String Theory Is Plausible
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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 -- http://lifeandphysics.wordpress.com...)
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.
Theorist forfeited this round.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.