Superstring Theory

Superstring Theory is Bullshit

27 Comments

  • June 29, 2006 - 7:31 am | Permalink

    Coincidentally related to Peter Woit’s new book.

  • June 29, 2006 - 8:34 am | Permalink

    Call $uper$tring bull$hit if you like, but it earns them money. Lots of money.

    $tring ‘theorists’ (they don’t actually have a consistent theory of quantum gravity that makes checkable predictions, so those bull$hitters are NOT theorists) censored me off the physics preprint arXiv.org, Classical and Quantum Gravity, PRL, Nature, etc.

    They are so bitter they won’t read other people’s work, and won’t make any effort to entertain scientific discussions, but want to be abusive and go on about their personal problems, while suppressing scientific progress.

    My paper on CERN Document Server “Solution to a problem with general relativity”, EXT-2004-007, 15/01/2004, cannot be updated with an updated and expanded version because CERN now only accepts feed through arXiv.org which is blocked by “string theorists”:

    “String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.” – Edward Witten, M-theory originator, Physics Today, April 96.

    “The famed encylopedist Denis Diderot was once invited to visit the Russian Court by the empress, Catherine the Great. To the embarrassment of his host and the rest of the court, he promptly launched into an animated defense of atheism. Reluctant to muzzle her guest directly, Catherine hatched a cunning plan. Diderot was informed that a learned mathematician had discovered an algebraical demonstration of the existence of God and would present it before the Court, if he wished to hear it. Diderot naturally consented. The mathematician Leonhard Euler duly appeared and gravely declared: “Monsieur, (a + bn)/n = x, therefore God exists!” The upshot? Diderot, entirely unschooled in algebra, was rendered speechless; peals of laughter erupted around the room; Diderot, greatly embarassed, asked for permission to return to France; and Catherine gratefully bid him adieu.” – http://anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=14079

    “… I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! … I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. … I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. … All these numbers … have no explanations in these string theories – absolutely none! …” – Richard P. Feynman, in Davies & Brown, ‘Superstrings’ 1988, at pages 194-195.

    Sent: 02/01/03 17:47
    Subject: Your_manuscript LZ8276 Cook
    {MECHANISM OF GRAVITY}
    Physical Review Letters does not, in general, publish papers on alternatives to currently accepted theories…. Yours sincerely, Stanley G. Brown, Editor, Physical Review Letters

    The Standard Model, which Edward Witten has done a lot of useful work on (before he went into string speculation), is the best tested physical theory. Forces result from radiation exchange in spacetime. The big bang speed is 0-c in spacetime of 0-15 billion years, so outward force F = ma = mc/t ~ 10^43 Newtons. Newton’s 3rd law implies equal inward force, carried by vector bosons (exchange radiation), predicting current cosmology, gravity and the contraction of general relativity, other forces and particle masses.

    Heisenberg guantum mechanics: Poincare chaos applies on the small scale, since the virtual particles of the Dirac sea in the vacuum regularly interact with the electron and upset the orbit all the time, giving wobbly chaotic orbits which statistically average out to be described by the statistical Schroedinger equation – it’s causal, there is no metaphysics involved.

    “It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities.”

    - R. P. Feynman, Character of Physical Law, November 1964 Cornell Lectures, broadcast and published in 1965 by BBC, pp. 57-8.

    The comments of science haters quoted who have not read the facts are not scientific reviews, just sneers based upon ignorance and arrogance. For example, they “believe” things because they think some equations or books are “beautiful” instead of relying on AGREEMENT WITH NATURE, EXPERIMENTAL FACTS, SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY. The “belief in beauty” these people have is religious and ties in with their ranting that facts should be dismissed them as “personal pet theories”, don’t have time to read science, or think authors of “alternatives” should be put against a wall and shot. For example, I predicted the lack of observed gravitational retardation using the model via the October 1996 Electronics World issue, which was subsequently discovered experimentally by Perlmutter in 1998. In 1996, Nature editors Philip Campbell wrote a letter claiming he was unable to publish the paper, as did his Karl Zemelis. They refused to have the proof reviewed, as did Classical and Quantum Gravity which Dr Bob Lambourne of Open University suggested as a journal to submit to. (Lambourne however was pro-string, awed by the stringy mathematics more than by the simple EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED proof.) At the same time these human beings hype abject string speculations which disagree with all existing observations over the number of dimensions, superpartners, etc. When the current generation of bigoted, demented, hateful, spiteful, vile string theorists is wiped out by old age or hopefully something quicker, science will be a much healthier place for everyone. Perhaps God will kindly create an extra dimension with which to swallow up string theorists. We can only hope and pray.

  • Dr.Simonella R. Pancakehatter
    June 29, 2006 - 9:21 am | Permalink

    In regards to your comment, Mr. Cook, I would first have to ask what a Dollar Uper, Dollar Tring and Bull Dollar Hit are?

    Secondly, are you related to the splendid Michael R. Cook, who is a member of the Bayshore City Council in Bayshore, MV? Councilperson Cook is an excellent leader and I admire all his work over at the BCC. If you are his kin, you should bubble over with pride.

  • Pingback: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Some Links

  • March 6, 2007 - 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Dear Sirs,

    Thanks for opening a debate. I personally do not ‘believe’ in anything in science, simply because science is not religion. In this sense, I feel highly doubtful of ‘modern’ assumptions such as ‘an interaction field should be replaced by an exchange of virtual particles, the standard model is correct, one should ratify spontaneous symmetry breaking followed by dimension shrinking, superstrings theory’, etc. I think one can only accept more sophisticated concepts if they really produce a more accurate description of observed reality. For example, virtual particle exchange should, if true, describe observed interactions quite better, just like special relativity proved being much better than non relativistic mechanics a long time ago, it is that simple.

    I also think that the present discussion is about the disease of subjective idealism, which afflicts modern science as it did in the Middle Ages. I accordingly recall a fragment I have somewhere on the web:

    “Subjective idealists first create a model of reality, subjective because it is the one that pleases them, and put then in relief the results of observation favorable to their pre-established model. Afterwards, this curious attitude drives them to eliminate the results of observation contrary to their views, discarding them as statistical anomalies and others. This rather simplistic method has until now been very efficient in institutions permeable to financial influences (grants, financings of research programs, etc…)”.

    Again, thanks for the open discussion you present here,

    J. Chauveheid

  • March 11, 2007 - 10:31 am | Permalink

    Jacques, if you read more of this site, you would know that there is no such thing as the so-called “Middle Ages.”

    Observe!

  • Jacques Chauveheid
    May 24, 2007 - 5:10 am | Permalink

    Dear Sirs,

    What follows will not be too long since I really do not have much to say.

    I find fundamentally important the unification of gravity and electromagnetism with the strong and weak interactions. Nevertheless, unification first deals with fields (1st stage), secondly with forces because the derivation of forces constitutes a second step in a basic Lagrangian formulation (many formulations do exist theoretically but very few can produce practical results).

    Good experts have the merit to acknowledge on the web “no quantitative expression for the nuclear force is yet known”, the same about the weak force, which means that theoretical science has quite exactly produced half the basic foundations needed for an acceptable unification of all forces, indispensable for producing usable energy definitions instead of unfulfilled theoretical dreams (apparently the case of superstrings, according to some recognized experts).

    Classical theoretical proposals for the strong interaction (before quantization) already exist, but the basic difficulty in a similar approach with the weak interaction is constituted by its short observed range. However, it would be worthy to start a preliminary discussion of the different proposals already leading to practical results and, more important, to examine the acceptability of the methods used on basis of established observational facts because physics is above all an experimental science, so little theoretical.

    In this view, it would be important to push the study of all productive techniques and proposals, productive in terms of no-nonsense results not exclusively theoretical. All this, in the perspective of a future energy crisis, if is finally acknowledged that the problem of energy is a scientific one.

    Jacques Chauveheid

  • May 27, 2007 - 4:55 pm | Permalink

    Jacques, what is this you mention about “the problem of energy?” Energy is not a problem, why energy powers American industry, energy drives our cars down America’s highway system, and it’s energy, yes, energy that allows us to grind corn to make tortillas for tacos. Without energy we would have no tacos.
    Energy is not a problem, energy is the solution to a taco-less world. Viva la energy and viva los tacos!

  • Jacques Chauveheid
    May 29, 2007 - 2:46 am | Permalink

    Dear Delores,

    It is good that you kept good appetite, together with some sense of humor, although a bit too theoretical to me because I did not fully understand the “taco-less” world.

    However, it is perhaps what we will know quite soon if those who manage the society continue more crazily than ever. Since you seem to love Spanish, I would add a comment from a friend of mine: “…como siempre en la historia, unos tratan de transformar la verdadera ciencia, a la vez teórica y experimental, en un arte creativo exclusivamente generado a partir de ideas puras en lugar de bases experimentales comprobadas.”

    With my best wishes

  • May 29, 2007 - 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Jacques, I would completely agree with your Spanish statement. First of all, because of my hot Spanish blood which mingles through my body like fire, but also because it is easy to let science fall away from empiricism and toward the sensational. But does not Superstring Proposition do such a thing?

    I leave you with Latin; the granddaddy of Spanish:

    “Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc.”

  • Jacques Chauveheid
    May 30, 2007 - 4:51 am | Permalink

    Dear Delores,

    Although I studied Lain during six years, it was a (very) long time ago. The growing distance from experiments started in the 30´s when Dirac (the real inventor of QED) admitted that he did not believe in any of its predictions (see Abraham Pais in “Inward Bound…”, Oxford Univ.Press 1986). This trend has progressively increased until now, mainly after Einastein´s death I think. For example there is no reason why the four forces should be equal in function of a very hypothetical symmetry (at very high energy, particularly when experts recognized we do not have a quantitative representation

  • Jacques Chauveheid
    May 30, 2007 - 5:56 am | Permalink

    Dear Delores,

    Although I studied Latin during a few years, it was a (very) long time ago. The growing distance from experiments may have started in the 30´s when Dirac (inventor of QED – its greatest contributor according to Wikipedia ?) admitted he did not believe in any of its predictions (see Abraham Pais in “Inward Bound…”, Oxford Univ Press 1986). I feel that this trend has progressively amplified until now, mainly perhaps after Einstein´s death. Many would disagree with this quite personal interpretation of history until the present postmodern era, principally because we hardly need interpretations of any type (mostly words).

    Some disagree that the four forces should be equal in function of a very hypothetical symmetry (at very high energy ?). It is therefore quite worse that experts recognize that we have no quantitative representation for the strong and weak interactions (I am repeating this because it is extremely important), such a lack of conformity with observations is unprecedented in history. As you seem to suggest, this is normally not the case with superstrings, which does not seem a physical theory but looks more like a mathematical theory of possible physical theories (?), according to what I could read and hear about it, in place of its mathematical content (hopefully in “didactic” form) I did not find yet.

    So, a reasonable attitude consists in not being in favor of, or against, any theory, which does not mean much, but in accepting to discuss any theory on the exclusive basis of its empirical results, at least in a first stage. This, independently of unrealistic considerations such as “outdated” mathematical formalism, etc.. The formalisms of general relativity and quantum mechanics were quite incomplete, even defective (read Schrödinger) when they produced the most.

    Again with my best wishes,

    Jacques Chauveheid

  • May 30, 2007 - 9:21 pm | Permalink

    Jacques, you make an excellent point about how the four forces should be equal; but you see, I believe that they already are. The four forces; the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force all contribute well to the defence of the American nation. While I conceed that the Coast Guard is a lesser force, I think the other four do quite well.

    Thank your for your interest in the four forces and in Albert Einstein who, as many know, was an E5 in the US Army during the Second World War and won the distinguished service cross for his courage under fire at Hollandia.

  • Jacques Chauveheid
    May 31, 2007 - 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Dear Delores,

    Einstein was for a short time a scientific consultant for the US Navy. According to A. Pais, this is the only connection he ever had with “military” entities.

    About symmetry (equality at high energy ?) between gravity, e-m, weak and strong interactions, it might only be a legitimate wish according to what I found in Wikipedia about the various Lagrangians of the Standard Model. These have the great merit to show that theoretical physics is, in its first stage, still built on fields and physical constants, therefore not on forces whose quantitative expressions should come out subsequently from a matching Lagrangian.

    After this basic information, my interest was to find answers to two basic questions: any single item not being a physical constant is a field that should be varied. Accordingly, are the equations derived from a unique “total” Lagrangian instead of various disconnected ones ? Secondly, where is available a more or less detailed derivation of these equations, together with their solutions in the simplest cases ?

    In this view, the main theoretical discussion might not consist in criticizing superstring theory, apparently only mathematical (?), but to substantiate the Standard Model with a detailed didactic formulation (easily understandable), without forgetting its open discussion that normally constitutes the most important issue.

    Best regards,

  • Jacques Chauveheid
    June 1, 2007 - 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Dear Delores,

    Sorry for feeling “having to” detail a bit.

    Presenting superstring as a physical theory seems incorrect on basis of the present lack of observational results (which ones ?), besides the fact that a supposedly complete unifying proposal should retrieve “everything”, at least great part of it. In this view, mathematical proposals about physical theories are not physics yet and shouldn’t be presented as such (may exist hundreds). Although some may become crucially important in the future, nobody really knows. In addition, the financing of any researches should not be neglected, although never producing monopolies of any kind.

    The Standard Model, though having important experimental substantiation, may not be totally free of theoretical inconsistencies (at first sight ?). This basic issue should be discussed within an exchange of technical arguments – the more I read about modern theories, the less I understand if the presentation avoids fundamental technical elements. Although requiring some time to get tuned, the simple method of going directly to the point, instead of around, seems the only way (proper glossary included) to make the public grasp what fundamental theoretical research and related issues are about. Such technical information seems now indispensable (technological era, in fact scientific).

    Success of any kind is first a question of will. If you do not want the public to understand what you think, it is easy to achieve. The opposite will require some time and effort, as was the case for developing the steam engine, airplanes and submarines, going to the moon, etc… So no limit exists yet for the human mind when given the freedom of thought and the material means to produce (applies also to energy, pollution problems, etc..), not forgetting of course an adequate access to information.

    Best wishes,

  • June 2, 2007 - 11:24 pm | Permalink

    See, I told you Einstein was killed in WWII. Here’s a newspaper clipping I found.

  • Jacques Chauveheid
    June 5, 2007 - 4:09 am | Permalink

    Dear Delores,

    The Katharinetowne Bee is by all means a serious, even unsmiling, newspaper. This event was quite unperceived then because the public was giving much greater importance to the war situation than to the two theories of relativity, which is understandable.

    Since Einstein officially passed away in April 1955 or so, all this simply means that he resuscitated meanwhile and that he might be as eternal as St. Germain about whom Voltaire, a serious thinker although innovative, literally said “the Count de St. Germain is a man who was never born, who will never die and who knows everything”. Since Voltaire knew St. Germain personally, his words kept an indisputable “experimental” value, kind of realism somewhat lacking in the species of society managers.

    In relation with this discussion and because Einstein has not been cloned, it would be useful to know what he thinks of the present state of theoretical science. His technical comments would be worthy although their content does not seem too difficult to guess on basis of the writings he left (I might try). I also heard that some did not receive yet answers to e-mails sent to albert@einsteininparadise.com or similar, you might check that.

    Best wishes,

  • June 9, 2007 - 7:40 am | Permalink

    Jacques, please do not put Mr. Einstein’s personal email address online. He really hates getting emails from graduate students about anomalies in the orbit of Mercury (often up to 14 emails a day!). Instead, people should send all queries to Einstein’s official business email aeinstein216@heaven.af.

  • Jacques Chauveheid
    July 23, 2007 - 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Dear Delores,

    Scientific prophets like Einstein already communicated what they thought during their lifetime. So, if consulted about what they think now, they might simply answer “read what I wrote”. But Einstein might give particular indications to some through telepathic means, which do not seem to concern me personally. I therefore sent him what follows but did not yet receive an answer, which might be delayed for long.

    In mathematics, the French “raisonnement par l´absurde”, apparently referred to as “proof by contradiction” in English (?), allows to demonstrate the validity of any thesis through the evident proof that the contrary is absurd. Although this simple method of proof is only used in mathematics, there shouldn’t be restrictions for its use in other fields if adapting the concepts to objective reality. For example, one could hardly say that superstring theory is good or bad, simply because these two adjectives don’t have any objective content, due to their lack of rigorous definition. This, except if the adjective “good” is taken in the sense of “being checked experimentally, producing new technologies, etc..”. Within such a rather unambiguous logical context, pretending that this theory is good would then appear absurd.

    Best wishes,

  • Pingback: Susan

  • jacques chauveheid
    September 19, 2007 - 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Dear Susan (20),

    The basic problem you raise is about finding “the truth”, but there is no established recipe for getting to it. Though various comments by Einstein may seem a bit outdated, he had the merit to tell a few basic “certainties”. However, years of continuous theoretical work seem required for evidencing others, although all very simple. This is the first characteristic, a second one being that basic truths are never boring (humor is not superfluous) – people who do otherwise seem generally incompetent.

    Besides the usual lack of rigorous definitions of most basic concepts (a major sin), another common defect is to not remain within a primary framework when there is no other acceptable. For example, Einstein´s equation is until now the only rational basis in gravitation theory that does not foresee complementary universes(s), perhaps except from inside a black hole horizon (Kruskal not deepened as it should ?), so that brane universes (M-theory, something like that) do not fully respect Einstein´s equation (?), which would be clear nonsense – published papers apparently exist about this, I only read an abstract. We can hardly say something similar about superstrings, which is not wrong if we accept that it is not about experimental science but about metaphysics, an interesting field by all means although not science in the usual sense. I found this detailed by a guy named Alfonseca from Madrid (?, if I remember well – Spanish again).

    Besides, we should distrust all ideologies in the sense of dominant ways of thinking in any field, although some have been relatively accurate in particular situations during a limited time. We should thus look for smart criticism, although generally incomplete – I do not know why.

    With my best wishes

  • October 21, 2007 - 5:25 pm | Permalink

    and oh i with my girl who i though was my worl. Jumana Fanni.

  • Jacques Chauveheid
    February 25, 2008 - 12:47 pm | Permalink

    A simple question

    Scripture was a fundamental characteristic of organized societies, such as existing before the time of pharaons in ancient Egypt. Many people, women included, could then read what the scribes were writing, but these scribes constituted an organized cast consolidating the power of kings, an anachronism finally evolving in the present information era, in great part due to Internet.

    All organizations I know have something “to sell”, because without income they could hardly survive. Accordingly, most organized entities are facing inevitable expenses such as paying employees, etc.. , which also applies, even partly, to subsidized entities, a detail sometimes underestimated. In this view, antagonistic views in theoretical science commonly originate between people or organizations “selling” different products, unavoidably conflicting sometimes.

    A basic problem in so-called modern societies is that new scientific ideas or theoretical proposals are not treated yet as possible “saleable” products in the future, mainly if they come from isolated individuals, which was the case for Einstein in 1905 (and a few years before). Although physics is above all an experimental science, what such new proposals should precisely be about seems a bit beside the point in a first stage where the examination of theoretical projects would be limited to observable effects, forcefully partly qualitative. This is so because the discussion of really precise quantitative results, “always” controversial apparently (business as usual ?), would “logically” be reserved for a second phase.

    In this beginning energy crisis, we simply cannot afford the luxury of ignoring any scientific innovation, theoretical or experimental, and one might wonder which organization is presently watching new useful discoveries in scientific publications. Or is it for the future ?

    J. Chauveheid

  • March 5, 2009 - 9:26 pm | Permalink

    I really enjoy blogs like this, since I am a blog addict I will visit again soon.

  • March 23, 2009 - 7:22 am | Permalink

    I really liked your blog with the Cowboys mention! A Super Bowl maybe this year?!?

  • Mr.X
    June 28, 2010 - 5:41 am | Permalink

    I feel sorry for the super-stringers that have wasted their lives conjuring up superstring and other 11th dimension bullshit. Every year there is a contest (the name escapes me) that awards money to the designer that builds the most complex machine that carries out the most simply function. Fun contest, fun results, entertaining, but of almost no functionality to anyone whatsoever. Superstring is identical, but instead of building something tangible, the work product is silly bantering equations about branes and other inscrutables.

  • April 13, 2014 - 3:51 am | Permalink

    Judo or jujitsu is useful when battling in close quarters, because you will want to
    grapple your enemy. San Francisco, CA Kids Martial Arts Program Provides an Encouraging, Positive
    Environment – that Teaches Teamwork and Leadership. Get it here on
    Amazon.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>