M-theory is the current best candidate for a TOE ("Theory of Everything") in science. It's intended to provide an overriding explanation of all 4 fundamental forces; the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics only covers 3 of them, leaving out gravity. General Relativity successfully explains gravity in most circumstances, but breaks down or becomes "non-renormalizable" on the quantum level when very high energy levels are involved. Or something like that ...
The M in M-theory stands for whatever you want it to. Current favored candidates are Membranes, Matrix, and Magic. *shrugs* It's a working reconciliation of 4 to 6 previous superstring theories, depending how you count. These tend to turn into one another when you switch the numerator and denominator of various equations, and involve 6 more dimensions than we like to use to describe spacetime in more primitive theories. But they seem to disagree on which dimensions are what? So M-theory sorts them out by positing a total of 11 dimensions, the 4 we recognize as spacetime and another 7 altogether that are used to describe quantum phenomena only. Or something like that ...
This tends to read like a detailed specification for Wheeler's "Many Worlds" speculation. That is, there are many adjacent "branes" or sub-universes which have an indirect effect on our own. Thus, gravity is such a weak force because most of the gravitons are leaking into other branes. Conversely, the universe-binding extra gravity we tend to attribute to "dark matter" is actually caused by gravitons leaking in from other branes. Or something like that ...
There's a growing tendency for apparently reputable people to describe this whole line of thinking as "pseudo-science". This is a loaded term in academia, so let's be careful how we define it. For purposes of this context, pseudo-science is a body of thought that uses scientific terminology and builds on existing mathematics and cosmology but doesn't conform to the scientific method. The normal charge is that it doesn't make any useful predictions, or is unfalsifiable. Real science, by contrast, can be tested and either supported or else proven wrong. Or something like that ...
The term pseudo-science is also very commonly used to describe what is actually "junk science", claims that have already been falsified and/or are merely using scietific terminology for psychological reasons, as a form of misdirection or charlatanry. One reason this use may be valid is in cases like Spiritualism or Geller ESP, where the claim is advanced that the presence of skeptics has a real effect on the experiment. "You have to have faith!" In other words, testing it rigorously is what keeps it from working? Which, even if it were true, would be unfalsifiable. Or something like that ...
This secondary usage is what makes a real pejorative out of the term. But we are going to limit the context in this discussion. No one is claiming string theory is the same class of thing as astrology. They may, however, be claiming that it is the same kind of thing as transcendental theology. Or something like that ...
So, let's cut to the chase. What predictions, if any, does M-theory make that could eventually be tested, and by what methods? What results, if any, would falsify the theory, prove it wrong, send us back to the drawing board?
Or something like that. Is It Science?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
