity and general relativity is equivalent to testing the string theory? The problem is that knowing that gravity or general relativity by itself exist doesn't tell us if the string theory is true or false...you can conclude that general relativity and gravity exist without assuming that the string theory is true or false.

So according to your reasoning and other Wikipedia editors' reasoning ANYTHING that assumes gravity or general relativity should be considered as scientific even if it makes no testable predictions?

It's possible for something to be falsifiable and still have absolutely no testable predictions.

So why haven't any Wikipedia editors yet given a reason for considering the string theory to be scientific? I guess Wikipedia is just an anti-science fan site

--96.255.71.164 (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to say it predicts us to observe particle X at exactly Y energy, but there doesn't seem to be any justification for expecting this would be the case. Im not an expert on the phenomenology or anything, but its clear that string theory is compatible with all kinds of particle physics content, but there also exist a lot of very firm rules (such as dictated by dualities, etc) that can be checked in principle. To check them to a significant degree probably requires very high energy collisions, but the fact that these tests are economically inconvenient to humans is not the same thing as being untestable. Isocliff (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well here's a summary of my arguments. It's quite obvious that Wikipedia editors have virtually no understanding of science so I'll try to make it easier for the stupid idiotic disgusting low-life anti-science Wikipedia authors. They are so unusually dumb and gullible and obviously lack any basic understanding of what science is.

The definition of pseudoscience is anything that does not adhere to the scientific method. Since the string theory does not adhere to the scientific method it is by definition pseudoscience.

In order for something to adhere to the scientific method it must have testable predictions. Authors here have claimed that gravity and general relativity are testable predictions of the string theory, but this claim is obviously wrong and false.

It's possible that the string theory is false and gravity still exists.
It's possible that the string theory is true and gravity still exists.

So knowing that gravity exists doesn't tell us if the string theory is true or false.

Similarly:
It's possible that the string theory is false and GR is still true.
It's possible that the string theory is true and GR is still true.

So knowing that general relativity is true doesn't tell us if the string theory is true or false.

Since neither gravity or general relativity tell us if the string theory is true or false they are not actual testable predictions. Gravity and general relativity can be true even if the string theory is completely wrong, therefore knowing that gravity exists or general relativity isn't a valid testable prediction of the string theory.
Another argument made by Wikipedia authors here is that if something is falsifiable then it must be scientific. But this again is wrong because it's possible for something to be falsifiable yet have no testable predictions. If a hypothesis cannot be tested then it does not adhere to the scientific method, and is therefore pseudoscientific.

I can claim that basically anything relies upon the truth of gravity. So according to Wikipedia authors any hypothesis that relies upon the truth of gravity, even if it has no testable predictions should be considered scientific!

So according to Wikipedia authors if I believe that there is another dimension that exists where unicorns exist, and I have mathematics for it and it relies upon the truth of gravity it is therefore falsifiable and therefore scientific! It doesn't matter if I have no way to test out if the actual dimension where unicorns exist is true or if I have no way to test out if my mathematics are valid, because it relies upon the truth of gravity! If someone falsifies gravity they would therefore prove my hypothesis false, so my hypothesis is scientifically sound even though it has no testable predictions!

I can think of many ways to falsify forms of Intelligent Design. Some forms of ID claim that DNA cannot arise by natural undirected processes. In order to falsify this hypothesis all someone would have to do is prove a natural process by which DNA arises. If someone shows a natural undirected process causing DNA to exist they would've entirely falsified ID. This is a testable prediction. So Intelligent Design should be considered as scientific or even more scientific than the string theory.

I hope I made it easy enough for the Wikipedia authors to understand.

--96.255.71.164 (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unified Strings (u21s19) Theory - NASA Conference Presentation

I added the following to Online Material...

• Watson II, Richard 'Brad'shaw. Identifying 'True Earth-like Planets' - All New Worlds Are Built On 7_4 (like Earth) Or 6_4 http://exep.jpl.nasa.gov/exep_exoMtgPosters.cfm Presentation at the NASA Conference Missions for Exoplanets 2010-2020 held in Pasadena, CA on April 21-23, 2009 - Unified Strings (u21s19) Theory is presented with the aspects of 1-dimensional time symmetry. Indirect evidence of strings is documented for the first time and u21s19 theory is used to predict the characteristics of all 'true Earth-like planets'. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a very strange paper. I wonder how stuff like that gets on a NASA conference. It reminds me of the timecube guy Bhny (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bhny, your comment reminds me of those that attacked Galileo's, Newton's, and Einstein's theories. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)