The Pseudoscience Of String Theory (Part 1)

String theory is just one of many ideas associated with modern physics--especially with quantum physics--that might intimidate those who hear the phrase.  However, like many other aspects of quantum physics, it is not necessarily as complex as many people perceive it to be.  Simularly, like many other ideas about quantum physics, string theory is partly rooted in logically possible concepts and yet also affiliated with non sequiturs that have no immediate relevance to its foundation.  String theory cannot even be soundly endorsed on an empirical level, but an explanation of it is helpful regardless.

According to contemporary scientific models, physical objects are comprised of atoms, which are themselves comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons (to be sure, the existence of atoms is philosophically uncertain [1], but I am simply describing current scientific paradigms).  Protons and neutrons, in turn, are said to consist of smaller subatomic particles called quarks, with quarks, according to string theory, reducing down to vibrating strings of energy.  Thus, string theory holds that physical matter is ultimately a manifestation of something immaterial (I will detail the metaphysical ramifications of this idea in a follow up post).

An affiliated concept is the notion that there are 10 dimensions instead of the traditional four--length, width, depth, and time, the so-called fourth dimension that is not a property of the physical universe no matter how loudly physicists might proclaim otherwise.  The additional six dimensions are allegedly called for by the mathematical components of string theory, but the existence of energy strings does not logically require 10 dimensions.  After all, particles could reduce down to energy strings even if there are not any dimensions other than the fundamental ones many people are familiar with.

As the belief that strings of energy necessitate 10 dimensions demonstrates, physicists who are not familiar with logic are prone to make asinine claims about various matters.  The claim that time is part of the cosmos itself is another example of stupidity in the physics community [2].  However, even without the 10 dimension tenet added on, string theory cannot be called a scientific model that fits current data in particle physics.  In actuality, it is still ultimately a hypothesis that could hardly be legitimately called a defensible theory that evidentially explains scientific laws.

The problem with regarding string theory as anything more than a possible but unverifiable set of ideas is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate that all matter is formed by immaterial energy at the quantum level.  There is no internal contradiction in such a claim, but it cannot be verified by logical proofs (hence the need for scientific investigation) or presently supported by evidence from repeatable sensory observations.  This places string theory, for the time being, in the category of pseudoscience--in the sense that anyone who believes that scientific evidence reinforces string theory has leapt beyond the empirical data.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-existence-of-atoms.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/physics-and-time.html