String theory

In the last round, my opponent stated "String theory is not verifiable as of yet because it doesn't make any predictions as of yet because, as has been stated, it is not complete. In time, it will become more well-defined, and then it will be more testable." I will start with a point that I have already made and that my opponent has actually quoted in his last argument. Throughout this debate, we are constantly seeing the words "as of yet" used by my opponent. As I have said before, there is no "as of yet." Even if a prediction is made, it will not come to pass. And when this happens, I can assure you that the string theorists will simply ignore the data. I have already read three books on string theory, and in all of the writings I have seen only two hypothetical scenarios which would help to verify string theory. The first scenario was described by Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe. In it he claims that during the inflationary period of the big bang (another theory I have serious problems with, but that is a separate debate), there may have been some strings that have expanded well beyond the size of 10 to the negative 33rd centimeters. From here he says it would be a wonderful thing if this did happen and someone may one day see a giant string floating through space. As this notion is ridiculous in and of itself, I will not even bother to make some of the many points against it. Furthermore, since he is the only one that stated it, it would be more of an attack on Brian Greene than on string theorists in general. The second hypothetical scenario that may give evidence is shared by almost all string theorists. At CERN located near Geneva, Switzerland, the largest particle accelerator and hadron collider is under construction and has been for a number of years. This particle accelerator is known as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and finally, after years of work, it is scheduled to be completed in May of this year. When the LHC is finally completed, all of the string theorists are expecting it to produce a fictional particle known as a Higgs boson. This is the one piece of experimentation that all of the string theorists are pinning their hopes on. It is a shame that the voting stages of this debate will have ended by then. I can assure everyone that no such particle will be created, and regardless of how you vote on this debate, I encourage all of you to keep up with the LHC project to see in the end that I am right. I was then attacked for my statement that a particle with dimensionality and zero mass is inconsistent with reality. The counter-argument was that it is only inconsistent with reality as I perceive it. Now of course it is POSSIBLE that none of us actually have a grasp on reality. We can look through the countless philosophical arguments of us being merely brains in a jar, or being deceived by the omnipotent evil demon. But to deny our own senses and go around believing that there is no truth to anything we perceive is simply not pragmatic. We have to accept what seems clearly real to us as reality, otherwise we all know nothing and sites such as this one for the purpose of intellectual stimulation become meaningless. I will say that you do make a good point in that things work differently on a quantum level, and many of these quantum properties are beyond our understanding. I will admit that I still do not know the explanation for the two experimental results of the double-slit experiment (depending upon whether or not the particle is "watched.") I cannot figure out superposition, quantum experiments on the polarization of light, or many other things. But I will say this: even in the crazy world of quantum physics, every single particle has at least some mass. Even the neutrino (which may or may not exist) is said to have a tiny bit of mass, however small. The graviton of string theory and other things in string theory are the only particles dreamed up with a mass of zero. In that sense, it is inconsistent even with quantum physics. Moving on, my explanation of Calabi-Yau geometry was clearly something you misconstrued. I never claimed that a 27-sided polygon has six dimensions. I am well aware of the fact that it has only two, and NO I do not need you to draw one for me. I stated in that paragraph, as I will reiterate that its only purpose was to let readers know that I was not attacking Calabi-Yau geometry, and that I was only attacking string theory which incorporates Calabi-Yau shapes into its framework. You then stated "I personally would think that string theory is in fact science." To this I will only state that you have a different definition of science than scientists. Popper's idea of falsificationism is supposed to apply to all science, and the larger scientific community accepts this philosophy. You also have stated: 'Your stance in this debate is that against "string theory." The topic is not "String theory is science."' I will first quote the definition of a theory as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. theory-- A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, esp; one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted The point is the name itself "string theory" implies science. Furthermore, the arguments and points that people try to make in these debates are not defined by the title of the debate alone. The title gives someone an idea of what the debate is about, but then the opening argument should be read as well. Reading this, you can clearly see that I started out attacking string theory's scientific credentials. All of the books on string theory are placed in the science section of bookstores. I will also refer you to comments I've made on this topic LONG BEFORE you took up the challenge. Your final argument is that it should be accepted because it is the only thing to explain gravity on a quantum level. In the previous round, I explained in detail how it accomplishes this feat, and in doing so have tried to show that its ideas are ridiculous. If I were to claim that every force is created by little invisble elephants, we would then also have an explanation uniting all of the forces. But this does not mean the idea is valid or acceptable simply because it uses one hypothetical object to cover everything. Granted that my example of little invisible elephants is more outrageous than little magical vibrating strings, but given some of the concepts that string theory comes up with, it is not THAT much more outrageous or silly. You've stated "Also, you have no reasons to think that there cannot be 6 spacial dimensions." I actually have two reasons. The first is that I only perceive three and speculating on other dimensions that cannot be perceived is a fruitless and unproductive quest. The second is that theories, such as Einstein's theories of relativity, function on the basis of three spatial dimensions. To believe in more dimensions would require a restructuring of the framework of such great theories such as relativity. To restructure, manipulate and reformulate a theory that has had such magnificent explanatory and predictive power would be blasphemous. And all of this would be done just so that a vague concept such as string theory would have a chance. Furthermore, I will say that even if I had no reason to disregard the ten or eleven dimensions of string theory (or six dimensions curled up in spacetime), that is a far cry from saying they should be accepted. I have no evidence against unicorns or big foot either. But it is not pragmatic to cling to such ideas. When it comes to science, a different standard must be used. Despite the claims heard by many in any ontological argument, I will say that when it comes to science, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.