Silly String
I recently watched the Nova program The Elegant Universe and despite being eminently unqualified to do so, I've been thinking a little about string theory over the last couple of days. String theory, in a nutshell, is a body of work that seeks to unite the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong force). Achieving this goal is the holy grail of physics.
What I've been thinking about specifically, though, is this. String theory is widely criticized for being something that can not be proven or disproved since predictions it makes, such as the existence of extremely tiny 'strings' of energy or the existence of additional spacial dimensions, are far beyond our ability to detect. String theory, however, in so far as I understand it, also explains the phenomenon which are predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics (the combination of the two is referred to as 'the Standard Model'). It therefor seems to me that observations used to validate the Standard Model would just as easily validate string theory. So if string theory had come along 100 years ago - before relativity and quantum mechanics - these observations would have been used as evidence that string theory is correct and simpler models that may have come later would have been seen as mere approximations of already accepted science. Granted, there would still be many aspects of string theory that would be left to validate but wouldn't it be beholden upon later theories to disprove string theory rather then merely inventing new ways to describe the same data? Wouldn't a new theory have to make some verifiable prediction that string theory does not in order for it to displace string theory? Wouldn't such a theory then be in the same boat that string theory is currently in - a nice idea by not provable?
I'm sure my analysis is either vastly oversimplified or just dead wrong. Because, as I said, I am supremely ignorant about such matters. So hook me up if you know better than me!
What I've been thinking about specifically, though, is this. String theory is widely criticized for being something that can not be proven or disproved since predictions it makes, such as the existence of extremely tiny 'strings' of energy or the existence of additional spacial dimensions, are far beyond our ability to detect. String theory, however, in so far as I understand it, also explains the phenomenon which are predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics (the combination of the two is referred to as 'the Standard Model'). It therefor seems to me that observations used to validate the Standard Model would just as easily validate string theory. So if string theory had come along 100 years ago - before relativity and quantum mechanics - these observations would have been used as evidence that string theory is correct and simpler models that may have come later would have been seen as mere approximations of already accepted science. Granted, there would still be many aspects of string theory that would be left to validate but wouldn't it be beholden upon later theories to disprove string theory rather then merely inventing new ways to describe the same data? Wouldn't a new theory have to make some verifiable prediction that string theory does not in order for it to displace string theory? Wouldn't such a theory then be in the same boat that string theory is currently in - a nice idea by not provable?
I'm sure my analysis is either vastly oversimplified or just dead wrong. Because, as I said, I am supremely ignorant about such matters. So hook me up if you know better than me!
posted by Chris at 14:08
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home