Problems with string theory and the multiverse

[f0Ri5]

So this is a rather serious post, the long and short of it is recently these two theories have been taking a lot of flak, and I find myself on the side of the critics. I'll link some videos you guys can watch if you're interested, but one of the big issues is what I'd like to call 'science' vs. 'science philosophy' and how the latter has started to masquerade as the former. This comes down to what we define science as, and whether these fields of study (other 'scientific' fields as well) actually fit into the definition of science.

My own messy little summary is such: if the scientific method can be applied as a means of investigation into something, it's a science. If it can't, the thing isn't a science.

Scientific method: "The scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results"

So if something can't be tested in a lab, it is by definition not a science. That doesn't mean that field is without value [just because it can't be tested in a lab]. History is a good example of something that can't be tested in a lab, but still has value as a field of study. I'm actually rather a fan of history, so I'm not dissing it at all, please don't take my statement the wrong way. However, I do start taking issue with certain fields of study that call themselves sciences (because the researchers feel they get more credibility that way) when said things really don't fit the definition of a science at all.

Anyway, here are two videos I watched recently covering string theory and the multiverse that I thought were interesting.

 

[f0Ri5]

I'm aware labwork is involved in certain historical investigations, but for example, it's impossible to prove in a lab, without any room for doubt, that alexander the great existed. Historians are pretty sure he existed by using circumstantial evidence and inference to the best explanation methods, but that isn't a scientific proof. Yes, historians might confirm in a laboratory whether a certain tablet detailing the life of Alexander really originated in a certain time-period, but the account itself (the thing written on the tablet) cannot be scientifically tested as a means of determining validity.

 

[Humorous Tart]

Thanks for sharing this.

 

[Myriddin]

I'm aware labwork is involved in certain historical investigations, but for example, it's impossible to prove in a lab, without any room for doubt, that alexander the great existed. Historians are pretty sure he existed by using circumstantial evidence and inference to the best explanation methods, but that isn't a scientific proof. Yes, historians might confirm in a laboratory whether a certain tablet detailing the life of Alexander really originated in a certain time-period, but the account itself (the thing written on the tablet) cannot be scientifically tested as a means of determining validity.

Click to shrink...

Important to remember that science is not, and has never, been about 'proving without a doubt', it is instead about supposing a theory (about anything) and providing some sort of proof to support it, while other people provide proof it doesn't. The scientific community will generally consider both, and over time one side will accure more proof or credability according to however reality most 'truly' represents either theory, with the idea that eventually the truth will thus win out.

String Theory has only ever been a theory, and it has pretty much only ever been theoretical. Unlike the current Standard Model (which has also changed plenty of times!) which has withstood plenty of tests and provided a useful framework for predictions, String Theory... Hasn't. Thus to ask whether or not we should give it up rather misses the fact that 99.9% of people were never really relying on it in the first place...

Certainly, there will be some die-hard theoretical phycicists sad to see it go, but at the end of the day it simply hasn't been useful enough for there to be any reason to disprove it, it's just a bit etherial like that. Fancy words, fancy ideas, nothing useful and nothing testable.

I don't think anyone could claim to study only String Theory or Multiverse Theory and call themselves a scientist... And I don't think they really do. This is commonly just very niche theoretical phycisits exploring radical models where the current Standard Model doesn't extend. Nothing really WRONG with that, but I don't think it's terrible important to get worked up about it either for or against either.

I think String Theory in particular gets a lot of flak it doesn't really deserve because, well, there isn't much to aim at IMO. It's more of a thought experiment than anything IMO, and people arguing against it too seriously are missing the point, of it just not really being worth it.