Posted: Sep 05, 2010 12:30 am
by Slothhead
Ok well not to burst any bubbles, and i think i have posted this elsewhere with reference to language. How the hell can you expect the non-scientific to get the word use right and not get confused when people, including big name science presenters, dont get it right themselves.

String theory is NOT A FUCKING THEORY - it is a hypothesis. People deride creationists and so forth for saying things like, "o, evolution is just a theory, thats why it is called the THEORY of evolution".

So the question, how does string theory work is invalid for two reasons, firstly it isnt a theory at all, and secondly it doesnt work. There have been no tested predictions of string HYPOTHESIS as yet, because the guys working in the field, actually dont have it all together yet, so the hypothesis part isnt even complete. It has only been recently that the string community has come out and said that we might be able to test for gravitons etc etc and they might show extra dimensions. But these are all very speculative at the moment. I am not saying that it is wrong, the math behind it is so intruging that you would have to think that it has to be right because of the math, but if it doesnt provide any predictions that can be tested, then it is not a scientific theory. It may be that it is right and we just dont have the technology to test it, or as Neil Tyson said, we just may not be smart enough to actually work it out and it will be left for someone in the future.

Having said that, I personally think it is a very exciting field and i really would like to see predictions come out, that we test and work, but if not then that is ok too, but i also think at the same time that when we talk about these things that we be honest, both in language and in application.