String theory
The theoretical nature of string theory and the lack of empirical evidence has sparked philosophical debate among scientists. Physicists such as Peter Woit and Sheldon Glashow believe that string theory only deals with abstractions and calculations which struggle to be applied to the universe in a conventional way. In a paper written in 2002, Peter Woit argues that even though the mathematics behind string theory deserves ‘ a certain degree of attention because of its interesting theoretical properties, it is unfit to play the role of a pivotal or dominating conceptual focal point of an entire scientific discipline ’ . 3 To these physicists, scientific theories must be able to endure continuous empirical testing and only experimental evidence can convincingly prove whether a theory is reasonable. In his paper titled ‘The dangers of non - empirical confirmation’, Carlo Rovelli argues that using non-empirical arguments to support a theory is just as absurd as seeing a Chinese person in Piccadilly Circus and concluding that the majority of Londoners are Chinese. 4 The continuous changing nature of string theory also poses a problem. The physicists that are against continued research into string theory disagree with string theorists’ claim that the theory is the only viable option to combine gravity and the Standard Model. These scientists offer loop quantum gravity as a possible alternative to string theory, since the theory is backg round independent, obeys Leibniz’s principle of the identity of the indiscernible and agrees that spacetime is relational. 5 They criticize string theorists for continuing their research even though, in their point of view, string theory is a dead end and attribute their behaviour as a result of ‘groupthink’:
This phenomenon tends to occur in professional groups with high status, strong internal competition, and intense internal interaction. Under such circumstances, the members of a group may be forced in to the unreflected adoption of the group’s standard positions by a mix of intellectual group pressure, admiration for the group’s leading figures, and the understanding that fundamental dissent would harm career perspectives. 6
To many non-scientists, the research into string theory is simply too expensive to be allowed to continue. After the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012, Forbes reporter Alex Knapp wrote an article titled ‘HowMuch Does It Cost To Find AHiggs Boson’. In the arti cle, Knapp attempts to find the expense of finding the Higgs Boson using the following numbers:
4.75 billion dollars for construction
•
• 5.5 billion dollars annually for experiments • 286 million dollars annually for computing power • 23.5 million dollars annually for electricity
Knapp concludes the cost of finding the Higgs Boson at around 13 billion dollars. 7 This number is clearly too concerning for people who do not research string theory. As the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
3 Dawid, R., 2009. On the Conflicting Assessments of the Current Status of String Theory. Philosophy of Science , 76(5), pp.984-996. 4 Dawid, R., 2015. String Theory and the Scientific Method . Cambridge 5 Conlon, J., 2016. Why String Theory? Boca Raton 6 Dawid, R., 2009. On the Conflicting Assessments of the Current Status of String Theory. Philosophy of Science , 76(5), pp.984-996. 7 Knapp, A., 2012. HowMuch Does It Cost To Find AHiggs Boson? . [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-find-a-higgs- boson/#203efaaa3948 [Accessed 17 July 2020].
165
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software