So what will you do if string theory is wrong

I briefly discuss the accomplishments of string theory that would survive a complete falsification of the theory as a model of nature and argue the possibility that such a survival may necessarily mean that string theory would become its own discipline, independently of both physics and mathematics. 1 Electronic address: memam@clarku.edu String theory occupies a special niche in the history of science. It is the only theory of physics with no experimental backing that has managed to not only survive, but also become “the only game in town” (to quote Sheldon Glashow [1]). In addition, the theory has gained much popularity with the general public, spurred on by accessible online accounts and popular TV programs. Judging by amateur web sites and personal discussions, there seems to be a rising belief that it is a correct theory of nature. Of course, no one knows that for sure yet. This confusion has extended even to the string physicists themselves. Although when pressed they will tell you that string theory is still in the hypothesis stage, many do act and talk as if it were confirmed that it is a correct theory of the universe. This attitude has triggered much criticism. One of the most vocal string theory critics is Lee Smolin, although he has passed through a string theory phase. In his book [2] Smolin points out that this “faith” in the string hypothesis has affected funding and hiring policies in a negative way, effectively boosting the theory’s prominence disproportionately compared to other approaches to quantum gravity [3]. Another notable string theory critic is Peter Woit whose views can be found in his book [4], articles [5, 6], and web site [7]. Although there are many counterarguments to be made, it seems that string theory does receive more hype than it deserves if evaluated solely on its applicability to nature and connection to experiment. In fact, string theory has so far failed to conform to the definition of a scientific theory. In his classic work [8] Karl Popper gives several criteria that a scientific theory must satisfy. These may be summarized as “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability”. A discussion may be found in his cited original work as well as online sources such as [9]. So far string theory has failed to meet Popper’s criterion. It might be argued that this situation is temporary. Eventually technology will catch up with string theory and allow us to test its assumptions directly or someone will find a way to test the theory using current technology. This hope is what keeps string theory on the list of scientific theories, saving it from the fate of astrology and creationism. The failure to satisfy Popper’s definition is however a serious drawback that string theory critics will, justly, continue to point out. So why do people continue to work on string theory? There are several reasons. We often hear that the theory is aesthetically attractive and that it would be a shame if nature had not picked such an elegant structure to use as the basis of the universe. Furthermore, it is the only model that aspires to not just be a theory of quantum gravity, but also a theory of everything;