Is the string theory just another failed attempt to circumvent the singularity with its theology implication ?

Question

From a"string theory" student - “The beauty and complexity of the mathematical calculations necessary to explore the extra dimensions of string theory lured a lot of our most brilliant and gifted students to work for many years only to find that they had invested their time unwisely. Rather than admit their mistake, some like Motl will do anything to keep this dogma a science. Something it has not been for a long time”.."Like a 50-year-old woman wearing way too much lipstick," jokes Robert B. Laughlin, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at Stanford. "People have been changing string theory in wild ways because it has never worked.".."Superstringers have now created a culture in physics departments that is openly disdainful of experiments"says physicist Zlatko Tesanovic of Johns Hopkins University.."it's my impression that more and more physicists are starting to join Krauss as 'skeptical agnostics' about string theory," said mathematician Peter Woit of Columbia University.

To Mike1942 -Those are not my qoutes but rather qoutes from leading astrophysicists and mathematicians all of whom have studied the "String theory" and now doubt its validity..and rightfully so.

To Cosmo - According to leading astrophysicists the "String Theory" has failed to accomplished that. But rather has proven to be a fruitless adventure.

To Jose Frink - By John Horgan
"All these theories are preposterous, but that's not my problem with them. My problem is that no conceivable experiment can confirm the theories, as most proponents reluctantly acknowledge. The strings (or membranes, or whatever) are too small to be discerned by any buildable instrument, and the parallel universes are too distant. Common sense thus persuades me that these avenues of speculation will turn out to be dead ends"..So Mr. Jose Fink which is more preposterous - someone that believes - A God that created the universe or quantum “strings” from an uncharted universe that can’t be tested or verified?

Jose Frink you're correct the "silly" String theory can't be tested so lets eliminate it as an answer to "Where did the universe come from" But that also means we must eliminate Quantum Cosmolgy also since those conditions (Prior to 10^-46 seconds) after the "big bang" can't be tested or recreated..that presents us only one feasable answer to the question Where did the universe come from? Mr. Jose Fink you know that Thermodynamics implies that the universe began to exist right? and given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. Therefore Mr Jose Fink on the basis of the "Kalam" cosmological argument it is rational to believe God exists.

Interesting points Prof Zikzak however you failed to read the commentary(s) which is not of my authorship. Robert B Laughlin a noble prize winning physicist@ Stamford, Zlatko Tesanovic Of John Hopkins University and Peter Woit Of Columbia University of whom all agree in part that the problems with the "String-Quantum cosmolgy" theories is that no conceivable experiment can confirm the theories, as most proponents reluctantly acknowledge. Obviously the scientific community has provided humanity with many useful “inventions”, but the research behind those inventions was based on sound principles. Not like those found with quantum-string-theories, which tries to imply that the conversion of energy into matter (Quantum cosmology) is creating matter out of nothing or that nothingness should spawn a region of spacetime where none existed before. Prof Zikzak the notion of some probability of something's coming out of nothing seems incoherent!

Excuse me Prof Zikzak but i'm not a creationist and I don't read their literature or attend their chuches. As far as context, it speaks for itself or which you again failed to address. There really is no need to "quote" from "creationist" because the science community provides enough "rope" to hang itself..which is why I did list quotes from other scientist.

Answer 1

Based on what I've read in the book 'The Trouble With Physics' (by Lee Smolin... a physicist), I would agree with you. IMO (not being a physicist), string theory has entered the realm of theology... especially when one string theorist recommends changing the definition of 'science' since the current definition would mean that string theory isn't a science.

Answer 2

This is actually a really interesting question from a sociological perspective. Without realizing it, our Mr. Archie P has revealed the evil secret creationist agenda by arguing against a theory with no theological implications whatsoever. The purpose of string theory is to unite gravity and quantum mechanics, and to attempt to correct certain mathematical unpleasantness in field theory. Certainly, these things have no theological implications whatsoever. Any implications string theory has for the creation of the universe are tenuous and esoteric at the best of times. The acceptance of string theory in the scientific community is also tenuous at the best of times. String theory is, after all, only in the development stage.

Therefore, what Archie P is arguing against is *the scientific method itself*. In other words, we scientists are bad because we develop and consider theories. Theory X isn't tested yet? Throw it out before it ever can be! We all know God did it! What the hell are you people doing making up theories anyway?

Every theory in existence goes though the development/untested stage. Archie says this is bad. Any theory that gets to that stage is bad and should be thrown away. Therefore Archie says all theories are bad. If this were 1907 instead of 2007, Archie would be arguing against the development-stage Atomic Theory of Matter. Archie's argument is that it is wrong to be curious and to attempt to answer questions about the world. His ideal world is one in which all curiosity and investigation into the world is shut down. What a wonderful insight into creationist philosophy! What a giveaway!

To anyone who might be reading, remember this carefully. Creationists are anti-science. Period. They're not out to fix science; they're out to destroy it. Creationists are anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, anti-critical thought. They want to replace any curiosity you might have about the way the world works with Goddidit. Thank you, Archie, for demonstrating this so eloquently.

PS. Kalam Cosmological Argument? Are you kidding? Disproven by example: particle pair production is a directly observed uncaused event.

PPS. There is no need to directly address your quote mining. You picked these quotes out of some creationist pamphelet, no doubt, and have no clue what the actual context is, who the people are you are quoting, or even if the quotes are real (creationist quotes of scientists have a 50% chance of being completely fabricated). Regardless, unlike in fundamentalist religious circles, debate is normal and welcome in scientific circles. Your quotes, if accurate, merely indicate that there are those who urge caution promoting a theory that is only in development. *shrug*

Answer 3

String theory has nothing to do with theology, nor does any other aspect of science. It aims to reconcile quantum mechanics with classical physics, neither of which has anything to do with theology.

Answer 4

I think you're confusing scientists, who explore nature regardless of where it takes them, with creationist whackjobs who fabricate evidence to support a predetermined theology.

Why the hell are you talking about string theory as if it was an accepted theory of science anyway? It isn't and it never has been because it can't be tested. Yet. You're only showing your creationist lies and ignorance here. And it's Doctor Frink to you, whackjob.

Answer 5

I always thought String Theory was an attempt to unify the radically different universes of General Relativity (large scale) and Quantum Mechanics (small scale).

The main criticism of String Theory is the lack of experimentally-testable results.

Answer 6

string theory isn't an attempt to explain anything but rather a set of tools for explaining things we already understand in a different way.

Answer 7

What does your huge long quote have to do with your question which seems to imply that there one singularity to deal with?

Answer 8

At bottom, string theory is a mathematical method to avoid the singularities and infinities of field theories that have point-like particles. I don't know how theological those infinites are---they're just mathematical problems.