Until it is verified through rigorous independent means of empirical observation...

M-theory belongs in the realm of philosophy, specifically metaphysics, as all theoretical physics does.

The problem underwriting this discussion is a matter as old as philosophy(epistemology) itself...

What constitutes knowledge.

Its been on my list to read for a while now, but this conversation has sparked me to pick up the book, "Not even Wrong" By Peter Woit.

Here is his blog.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

I do not have an opinion yet as I am only on page 52.





CreativeSoul, thank you, I could not agree more.

and if I can remember similar situational antedotes .. a dubbie didn't hurt the melding of time while those moments transpired.

After 5 pages of debate over this movie (and cartoons) I still liked it and still watch it.

So there!

Weird ... I just had a similar conversation with a friend who teaches and conducts research in nanotechnology in Montreal.

We got into the "What is really provable?" question

Mathematician Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions". and

Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."


In the end ... if mathematics is suspect ... then using mathematics to prove or disprove something is suspect also. Doesn't that make it all philosophy?

Ultimately I just like the questions, the exploration and the possibilities so I'm with you Lori ... I found it interesting food for pondering.

sorry i'm not a fan of Alice In Wonderland

That's not what it was about ...

It would appear there is a problem understanding what constitutes theoretical physics... kinda like the difference between the words "should" and "is".

Metaphysics has nothing to do with dark energy, yet dark energy cannot be directly observed but is now widely accepted. The same can be said of many "indirectly" observed cosmic phenomena.

There is a lot of money being spent at the LHC to put M-theory to the test and the people involved are not metaphysicists.

Correction: it was not Einstein who said that, but Yotsvah Schlomo Bierberg-Rubinstein, the third cousin of Samuel Einstein, who was Albert's gros-grand mutti and horsetraining instructor.

But it's possible that Yotsvah quoted Albert when he said that.

Masagetrade posted this link on another thread but it applies here. An interview with Michio Kaku explains M theory (he co wrote the Nobel Prize winning string field theory). A quote from the interview is "anyone who thinks string theory can't be tested doesn't know what they are talking about."

http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-01-15.mp3

Jump to minute 29:00 for the interview.

Many aspects of his interview mesh with the concepts in the "what the bleep" movie.

So the LHC was built to test string theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It was built to move forward particle physics, with or without string theory. Honestly do you think its even a valid argument to state that becuase money is spent on developing a theory there for it must have some truth to it? If so then its clear your logic and reason are flawed.

Hey hey lets get back on topic here, and that is showing how ridiculous this movie is . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo&playnext_from=TL&videos=a9h3aGKyJYc&feature=grec_index

Its interesting you use dark energy as an example. String/ M-theory has a problem with the vacuum energy. It predicts that the vacuum energy should be MUCH MUCH higher than it is, and the only excuses presented from string theorists is that if we live in a many worlds multiverse then its ok, becuase in an infinite multiverse even a very small probability to reach a low vacuum energy such as the one in our universe is sure to happen. That becuase we humans live here in this universe AND that if many such, if not infinite, universes exists then the probability of us living in a universe with the proper vacuum energy is 1.

This is called the anthropic principle and its NOT science, its also divergent from Occums Razor, it postulates more and more complexity to solve issues of lesser complexity.

Its an excuse, its funny Richard Feynman prior to his death used to make fun of string theorists, he said, "string theorists do not make predictions, they make excuses." I agree.

After finishing up reading the book, "Not even Wrong" I have to say that my impression of this field of research is far more cynical than it was prior to reading this book, its well sourced, well written and very precise and damning, but you do not need the words of an outsider, a detractor to give you that impression. I will post quotes from leading string theorists including Ed Witten that show how weak the "theory" really is in a few days. I am finishing up with a very intense project and just cannot devote much time.

Its interesting to me that so many problems exist with strings and yet the general media, and public seem to be completely in the dark about these issues. I would be tickled if anyone could research and discover any information regarding the "landscape problem" or the previously mentioned, "vacuum energy problem", or the supper-symmetrical higgs problem which requires a whole slew of new as yet undiscovered particles, says nothing about there mass, but clearly becuase we have not found them they must be heavier then current accelerators have detected, whats the probability of that you ask . . . . well no one knows becuase string theory is not a theory at all and says nothing about that. So how high do we need to get in the Tev without finding these particles before we start to doubt strings? 14 Tev? 20 Tev? 50 Tev? Well string theorists are hoping its 14 Tev.


Cheers!

I'm gonna pick that one up tonight...

What is interesting is that mathematics is science, its rigorous methodological and verifiable with falsification requirements even when the maths in question are completely abstract and have nothing to do with empiricism.

What is further interesting is that mathematicians will turn pale in the face and get very angry when people like me call string theory just mathematics, they will say, NO its not even mathematics.

I myself have a masters in computer science and my professor once told me that computer science is as much about computers as a toaster is about the culinary arts. With my research into this topic it came to mind that physics makes use of mathematics much like a chef uses a toaster.

Rigorous, proven, methodological . . . emm perhaps not, but man that toaster is good when it works.

How do we know it works: Experiment.

So I have looked all over the internet for clear falsifiable experiments for string theory and found NONE, I have found many if's ands, and many many buts. Modern physics call it a cloudy prediction, they call it murky proof, they call it one step closer to understanding what M-theory really is.




This is a recent quote that shows how the lead physicists of strings and branes thinks about testing the theory. He finds its "likely" that some parts of the theory may be testable, what is "likely" to be found at accelerators. Thats becuase even if the tests reveal what he wants them to reveal is will not be a falsifiable test, nor conclusive.

String theory looks hopeless to me. The landscape problem: You have an perhaps an infinity of possible Calabi–Yau manifold's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi-Yau_manifold which are posited to be the containers of strings which dictate how the string vibrates which dictates what particle the strings represent/create ect. If you are trying to find a particular set of these shapes that match our reality and you have NO working theory to eliminate, or to restrict the set of possible shapes, then it is FAR FAR worse then a needle in a haystack. It becomes a hopeless cause.

This plus the vacuum energy problem should be damning in themselves, but that is not all that is wrong with strings. As mentioned before the only way to excuse these problems is to invoke the anthropic principle which is extremely lame, not an answer, and not science. Another problem with strings is how to explain a broken symmetry for the vacuum, strings allow for a higgs particle, but require some 124 other particles to make it work. Ockham is rolling in his grave! None of these particles have been observed and this so called theory says nothing about why. David Woit in, "Not even wrong" even goes on to trash the idea of elegance in the theory, he shows that its anything but elegant, the only thing elegant about string theory is the metaphorical idea that links this concept to music. Its also unprecedented in all of physics that a field of research has been on going with as much support as strings has had for going on 30 years with not a single falsifiable prediction.

Even if the concept of point like particles really being strings is correct it may very well be impossible to glean a working theoretical approach that will answer questions, solve problems, and advance human knowledge (things theories are all about). A bottom up approach of a subject like physics where to get here from there you must traverse the infinite does not seem hopeless it is hopeless, the way forward for physics has always been a surprising turn of experimental research. We will dig down from the observable to reach firm ground LONG before we build the house of reality from our imaginations alone.

String theory starts with the possibly wrong headed idea that a unified theory of everything can be achieved, and has for 30 sum odd years essentially done little but give some good ideas to mathematics departments interested in topology. (yet no rigorous proofs and thus still not science . . . yet)

Yet what works, works. These ideas in topology have been shown to work (actually what they do is simply the problems in donaldson theory), so some truth IS likely, not to diminish the work of the brilliant Ed Witten, but I think the hype of strings has lived a long time on that mans brilliance alone, and time after time examples of brilliance have been shown to not be immune from wishful thinking, and wasteful dogmatic reluctance to let go of a second kind of cool idea.


Oh BTW, perhaps Metalwing can show me where Ed was awarded the nobel, I find he won a fields medal in mathematics (albeit hotly contested, the actual equations had been around for quite some time, but had not been linked to Donaldson theory which he did not work out, others did, he just gave the insight to get the work started) but no Nobel in physics. His teacher David Gross won a Nobel in 2004 with Wilczek and Politzer.
Where is this prize that Kaku supposedly won?


Here is a list of all such awards, search for yourself.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/

I think metal wing its time for some honesty, how much do YOU really know about this subject? Do you want to start taking back some of what you said?

You know what, even if a committee does award prizes for strings, if strings are falsified what does that say about prizes and humans awarding them for physics that turns out to not be physics?

Lots of fallacy in this here thread folks. Lots of argument from authority, from ignorance, and more than a pinch of ad hominum.

Fun stuff.

Facts....

Fallacies

Accordingly

Created (of)

Theories

Sometimes.





Lori...what the bleep...

and down the rabbit hole....

great opportunities to explore ideas, and theories, and the POTENTIAL to expand one's mindset.

JZ Knight has bilked many many poeple out of their money, this movie was nothing but an advertisement for her cult, it uses popular science to try to add credibility. Sadly many people fail to realize the ploy until they have given all their money to her.

This is true of much fiction. I like fiction. I don't like it when people mistake fiction for non-fiction.

Does anyone here know what we are talking about here?

I don't know string theory, and I don't know the people mentioned as quoted. But I know that other conversationalists on this thread talk about the M theory as an object with no outstanding issues, something that everyone is assumed to know what it is. I would like to claim that those who take this assumption for granted, have no idea what the string theory or the M theory states.

I will not make this claim, but I insist that the opposite claim can also not be made.

The arguments in this thread about the theories consist of quoting people who are not on this website, and saying that one is more trustworthy for his or her opinion than the other. But people very carefully steer away from the theories, or what people criticise the theories for. I hear a lot of people quote other people who are not on the site with attributing them general moral- and emotion-laden statements, which the quoted people have said about the opinions of still other people who are also not participating in this thread, and the participants of this thread feel very strongly about these moral-value statements, which reveal nothing about M theory or the String theory.

But nobody mentions anything actual.

This is a bit tiresome for me, but then again, you are not me, so please, don't listen to me.

(I said "please" because I am Canadian. Culture issue, not a racial issue.)

The Earth is Flat and Gallileo should have been eviserated, the earth revolves around the sun. What a bunch of BS. My Grampa said we didn't land on the moon.

Infinite Possibilies ? Must mean it's fact.