I have read some introductory string theory. I was amazed by it. But is it experimentally confirmed the existence of those small vibrating strings? I feel sometimes to put a check on myself to learn something that isn't very sure. (same happened with this string theory) So I wanted to seek some advice from renowned people here . I wanted to know how in general science community perceives people who spend around most of their on a vague/unclear idea; that isn't confirmed experimentally? How is it when you get failed?
Yes, good question.
To my way of thinking the most important thing in science is to decide what question interests you enough to spend a lifetime on. Good questions can easily take 25 years to answer so I see no reason not spend a lifetime on a *question* - I recommend it.
But if you spend a lifetime on an *answer*, i.e. a theory, you are probably wasting your time. Einstein got special and general relativity done pretty quick. Peter Higgs waited a long time for his theory to be corroborated but he had been doing other things for decades. The fact that people have been messing around with string theory so long without much conclusion makes it look as if it may be a blind alley. However, if the people involved know what question they are after and cannot find a better route to an answer I cannot see they can be blamed. More often people get stuck with a theory because they are more wedded to their theory than to the question it might answer I suspect.
I would not want to confuse a vague/unclear idea with lack of experimental confirmation. Good ideas can be vague in the sense of being inexact - Higgs could not predict exactly the mass of his particle. That is fine. What should be avoided are ideas that are confused in their conception or which can predict any old result - that is where Freud committed the ultimate scientific error.
Maybe in the end the point is that when you are oldish like me you want to be able to look back and say 'I got an answer to a pretty good question'. That means not taking easy options, or easy questions. If you do not try something tough then why bother? And that may mean spending fifteen to twenty years chipping away at side issues while keeping your question out in front because you cannot see any way of answering your main question. But as Chris says, if it is a question ought to be answerable, because theories could be tested, then my experience is that you can find a way to do it if you really try. In fact it is likely to turn out to be easier than you expected. Once you have done your twenty years chipping away! While you chip away you should probably be changing your favourite answer (theory) constantly - that means you are getting somewhere.
If the question you want to answer is the nature of fundamental dynamic units then you have to read as much string theory as you need for you personally to be able to see why it is wrong. When you know why it is wrong you will have discovered the right theory! Unfortunately there are no short cuts in science. You have to decide if something is worth investing in. If you are honest about wanting to know something, it probably is, however much it may look like a vertical face with no handholds. Those are the ones worth climbing.
Great question ,
whose answer likely is 'it depends' .
First, is the theory not confirmed experimentally *as of yet*, i.e. it is in principle possible to confirm it, or is the theory *in principle* not amenable to experimental corroboration ? In the latter case, serious analysis would have to go into deciding, or not, to give over one's life to it.
Second, also in the latter case I would submit that then spending one's life on mathematical theory could be the better option. Many people have spent their lives toiling away in obscurity striving to prove some mathematical item - and very few succeed, such as Andrew Wiles or Grigori Perelman - yet if people weren't betting against all odds that they will succeed, progress would halt.
Historically, people have spent lives on theories that were only confirmed experimentally after their death, and they are well remembered.
Yes, good question.
To my way of thinking the most important thing in science is to decide what question interests you enough to spend a lifetime on. Good questions can easily take 25 years to answer so I see no reason not spend a lifetime on a *question* - I recommend it.
But if you spend a lifetime on an *answer*, i.e. a theory, you are probably wasting your time. Einstein got special and general relativity done pretty quick. Peter Higgs waited a long time for his theory to be corroborated but he had been doing other things for decades. The fact that people have been messing around with string theory so long without much conclusion makes it look as if it may be a blind alley. However, if the people involved know what question they are after and cannot find a better route to an answer I cannot see they can be blamed. More often people get stuck with a theory because they are more wedded to their theory than to the question it might answer I suspect.
I would not want to confuse a vague/unclear idea with lack of experimental confirmation. Good ideas can be vague in the sense of being inexact - Higgs could not predict exactly the mass of his particle. That is fine. What should be avoided are ideas that are confused in their conception or which can predict any old result - that is where Freud committed the ultimate scientific error.
Maybe in the end the point is that when you are oldish like me you want to be able to look back and say 'I got an answer to a pretty good question'. That means not taking easy options, or easy questions. If you do not try something tough then why bother? And that may mean spending fifteen to twenty years chipping away at side issues while keeping your question out in front because you cannot see any way of answering your main question. But as Chris says, if it is a question ought to be answerable, because theories could be tested, then my experience is that you can find a way to do it if you really try. In fact it is likely to turn out to be easier than you expected. Once you have done your twenty years chipping away! While you chip away you should probably be changing your favourite answer (theory) constantly - that means you are getting somewhere.
If the question you want to answer is the nature of fundamental dynamic units then you have to read as much string theory as you need for you personally to be able to see why it is wrong. When you know why it is wrong you will have discovered the right theory! Unfortunately there are no short cuts in science. You have to decide if something is worth investing in. If you are honest about wanting to know something, it probably is, however much it may look like a vertical face with no handholds. Those are the ones worth climbing.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science