Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission Summary: 0 pending, 1 declined, 1 accepted (2 total, 50.00% accepted)

Education

Submission + - Is string theory really a scientific theory?

vk38 writes: "The New Yorker is running a story on whether String Theory is really a scientific theory or just an abstract exercise in math designed to churn out papers and Ph.Ds for the established academincs. Here are a couple of quotes:

"Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far — just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing. Yet the physics establishment promotes string theory with irrational fervor, ruthlessly weeding dissenting physicists from the profession. Meanwhile, physics is stuck in a paradigm doomed to barrenness."

"But string theory has always had a few vocal skeptics. Almost two decades ago, Richard Feynman dismissed it as "crazy," "nonsense," and "the wrong direction" for physics. Sheldon Glashow, who won a Nobel Prize for making one of the last great advances in physics before the beginning of the string-theory era, has likened string theory to a "new version of medieval theology," and campaigned to keep string theorists out of his own department at Harvard. (He failed.)""

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.

Working...