The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Strings, Superstrings, and M-theory Oh My

String theory, Superstring theory, and M-theory became a field of study in Particle Physics in the late 1960s. Particle physics or high-energy physics is the study of fundamental particles and forces that constitute matter and radiation. String theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings, and as the theory developed, it became Superstring theory, then M-theory.

String theory was developed during the late 1960s and early 1970s as a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other.

Superstring theory, developed in 1984 through 1994, was an attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modeling them as vibrations of tiny supersymmetric strings.

M-theory, first postulated in 1994, was an attempt to unify all consistent versions of superstring theory in an attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modeling them as vibrations of tiny supersymmetric strings.

In string theory, the String theory landscape (or landscape of vacua), first proposed in 2003, is the collection of possible false vacua, together comprising a collective “landscape” of choices of parameters governing compactifications. In theoretical physics, compactification means changing a theory with respect to one of its space-time dimensions. Instead of having a theory with this dimension being infinite, one changes the theory so that this dimension has a finite length and may also be periodic.

In all these theories, there has never been one iota of verification. Indeed, some String Theorists are now making the claim that as Strings exist in multi-dimensions, it may never be possible to experiment or observe Strings, as multi-dimensions are unobservable and not possible to experiment upon. In addition, String Theory has no predictability, and without predictability, it cannot be considered a strict science.

When reviewing these theories, a common person can feel that they are like Alice in Wonderland in trying to make sense of the apparent nonsense around them. While much of Physics is esoteric, it can be understandable by physicists and semi-understandable by those people of a scientific bent (of which I include myself). However, because of the lack of verifiability and unpredictability, many prominent Quantum Physicists have lampooned String Theory:

As the famous and brilliant physicist Richard Feynman once said, “String theorists don’t make predictions, they make excuses.” and “I think all this superstring stuff is crazy.”
 – Richard Feynman

“String theory is like a 50-year-old woman wearing too much lipstick.”
– Robert Laughlin

“String theory has failed in its primary goal.”
– Sheldon Glashow

“String theory is a figment of the theoretical mind.”
– Martinus Veltman

“String theory is a futile exercise as physics.”
– Phil Anderson

“String theory is a complete scientific failure.”
– Dan Friedan, founder of the string theory group at Rutgers

As Sheldon Glashow has also said, “The latest edition of string theory addresses none of our questions, makes no predictions, and cannot be falsified”, and, as Peter Woit observed with some asperity, “If one’s theory can’t predict anything, it is just wrong and one should try something else.”

There have also been serious scientific critiques of Strings Theory, which are complex but have been made understandable in the following articles:

• Not Even Wrong
• Why String Theory Is Still Not Even Wrong
• Requiem for a string: Charting the rise and fall of a theory of everything

Much public funding has gone into String Theory research, and many theoretical physicists have chased this money by proposing more research on String Theory. However, as one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century has stated:

“Reality is the real business of physics.”
 - Albert Einstein

Barking up the wrong tree, howling at the moon, tilting at windmills, and slaying imaginary dragons are all exercises in futility and a waste of time and money. It now appears that String Theory can never be confirmed by observation or experimentation; it can never be verified and, therefore, it is useless to describe reality. Thus, it is time to get on with the real business of physics. Besides, the attention and allocation of monies to String Theory often diverts funding for possible fruitful scientific research in other areas of theoretical physics. Consequently, I would propose that all public funding for String Theory be ended. If a private University of Research organization wishes to fund String Theory with their own monies, then that is their business. However, public funds, either directly or indirectly, should only be used to fund the real business of physics.