According to Karl Popper's theory of demarcation, science should be falsifiable but string theory is yet to be tested experimentally as It will require at least 19 TeV of energy to prove it which is not possible at this moment of time so Is string theory really a science?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
-
$\begingroup$ Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/15/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/30267/2451 , and links therein. $\endgroup$– Qmechanic ♦Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 14:29
-
2$\begingroup$ "Is this science" is a very vague question. Have a look at the better and more specific questions What evidence exists for string theory viability? and What experiment would disprove string theory? $\endgroup$– ACuriousMind ♦Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 14:29
-
$\begingroup$ There's a difference between "we can't test this because we don't have the resources/technology" and "we can't test this because there is no physical way to test it." The former is economics, the latter is non-science. The ancient Greeks didn't have the technology to test for individual atoms, but their atomic theory was nonetheless testable and has been validated extensively. $\endgroup$– AsherCommented Sep 5, 2015 at 16:10
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
According to Karl Popper's theory of demarcation, science should be falsifiable
Is Karl Popper the pope of science?
but string theory is yet to be tested experimentally as It will require at least 19 TeV of energy to prove it
You are wrong on two counts: a) a physics theory is never proven , only validated or falsified and b) you are assuming that string effects appear only at 19TeV, again from some Papal dicta.
I can assure you that there exists various phenomenological models of string theory that predict effects from string theory at the energies of the present LHC not to mention that finding supersymmetry would be another major breakthrough towards validation
Is string theory really a science?
String theory is not a science . It is a theoretical model which aims at unifying all known interactions in physics. Whether it will be validated or falsified lies in future experiments but that does not mean it is a useless exercise. It already has the mathematical structure to embed the standard model of particle physics and this in a sense is a validation. It is a necessary condition for any theory aiming at unification of the four forces.
Edit in order to expand the last paragraph because the question "is string theory ...." appears often here, in various forms.
When the first atomic spectra appeared the regularity of their distribution was mathematically modeled with the Balmer series very successfully and let into classifying atomic spectra with series.
Balmer's equation inspired the Rydberg equation as a generalization of it, and this in turn led physicists to find the Lyman, Paschen, and Brackett series which predicted other absorption/emission lines of hydrogen found outside the visible spectrum.
This eventually led to the Bohr model of the atom , a step forward in theoretical analysis, but not definitive. The great progress was made when the Schrodinger solution of the Hydrogen atom displayed the Balmer etc series, and quantum mechanics theory took off. If the quantum mechanical equations had not come out with the series as solutions , they would have been falsified.
Elementary particle physics data is much more complicated for simple series fits to it, waiting for a theoretical model.The data are fitted onto the standard model which displays a striking group symmetry, as striking as any series , the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) group structure which is imposed on the standard model lagrangian by hand more or less.
In this sense the Standard Model is equivalent to the Bohr model for atomic physics data. The striking group structure is expected to come out naturally from any theory of everything, TOE..
If the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) group structure is not in proposals for a TOE, the proposed theory is falsified/rejected as a candidate for TOE in the same way that the Rydberg-formula series falsify any alternatives to quantum mechanic theories if they could not come up with them in the solutions.
-
-
1$\begingroup$ no, it is not a necessary condition. I added a link as an example $\endgroup$– anna vCommented Sep 5, 2015 at 14:51
-
$\begingroup$ Supersymmetric particles are possible at present energies of LHC? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 14:56
-
3$\begingroup$ @physics101 SUSY particles were first theorized below 1TeV, but were not found there. (Actually lower, but let's not get into that). We keep trying to find evidence of them, but we do not know when the breakthrough will come. (If it ever does) Also, note that SUSY, while a requirement for (Most? All? I'm not sure) String Theory models, if proven, will not be a validation of those, just a step in the right direction. $\endgroup$– OmryCommented Sep 5, 2015 at 15:30