String Theory- Science or Philosophy?

[Isamarewaswerebeen]

Looking to unite the "small" with the "large", a new theory has been conceived. Instead of having an infintesimal chain of increasingly smaller subatomic particles, it has been theorized that eventually, shrinking to about 100 billion times as small as an atom, one would find "strings". According to this theory, the way each "string" wiggles has a certain effect on the universe. Also, that each string save the graviton is connected to a membrane. The membrane keeps the "strings" from leaving it, while the graviton drifts into entirely different dimensions. String theory states that the universe was formed when two of these membranes collided. It also suggests that it's a common occurence.

However, string theory has flaws, most notably in the fact that at the moment our technology is unable to see particles that small, let alone "strings" of pure energy.

Personally, I think string theory is quite possible. I will also state, though, that I have only provided a brief synopsis of it, and also that I've only been researching it for about a week. Please feel free to correct any errors that I may have made.

But, the question is: Do you think it's science, or philosophy. Support your statement, and DON'T BRING UP RELIGION.

[Snowball Tastycake]

To have a true thought about the new theory one would need to know if science can see the strings and it isn't just an idea. Personally, I think it can be both science and philosopy. Science is a way of acheiving things through the process of trial and error, while philosophy is a way of thought. Right now the String Theory is in the philosophy stage, meaning that it isn't true that the strings exist or not and until science can prove otherwise it shall stay in that stage.

[Isamarewaswerebeen]

Quote:

To have a true thought about the new theory one would need to know if science can see the strings and it isn't just an idea. Personally, I think it can be both science and philosopy. Science is a way of acheiving things through the process of trial and error, while philosophy is a way of thought. Right now the String Theory is in the philosophy stage, meaning that it isn't true that the strings exist or not and until science can prove otherwise it shall stay in that stage.

Well, there isn't much of a reply to that, save waiting for CERN.

[Weebleflip]

It's Science, I'd say.

Scientific theory, yes, not fact, but science nonetheless. It has testable predictions and current vaguely-supporting coincidence/evidence (ahem), i.e. explanation of graviton etc.

[Isamarewaswerebeen]

It's only slightly related, but when I was talking to another person about it, they commented, and I quote: "Beats the hell out of creationism."

I apologize for breaking my own rule.

[Weebleflip]

I have to agree there, and I'm Christian! String theory makes a lot of sense - however bizarre! I certainly hope CERN does discover the predicted superpartner particles - that would really help discourage sceptics, as particle theorists have no equivalent idea.

[A Lost Iguana]

Protoscience because of the problems with M-theory (string theories are not fundamental and should not be thought of as such)

SUSY particles will lend support to proposed extensions to the Standard Model as well as the string theories; SUSY alone will not be enough to confirm string theory. String theories need exclusive predictions: finding the graviton would be one.

Anyway, string theories are only the stepping stone toward M-theory, and that is still not on sure mathematical footing yet. Until there is more certainty in the formalisation of M-theory it not be a proper science (using Popper's demarcation).

While string theory is being mentioned, I feel compelled to point out that they are five different versions, neither of which are complete enough to be a ToE, hence, I bring up M-theory.

[jahovachino]

I have to mention to you that the branes arent a part of string theory, but of M-theory. And even M-theory itself doesnt suggest the big bang being a collision of these branes, but of a certain branch of cosmology supported by vafa and strominger. Inflationary cosmology happens to be a MUCH more consistent theory of cosmology than that using membranes. The number one problem with the p-brane cosmology is that it requires gravity to not travel in waves! It hasnt been proven yet, but a lot of evidence suggests that gravity DOES travel in waves.

Well to actually coincide with the question, I would say that it is all science, not philosophy. A lot of String/M-theory bases its concepts on indirectly observed phenomenon (such as that of sub-quark particle physics). String theory isnt some random thing where it is an assumption based upon random beliefs, but is something based upon formulations (it all started with Eulers beta function!). So to those bastards who keep on saying its philosophy, i say "nay to thine believers of the Newton!"

[Fogwolf]

Because strings, if they exist, are so small they will probably never be able to be scientifically proven or 'seen' in an experiment, string theory may always be philosophy. However, it's possible, and they're talking about being able to find large scale evidence for strings due to the fact that the universe is expanding.