LHC and the demise of String Theory

Are there no defenders of string theory here? - Superstrings, supersymmetry, M-Theory, etc. etc. etc.?

It is time for physicists to wake up and reject String Theory. Take the sexy mathematics that has been developed and put it in your tool bag and move on. Unfortunately String Theorists now run most of the top jobs in physics - are they going to admit they were wrong after wasting 30 years on it? I hope the LHC results will hasten the demise of all things String.

I always find it a bit sad that physicists seem to invest so much of their personal responsibility and credibility into their theories. Fred Hoyle springs to mind with the steady state theory, to the point where he became a bit blinkered and eventually a bit discredited trying to make a moribund theory work, instead of taking a more objective standpoint. Even Einstein lost some objectivity talking about QM.

So what, if string theory as it stands turns out not to be 100% verifiable? If its proponents say, OK, let's see whether it needs to be completely discarded, or more likely modified, then at least they will have made an effort to describe something which had hitherto been incomprehensible. And so far as "waking up and rejecting" string theory, isn't this something you do when you see actual experimental evidence which contradicts it rather than the absence (so far) of evidence? This seems to be just the kind of thing you are criticising the stringers for.

So what, if string theory as it stands turns out not to be 100% verifiable?

But you see that is the problem. None of it is verifiable - you cannot do experiments to prove it one way or the other. So even if 1% was verifiable I would be happy to endorse its continuation.
The standard model experiments that do apply results are totally at odds with the numbers that String does comes up with - by many orders of magnitude.

All I'm saying is that after 30 years hard work by thousands of physicists, you would at least expect to see the definition of the theory (none yet) and some indication that they are on the right track (a single experimental result maybe - none yet). Draw your own conclusions.....

So what, if string theory as it stands turns out not to be 100% verifiable?

But you see that is the problem. None of it is verifiable - you cannot do experiments to prove it one way or the other.

Are you sure, or just that we can't do them at present? You can't discard a theory just because of the limitations of our current technology. No experiment or observation is proof of any entire theory anyway, just that particular prediction. How about keeping an open mind until we know one way or the other?

Hi John,
I have to say you have grabbed my attention.
Can you give us a number of examples where string theory is simply wrong ?
convince me! (BTW, I dont have time to read books on the subject)

Hi John,
I have to say you have grabbed my attention.
Can you give us a number of examples where string theory is simply wrong ?
convince me! (BTW, I dont have time to read books on the subject)

Dave,
Let me answer this with a question of my own. Can you show me a single example of where String Theory has been proven correct. With experimentally verifiable results.
There are numerous examples of where it has been experimentally shown to be at odds with Standard Model experimental results.
I can't prove String Theory is wrong just like I can't say for sure there is no God. However after thirty years you would imagine some experimental result or even a written definition/Theory would have emerged. What we have though is no Theory and no predictions, and therefore no experimental results - isn't it time to find a new game?

Hi John,.
What you're saying sounds really surprising from a scientific point of view, surely they must have some reasoning to think string theory is good, as for example I cant giver any as I know little about it.

You make it sound like they came up with a theory for something, that doesn't do anything, that solves no problems, so what is its use ??
Usually a theory is there to solve an encountered problem, so is what the problem its trying to solve ?