For over 30 years string theory has been a major focus in the field of theoretical physics. Since the late 1970s string theory has been proposed by scientists as the solution to the unification problem. Proponents of string theory hail its elegance in uniting the four major forces into one, single theory. Despite its history, and the amount of time that has been spent researching it, string theory is yet to make a single testable prediction. Further, string theory does not describe anything new in nature, it is merely part of the unification program, intent on reducing nature to its most simple constituent. While this aim sounds logical, it acts upon the bold metaphysical idea that nature is simple and that it is possible to describe the basic forces in a single, elegant theory. Further, string theory has not remained a progressive research program. The majority of time is spent by researchers attempting to reconcile internal problems within the theory.
In the most general sense, string theory is in principle falsifiable. In practice however, this is not the case. When notable experiments have failed it has been regularly claimed that it is not due to the invalidity of the theory, but rather due to the current technological constraints. What follows is whether the experiments are failing as a result of being incorrect, or because our capacity to run the tests is not great enough. Though, even when the tests did ‘fail’ the direct implication is that the failure is a result of a failure of the technology, rather than the theory. In either situation, string theory averts falsifiability by adjusting its theory to remain plausible. When faced with the mathematical failing of the theory in 4 dimensions it was altered so as to describe ...
... middle of paper ...
...ibly be wrong. Indeed, that is our basic argument for science, the understanding that what we hold as fact could be disproven. In this way, if an area of study does not allow itself to be disproven, as it has been shown that string theory does, we will struggle to hold it as scientific knowledge. Further, at this point string theory holds no predictive power in terms of being testable now, or in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the metaphysical basis upon which string theory is based demonstrates that the basis of a scientific theory upon an untestable basis is not valid science. And while string theory is preoccupied dealing with its internal problems it will stagnate in most areas. In these ways, string theory gives us little reason to believe that it describes the truth of nature. For this reason, string theory, in its current state is not a scientific theory.
“A new (but yet unproven) theory proposes that all matter—from the page of this book to the skin of a peach—consists of tiny loops of vibrating strings. String (or Superstring) Theory,
If nonphysical explanations have always failed and been replaced by physical explanations that succeeded, then we have good reason to think that nonphysical explanations will always fail, and physical explanations will always succeed.
Part I: The Edge of Knowledge Chapter 1: Tied Up with Strings This is the introductory section, where the author, Brian Greene, examines the fundamentals of what is currently proven to be true by experimentation in the realm of modern physics. Green goes on to talk more about "The Basic Idea" of string theory. He describes how physicists are aspiring to reach the Theory of Everything, or T.O.E. Some suspect when string theory is completely understood that it might turn out to become the T.O.E.Part II: The Dilemma of Space, Time, and Quanta Chapter 2: Space, Time, and the Eye of the Beholder In the chapter, Greene describes how Albert Einstein solved the paradox about light. In the mid-1800's James Maxwell succeeded in showing that light was actually an electromagnetic wave.
An underlying theme present throughout the series is the possibility that our existence is not the only one. According to current theories in physics, it is entirely possible that our universe is just one of many universes f...
In addition to logical consistency, testability is an important piece when evaluating a theory. According to Akers & Sellers (2013), “a theory must be testable by objective, repeatable evidence” (p.5); thus, if the theory is not testable then it has no scientific value. There are several reasons why a theory might not be testable; such as its concepts may not be observable or reportable events and tautology. Tautology refers to a statement or hypothesis that is tr...
However, by making the assumption that all statements are universally either “true” or “false”, he dismisses perfectly logical scientific explanations which are merely outdated. Specifically, he is saying that explanations that were previously accepted by the scientific community but are no longer due to “ampler evidence now available...was not-and had never been-a correct explanation” (138). This is simply not true, as the “correctness” of an explanation is not binary; that is, there may exist some explanations which provide partial explanations which may be perfectly accurate in some contexts, but misleading or even wrong in others. I will refer to this as the context dependency of scientific laws. A good example of such a phenomenon with more than one correct explanation is how electricity is produced. Electricity can be explained as the motion of electrons, which are subatomic particles that circulate around the nucleus of an atom. The Bohr model gives this explanation, claiming that an atom looks akin to our solar system. Recently, more accurate models like the Schroedinger model have come through to state that the Bohr model is not entirely accurate, and that the existence of electrons around atoms in certain places is based on probabilistic models. Despite this new information, the Bohr model can still be used to explain electricity and the motion of
...is inability to provide sufficient evidence for the theory resulted in the failure to overcome Meno’s Paradox.
...g that could not be scientifically studied was that of the supernatural world and the effects it brings with it whether real or not. The issue with this argument is that using this basically tells the world that there are no completely accurate scientific experiments since it is impossible to have a controlled experiment without a controlled supernatural variable even though it is a necessary portion of science.
The following essay will discuss falsification, as discussed by Karl Popper, as well has his account of the scientific method. The idea whether any scientific theory can truly be falsified will also be approached by looking at the problems presented by Popper’s theory of falsification, and the impact this has on the scientific method and science as a whole.
In The Quantum Enigma, Rosenblum and Kuttner address the impact of the “Newtonian worldview” on our ability to understand and explain the phenomena of the physical world. Science has been able to greatly advance our knowledge of the natural world over the last several centuries largely due to this worldview. In this paper, five tenets of the Newtonian worldview will be summarized; two of these points—those found to be the most and least defensible—will be discussed in greater detail. As a final point, a discussion will be laid out regarding which of the five precepts, if rejected by modern physics, would be the most disturbing to give up.
...pecial relativity has caused profound changes in the way we view our universe at its most fundamental level. The theory has had an effect on many areas of science, especially physics. Even though many people did not think that special relativity was anything more than a theoretical idea, it has been tested numerous times. In every case, the predictions of special relativity are upheld. Special relativity is a cornerstone upon which modern physics has been built, and it is one of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century.
Kirkpatrick, Larry D. and Gerald F. Wheeler. Physics: A World View, 4th ed. Orlando, FL. Harcourt College Publishers: 2001. p- 365-71
When results arise that cannot be explained through the current paradigm, a new paradigm may begin to form. the new paradigm originates with new theories that are proposed as a result of the anomalies that were found. “to be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted” (Kuhn 17-18). when the new paradigm is finally accepted, a paradigm-shift occurs. the paradigm shift represents Kuhn’s “scientific revolution”. Once the paradigm-shift is completed normal science returns under the new paradigm until new set of unexplainable facts arise.
Requiring testability weeds out theories we cannot prove true or false, such as tautologies, or those proposing causes that are not measurable by observable or reportable events.
A scientific theory is an explanation that is well- substantiated explanation in regards to some aspect of the natural world that is attained through scientific method and is tested numerous times and usually confirmed through vigorous observation and experimentation. The term theory can be seen as a collection of laws which allow you to show some kind of phenomenon. The strength of a scientific theory associated with the diversity of phenomena can explain its elegance and simplicity. However when new evidence is gathered a scientific theory can be changed or even rejected if it does not fit the new findings, in such cases a more accurate theory is formed. Scientific theories are used to gain further