SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's one of the most brilliant, controversial and unproven ideas in all of physics: string theory. At the heart of string theory is the thread of an idea that's run through physics for centuries, that at some fundamental level, all the different forces, particles, interactions and manifestations of reality are tied together as part of the same framework. Instead of four independent fundamental forces -- strong, electromagnetic, weak and gravitational -- there's one unified theory that encompasses all of them. In many regards, string theory is the best contender for a quantum theory of gravitation, which just happens to unify at the highest-energy scales. Although there's no experimental evidence for it, there are compelling theoretical reasons to think it might be true. A year ago, the top living string theorist, Ed Witten, wrote a piece on what every physicist should know about string theory. Here's what that means, translated for non-physicists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gringer on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:40AM
There's a book on string theory called "Not Even Wrong", written by Professor Peter Woit of Columbia University's mathematics department:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?page_id=4338 [columbia.edu]
His argument is that string theory is so vacuous that it can explain anything (and therefore also nothing). The problems section on rationalwiki [rationalwiki.org] sums it up:
To date, the LHC has found no supersymmetric particles, and without those, everything stated above probably doesn't work. Superstring theory is short on falsifiable predictions, except for the prediction of supersymmetry at low energies. Given the energy levels necessary to resolve phenomena near 1 Plank length, experiments capable of making those measurements remain purely theoretical. Nevertheless, string theories are considered promising enough to have all but monopolized decently-funded theoretical high-energy physics. This is itself considered a problem by many (proper, non-crank) physicists who think thirty years is quite long enough for string theory to have come up with a verified falsifiable prediction, and who have problems getting funding for research that isn't string theory. These factors make string theory a potential modern protoscience, which may eventually go the way of Luminiferous aether.
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:00PM
"Theory" is the highest attainment in Science.
It means that lots of knowledgeable folks have examined your idea and nobody has yet found a way to shoot giant holes through it; that it's the most reliable explanation for a phenomenon.
This does not apply to String "Theory".
The correct word for this notion would be "hypothesis".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:47AM
Theory, as it is currently used in physics has taken on a different meaning. Essentially, it means a complete system/framework of thought, whether it has been verified or not. They are often based on a hypothetical new mechanisms, but in order to understand the phenomenology, the full system dynamics often needs to be worked out to make predictions.
This is obviously a problem when it comes to communication with the public, who take theory to mean well-tested. They are often well-tested in their compatible predictions, but testing of new hypotheses is usually weak or non-existent.
There really need to be two definitions these days to reflect the idiomatic usage of physicists.