02-07-2022, 05:45 AM
Mark - there is a big difference between a hypothesis and a theory
A hypothesis does not have a rigorous mathematical construct to enable it to explain observations. It is little better than speculation.
Many examples are found in geology, where the origin of a particular type of mineralisation is explained by a hypothesis as to how it formed. A hypothesis does not explain quantities, only qualities.
A theory is something that explains measured phenomena. It also has the ability to make predictions, the test of which proves whether the theory is thus far reliable or not. As in the case of GR, everyone knew that gravitation waves, if they did not exist, would invalidate GR. It’s another matter that it took a century to develop equipment sophisticated enough to test the theory.
Note that a theory can ever only be proved to be provisionally correct.
Therefore, you can indeed choose to believe in a theory if it’s not been proven to be demonstrably false, as long as you are clear that it may be wrong. A counter proof is just one experiment away.
This is not the same as religious belief, which:
1) is founded on childish fables from primitive traditions that contradict one another
2) makes no predictions that can be tested
3) at least in the Judeo Christian tradition, is demonstrably made up (Paul’s concoction)
Kaku and Greene nowhere claim that string theory is proven.
But hopefully I have outlined the difference between a tested theory, an untested theory, and a hypothesis, and why string theory is not a hypothesis.
If you really want to understand why string theory is a big deal you have to go to the maths.
When Kaku and Greene explain it to the public, they are trying to dumb it down by 40 IQ points.
A hypothesis does not have a rigorous mathematical construct to enable it to explain observations. It is little better than speculation.
Many examples are found in geology, where the origin of a particular type of mineralisation is explained by a hypothesis as to how it formed. A hypothesis does not explain quantities, only qualities.
A theory is something that explains measured phenomena. It also has the ability to make predictions, the test of which proves whether the theory is thus far reliable or not. As in the case of GR, everyone knew that gravitation waves, if they did not exist, would invalidate GR. It’s another matter that it took a century to develop equipment sophisticated enough to test the theory.
Note that a theory can ever only be proved to be provisionally correct.
Therefore, you can indeed choose to believe in a theory if it’s not been proven to be demonstrably false, as long as you are clear that it may be wrong. A counter proof is just one experiment away.
This is not the same as religious belief, which:
1) is founded on childish fables from primitive traditions that contradict one another
2) makes no predictions that can be tested
3) at least in the Judeo Christian tradition, is demonstrably made up (Paul’s concoction)
Kaku and Greene nowhere claim that string theory is proven.
But hopefully I have outlined the difference between a tested theory, an untested theory, and a hypothesis, and why string theory is not a hypothesis.
If you really want to understand why string theory is a big deal you have to go to the maths.
When Kaku and Greene explain it to the public, they are trying to dumb it down by 40 IQ points.