Skip to content
November 5, 2011 / itsnobody

Why the String Theory is pseudoscience

Throughout history the main block to scientific progress has always been atheists.

I don’t really understand how anyone can believe that the String Theory is science. Apparently the atheist animals that run science in modern times consider the String Theory science based off nothing more than authority, meaning they believe the String Theory is science because some authority figures have said so.

So what exactly is the String Theory? The String Theory is an attempt to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

Right now you have to say that things behave a certain way in the quantum world and in another certain way in the macro-world. Meaning if you tried to apply Quantum Mechanics to the macro-world it wouldn’t work, and if you tried to apply General Relativity to the Quantum World it wouldn’t work. They each only work on their own scales. They do however make very accurate predictions on their own scale.

The String Theory is an attempt to reconcile QM and GR so you don’t have to say this works only in the Quantum World or only in the General Relativity world, you would just have one world where everything follows the same rules. In order to do this string theorists claim that matter is composed of 1-dimensional strings and that there exists many other unperceivable dimensions.

Here’s why the String Theory is pseudoscience:

– 1-Dimensional strings not empirically observable

The whole basis of the string theory is that matter is composed of oscillating 1-dimensional strings. 1-dimensional strings in the string theory are around 10 quadrillion times smaller than quarks (1 quadrillion = 1015). So it is quite impossible to observe them with our current technology, it may even be hypothetically impossible to observe them. Most string theorists don’t even hope that one day they will be directly observable or testable, they simply hope that one day predictions made by the string theory will be testable.

– Makes no testable predictions

Even the biggest string theory proponents like Ed Witten have only admitted that in the “foreseeable future” the string theory should produce testable predictions (specifically Supersymmetry). String theorists have been saying things like that for more than 30 years now. They don’t argue that the string theory is even testable at this present time but only that “in the future” it will be testable.

In reality as of now, no testable predictions of the string theory have ever been produced in peer-reviewed journals, not even one.

– Unfalsifiable

The string theory has already failed many supposed testable predictions such as black hole predictions, the accelerated expansion of the universe, and even recently supposedly low-energy Supersymmetry, but none of this falsifies the string theory, why? The string theory has an extraordinarily large number of solutions (vacua), meaning that the mathematics can be defined to match virtually any observed phenomena.

Since the string theory has so many solutions and can match into virtually any observed phenomena this makes the string theory worse than simply empirically untestable at the present time, this makes it hypothetically unfalsifiable even if many supposed string theory predictions become testable. This means that even if we find ways to test supposed “predictions” made by the string theory if the string theory fails those tests then string theorists can just find many other solutions to the string theory and avoid the failed prediction.

So realistically the string theory doesn’t predict anything and never can be falsified. The only way to really falsify the string theory would be to find a way to directly test the existence of the 1-dimensional strings (since the string theory can accommodate virtually any low-energy phenomena) or for the string theory to fail a required high-energy prediction.

No string theorist can even tell us which solution to the string theory they are referring to. There’s just one string theory, but there’s an extraordinarily large number of solutions to the string theory.

It’s just as Feynman had said “String theorists do not make predictions, they make excuses”.

The “String Theory” is pseudoscience by definition since it does not adhere to the scientific method, and cannot be reliably tested. The String Theory matches the exact precise definition of pseudoscience. The String theory is really just mathematical philosophy.

If someone claims that aliens in another un-observable dimension exist, and that they have the mathematics for it, but they cannot test out if their mathematics correlate to reality or if the un-observable dimension with unicorns actually exists, should we should consider such a hypothesis as scientific?

String theorists claim that matter is composed of very small 1-dimensional strings, that many other un-observable dimensions exist, and that they have the mathematics for it, but they cannot test out if their mathematics correlate to reality, or if the 1-dimensional strings actually exist, or if other un-observable dimensions exist, so should we consider such a hypothesis as science?

I don’t think the String theory is useless however since it is very useful for advancing mathematics so it  belongs in mathematical journals. All those who do work on the “string theory” should be considered as mathematicians rather than as physicists. Even if the string theory is pseudo-scientific or even completely wrong it’s still useful for advancing mathematics. You can do lots of things in mathematics that have zero correlation to reality.

In conclusion the String Theory isn’t science or scientific regardless of what delusional atheists or string theorists tell you.



Leave a Comment
  1. rednig / Oct 29 2016 5:44 pm

    Debating with a Young Earth Creationist is actually really easy, because they only have a few standard arguments, and haven’t come up with any new cogent ones for some time. These standard arguments have been published time and time again, and a practiced Young Earth Creationist can handily draw them like a six-gun at the drop of a hat. All of their arguments are silly in their wrongness and easily debunked, and if you’re prepared in advance, it’s easy to beat down any Young Earther with a quick verbal body slam. You’re not going to change their mind, since Young Earthers do not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence; but you might help clear things up for an innocent bystander who overhears.

    So here are the standard arguments for a young Earth, and the standard rebuttals from the scientific consensus, starting with my favorite:

    Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein’s improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin’s original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today’s theory is still incomplete but it’s a thousand times better than it was in Darwin’s day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

    The next argument you’re likely to encounter states that Evolution is controversial; scientists disagree on its validity. Young Earth Creationists have latched onto the fact that evolutionary biologists still have competing theories to explain numerous minor aspects of evolution. Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread designs. Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity of the theory as a whole. Young Earthers often publish lists of scientists whom they say reject evolution. These lists are probably true. In the United States, the majority of the general public are creationists of one flavor or another. But the scientific community has a very different opinion: Most surveys of scientists find that 95 to 98 percent accept evolution just as they do other aspects of the natural world.

    Young Earth Creationists also argue that Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it’s not science. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it’s falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Young Earthers accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution’s status as a science.

    In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn’t match what was predicted. Young Earthers are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they’re right.

    The next argument to be prepared for is that Evolution is itself a religion. This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try to convince us that their own position is science based, they correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the concept of evolution or Darwin’s role in its development. This argument is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human considers himself a member of any “evolution church.”

    Young Earth Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed. Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There’s a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can’t be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over.

    One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:

    A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

    The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you’re looking for complete transitions. It’s not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.

    Here’s another Young Earth argument, and when I first heard it I said “What the heck are they talking about??” It’s that Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable physical law, and it’s true. Young Earth Creationists argue that this means a complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant, animal, or deck of cards, you’ve just proven that photosynthesis, growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems (as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using external energy and material.

    In a related vein, Young Earthers also argue that Evolution cannot create complex structures with irreducible complexity. This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems like it makes sense at face value, but it’s based on a tremendously faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a look at Lee Graham’s applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at

    Another effort to fight science using logic states that It’s too improbable for complex life forms to develop by chance. This is the old “747 in a junkyard” argument. How likely is it that a tornado would go through a junkyard, and by chance, happen to assemble a perfect 747? The same argument was made centuries ago by William Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have.

    You should also be prepared to hear that Evolution cannot create new information. Based on a misinterpretation of information theory, this argument states that the new information required to create a new species cannot suddenly spawn into existence spontaneously; new information can only come from an outside source, namely, an intelligent creator. This particular argument doesn’t go very far, since any genetic mutation or duplication can only be described as new information. Not all of that information is good. Most of it’s useless, called genetic drift, but once in a blue moon you get a piece that’s beneficial to the organism. New genetic information is observed in evolutionary processes every day.

    For a final blow from the logic department, be ready for the argument that Evolution does not explain some aspects of life or culture. This is an argument which is really just a logical fallacy: that since evolution does not explain everything, it is therefore entirely false. Evolutionary biologists are the first ones to stand up and say that there are still plenty of aspects of life we’re still learning about. That doesn’t make the things we’ve already learned wrong. It’s also increasingly common for Young Earthers to point to things that have nothing to do with the origin of life and speciation, like the Big Bang and the age of the earth, and argue that since the theory of evolution does not explain those things as well, it is therefore false. This is an even greater logical fallacy. Theories explain only those observed phenomena they are designed to explain. They are not intended to have anything to do with stuff they have nothing to do with.

    Those are the standard arguments. One thing I can’t easily prepare you for are the non-standard arguments you might get from a creationist who doesn’t know his business very well. For example, when evangelical actor Kirk Cameron and Christian author Ray Comfort were given a platform by ABC television in April 2007 to express their beliefs to the creators of the Blasphemy Challenge, they didn’t even know the standard arguments and just started throwing random stuff out left and right in a way that’s much harder to debate intelligently. Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy had a similar experience when debating moon hoax believer Joe Rogan, and he summed it up quite aptly by pointing out that it’s easy to know the science better than a believer does, but a believer can easily know the pseudoscience way better than you. Stick with what you know, and don’t allow an unpracticed creationist who’s all over the place to steer you off the track.

  2. Holly / Jul 27 2016 3:06 pm

    I almost thought you had valid reasoning until you brought atheism into an area where it is completely irrelevant.

  3. Jason Crupper / Apr 21 2016 7:40 am

    I am a Christian, and I am string theorist on Tuesdays, an alternative seeker on Thursdays, and a defeatist on Fridays. What attracts me to string theory is quantum gravity, not disproving Creationism. I think it’s part of exploring God’s masterpiece. Black hole paradoxes are not things I can just ignore while atheists fulfill the cultural mandate. There is also so much anti-realism. All dogmas are meaningless withou realism, and that includes the dogma that there is no God.

  4. Clark / Jan 21 2015 12:39 pm

    If we can’t verify string theory, we can’t use it. It may have nice math, but I don’t want to pay for it with tax dollars.

  5. ryan / Aug 10 2012 5:57 pm

    “Throughout history the main block to scientific progress has always been atheists” —– Are you kidding me?? Practically all branches of science were started by creationist Christians.

    • Well Ryan / Oct 29 2013 2:01 am

      What the hell are you talking about? no branches of science was started by christian, they were started like acient time (china, greek, india) where christianity didn’t even exist back then.

  6. Anonymous / Jul 30 2012 9:47 am

    The only time String Theoriest talk about reality is when they go to bank and chash their checks. They never go to the 11 dimension for that

  7. Chris P / Feb 5 2012 9:15 pm

    So – please enlighten us since you know so much about string theory. Show us the proof that it is either right or wrong. I’m sure we’d nominate you for a Nobel prize if you could.

    • James / May 6 2012 6:58 pm

      You sound like the arrogant one here.

      Are you honestly saying you need a Nobel Prize to understand things? Are you so low on the intelligence scale that you’re just gonna leave it to some guy with his pants buckled up to his chest to do the thinking for you?
      I say this because even though most of us have experience with these people when we mushed apple sauce in their hair at lunch period and witnessed their social misfit behavior–we somehow have this illusionary vision that they are some type of superior human.

      I also possess a degree in science as do many others and am perfectly capable of comprehending scientific conclusions and data. The problem with many in the public is they dont remember how myopic these people can be. The average person can comprehend the forest much better than these guys–as they look at the tree sometimes without seeing the big picture.
      Thats why they were dweebs in the first place… Slick.

      To not understand that atheists have flocked the fields of Origins is to know nothing about human nature. People who already can see, in all of 3 seconds, there is a creator are not gonna push pen to paper in a mad rush for answers they already have. No mechanical theory solves the Origin problem because it of Agency–not mechanism.
      So, maybe some perspective? Let get off this idea that these guys have some knowledge we dont. We’ve all met these people and know they have LESS answers about life then the average person–not more.
      You will find the agnostics are much less likely to like String theory—so its Primarily an atheists theory. why? Because it seeks to explain away fine tuning. That is its primary focus. Agnostic scientists are looking to couple GR with QM much more than looking for a reason to avoid God.

      The result is this. Many who dont want to be puppet of God have willingly become the puppets of nerds and they seemingly ascribe as much wisdom and intelligence to the winner of the Dungeons and Dragons competition as the Creator of the actual universe. This is about bias..nothing more.

      • Shadus / Jan 27 2014 12:47 am

        Perhaps you should look up what logical fallacies are… I lost track after the first dozen. Here go read this simple infographic, it covers at least 80% of the fallacies you committed.

        There’s several more, but I’ll leave that as an exercise for you to pursue before opening your mouth and making an ass out of yourself in public again.

  8. Tanke Hitter / Feb 5 2012 4:50 pm

    Why would you attack string theory?
    You do realize mainstream scientists whom most are atheists didn’t like the sound of it when it started out and they labeled it as pseudo scientific nonsense? Why did they do that? Because it damaged their ideology of materialism.

    If anything String Theory helps the case of God/Spiritualism. Those other dimensions could be where the soul/god/whatever exists.
    It deals another blow to materialism. If everything that exists here is just a vibrating field of energy then that means the world is less “real” then what we think it is. It proves to be more of an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. That would completely annihilate materialist ideology that the majority of atheists use as their reasoning to not believe in God/spirit.

    I’m actually surprised that materialism survived after we discovered the quantum world. And through the double slit experiment. It amazes me that the majority of scientists are still materialists.

  9. lazyfcrazy / Dec 1 2011 10:33 am

    Are you seriously making this a religious discussion?

    What about the “God Theory”, that’s one of the best examples of an empirically untestable hypotheses, and it’s been taken seriously by those theists you’re talking about for ages (and still is). I’m not saying it’s ever been considered scientific, it hasn’t. But there’s a whole lot of people trying to get it in science class nonetheless (under the phrase “Intelligent Design”).

    So don’t link string theory with religion, neither have anything to do with one another!

    • itsnobody / Dec 3 2011 4:11 pm

      I’m not talking about people considering something seriously, I’m talking about people considering something as scientific.

      The “God Theory” isn’t considered science where as the “String Theory” is, so what’s your point? If I wanted a “God Theory” to be considered scientific then I would try to find ways to test the hypothesis.

      But now that atheist animals run science they probably won’t consider it science even if I found ways to empirically test the hypothesis specifically because modern science now is all about authority and incredulity, what a joke.

      The main reason why the string theory is taken seriously now is specifically because of the atheist scientists who run modern science. All they care about in modern times is authority and incredulity, lol.

      It would just be better if atheists stayed far away from science instead of trying to ruin it like how they’ve ruined everything else they’ve taken over.

      • lazyfcrazy / Dec 8 2011 11:32 am

        “String Theory” is considered a hypotheses, until someone can make testable predictions (amongst other things) using it. Otherwise it would have entered the classrooms already! So as far as I understand it’s on the same page as religious belief.
        The only difference is that religious belief had ages and ages of time to be empirically tested, yet failed in every aspect. Whereas string theory only had 2 decades. Even so faith in the hypotheses is starting to dwindle. Watch the following vid to see for yourself. Only the string theorists that have bet their entire career on it, keep holding on to it.

        See how serious Neil Degrasse Tyson takes string theory.

        And I’ll throw along some thoughts on String Theory by Richard Feynman whose diagrams are a fundamental part of string theory:

        Feynman criticized string theory in an interview: “I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything,” he said. “I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, ‘Well, it still might be true.'” These words have since been much-quoted by opponents of the string-theoretic direction for particle physics. – Source:

        So again, both subjects (religious belief/disbelief and string theory) have nothing to do with one another. Stop creating a connection where there isn’t one, as in my view it has a negative effect on your post, while in fact a lot of people (including “atheist animals”) and myself (also a non-delusional person) agree that “string theory” is pseudo-science…

      • itsnobody / Dec 8 2011 4:33 pm

        The String theory is not a scientific hypothesis, it is just a mathematical model that cannot be directly tested. In order for something to be considered a scientific hypothesis the hypothesis must be empirically testable.

        The two main religious beliefs (God and an afterlife) are both empirically untestable, so what do you mean by they’ve failed every test? Are you talking about Biblical inerrancy failing tests?

        I never claimed religion had any direct connection to the string theory, I just claimed that it’s only since atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s that they started discouraging experimentation and instead placed authority and incredulity above everything.

        If Theists had still ran science no one would’ve taken the string theory seriously unless string theorists found ways to test their hypothesis.

        Right now in modern times if you have experimental evidence or proof of something that pushes most scientists’ incredulity no one will take you seriously unless you have authority figures to back you.

        What a joke, it’s the opposite now. Atheists have placed authority above empirical testing, observation, and experimentation.

        Why are atheists so afraid of experimentation for? It’s because experimentation shows us what reality is like and atheists can’t handle reality.

  10. Colin / Nov 21 2011 7:56 pm

    I agree that string theory is quite sketchy due to our inability to verify or test it, but what does that have to do with atheist scientists?

    • itsnobody / Nov 21 2011 11:26 pm

      Well back prior to atheists taking over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s empirically untestable hypotheses weren’t taken seriously.

      If Theists had still been running science then string theorists would just be known as mathematicians and no one would take them seriously unless they found ways to test their hypothesis. That’s how science use to be up until atheist took over.

      Imagine how far science would be if atheists hadn’t taken over and scientists had focused mostly on experimentation, empirical observations, and the scientific method, we’d probably be living in a utopia-like world by now.

      Experimentation and empirical observations give us data that reflects reality, why can’t atheists understand this?

      • anon / Mar 6 2015 12:32 pm

        Atheists can’t handle reality? Ok…

        It’s hard to take you seriously when you make such an irresponsible and sweeping statement. I’m an atheist. A defacto atheist. I just plain old don’t believe any religious mythology. I’m not part of any atheist society. I’m against dogma. I demand empirical data. Your view on the matter is exactly backwards from what logic dictates. You say theists, who attribute the nature of the universe to an untestable God, demand proof, while atheists look only to authority? I don’t follow your logic.

      • Anonymous / Mar 20 2015 5:04 pm

        Who are the atheistic scientists that don’t use experimentation, empirical observations, and the scientific method to come to their conclusions? I think you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. As for String Theory, there are plenty of atheistic scientists (Lee Smolin for example) that don’t believe in it. You’re statement saying that atheist scientists have ruined science is obtuse and totally unfounded. It’s actually unbelievably stupid. Where did you come up with that crackpot idea? Do you have any sources? Or are you just making this shit up to propel an agenda?


  1. Quora

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: