Sepideh: Will nanotechnology and quantum computing allow us to put String Theory to the test?
It seems that most physicists are strongly skeptical of String Theory. The biggest issue with String Theory is how it is almost impossible to test it to see if it has any scientific merit(some claim, strictly speaking, it isn’t even “scientific”). Even the proponents of String Theory admit how it is virtually impossible to test it in its current form, considering the current state of science and technology. This leads me to wonder if scientists lack of ability to test String Theory is more due to our lack of technological prowess, rather than any inherent flaws in String Theory that currently render it “unscientific” or “untestable” in the eyes of many scientists.
So, can advances in technology, such as nanotechnology/picotechnology and quantum computing, help make String Theory more testable?
Please note, I am not a scientist, but I enjoy reading about physics and science. If I said anything wrong about the current state of String Theory or physics, please correct me.
Thank you for all the great answers! Basically, the thinking behind my question was that maybe nanotechnology/picotechnology and quantum computing might allow us to make scientific instruments much more sensitive than the ones currently in use, and this sensitivity would allow us to test string theory . Or, in the very least, these technologies may be the intermediate step toward creating super-sensitive technology we can’t even dream of now.
As far as quantum computing is concerned, based on my readings, it may make certain types of complex mathematical calculations more easy to do(or at least faster), if quantum computing is ever feasible. This could help do science faster and if combined with nanotechnology and other future technology could lead to even more powerful technology.
Answers and Views:
Answer by (Ω)Mistress Bekki
Yes, you are correct that the “flaw” in string theory is a practical one–not that the theory is inherently bad or non-scientific. It was created to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics, which it does quite nicely, so in a way it has passed one test. But actually probing the strings is impossible for the time being. So you can’t expect scientists (whose ultimate goal is to explain things we can observe) to devote a ton of energy to a theory which can’t be tested. Which is why the string theory bandwagon is a lot less crowded than it used to be–young particle theory grad students are advised to apply their talents to develop theories that can be tested and win them fame and grant money and Nobel prizes
As for nanotechnology helping, no, that isn’t likely.
Nanotechnology works on a completely different energy scale from string theory. To test string theory, you need to probe extremely short distances, which requires extremely high energies–like the LHC but so many orders of magnitude beyond that we’ll probably never get there.
Nanotechnology might facilitate stronger materials and better superconductors for magnets and faster computers to analyze data. But that’s only going to take us so far.
The only kind of quantum gravity theories that are feasibly testable are those which suggest that gravity gets strong (and hence displays its quantum nature) at energy levels we can access. For example, there are various theories that suggest that there are extra dimensions into which gravity leaks, which explains why gravity could be very strong at energies of as low as 1TeV (accessible at LHC) while seeming weak at larger distances/smaller energies. This is the mechanism by which black holes might be created at LHC, which would be a cool (but no, not dangerous) possibility.
Answer by Drew FNanotechnology will not. Even “pico”-technology would be too “big”. Quantum computing might help, but only in that it has the potential to improve computer simulations. However, a working quantum computer is still far off, if it’s even possible, as there’s a lot of new evidence that suggests that quantum computation may be impossible due to entanglement issues.Answer by Brad A
No
Quantum computing only speeds up what is currently available. There is almost nothing that can be done on on a quantum computer that isn’t done on a standard computer. The basics of programming will still be the same. Programming just allows us to analyze data. Quantum computing would just do that faster and better. The underlying problem is that there is no data to analyze. There is not way to get data on string theory with out the tools to obtain it.
To test string theory we need a lot of energy. Far more than LHC is able to provide. And more than we might ever be able to obtain.
As new fields of science open up more methods become available to us. We may be able to test it using these new methods. Nano technology is one of those new methods and is just in it’s infancy. It could help us probe string theory because we don’t know that it can’t. It is surprising us with new developments everyday. Since we don’t know much about nanotechnology it could help us. Just right now it looks like it can’t.
We still run into the fundamental problem, how do we get the data?
Our ability to test string theory is due to both reasons. We don’t have the ability to probe down that deep into matter. String theory doesn’t have flaws per se but it does have properties that render it untestable. String theory makes sense there are few mistakes in it.
String theory has no scientific merit because it can’t be tested. It is more of a philosophical theory. However if it can describe everything and become the theory of everything it can be useful. Even if it can’t be tested it will become more widely accepted because of it’s usefulness.
Physicists are skeptical of string theory because they research what the universe is, not how the universe could be.
Answer by Dr. RThe poor testability of String Theory is due to the small scale lengths involved. It’s lead to lots of theorizing and calculations, but few observable predictions. That’s a big problem for science in general, and can lead some (like Brad) to conclude that “String theory has no scientific merit because it can’t be tested”.
Keep in mind, though, that 150 year ago, there were similar objections to atomic theory. Although it lead to successful predictions of collective behavior (like the ideal gas law), some thought that it was just a mathematical expedient for making such predictions and that such things as the mass of an individual atom were “meaningless”. Halving the mass and doubling the number of atoms in a gas leads to the same collective behavior, for example. Things change, though, and more subtle and indirect methods were eventually developed to measure individual atom properties. And, no alternative theory better adapted to the earlier crude instruments can ever be more successful than atomic theory is today. The same may hold true for string theory.
BTW, nanotechnology .., meaning things on the order of 10^-9 m is just way too big.
Leave a Reply