'Theory of everything' tying researchers up in knotsEmphasis mine -- that last sentence pretty much sums it up. It hearkens back to the complex orbits for the planets that were derived to support the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe. Let's revisit the article and see a perfect example of what is the problem:
The most celebrated theory in modern physics faces increasing attacks from skeptics who fear it has lured a generation of researchers down an intellectual dead end.
In its original, simplified form, circa the mid-1980s, string theory held that reality consists of infinitesimally small, wiggling objects called strings, which vibrate in ways that yield the different subatomic particles that comprise the cosmos. An analogy is the vibrations on a violin string, which yield different musical notes.
Advocates claimed that string theory would smooth out the conflicts between Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics. The result, they said, would be a grand unifying "theory of everything," which could explain everything from the nature of matter to the Big Bang to the fate of the cosmos.
Over the years, string theory has simultaneously become more frustrating and fabulous. On the one hand, the original theory has become mind-bogglingly complex, one that posits an 11-dimensional universe (far more than the four- dimensional universe of Einstein). The modified theory is so mathematically dense that many Ph.D.-bearing physicists haven't a clue what their string-theorist colleagues are talking about.
A great deal is at stake. Over the last two decades, a generation of brilliant young physicists -- the kinds of proto-Einsteins who historically have led intellectual revolution after revolution -- has flocked to string theory because their professors told them that's where the action was. Now many of them are reaching middle age and have gained tenured posts on prestigious campuses. They're also educating a whole new generation of fresh- faced wannabe string theorists who are thrilled by the publicity that string theory attracts, which has included several best-selling books and a special effects-packed TV extravaganza on PBS.It WAS a very interesting thought-experiment but it is time to break new ground... Posted by DaveH at March 14, 2005 11:15 PM
The dispute has split partly along sub-disciplinary lines, and mirrors a timeless squabble in the philosophy of science: Which is more important for scientific innovation -- theoretical daring or empirical observations and experiments?
"Superstringers have now created a culture in physics departments that is openly disdainful of experiments. ... There is an intellectual struggle going on for the very soul of theoretical physics, and for the hearts and minds of young scientists entering our field," says physicist Zlatko Tesanovic of Johns Hopkins University.
String theorists and their foes can't even agree on what constitutes success or failure.
I don't believe we can generate enough energy to do the experiments needed to verify elements of string theory, and restrictions brought about by the Planck Length limit our observations, so even if accurate the theory may be sterile...
Posted by: Misanthropyst at March 15, 2005 5:52 AM