Re: String theory whipping boy Re: Wisconsin: the Un-Kansas

Robert Grumbine wrote:
I'm reading the group now in a fairly peculiar way, which makes it
hard to enter to threads as they're 'live', hence my resurrection
under a different name of a bit here two weeks later. Still,
there's a point that seems to have been elided, and I think is
worth recalling even after the lapse:

In article <1139484282.530968.159170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
catshark <catshark101@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dale wrote:

"catshark" <catshark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:i8mju1tck95hi28aiokj0v39g4fbbjf0d8@xxxxxxxxxx
[...]

Well, it could be a little problematic with that "capable of being tested
according to scientific method", since that would presently prevent a
discussion of such things as string theory in public schools. As always,
there is no simple test to separate "science" from "pseudoscience". OTOH,
on the level of most K-12 education, that probably won't be that big of a
problem.

No, the only strings in my daughter's 12th grade AP physics textbook are the
kind that form catenary curves when held loosely at each end. Still, even
string theory is theoretically _capable_ of being tested, isn't it?

Everything I know about string theory comes from Brian Greene's PBS
special based on his book, _The Elegant Universe_ (still in my "to
read" mountain). To Greene's credit, despite his interest in
furthering the theory, he included numerous theorists who stated that
string theory isn't science precisely because it isn't testable by any
present or reasonably foreseeable means. Others suggested there
*might* be ways of testing it but none at the present and defended its
status as science because the mathematics are "elegant". But the
Wisconsin law (as far as I can tell from the story) would not allow for
such considerations.


To leave the Wisconsin law aside for the string theory.

The thing is, string theory _does_ make predictions. It makes
all the same predictions as the Standard Model does within the realms
that the Standard Model has been tested. This is a _huge_ contrast
to ID, for instance, which makes no predictions of any kind under any
circumstance.

The subtlety that t.o. assumed in the thread, and rightly so as
a matter of doing good science, was to ask for string theory to make
testable predictions that are different from the previous theory.
In that, for now, it fails, a point agreed to by the string theorists
themselves as far as I've seen.

But let's not toss the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. String
theory does make predictions, and they're excellent predictions so far
as can be tested to date. We (those of us who aren't fond of string
theory, and I am one such) can well be critical of it on the grounds of
Occam's razor -- but that razor is not itself a guarantee of correctness.
It's a handy guide, but sometimes things really are more complicated
than you currently can test. And string theory does make predictions
which are capable, eventually, of being tested, and which are different
than the standard model predicts.

It should be noted that string theory's motivation is to provide a
single explanation which encompasses both the standard model (i.e.,
quantum mechanics and its more recent extensions to particle theory),
and gravity as currently explained in general relativity. The analogy
for ID would be that it explains evolution as currently understood and
??? What can you imagine filling in there? The only thing that comes
to mind is a belief in creation of life by a supernatural all powerful
entity beyond further explanation. One can get into sophisticated
philosophical discussions, but relgious experience and belief has been
with us for as long as we know. It is not hard to recognize it when you
see it. String theory in its current form is not religion, so I think
the whole analogy is false.


As far as what to teach in K-12, however, string theory, like
general relativity, most of quantum mechanics, ... I have little
problem with it being left for college in favor of conservation
of energy, mass, momentum, ... Most of the time, what we see in
daily life is best approached by classical physics rather than
nifty modern physics.

String theory should not be taught in high school physics classes, but
perhaps a bit of quantum mechanics and relativity should be taught.
They are well established theories. But it is very hard to teach them
so they are properly understood. In the main, it might be noted that
they are extensions to classical physics which can be counter intuitive
and will be studied later in college if students continue with their
physics. Perhaps students should be taught that atoms are not miniature
solar systems.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats wrong with loop quantum gravity
    ... > the same amount of information as an infinite number. ... continuous way - and virtually all meaningful theories in physics ever ... There are no "versions" of string theory. ... but doesn't make enough predictions for it to be proven wrong. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: String Theory: Physics or Theology?
    ... "String Theory: Physics or Theology?" ... the standard model has provided ... can now describe the basic physics of the observable universe back to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • String Theory: Physics or Theology?
    ... "String Theory: Physics or Theology?" ... the standard model has provided ... can now describe the basic physics of the observable universe back to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Whats wrong with loop quantum gravity
    ... the same amount of information as an infinite number. ... >> them doesn't prevent the theory from making predictions. ... "String theory is the most predictive theory of fundamental ... How can something in physics ever be ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: String Theory: Physics or Theology?
    ... "String Theory: Physics or Theology?" ... the standard model has provided ... can now describe the basic physics of the observable universe back to ...
    (sci.physics)