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.

New intro to prediction section

"If we can come up with an example of an falsifiable prediction for the outcome of an experiment we believe could be performed in the next few decades where a string-theorist and non-string-theorist would give different predictions, it would be a great addition to the article." Not just to the article, to string theory - and if I knew of such a thing I wouldn't be wasting my time here, I'd be writing it up for publication. As I hope the article makes clear, the absence of such a prediction is probably the biggest single problem string theory has. Quantizing gravity simply doesn't have much effect at "low" energies, for the simple reason that gravity is a very weak force and hbar is a very small quantity. That makes any form of QG really, really hard to test. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great. I'm serious. I think we are close to consensus. Personally I feel the point on the swampland is a bit out of place in that paragraph, but we don't always get what we want, right? I'm completely fine with this so long as the introduction makes it clear, that, as you say, these do not correspond to unique predictions and that the absence of such a unique prediction remains a major problem for string theory. My issue has been that I didn't feel the paragraph were were discussing was clear on this (I personally mistook the sentence as being intended to give a possible example of such a unique falsifier, and was not able to get clarity on this issue by following through to citations, which is why I was so insistent about following guidelines on citations). I have rearranged the paragraph slightly and finished the paragraph with a sentence that clarifies what we're agreeing on here. (I removed the "de-facto untestable" line to preserve balance). I hope you like this change. I can't emphasize enough, this has been a very heated and sometimes antagonistic debate, but I think maybe we've reached a resolution we can all be happy with. I know we're in the habit of edit warring, but I have tried to be careful and not revert edits you have made. I've also tried to be balanced and careful in rewriting the paragraph. If you have some issues with it, can you try discussing it with me before reverting it back wholesale? Wpegden (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much OK with your wording. I re-wrote it some in an attempt to eliminate what I think were some redundancies and awkward words, hopefully while still keeping it clear. Please check and see what you think. I'm a little worried about the Gross cite because I can't watch it and I don't know what he said exactly. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the rewording, just have a comment on the second part. It now reads:

However, these predictions are not necessarily unique to string theory...'

and the things listed in the previous sentences (confirming a swampland model or observing positive curvature) are not predictions, but ways of falsifying it. (I'm making a statement about the grammar not the science.) That was the reason for my cumbersome wording. I didn't watch the video. The previous phrase supported was

Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge'

and the new phrase is

and finding a way to experimentally verify string theory via unique predictions remains a major challenge.'

which is indeed slightly different. Seems like a weaker statement though, which is why I didn't check it yet. I will try to check it or try to come up with a better one in the next few days. Feel free to add a tag if you feel the phrase is too different from the previous one. Wpegden (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that - they are predictions in the standard sense of that term, just not (perhaps) unique or particularly spectacular ones. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I mean that (pay attention to the grammar) "confirming a swampland model" is not a string theory prediction, and that's how the previous sentence is currently written. (string theory predicts we won't do this. Instead, it is a way of falsifying it.) There is a corresponding prediction ("no swampland models will be confirmed"). That's why before I had the following sentence saying something like "the predictions corresponding to these falsifiers" or whatever. This is just a wording issue.Wpegden (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

" The theory has yet to make novel experimental predictions at accessible energy scales, leading some scientists to claim that it cannot be considered a part of science"

First of all, the citation is to a popular book by Peter Woit, who is not a scientist (at least not a professional one), so the cite is inadequate. More importantly, the sentence does not reflect the real status of the debate over string theory, isn't NPOV, and doesn't belong at the very beginning of the article.

There is a very important problem with ST not making novel experimental predictions that can be easily tested, and that should be mentioned somewhere near the beginning. But the idea that ST isn't science is absurd - it's funded by science agencies, studied by faculty and students in physics departments, tens of thousands of papers on it are published in scientific journals, it's a quantum theory of gravity, and it makes falsifiable predictions. So, I'm going to replace this sentence, keeping the part that points out the serious issue (testability) while moving the part about science to the "Criticism" section, or simply dropping it. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We should be very clear that predictions are a problem. It is silly to be saying it is not part of science. Certainly, one book is not enough for this. The Wikipedia guideline here is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary citations." Wpegden (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not true, Peter Woit got his BS and Master's Degree in Physics from Harvard University, he got his PhD in particle theory from Princeton University so he's definitely a valid source.

--129.2.129.155 (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing word?

This sentence, "This is because strings themselves are expected to be only slightly larger than the Planck length, which is almost orders of magnitude smaller than the radius of a proton, and high energies are required to probe small length scales."

appears to lack a word between "almost" and "orders". 89.204.154.73 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be "twenty orders of magnitude". I fixed it Bhny (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The String Theory is not science

Wikipedia and the science community in general is just a joke now. How is the String Theory science? Having something in journals and being funded does not make something scientific. Scientists can put whatever they desire in journals and fund whatever they desire. What makes something scientific is having empirical testability.

You can't show that something is scientific by pointing out what some authority figures say, that's just an appeal to authority. Authority figures can believe whatever they want and historically authority figures have been completely wrong about many things.

Right now the string theory matches the exact definition of pseudoscience (a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status).

The String Theory is a mathematical model that cannot be empirically tested, meaning it's mathematical speculation.

The String Theory has no falsifiable predictions. Things like General Relativity aren't falsifiable predictions because even if General Relativity is found to be inaccurate some how, you could just adjust the mathematics in the String Theory to match into the new observed phenomena (the string theory can be adjusted to match into virtually any low-energy prediction).

To help people understand:
- If the String Theory is completely wrong and false and there are no 1-Dimensional strings, you would still be able to adjust the mathematics to match into General Relativity (and many other things)

So adjusting the mathematics to match into General Relativity and other low-energy observations tells us nothing about whether the String Theory is true or false.

Testing General Relativity isn't equivalent to testing the String Theory. Even if 1-Dimensional Strings are completely non-existent we could test and have General Relativity just fine.

Using the String Theorist's pseudo-scientific reasoning we can claim that anything that pre-assumes General Relativity must be scientific. Meaning if I claim that aliens in another dimension exist and it pre-assumes General Relativity that makes it a scientific claim some how (you can falsify it by falsifying General Relativity), it doesn't matter if I can't empirically test the existence of the aliens in the other dimension.

I'm still waiting for any String Theory fan to give a valid reason as to how the String Theory is scientific instead of just using an appeal to authority. --129.2.129.155 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

you can post your question here WP:Reference_desk/Science. This page is for discussions about improving the article Bhny (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2012

In "Extra dimensions" -> "Number of dimensions" -> paragraph 2 The phrase: [...]completely different type of mathematical quantity

should be replaced with:

[...]complex number, which includes an imaginary part representing a factor of (-1)^(1/2)

I don't know how to typeset it, but (-1)^(1/2) should look like "the square root of negative one". This is a very simple correction, and should eliminate the "which?" tag. There is only ONE "completely different type of mathematical quantity" that relates to String Theory, and it is a complex-valued quantity. Keep the following in mind: 1) Real Numbers are a subset of the Complex Number Set. Although the number 7 is a member of the Complex Number Set, it is not (barring semantics) refereed to as a complex number. 2) "Mathematical quantities" that fall outside the Complex Number Set do not have any relevance to String Theory as it is understood today.

71.134.236.38 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)