171: String Theory

String Theory

|< < Prev #171 (October 16, 2006) Next > >|

Title text: This works on pretty much every level.

|< < Prev Random Explanation Next > >|

Explanation

String theory is a theory in theoretical physics for explaining how the universe works. It is a theory trying to explain everything belonging to our universe; specifically, it aims to unite general relativity and quantum field theories.

When a new theory is thought up, the theorists will usually supply some predictions, measurable by experimental physicists. String theory's predictions, however, are few and extremely difficult to test; though its inception was over forty years ago, string theory has yet to be experimentally tested.

Randall is unimpressed with string theorists (see the punchline to 397: Unscientific). String theory has not provided any useful new knowledge to engineering science as quantum physics has, and lacks the imagination-stirring philosophical implications that the general population associates with other fields — for example, quantum scientists have proven predictions like tunneling, used by modern electronic devices, and relativity is relevant to modern systems like GPS navigation. String theory hasn't reached that stage yet.

In the title text, Randall points out that string theory is so technically difficult that at essentially every level (except, presumably, the very top), this explanation is as good as it gets.

This comic could also be a joke about the fact that all character are stick people, so they're all made of sticks, which could be interpreted as strings.

Transcript

String Theory summarized:

Cueball: I just had an awesome idea. Suppose all matter and energy is made of tiny, vibrating "strings".

Friend: Okay. What would that imply?

Cueball: I dunno.

  Add comment        Create topic (use sparingly)       Refresh 

Discussion

It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may also cause Y. You need falsifiability, the ability to disprove your model if it's wrong, in order to produce even a sound theory. Because of this, not only is string hypothesis not really sound science, but neither is a lot of Quantum Mechanics, which successfully predicts in sync with observations in a way that doesn't exclude other causes for the same outcomes. The geocentric model had a slightly better positive prediction success rate than quantum mechanics does...and they were wrong. Like the geocentric model, QM mostly made bad predictions at first, but its failures are constantly propped up with epicycles and deferents. Positivism and instrumentalism are bad science, and generally will lead knowledge in the wrong direction. — Kazvorpal (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The above comment makes a subtle mistake, which I hope to correct in an enlightening manner. 1. Theories are frameworks to predict, not truths of the world. Theories are math designed to produce the same results as reality. 2. Frameworks can't be proven, just disproven. What matters is whether they are useful. For example, Newtonian mechanics is still taught because it is still useful (it is only very slightly wrong at low speeds and gravities, with much simpler math than SR or GR). Quantum mechanics is very useful; its math well encapsulates the behavior of things on small scales, and this has been used to great effect (lasers, computer hardware design, advanced chemistry, etc.)

--172.68.35.114 05:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
        Add comment