String theory testable? James Hrynyshyn spreading the ST lies & hype & propaganda

[astro]

String theory testable? James Hrynyshyn spreading the ST lies & hype & propaganda!!!

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2006/09/string_theory_testable.php

String theory testable? (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2006/09/string_theory_testable.php)

Category: hard science (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/hard_science/)
Posted on: September 29, 2006 12:37 PM, by James Hrynyshyn (http://<font%20color=)

One of the biggest weaknesses with string theory, as an explanation for the way the universe is the way it is, and a possible way to bring together relativity and quantum physics, is the paucity of testable aspects. And if it ain't testable, it ain't science. So say the critics. But maybe string theory is testable after all.

The most recent proposed test pops up in today's Science. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5795/1880b) Tom Siegfried's story reports that "Superstrings that were supertiny shortly after the big bang could have been stretched by the expansion of the universe to cosmic size today, says Robert Myers of (where else?) the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo." And we should be able to measure cosmic-sized strings, he says.

Peter Woit Reminds him,

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2006/09/string_theory_testable.php
The article you quote by Siegfried is full of misleading hype and misunderstandings. Part of what is going on is that the "cosmic strings" that you reproduce a picture of and the Bose-Einstein condensates you mention have nothing at all to do with elementary superstrings, which is what the controversy over testability is about.

There's more about this at my blog

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=466 (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=466)

and if you want to see what is wrong with string theory, Luke Lea's suggestion is excellent.

The testability problems of string theory are a matter of principle and very real. Scientists and science journalists should not be trafficking in misleading hype in order to defend string theory against legitimate complaints that some aspects of it are pseudo-science. Doing this is just ultimately going to hurt the credibility of science as a whole, and play into the hands of the IDers.

Posted by: Peter Woit (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress) | September 29, 2006 01:52 PM (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2006/09/string_theory_testable.php#comment-229908)

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2006/09/string_theory_testable.php

[Epsilon=One]

String theory testable? James Hrynyshyn spreading the ST lies & hype & propaganda!!!

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2006/09/string_theory_testable.php

String theory testable? (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2006/09/string_theory_testable.php)

Category: hard science (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/hard_science/)
Posted on: September 29, 2006 12:37 PM, by James Hrynyshyn (http://<font%20color=)

One of the biggest weaknesses with string theory, as an explanation for the way the universe is the way it is, and a possible way to bring together relativity and quantum physics, is the paucity of testable aspects. And if it ain't testable, it ain't science. So say the critics. But maybe string theory is testable after all.

The most recent proposed test pops up in today's Science. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5795/1880b) Tom Siegfried's story reports that "Superstrings that were supertiny shortly after the big bang could have been stretched by the expansion of the universe to cosmic size today, says Robert Myers of (where else?) the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo." And we should be able to measure cosmic-sized strings, he says.Robert Myers is correct in concept. The "oscillating string" aspect of ST is quite testable. The problem with ST is not the "strings"; the problem is ST's dependence on Standard Model hypotheses. Not to mention that: ST's goal is to unify that which is metaphysical.

The concept behind ST is valid and easily testable. The problem with ST lies in the overactive, underachieving imaginations of wannabee theorists that promote "half-baked" theory with false, or non-existent postulates.

Peter Woit Reminds him...Peter Woit and other critics of ST that are firmly entrenched in the establishment are little better than ST theorists. They criticize and have nothing better to offer. Why is it that they can't point there criticism inward? Such would be far more productive than the "easing pickings" of ST.

The honest theorists say nothing because they know the Standard Models are near hopeless; and, they have no idea where to start rebuilding from. At least the ST proponents are somewhere "out of the box" where the critics from the establishment fear to tread . . . lest they be ostracized.