We're pleased to announce an update is coming to the community boards.
Sunday, September 25th: We are migrating the boards to a new platform. The site is currently in read-only mode and we will bring it back online as soon as the migration is complete.
I've finally come to terms with my personal discomfort with the fact that "String Theory" is not testable- just like "ID theory".It seems that string theory is an attempt at a unifying theory that explains very testable realms of physics.Read this quickly-Physicists have not yet found a single, elegant set of laws describing all the fundamental forces of nature. But since Einstein's day they have made important progress. Experiments using particle accelerators have pointed the way to new mathematical rules, which cover both electromagnetic forces and the nuclear forces that shape the cores of atoms. These rules leave much to be explained, but they do predict almost everything about the elementary behavior of material particles. Everything but gravity. Nobody has found a way to fit Einstein's curved space together with the wholly different quantum approach that works for electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Recently some physicists proposed a third approach: "string theory." They picture fundamental particles as tiny loops, which vibrate like violin strings in a fantastic multi-dimensional space. Surprisingly, gravitation emerges from these equations as a natural by-product. However, nobody has found a way to test string theory experimentally. Unless that can be done the theory will remain, like Einstein's attempts at unified field equations, a hopeful curiosity.http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/fields.htmThe obvious difference between the unifying theory of string theory and the unifying theory of ID is that ID is trying to unify on the one hand a very testable theory that predicts- namely evolution, and and very un-testable theory that doesn't predict anything- namely "a designer".That's it- that's the difference. When considering the scientific value of string theory, one can't help but notice that very scientific sets of theories must be elegantly explained by it, and, therefore, it must be terribly precise.ID, on the other hand, tries to look for gaps in the theory of evolution, and attempts to unify that theory with something completely unknown in order to explain things.You don't have to all thank me at once, but no longer will you have the problem of screaming for falsifiability and prediction from ID as though those are the only criteria for "true science". :o)k
I've finally come to terms with my personal discomfort with the fact that "String Theory" is not testable- just like "ID theory".http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/01/24/theory-of-everything-put-to-the-test/“Our work shows that, in principle, string theory can be tested in a non-trivial way,” said Ira Rothstein, co-author of the paper and professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon.“The beauty of our test is the simplicity of its assumptions,” said Benjamin Grinstein, a professor of physics at the University of California “The canonical forms of string theory include three mathematical assumptions—Lorentz invariance, analyticity and unitarity. Our test sets bounds on these assumptions.”Grinstein also noted that if their test does not substantiate what the theory predicts, one of the key mathematical assumptions about the current string theory would be incorrect.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |