I’m rather fond of string theory, myself. But nobody asked my opinion at the Creation.

That’s my position exactly. Smolin appears to be very excited about his latest work. I’m looking forward to see how well it stands up to testing.

It’s consistent, but so are lots (an infinite number) of possible assertions, including a multitude of different string theories. Why introduce multiple dimensions to explain what can be predicted with fewer? String theories may still have something to offer, but it will probably require additional evidence or mathematical methods before they yield fruit. At this point, strings are still rightly considered somewhat speculative. String theoreticians are aware of the problem: All scientists agree that valid theories must, at some point, be subject to empirical verification.

Um, it’s a friendly swipe at string theory. To be considered a valid scientific theory, it must make predictions of empirical phenomena. A great deal of latitude is given to theoreticians, and there is often a gap between a conjecture, the development of a theory, relevant falsifiable hypotheses, testing, and confirmation. So the question is whether string theory can ever make testable predictions.

PaV: “Let me note that based on other comments of Smolin I’ve read, the primary reason he considers ’string theory’ not to be ‘real science’ is that it is an entirely mathematical construction which relies completely on the existence of hypothetical multi-dimensions, dimensions that don’t conform to our common, eveyrday, experience of reality.”

No one has a problem with mutliple-dimensions, but they do have a problem with something being an entirely mathematical construction that has no real-world consequences and still being called science.

Personally, I have no problem with string theory, but many professors are beginning to worry that physicists will spend their lives chasing a phantom, an intellectual dead-end. It is important to keep the eye on the scientific method, which is grounded in empirical prediction.

PaV: “However, with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) about to come on line at CERN, it’s possible that the ‘Higg’s Boson’ will be glimpsed, which is the Holy Grail of string theory.”

The Higg’s Boson is a prediction of the Standard Model. There is no available test to distinguish between the various string theories and other, less elegant solutions.

I’m not sure of your point here. Is this a swipe at ID?

Let me note that based on other comments of Smolin I’ve read, the primary reason he considers ‘string theory’ not to be ‘real science’ is that it is an entirely mathematical construction which relies completely on the existence of hypothetical multi-dimensions, dimensions that don’t conform to our common, eveyrday, experience of reality. Certainly, mathematics and physics go hand-in-glove; but in the case of string theory, it’s a mathematics that seems completely divorced from physical evidence–in other words, it’s completely hypothetical. Only secondarily do you have the problem that it is not ‘experimentally’ testable. However, with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) about to come on line at CERN, it’s possible that the “Higg’s Boson” will be glimpsed, which is the Holy Grail of string theory. If the LHC doesn’t find this Higg’s Boson, that should be about the end of string theory. I’m, personally, rooting for them not to find the Higg’s boson since I think string theory is needlessly abstract, and therefore wrong. Not finding the Higg’s boson would allow other theories to develop, but now using the ‘best minds’ in physics–which are currently (wastefully) pursuing string theory. We can only hope the same thing soon happens to Darwinism, and for the exact same reasons.

http://www.seedmagazine.com/ne.....p?page=all

What a funny clown!”

Comment by tb — August 29, 2006 @ 7:52 am

Actually, if you Google “Certified Pubic Accountant”, you’ll be shocked to see how many bean counters are exposing themselves (or others?) this way. “Pubic Relations” are also shockingly widespread on the Internet.

“Smolin says that string theory is unconvincing — maybe even nonscientific — and that physicists have embraced it at the expense of other promising research.”

The problem with string-theory is that it hasn’t led to the construction of testable hypotheses. Of course, the distance from theoretical work to actual testing is not strictly defined; but at some point, all theories need to be put to empirical testing. The question is whether string theorists will ever be able to do this.

On a more practical level, have too many minds been wasted on this detour, or will it eventually bear scientific fruit.

Guess my dyslexia has caught up with me again.