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.

Grammar Error

There's a grammar error in this sentence, but I don't have editing privileges. Just pointing it out. "The AdS/CFT correspondence is example of a duality which relates string theory to a quantum field theory."

Explanations

It may be beneficial to readers to provide a brief explanation of other concepts that are used to describe string theory, including pointlike particles, rather than relying on the reader to obtain information from its respective link or an alternate source.

String Theory is not a Scientific Theory with regards to Popper

The mention, that ST is not a scientific theory (with regards to Popper's definition) has been removed twice from the article for dubious reasons. I suspect that it was removed just because some people do not like the conclusion.

Let's have a look at the arguments supporting the removed statement:

1] String theory cannot make any predictions. Therefore it cannot give us any testable hypothesis. (This is even mentioned within the article. Let me quote:)

"The possible existence of, say, 10^500 consistent different vacuum states for superstring theory probably destroys the hope of using the theory to predict anything."

2] Karl Popper sais, that if a theory does not give any testable outcomes, it is not a science.

No matter how you look at it, ST does not meet Popper's standards for science. If pure logic (1+1=2) is not sufficient, there are several mentions of this issue on the internets, which can be quoted.

I understand, that some people do not like the conclusion, but it is perfectly justified, and fits into the section Criticism. Also, the removed sentence said, that ST is not a scientific theory with regards to the Popper's definition. That does not necessarily mean that it is not a science. Therefore I also have to disagree with the remarks, that such statement is undue.

Therefore, I'll put the statement back into the article, unless I see any arguments within a week. 88.208.126.70 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Additions to Wikipedia are not based on arguments, but on reliable sources. Anyway, string theory does produce plenty falsifiable hypotheses in Popper's sense (e.g. super heavy addition particles due to string overtones). Unfortunately, testing these typically requires experiments that case access physics at the Planck scale, which is practically (very much) out of reach. However, from Popper's perspective that is not an issue, the theory can in principle be falsified.TR 19:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

1] There are sources for this. I even linked one in edit. 2) Wikipedia needs sources for results, but not necessarily for every single sentence which is a logical consequence of sourced information. In this case, we see a pure, logical sylogism of type 'A and "A=>B" implies B'. "A" is ST's unability to predict, which is stated in this article and sourced, "A=>B" is "unable to predict => not a science according to Popper", which is supported by article about Popper. How could you not draw the consequence, that "ST is not a science according to Popper" from those two statements? 3) Here we have to dig deeper into the Popper's motivation to define it like that.. The falsifiability means, that the theory actually tells us something. If it does not give us falsifiable outcomes, it means, that it cannot predict, and therefore it is useless. On the other hand, if it does gives us predictions which we are only able to test "in principle", but not actually (such as in this case), it means the theory speaks about behavior of universe, which we will never observe. Therefore, even if it's predictions were right (which we cannot test), they would be irrelevant to us. 88.208.126.70 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What you are describing is a classic case of WP:SYNTH. TR 15:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with having something about this in it, but I don't like Wikipedia making the statement that it doesn't fulfil Popper's definition. I'd be happy with "According to Dr Ethan Seigel, ....." Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, well, S.J. Gates in his superstrings course from The Teaching Company came out of the closet saying that superstrings ain't physics yet, it is just applied maths. He said people at LHC were working to make it falsifiable and offered several easy (amenable) ways to falsify string theory.

Many physicists strongly oppose the idea that string theory is not falsifiable, among them Sylvester James Gates: "... has allowed us to calculate a physically interesting property, namely the running of the coupling constant. So, the next time someone tells you that string theory is not testable, remind them of the AdS/CFT connection ..."

Course is here: https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/superstring-theory-the-dna-of-reality.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You just added some text to the criticism section rebutting the idea that string theory is not falsifiable. The purpose of the criticism section is to explain legitimate critiques of the subject, not to rebut ones that don't make sense. If we don't have reliable source that argues against string theory being falsifiable, do we really need to rebut this idea in the article? Polytope24 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't now know WP:RS about that, but yes, in the media is a popular meme that string theory is unfalsifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I recognize that it is a popular meme promoted by the media, and I understand the desire to address it in this article. My concern is that the discussion of falsifiability in the current article might be read as one-sided. Rather than present the view that string theory may not be falsifiable, it presents only the counterargument.

When I wrote the earlier version of the criticism section, I tried to focus on the main arguments of prominent critics. In general, I think the critics of string theory recognize that the argument based on falsifiability is problematic, for the reasons that others have mentioned above.

If there are no objections, I propose that we remove the material on falsifiability and return the article to its earlier version. By focusing on the critiques that make sense, we can avoid perpetuating common misunderstandings of this subject. Polytope24 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

References

"Yarn theory" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Yarn theory. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Yarn theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)