The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

String Theory Is Plausible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 987 times Debate No: 45919
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I will be affirming that string theory is plausible. My opponent will be negating this. First round for acceptance.


I accept this debate, and I aim to show that string theory is not plausible.
Debate Round No. 1


To begin with, physical and mathematical constants would be affected at levels of greater precision because of curved space in higher dimensions. This effect, while not conclusively proved to be the effect of higher dimensions, does show some experimental validity: "A recent review recommended that the number of decimal places used to represent numbers in the software should be increased. This means all mathematical constants such as e and pi, as well as physical constants and the measured dimensions of the detectors. So far, so routine. But when adding more precision to pi, a strange effect was noticed. The alignment of charged particle tracks across detector boundaries actually got worse when a more precise value was used. In addition, the agreement between simulation and data also got slightly worse.... However, string theorists have pointed out that a firm prediction of string theory is the existence of extra space-time dimensions. In a space which is curved into a higher dimension, the apparent value of pi can deviate from that seen in real life. And thus the LHC may have proved that they were right all along." In other words, this evidence of deviation from the exact value of certain constants is evidence of curved space in higher dimensions.1

Also, string theory is plausible by the philosophy of science. While just about every prediction of string theory is hard to test, in time, we will have the ability to test such predictions. This means that string theory is inherently falsifiable, even if it is not yet.



The article from which you quote is extremely biased, and should not be taken seriously. Take this quote from the article in question: "Boring scientists say this is probably evidence that some physicists don't know how to write proper code. However, string theorists have pointed out that a firm prediction of string theory is the existence of extra space-time dimensions."

Right off the bat, it labels the scientists that conduct TRUE science as "boring" which I suppose makes string theory exciting according to the article. But there are other, more comprehensive articles, that show the many flaws of string theory. Here is one such example:

As far as the author is concerned, Jon Butterworth is a physics professor at University College London. However, am I supposed to really take him seriously when his blog "Life and Physics" tells everyone that he is making it all up. View the page. On the top right hand side, it states "Making it up as I go along." This is exactly what string theory is, and this is what string theorists do. It is all made up! There is zero evidence.

(Jon Butterworth's blog --

Returning to the article, the more precise values were used to detect the alignment of charged particle tracks. When dealing with charged particles, we are no longer dealing with the physical laws of the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics is what governs the movement of particles, and it is very well known that the quantum world, even in principle, cannot be fully studied. A more precise constant being inversely proportional to the precision of the detector boundaries is exactly what SHOULD be expected. Anyone that has studied Werner Heisenberg will see that the situation here is analogous to The Uncertainty Principle, and has nothing to do with evidence of string theory.

Furthermore, the deviation of the apparent value of pi does not require more dimensions. Value deviations in regular three-dimensional curved space have already been shown to exist. A triangle on a flat surface has angles that add up to 180 degrees. However, if the triangle is on the outside of a curve (e.g. on the outside of a sphere), then the angles will add up to a value greater than 180 degrees. If a triangle is placed on the inside of a curve, the angles will add up to a value lower than 180 degrees. String theory and extra dimensions are not needed to explain why the value of pi can deviate. The same dimensions with which we are all familiar can explain this. It is simple Riemannian Geometry.

In your argument, you state: "While just about every prediction of string theory is hard to test, in time, we will have the ability to test such predictions. This means that string theory is inherently falsifiable, even if it is not yet."

This is simply incorrect. String theory makes no testable predictions, even in theory. While it is claimed that string theory "predicts" more dimensions, it is not testable, even in principle. The claim of the string theorists is that these extra dimensions are wrapped up in some small areas of space in the form of hidden six-dimensional geometric constructs. They are far too small to ever see or ever detect, and can never be shown to exist. That does not qualify as a prediction. It is a made up statement. Why would string theorists make it up? Because if we deny the existence of extra dimensions, we must deny string theory. The string theorists are basically grasping at straws.
Debate Round No. 2


Theorist forfeited this round.


Everything that we have discovered about the universe is consistent with 4 dimensions (3 spatial and 1 temporal). Many successful theories have been built upon such foundations, and these theories have predicted consistent and correct experimental results over and over again.

Yet string theory requires more than the four dimensions with which we are all familiar. In fact, at the lowest possible estimate, it requires a minimum of ten dimensions!! In the most popular book on string theory, The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene explains these extra dimensions by stating that we may have small, undetectable Calabi Yau geometric constructs curled up in small areas of space. This already sounds so ridiculous, I would consider it implausible. He continues on to state that some students have discovered that the true minimum number of dimensions required by string theory is eleven! How does he get out of this one? He sticks with his ridiculous idea of Calabi Yau shapes (i.e. 6-dimensional shapes) curled up in space, and speculates on an extra time dimension.

Even if there are people out there that consider this idea plausible, this still would not be enough to make string theory work. Unfortunately for Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and the countless others that have been sucked into this philosophy/religion that tries to pass itself off as science, it turns out that even eleven dimensions is not enough to make string theory work.

We know from Einstein's special theory of relativity that the Lorentz transformations apply to all motion. Experiments have been performed to confirm Einstein's predictions for approximately 100 years, and the experiments have confirmed that Einstein's theories are correct. Yet, in order for string theory to be correct AND the Lorentz transformations to be correct, string theory requires far more than 11 dimensions.

The following explanation of string theory seems to actually favor the theory. Yet I believe it can be used to show its flaws.

On page 24 it states: "The D boundary condition violates translation and Lorentz invariance."

A violation of Lorentz invariance? But Lorentz's equations have been proven time and time again. So how does string theory correct this problem?

"It follows that D = 26 so the boson string is consistent only in 26 dimensions!" (taken from page 40).

What!??! 26 dimensions? Forget about any evidence for these extra dimensions. The string theorists don't even have any of their made up stories to explain it. Brian Greene is one of the biggest proponents of string theory, and he was only able to explain up to 11 dimensions! When even those in favor of string theory have not come up with any explanation of where 26 dimensions could be hiding, it is time to put this bad idea to rest. The fact that string theory requires so many extra dimensions, of which there is no evidence and no explanation, is enough to consider string theory implausible.

In closing, I ask the voters to use their own senses. Your sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch have been guiding you through life. Yes, there are optical illusions and other tricks on the other senses. But using all five senses together gives us a clear picture of the universe around us. In all this time, have you had any indications of extra dimensions? The simple answer is "No." In the quest for a unified theory, string theorists have dispensed with all logic and ignored the evidence around them. Their desire to make string theory work has caused them to continually believe in things (such as 26 dimensions) that everyone with common sense knows to be untrue. Brian Greene and Michio Kaku may disagree, but I assert that string theory is definitely implausible.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sswdwm 3 years ago
And even if they were professional mathematicians - I don't see how any of us would understand the debate. It may as we'll be written in hebrew
Posted by Theorist 3 years ago
Well I guess someone would and wants to contend my resolution. Thanks for your advice, however. I'll keep that in mind next time.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
Unless you are a professional mathematician or theoretical physicist, how excatly are you supposed to argue that string theory *isn't* plausible?
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Change it from plausible to probable and you'll probably get someone a lot faster. Plausible makes it nearly impossible for con to win.
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
I love string theory and Michio Kaku
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF