Talk:String theory/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:53, 18 January 2014

Revision as of 00:03, 5 April 2014

Line 384:

'''String theory''' is ..... what? Can someone make this article's lead more accessible to the general reader? [[User:The ed17|Ed]] ^{[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]} 23:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

== Little things... ==

As presented on Wikipedia, String Theory and its cousins are based on the

fundamental axiom: Strings exist. This is fundamental in that, if there were no

strings, there could be no string theory. In just over 40 years there have been

zero testable predictions that support or refute the existence of strings.

That's fine, but there have also been no conceivable experiments, real or

imagined, that could falsify their existence in the foreseeable future. When

sufficient energy levels are reached that could refute them, the lower energy

bound is increased and the theory is altered.

Its predictions are mutable and the theory non-falsifiable. Mutable means the

theory changes to match empirical evidence so as not to be refuted.

Non-falsifiable means that even if it was wrong, it can never be proven wrong.

These are real problems. Science, to quote Wikipedia, is:

"a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of

''testable'' explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3]"

The theory is very interesting, but to present a non-falsifiable theory as

science is misleading. As it sits, string theory and cousins are based on a

fundamental axiom that, due to both the energy requirements and the mutability

of the theory itself, will remain non-falsifiable for the foreseeable future.

Despite any internal consistency, as it sits, string theory is a system

formulated on faith. Lay readers deserve to know this. Is there some kind

of an article wide label akin to:

"This article presents conjecture (suppositions)."

While any theory is by definition a conjecture, in places the article presents

itself as a viable alternative to empirically supported models. I think such

labels would help remind readers of the current state of things. There are

several science articles on Wikipedia that could use such headers. From a

purely neutral point of view we need to maintain the line between empirically

supported science as we know it and conjecture - even if the conjecture has a

lot of math and is intriguing.

Thoughts, ideas? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vcfahrenbruck|Vcfahrenbruck]] ([[User talk:Vcfahrenbruck|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vcfahrenbruck|contribs]]) 20:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: The intro was a bit light on criticism. I added "... say that it is a failure as a theory of everything" which is sourced below in the criticism section. The article starts by saying it is a "theoretical framework" which I think infers that it is conjectures. [[User:Bhny|Bhny]] ([[User talk:Bhny|talk]]) 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

::You might find the following [[Peter Woit]] links interesting.

::*[http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3333 Physicists Finally Find a Way to Test Superstring Theory]

::*[http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5358 Forty Years of String Theory]

::*[http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5880 String Theory and the Scientific Method]

::They each touch on important (I think) aspects of this hairy issue. <span style="font-size:0.75em; color:white; background-color:black; border-radius: 4px;">&nbsp;—[[User:Sowlos|<span style="font-weight: bold; color:white;">Sowlos</span>]]&nbsp;</span> 09:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

== Why the refimprove tag ? ==

The rationale for placing a "refimprove" tag at the top of the article is unclear. There is no explanation in the edit history [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=String_theory&diff=next&oldid=563866531], and there is no explanation on this talk page. This article has 52 references, and therefore the same number of in-line citations. It also links to an ample body of literature (and maybe some other materials) available in the "Further reading" and "External links" section. This article may not actually need a refimprove tag. ---- [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

:Whoever added that tag should have posted something. Tagging and running is not good form. However, after taking a look, I suppose it has something to do with so many sections carrying no citations, several others only carrying one, and usage of the present sources in such a sparse manner (there are only 52 inline citations for a very large article). I even found an unsourced explanation in reference #15. <span style="font-size:0.75em; color:white; background-color:black; border-radius: 4px;">&nbsp;—[[User:Sowlos|<span style="font-weight: bold; color:white;">Sowlos</span>]]&nbsp;</span> 10:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)