Gross Calls String Theory A Bizarre Science That Is A Dangerous Business

In summary, the conversation on the Woit blog discusses the controversial topic of the Landscape theory and its validity as a scientific concept. Physicist David Gross is quoted as the only one who recognizes the Landscape as pseudo-science and argues that its inability to be disproven makes it unscientific. He also suggests that the frustration of string theorists in not being able to make predictions has led to the emergence of the Landscape theory. The conversation also raises questions about the inclusion of pseudo-science in physics forums and the credibility of scientists who criticize string theory without proper understanding of it. Age and experience are also mentioned as factors that may influence one's perspective on the validity of theories.
  • #1
MistyMountain
48
0
From the Woit blog:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

The only physicist quoted who recognizes that the Landscape is pseudo-science is David Gross. “It’s impossible to disprove” he says, and notes that because we can’t falsify the idea it’s not science. He sees the origin of this nonsense in string theorist’s inability to predict anything despite huge efforts over more than 20 years: “‘People in string theory are very frustrated, as am I, by our inability to be more predictive after all these years,’ he says. But that’s no excuse for using such ‘bizarre science’, he warns. ‘It is a dangerous business.’”

I continue to find it shocking that the many journalists who have been writing stories like this don’t seem to be able to locate any leading particle theorist other than Gross willing to publicly say that this is just not science.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7072/full/439010a.html

It's an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: "It's impossible to disprove." Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can't falsify the idea, Gross says, it isn't science. Or at least, it isn't science in any conventional sense of the word. "I think Gross sees this as science taking on some of the traits of religion," says Carr. "In a sense he's correct, because things like faith and beauty are becoming a component of the discussion."

Gross believes that the emergence of multiple universes in science has its origins in theorists' 20-year struggle to explain the finely tuned numbers of the cosmos. "People in string theory are very frustrated, as am I, by our inability to be more predictive after all these years," he says. But that's no excuse for using such "bizarre science", he warns. "It is a dangerous business.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7072/full/439010a.html

Should pseudo science have its own prominent forum at a place called "physics forums?"

Furthermore, if a pseudo sicence forum exists, should only pseudo science that conforms to the pseudo-science of well-funded pseudo scienetists be discussed. Should not all pseudo science be welcomed? Do large NSF grants absolve one of having to do real physics?

And even better yet, if we are going to have forums devoted to bizarre, dangerous, pseudo science, should we not have a forum devoted to new physical theories that are based in logic and reason, in truth and beauty, in physics?

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
First, I will quote you Clarke's first law:
When an elderly famous scientist says something is possible, he is probably correct. When he says something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

Second, the reason they can only find one particle scientist who will say such things about string theory is that most particle physicists, even those who dislike the landscape, do not believe such things about string theory. It's important not to conflate e.g. Susskind's claims for anthropism with proper string physics; Motl and Distler are just as critical of Susskind and Gross is.

Thirdly, I don't think anyone has a right to sneer at string physics unless they have some competence in it to indicate they might know what they're talking about. I have never seen such competence in your posts.
 
  • Like
Likes Captain Kneecaps
  • #3
selfAdjoint said:
First, I will quote you Clarke's first law:
When an elderly famous scientist says something is possible, he is probably correct. When he says something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
Second, the reason they can only find one particle scientist who will say such things about string theory is that most particle physicists, even those who dislike the landscape, do not believe such things about string theory. It's important not to conflate e.g. Susskind's claims for anthropism with proper string physics; Motl and Distler are just as critical of Susskind and Gross is.
Thirdly, I don't think anyone has a right to sneer at string physics unless they have some competence in it to indicate they might know what they're talking about. I have never seen such competence in your posts.

Are you an elderly famous scientist?

For the moment I'll take David Gross's view over yours, if that's OK.

David Gross is an accomplished physicist, and we don't even know who you are nor what your publications are, if any.

David Gross speaks with logic and reason. Age has nothing to do with this, and that's a cheap shot you took at Mr. Gross. You should apologize to him on behalf of PF.
 
  • #4
IMO, age has everything to do with it. You rarely see physicists accomplish much after their thirties (other than perhaps Richard Feynman, but even his accomplishments slowly declined in the end). I suspect it has more to do with psychology than pure reason. It is this very experience and rigidness, I believe, that makes the older physicist able to tell when a theory is correct.

It didn't exactly come out as fluent as I had hoped, but I hope you see what I am trying to say.
 
  • #5
**IMO, age has everything to do with it. You rarely see physicists accomplish much after their thirties (other than perhaps Richard Feynman, but even his accomplishments slowly declined in the end). **

Come on, physicists are at their best between 28 and 40 I guess, which has everything to do with the increasing knowledge one has to adsorb.

** I suspect it has more to do with psychology than pure reason. It is this very experience and rigidness, I believe, that makes the older physicist able to tell when a theory is correct.
It didn't exactly come out as fluent as I had hoped, but I hope you see what I am trying to say. **

I have a different opinion about this : as a youngster you might say ``well the old guy just gave up´´ but that is way too simplistic (you should realize that young string theorists also agree with him). He is certainly correct when he refers to Occam's razor in the context of the landscape, but anyway, I do not think the question is whether his overall sentiment about string theory is correct or not (one can never measure this anyway). I think the crucial aspect is that an intelligent, experienced physicist has expressed a deep concern about how things are going which certainly deserves consideration.

Cheers,

Careful
 
  • #6
Arthur Clarke's "law" was based on actual events in physics history, including the rejection of Relativity by the older generation of physicsts in the early 20th century, and Einstein's own rejection of the anti-realist consequences of quantum mechanics. It is no insult to any particular physicists to note that this behavior pattern continues into our own time.

Gross' logic is impressive, but no more cogent than the arguments of the defenders of string theory. I repeat that Gross is criticising the anthropic reasoning championed by Susskind and others, and that is not , nor do Susskind et al claim it is, the essence of string theory.
 
  • #7
**Arthur Clarke's "law" was based on actual events in physics history, including the rejection of Relativity by the older generation of physicsts in the early 20th century **

Hi, I think the situation here is rather different : Einsteins GR lead to concrete predictions and was accepted pretty much after Eddington measured the gravitational bending of light which was only *four* years after the completion of the theory (which was a one man effort which took about eight years). String theory is a massive enterprise which takes about 25 years and hasn't produced one single experimental prediction. So, the timescales involved were very different, nobody really got time to get accostumed to these ideas which btw were much more radical than the premises of string theory.

** and Einstein's own rejection of the anti-realist consequences of quantum mechanics. **

Well, I still believe that he might be right in the end (and Bell experiments haven't been really convincing so far) - that is still an open issue.

** Gross' logic is impressive, but no more cogent than the arguments of the defenders of string theory. I repeat that Gross is criticising the anthropic reasoning championed by Susskind and others, and that is not , nor do Susskind et al claim it is, the essence of string theory **

Well, I think it is very unclear for the moment what the essence of string theory is, at least I do not know for the moment. AFAIK, without the anthropic principle a serious fine tuning is necessary...

But I think the main differences are the timescales. String theory has had pleanty of time already : any other theory would have very likely been disposed of without an equivalent media circus.

Cheers,

Careful
 
Last edited:
  • #8
I believe almost any person Physicist or not with an interest in ST knows that Gross is probably the most vocal opponent of ST. It seems that his passion to see research in String Theory abandoned is equal to the passion several other Physicist have to see String Theory proven.

I do see some of the problems facing String Theory, but I also believe there is a lot of promise in the theory as well. What it boils down to is this: there have been many points throughout history when something that we know to be true now sounded ridiculous. My gosh; humans actually used to believe that Earth was the center of not only the solar system, but the entire universe. Newton believed that the force of gravity acted instantaneously, and as we all know Einstein proved that this was not true. There have been many things that mankind in the past thought impossible to prove, that have since been proven. I don't think we should abondon any theory, to do so would be an incredible loss. I believe that any unification theory is worthwhile to work on.
 
  • #9
Aridea said:
I believe almost any person Physicist or not with an interest in ST knows that Gross is probably the most vocal opponent of ST. It seems that his passion to see research in String Theory abandoned is equal to the passion several other Physicist have to see String Theory proven.

I do see some of the problems facing String Theory, but I also believe there is a lot of promise in the theory as well. What it boils down to is this: there have been many points throughout history when something that we know to be true now sounded ridiculous. My gosh; humans actually used to believe that Earth was the center of not only the solar system, but the entire universe. Newton believed that the force of gravity acted instantaneously, and as we all know Einstein proved that this was not true. There have been many things that mankind in the past thought impossible to prove, that have since been proven. I don't think we should abondon any theory, to do so would be an incredible loss. I believe that any unification theory is worthwhile to work on.

**I believe almost any person Physicist or not with an interest in ST knows that [David] Gross is probably the most vocal opponent of ST. It seems that his passion to see research in String Theory abandoned is equal to the passion several other Physicist have to see String Theory proven.**

can't think of an appropriate reply
:-)
 
Last edited:
  • #10
** What it boils down to is this: there have been many points throughout history when something that we know to be true now sounded ridiculous. My gosh; humans actually used to believe that Earth was the center of not only the solar system, but the entire universe. **

That is not so ridiculous at all: everything people could observe at that time was a relative motion with respect to the flat coordinate system attached to the surface of the earth, therefore it is natural to use this as a base point which you can obviously do also in Newtonian physics by making a non galileian coordinate transformation. Actually we still *do* use such ideas when making maps of the solar system and galaxy (it is rather fascinating to study the models of the old greeks based upon circular motions).

**
Newton believed that the force of gravity acted instantaneously,**

He did NOT believe in this, AFAIK Newton was a proponent of what one would call ether models.


** There have been many things that mankind in the past thought impossible to prove, that have since been proven. **

Sure, but the problem is that string theory hasn't proven anything of interest in physics at all and is by far outcasting any theoretical enterprise in history. Actually, this story is diametrically opposite to the one of the geocentrical theory : there people put forwards a too limited idea based solely upon the available data and common experience, string theory on the other hand is way too big and based upon no data/realistic experience at all :biggrin:

**I don't think we should abondon any theory, to do so would be an incredible loss. I believe that any unification theory is worthwhile to work on. **

You obviously have no idea at all how many different plausible ideas science counts and how very few of them are for some mysterious reason mainstream.
 
  • #11
Careful said:
**IMO, age has everything to do with it. You rarely see physicists accomplish much after their thirties (other than perhaps Richard Feynman, but even his accomplishments slowly declined in the end). **

But age is one of the weakness of string theory. It is a theory done in the early 1970; most of their important results, includong the D=26 y D=10 things, date from this period. Yes the scientists doing it at these times were young people, now they are old, and in nineties they were both old and influential.
 
  • #12
MistyMountain said:
And even better yet, if we are going to have forums devoted to bizarre, dangerous, pseudo science, should we not have a forum devoted to new physical theories that are based in logic and reason, in truth and beauty, in physics?
Thanks!

The use of the word "dangerous" maybe says everything about this dude. That sounds like a philopher speaking.
Real scientists use a more objective language.
It's always funny to hear people say that this or that cannot be proven.

Give me a single proof that something cannot be proven, given that the idea is not inconsistent!

Those tending to critisize string theory tend to be non-experts or maybe, occasionally, senile people.

If you're an expert on string theory you are able to point to a number of really sophisticated indications of its correctness as a better theory than the old ones. Here are some reasons for this:

1. String theory incorporates the standard model (even if I'm not sure that it has been shown in extreme detail)
2. String theory is consistent with the regge trajectories of hadron's
3. String theory yielded the graviton as a by-product. It was a surprise for the people producing string theory that it required the graviton. The graviton has not yet been observed, but that does not necessarily have to worry you.
4. String theory yields the first consistent QM account of gravity. (that's something big in itself)
5. String theory can incorporate all known guauge theories (at least those of the Standard model and gravity).
6. String theory exhibits new symmetries (gauge symmetries), which we already know from the standard model are important explanations for matter.

I could go on for hours. It's nonsense when people critisise string theory as a non-scientific theory that does not deserve merits as the best theory availible. The great minds of today take interest in it. Only a few dissent. There are always oddballs.

In fact, the most criticism I confront with respect to string theory is cricisism posed by people who know very little about string theory. They think that just because you have not observed gravitons there is simply no reason to embrace string theory. You could not be less wrong, but you have to be subtle to realize why. Thank God that there are a few subtle minds out there!
 
  • #13
EroticNirvana said:
1. String theory incorporates the standard model (even if I'm not sure that it has been shown in extreme detail)

The devil is in the details. String theory does NOT reproduce the Standard Model and does not really even reproduce the undemonstrated supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model, the MSSM. And no knowledgeable string physicsts claims any more that it does.

2. String theory is consistent with the regge trajectories of hadron's

Yes it is. So what?

3. String theory yielded the graviton as a by-product. It was a surprise for the people producing string theory that it required the graviton. The graviton has not yet been observed, but that does not necessarily have to worry you.

What worries me is that the graviton is just a partial simulation of General Realtivity in flat spacetime. In fact what string theory produced was just a spin 2 boson. There's a theorem which states that ANY spin 2 boson would do what the SST one does. It still isn't generally covariant, let alone background free. And again there are detailed problems with it that have emerged in the last year or so. That last is controversial, but not definitely refuted the last I saw.

4. String theory yields the first consistent QM account of gravity. (that's something big in itself)

See above for the state of its "account of gravity". We'll see about logical consistency.

5. String theory can incorporate all known guauge theories (at least those of the Standard model and gravity).

This is just a restatement of your previous points. I restate my demurral: it can't.

6. String theory exhibits new symmetries (gauge symmetries), which we already know from the standard model are important explanations for matter.

String theory is the only source of gauge symmetries? Come on! BTW the only reason that SST was able to get beyond the Standard Model is that the string model evades the Coleman-Mandula theorem that says gauge symmetries can only ever put whistles and bells on the Standard Model, not lead to really new physics. That goes for supersymmetry too. It's the reason both of them suddenly became interesting.
 
  • #14
wrong;)

selfAdjoint said:
The devil is in the details. String theory does NOT reproduce the Standard Model and does not really even reproduce the undemonstrated supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model, the MSSM. And no knowledgeable string physicsts claims any more that it does.



Yes it is. So what?



What worries me is that the graviton is just a partial simulation of General Realtivity in flat spacetime. In fact what string theory produced was just a spin 2 boson. There's a theorem which states that ANY spin 2 boson would do what the SST one does. It still isn't generally covariant, let alone background free. And again there are detailed problems with it that have emerged in the last year or so. That last is controversial, but not definitely refuted the last I saw.



See above for the state of its "account of gravity". We'll see about logical consistency.



This is just a restatement of your previous points. I restate my demurral: it can't.



String theory is the only source of gauge symmetries? Come on! BTW the only reason that SST was able to get beyond the Standard Model is that the string model evades the Coleman-Mandula theorem that says gauge symmetries can only ever put whistles and bells on the Standard Model, not lead to really new physics. That goes for supersymmetry too. It's the reason both of them suddenly became interesting.

Thx for a detailed and careful response. I apoligize that I don´t have the time to reciprocate:)

* Well I guess you´re right. String theory, thus far, has only been able to account for the most salient features of string theory (or you know, I´m not going to get into any debate about any specific feature that is not covered which you might like); but that´s really what we need to be justified to work further on it (no one reasonable has inferred that string theory can´t do this in the future

* Oh well, the regge trajectories are pretty amazing physically. Now tell me which mathematical object is consistent with regge trajectories and you might have yourself a new physical theory; string theory was initially embarked upon because it can account for regge trajectories. Find me another math. object that does this which makes sense as an elementary particle and I´ll steel your idea and get the nobel prize;)

* Yes problems with gravity. However, just as the model of the atom was sketchy in the beginning, string theory is allowed to have some initial problems.

* YES! String theory is the most interesting source of gauge symmetries since it incorporates gravity! Now compare E8xE8 and the "tiny symmetry group of the standard model! The former may even contain gauge symmetries of DARK MATTER? Exciting isn't it! So yes, please tell me which theory is more sexy than string theory when it comes to titilating gauge symmetries.

In summary, string theory, as most older theories, is burdened with problems, but it is really exciting from scientific point of view.

Anyhow, I´m working myself on a topological justification of string theory, and I think it might work. Yeah, don´t believe me,, I don´t care;)
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Careful said:
That is not so ridiculous at all: everything people could observe at that time was a relative motion with respect to the flat coordinate system attached to the surface of the earth, therefore it is natural to use this as a base point which you can obviously do also in Newtonian physics by making a non galileian coordinate transformation. Actually we still *do* use such ideas when making maps of the solar system and galaxy (it is rather fascinating to study the models of the old greeks based upon circular motions).

You've misinterpreted what I've said; I did not say that people in the past believing that the universe was Earth centered was ridiculous. Maybe I should have added to my original post: "If you told someone years ago that the sun was the center of the solar system they'd think that was ridiculous" to further my point. Regardless, if you re-read what I wrote you'll see that I was stating that things that we know now to be true sounded ridiculous to people in the past. This is why you are correct when you say "That is not so ridiculous at all". Of course the Earth centered universe made sense to people long ago, they had been taught the Ptolemaic Theory; which asserted that the Earth was a fixed unmoving mass around which everything else in the universe moved. And this did make sense based on what their observations were, and the flat coordinate system they used. It wasn't until Copernicus completed "De Revolutionibus" in 1530 that the Earth center universe began to crumble, and that even took a while.

Careful said:
**Newton believed that the force of gravity acted instantaneously,**

He did NOT believe in this, AFAIK Newton was a proponent of what one would call ether models.

Yes, I am aware that Newton was proponent of ether models, but to put it in "laymans terms" it is acceptable and accepted to say that before Einstein the belief was that gravity acted instantaneously. This is what I was orignally taught in high school physics, it's how it's normally explained in books and documentaries designed for the masses, it's also how it's described in my eight year old daughters third grade science workbook. And since not everybody who visits this forum has a Phd in some area of physics, or a deep understanding of physics I felt it an acceptable, and understandable way to explain a point. The point I was trying to make was more about our knowledge of the universe and the laws of nature expanding over the years, not so much to discuss the evolution of physical theories.

Careful said:
Sure, but the problem is that string theory hasn't proven anything of interest in physics at all and is by far outcasting any theoretical enterprise in history. Actually, this story is diametrically opposite to the one of the geocentrical theory : there people put forwards a too limited idea based solely upon the available data and common experience, string theory on the other hand is way too big and based upon no data/realistic experience at all :biggrin:

One (I emphasize the word one, this isn't the only way that ST could be proven. I certainly don't want someone quoting me telling me there are others ways to possibly prove the theory) of the main reasons that String Theory can't be proven or disproven is because we lack the technology that would allow us to see at the lengths we would need to actually "see" a string. We would need tools that could probe distances as small as Planck length to actually see a string. Whether string theory has proven anything useful or not I would say is a matter of opinion, and whether it will in the future prove anything useful is not known. People often speak of the length of time that string theory has been worked on, but there haven't been hundreds of Physicists working on the theory since the late sixties. The theory has come and gone, and it's really this last time that the theory has been looked at again that most of the work has been done. String theorists have shown enough with the theory that proves it merits more work.

I also often hear opponents of string theory comparing the time it has taken in the past to prove other theories, saying that ST has been worked on for 25 years, and that other theories took much less time to prove, but I don't think they're taking into account the fact that this is a unification theory. It's a big deal, a huge all encompassing physical theory, of course it's going to take longer to unify the forces than it did to figure out each of them indivually. Just because the theory hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it isn't correct! What if it is correct, and everyone stopped work on it, that would be a monumental disaster.

Careful said:
**I don't think we should abondon any theory, to do so would be an incredible loss. I believe that any unification theory is worthwhile to work on. **

You obviously have no idea at all how many different plausible ideas science counts and how very few of them are for some mysterious reason mainstream.

Actually, I am well aware of how many plausible ideas science counts. I'm also aware of how few of them are mainstream. I don't see how based off of that one statement you can make a determination of what idea I have about scientic theories and how many are mainstream. You make it sound as I'm saying that every single scientific theory should be worked on, that certainly is not the point I was trying to make, nor what I said. I wasn't talking about what "science counts" in general, I wasn't even speaking about physics in general; what I was talking about in particular was unification theories.

What I was saying and what I'm still saying is we shouldn't abaondon a unification theory. Yes there are other condidates besides string theory and I don't think those should be abandoned either.

One thing I've noticed is that it seems that many of the people who oppose string theory oppose it so passionately; almost more passionately than those who champion the theory defend it. And to put it simply are just plain rude when debating the whole issue. For those who oppose the theory who don't behave in this fashion I apologize, but many who do oppose it display a certain nastiness, and try to come off with a snobbish superiority :rolleyes: to those who support the theory. I'm talking about everywhere to, is discussions, debates, articles, interviews, and forums; what is with that?
 
  • #16
that's because they're ignorant

Aridea said:
many who do oppose it display a certain nastiness, and try to come off with a snobbish superiority :rolleyes: to those who support the theory. I'm talking about everywhere to, is discussions, debates, articles, interviews, and forums; what is with that?

Yes; the the reason for that is that they don't have any real argument to pose. They are not blessed with a scientific insight. Modern science will appear ridiculous to anyone that does not understand the reasons why modern science looks like it does.

You might also have noticed that these snobbish types tend to hide when the heat in the discussion is turned on. They run like lil' kids. They like to show off for their equally ignorant friends (who, nevertheless, are not charlatans like themselves) but when the masters enter the room they quickly run into a corner and hide.

OK OK. I don't like metadiscussions that much anyhow. But I will laugh each time an amateur disses string theory.
 
  • #17
EroticNirvana said:
Thx for a detailed and careful response. I apoligize that I don´t have the time to reciprocate:)

* Well I guess you´re right. String theory, thus far, has only been able to account for the most salient features of string theory (or you know, I´m not going to get into any debate about any specific feature that is not covered which you might like); but that´s really what we need to be justified to work further on it (no one reasonable has inferred that string theory can´t do this in the future

No one is trying to keep you or anyone else from working on stringy approaches to the standard model. More power to you! The objection is to high profile attempts to claim SST HAS DONE more than it has.

* Oh well, the regge trajectories are pretty amazing physically. Now tell me which mathematical object is consistent with regge trajectories and you might have yourself a new physical theory; string theory was initially embarked upon because it can account for regge trajectories. Find me another math. object that does this which makes sense as an elementary particle and I´ll steel your idea and get the nobel prize;)

I would appreciate it if you would tell us, perhaps in a new thread on the particle physics forum, what significance Regge trajectories have for present day theory or experiment. AFAIR they were only approximately straight for nucleons and mesons, and I don't know what has been done with them in the quark era.

* Yes problems with gravity. However, just as the model of the atom was sketchy in the beginning, string theory is allowed to have some initial problems.

Once again, if stringists were selling SST to the public as a work-in-progress, no-one could complain. If your original post that I responded to had taken that tone I would never have had a reason to respond. But you, and they, come on like SST has a string of predictive successes, and that's false. SST has more goals, and more work done on those goals, than any competitor. But it has no immediate prospect of an early closure on those goals.

* YES! String theory is the most interesting source of gauge symmetries since it incorporates gravity! Now compare E8xE8 and the "tiny symmetry group of the standard model! The former may even contain gauge symmetries of DARK MATTER? Exciting isn't it! So yes, please tell me which theory is more sexy than string theory when it comes to titilating gauge symmetries.

If you just want to play around with gauge symmetries for their own sake, or as part of a program in pure mathematics, feel free. E8xE8 has not yet produced any real physics while the standard model has produced a bunch and is still producing new stuff. For experimentalists it remains the only game in town. Oh I will except the Witten MHV amplitude calculation method, which passses through string theory on the way to twistor space and produces calculations the experimenters can use.


In summary, string theory, as most older theories, is burdened with problems, but it is really exciting from scientific point of view.

I agree! It is not dissing this very interesting body of work to insist that its advocates be honest about its current achievements.

Anyhow, I´m working myself on a topological justification of string theory, and I think it might work. Yeah, don´t believe me,, I don´t care;)

If you can do it, I'll be eager to study it. Topology of what?
 
  • #18
EroticNirvana said:
Yes; the the reason for that is that they don't have any real argument to pose. They are not blessed with a scientific insight. Modern science will appear ridiculous to anyone that does not understand the reasons why modern science looks like it does.

You might also have noticed that these snobbish types tend to hide when the heat in the discussion is turned on. They run like lil' kids. They like to show off for their equally ignorant friends (who, nevertheless, are not charlatans like themselves) but when the masters enter the room they quickly run into a corner and hide.

OK OK. I don't like metadiscussions that much anyhow. But I will laugh each time an amateur disses string theory.


I thought we were talking about Gross dissing string theory? Amateur?
 
  • #19
heh heh
it was kind of funny
David Gross applied the word dangerous to string Landscape thinking and some people reacted as follows:

EroticNirvana said:
The use of the word "dangerous" maybe says everything about this dude. That sounds like a philopher speaking.
Real scientists use a more objective language.
It's always funny to hear people say that this or that cannot be proven.

Give me a single proof that something cannot be proven, given that the idea is not inconsistent!

Those tending to critisize string theory tend to be non-experts or maybe, occasionally, senile people.

Aridea said:
I believe almost any person Physicist or not with an interest in ST knows that Gross is probably the most vocal opponent of ST. It seems that his passion to see research in String Theory abandoned is equal to the passion several other Physicist have to see String Theory proven.
...
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Question: is this thread going anywhere? Because it is getting dangerously close to a flame war in which posters don't have anything constructive to add but just take pot shots at each other.
 
  • #21
duke_nemmerle said:
I thought we were talking about Gross dissing string theory? Amateur?

Well, no, that term was not meant to refer to Gross. I talked about senile people also before. But I don't really know that much about Gross so I'm not saying either of him. At least not explicitly;) But of course he's not an amateur! He is in his criticism, however, teaming up with a host of amateurs who do not understand university physics and will never understand physics.
 
  • #22
my response

selfAdjoint said:
No one is trying to keep you or anyone else from working on stringy approaches to the standard model. More power to you! The objection is to high profile attempts to claim SST HAS DONE more than it has.



I would appreciate it if you would tell us, perhaps in a new thread on the particle physics forum, what significance Regge trajectories have for present day theory or experiment. AFAIR they were only approximately straight for nucleons and mesons, and I don't know what has been done with them in the quark era.



Once again, if stringists were selling SST to the public as a work-in-progress, no-one could complain. If your original post that I responded to had taken that tone I would never have had a reason to respond. But you, and they, come on like SST has a string of predictive successes, and that's false. SST has more goals, and more work done on those goals, than any competitor. But it has no immediate prospect of an early closure on those goals.



If you just want to play around with gauge symmetries for their own sake, or as part of a program in pure mathematics, feel free. E8xE8 has not yet produced any real physics while the standard model has produced a bunch and is still producing new stuff. For experimentalists it remains the only game in town. Oh I will except the Witten MHV amplitude calculation method, which passses through string theory on the way to twistor space and produces calculations the experimenters can use.




I agree! It is not dissing this very interesting body of work to insist that its advocates be honest about its current achievements.



If you can do it, I'll be eager to study it. Topology of what?

Come on. This system for quotations sux. I'm not going to learn it and I don't see what's wrong with the method that usenet group clients use! Simplicity is often a blessing.

To your points.

1. I did never claim that string theory had experimental success. That was exactly my point with claiming that the critics of string theory fail to notice that a theory can be virtuous without experimental success and that is the case with string theory. Oh yes, gravitons are yet to be observed and I would never claim otherwise. The more sophisticated reasons to be attracted to string theory are already enumberated in my first post.

2. Regge trajectories: oh well, I think I've already explained the relevance: the whole concept of strings has its origins in the special relations between angular momentum and energy that was observed. This main concept is still the prevalent in string theory. You've of course added branes and proceeded to fermionic string theories and bla bla.
If you want me to explain this further in a new thread feel free to start the thread and address it to me and address which question you want me to respond to. Also send a private message to me so I know that the thread is started and I PROMISE i will answer the thread.


3. The topological thingy I talked about: hehe, I think I'll present it first in a scientific paper before presenting it here:) However, it concerns properties of continuous motion. What I can say though is that I start from mathematics and topology and not physics. As you know, we see a merge between these two disciplines right now: the ideas of gauge theory was developed in both math and physics independently but at the same time. There are of course a host of other examples.

4. You suggested I oversold string theory in my initial messages. I think I pretty much kept within the bounderies of what we know about the success of string theory, which is, first of all, exploitations of gauge freedoms (and not experimental confirmation beyond the standard model!). Again, i stress; experimental confirmation or even the possibility of experimental confirmation is not a necessary virtue of a good theory. We know that out fellow human beings have a "mind" but we have no experimental confirmation of this. Pretty funny isn't it? But still we think the hypothesis that the fellow human being has a mind is a good one. Maybe a bad example, but you see the point that "experiemntal confirmation" is not everything.

What I am frustrated about is the fact that many of those criticising string theory are people how know basicly nothing about string theory. They only know the magic words: "there is no experimental confirmation". But that's not the only way how a scientist works! The scientists usually have reasons, often good reasons, for their hypotheses, and these reasons are far beyond the comprehensions of most critics of string theory.

I can even admit as a younger boy I was sceptical of string theory for the reason that it was basically a quantum theory and in my younger years (i'm 25 now) I did not like that theory because it did not make sense; and it shouldn't because it's totally against common sense. Then I learned all this heavy stuff and suddenly I realized that quantum theory is unavoidable and in recent years I have realized that string theory is, at least very abstractly, necessary too. I've learned all this in terms of abstract mathematical reasoning.

My guess is that current string theory is much like Thomson's model of the atom. It's really a bad depiction of reality but it's the best we've got and it was got us "hooked on" to the basic entities of reality.

So anyhow, I don't really like to offend, but I get so sad when I hear about people criticising things they don't have a single idea about.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
The topic of this thread, going back to the O.P. (original post) is
remarks made by David Gross about string Landscape thinking (so-called "Landscapeology", Susskind and friends appeal to anthropic reasoning: some would say giving up on physics traditional goals and standards)

It is very important to understand why a senior string theorist would say that that the direction taken by Susskind is "dangerous".

Dangerous to what? String theory, the credibility of US theorists, the 400 year-old Baconian tradition of empirical science, the research establishment? Or did he speak frivolously? Or did he merely mean some abstract intellectual danger?

Personally I don't agree with Gross positions on the whole and I don't necessarily approve of his administrative decisions. He is a powerful and influential string theory leader and director of the worldclass Santa Barbara Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics (KITP). He organized the prestigious 23rd Solvay. I think in both cases he shows a narrow vision. His KITP institute could be much stronger in non-string unification theories and quantum gravity----MUCH stronger. His choice of speakers at 23rd Solvay was, in my view, narrowly string-dominated and loaded with Landscapers. BUT THAT IS MY PERSONAL VIEWPOINT AND IS IRRELVANT TO THE MAIN TOPIC. I just want to make it clear that I am not in ALLIANCE with Gross. For me, he is representative of a largely misguided top-level US physics establishment. I see the US falling behind places like the UK, France, even Canada and the Netherlands and I hold Gross and other top people in part responsible. But I'm the minnow and he's the whale here---I have to pay attention and try to understand.

So those views of mine are SECONDARY and what I want to say is that despite whatever differences I respect David Gross opinion. WE HAVE TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT AND WHY HE TAKES THE TROUBLE TO SAY IT. Gross is not just "sounding off". He is a statesman or politician, if you prefer, of big science.

As selfAdjoint has pointed out, many other string physicists AGREE with David Gross. SelfAdjoint mentioned a couple earlier in this thread. In fact there was an overwhelming vote at the 2005 Toronto String conference that supported Gross view about 3 or 4-to-one. Over 3/4 of the audience was on Gross side and against Susskind. There being some 300 or 400 active string research people at the conference.

You should watch the video of the Toronto Strings '05 openmike discussion----it is online and has some pretty amazing moments.

But one of the really interesting things is that the string community is so QUIET! As selfAdjoint would have us believe, there is a lot of support for what Gross is saying. And also if we go by the show of hands at Toronto there is huge support. But WHY DO SO FEW LEADERS SPEAK OUT?

Should we imagine that Landscapeology is an expedient bandaid palliative. Witten has said some innocuous things like "Well, I certainly hope we don't have to resort to that!" Gross seems to be the only top string leader who is willing to use strong language and talk to journalists.

Well that is what this thread is about. People should try to understand Gross remarks. You other posters can think up your own explanations, but please try to understand who he is and where he is coming from.
He isn't consistent---he balances on the fence some like we all do---but everynowandthen he is taking stands that (I believe) he thinks are for the longterm good of his profession---warning colleagues of stuff he thinks they need to be warned about---and so on. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
selfAdjoint said:
Thirdly, I don't think anyone has a right to sneer at string physics unless they have some competence in it to indicate they might know what they're talking about. I have never seen such competence in your posts.

Lol - maximal KudoS on this selfAdjoint.

:rofl:
 
  • #25
marcus---

I think David Gross has earned the right to not have to answer to anonymous posters on internet discussion fora.

Unless, of course, you too have a Nobel Prize?
 
  • #26
David Gross is to be congratulated on his courageous (and often lonely) stand against Anthropic Landscapers who cheapen theoretical physics and undermine science itself. Here is the original post, defining the topic of this thread. I've corrected the link to work as intended.

The O.P. refers to
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=321

MistyMountain said:
From the Woit blog:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=321

The only physicist quoted who recognizes that the Landscape is pseudo-science is David Gross. “It’s impossible to disprove” he says, and notes that because we can’t falsify the idea it’s not science. He sees the origin of this nonsense in string theorist’s inability to predict anything despite huge efforts over more than 20 years: “‘People in string theory are very frustrated, as am I, by our inability to be more predictive after all these years,’ he says. But that’s no excuse for using such ‘bizarre science’, he warns. ‘It is a dangerous business.’”

I continue to find it shocking that the many journalists who have been writing stories like this don’t seem to be able to locate any leading particle theorist other than Gross willing to publicly say that this is just not science.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=321

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7072/full/439010a.html

It's an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: "It's impossible to disprove." Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can't falsify the idea, Gross says, it isn't science. Or at least, it isn't science in any conventional sense of the word. "I think Gross sees this as science taking on some of the traits of religion," says Carr. "In a sense he's correct, because things like faith and beauty are becoming a component of the discussion."

Gross believes that the emergence of multiple universes in science has its origins in theorists' 20-year struggle to explain the finely tuned numbers of the cosmos. "People in string theory are very frustrated, as am I, by our inability to be more predictive after all these years," he says. But that's no excuse for using such "bizarre science", he warns. "It is a dangerous business."

...

Resorting to Anthropery means giving up on the historical enterprise of science to explain why the universe is how it is. As long as David Gross is putting up a stand against giving up and is leading the resistance to Anthropism, more power to him! :approve:

If it is an issue that David Gross was honored by the Nobel prize for his non-string work (asymptotic freedom, QCD) then maybe we should get some quotes from some other outspoken Nobel laureates like Phil Anderson, Sheldon Glashow, Bernie Richter, Robert Laughlin, Richard Feynman, :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Sure, marcus, if you'e like---we can go around quoting nobel lauriates but to what end? The point is that David Gross doesn't answer to anybody but David Gross---not Sheldon Glashow, not Richard Feynman, and not marcus.

Personally I don't agree with Gross positions on the whole and I don't necessarily approve of his administrative decisions. He is a powerful and influential string theory leader and director of the worldclass Santa Barbara Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics (KITP). He organized the prestigious 23rd Solvay. I think in both cases he shows a narrow vision. His KITP institute could be much stronger in non-string unification theories and quantum gravity----MUCH stronger.

The faculty that he has at KITP make it one of the best three or four institutions in the world. Second guessing him is probably not a profitable enterprise.
 
  • #28
Let me just note that one should distinguish string theory (or string framework) from the string landscape. The latter is only one of the approaches to the former.
 
  • #29
Demystifier said:
Let me just note that one should distinguish string theory (or string framework) from the string landscape. The latter is only one of the approaches to the former.

Exactly! And it is to David Gross' credit that he is one of the few (sometimes it seems the only) prominent figure within the string club who is willing to speak out publically against the direction taken by Susskind and many others.
 
  • #30
marcus said:
And it is to David Gross' credit that he is one of the few (sometimes it seems the only) prominent figure within the string club who is willing to speak out publically against the direction taken by Susskind and many others.
I am not sure about that (what you say above), but it seems to me that most of the recently published papers on string theory have NOT much to do with the landscape. But maybe the authors of these papers are not "prominent". Anyway, I predict that the lendscape is a popular trend that will not remain so popular for a long time, while the string framework will remain to be regarded "promissing" for a much longer time.

I would say that the role of the lendscape for string theory can be compared with the role of fractals for the theory of complex systems. Namely, it (fractal/lendscape) is an unavoidable fact being very popular for a while, but not helping much in a deeper understanding of the main subject (complex systems/string theory).
 
  • #31
Demystifier said:
...it seems to me that most of the recently published papers on string theory have NOT much to do with the landscape...

Again, I am not sure that you are right, but I would be very glad if you ARE right and if this represents a significant trend.

this is actually a very important issue which you have raised, Demy. The Anthropic Landscape tendency is almost certainly the worst aspect in String ideology. It would be wonderful news if it were on the decline!

Perhaps we could try to find out, or gauge this in some way. I would propose to look at the lineup of the invited plenary speakers at the most recent Strings conference and see what proportion of them are Landscapists.

We could also recall the video of David Gross' talk at the end of Strings 07 which gave a summary of the conference and his view of the present state of the field. He touched on this issue.

Here are some of the Strings 07 invited plenary talks. Slides and video are online here:
http://gesalerico.ft.uam.es/strings07/040_scientific07_contents/041_speakers.htm [Broken]
We could sample their slides and see. I hope you are right.

M. Becker [Texas A&M] SLIDES - VIDEO - VIDEO - DOWNLOAD
Runaway in the Landscape

R. Bousso [Berkeley] SLIDES - VIDEO - VIDEO - DOWNLOAD
Cosmological Predictions in the Landscape

M. Douglas [Rutgers & IHES, Paris] SLIDES - VIDEO - VIDEO - DOWNLOAD
Exploring the Kähler potential

D. Gross [KITP, Santa Barbara] SLIDES - VIDEO - VIDEO - DOWNLOAD
Perspectives

S. Kachru [Stanford] SLIDES - VIDEO - VIDEO - DOWNLOAD
Comments on Anti-branes

R. Kallosh [Stanford] SLIDES - VIDEO - VIDEO - DOWNLOAD
Testing String Theory with CMB

A. Linde [Stanford] SLIDES - VIDEO - VIDEO - DOWNLOAD
Eternal Inflation and String Theory Landscape
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Just as an example, today there are 13 new papers at arXiv:hep-th. Among them, only 5 are directly related to string theory. Among these 5 string papers, 2 of them are directly related to the landscape, while other 3 are not. Try to do a similar analysis with any other day in recent past, I strongly believe that you will obtain similar results.
 
  • #33
Demystifier said:
Just as an example, today there are 13 new papers at arXiv:hep-th. Among them, only 5 are directly related to string theory. Among these 5 string papers, 2 of them are directly related to the landscape, while other 3 are not. Try to do a similar analysis with any other day in recent past, I strongly believe that you will obtain similar results.

Good! So we have a number 40 percent. If you are right, and the Landscapist fad is on the way out, then this number should decline. I hope it does! We can watch a bit and see.

I like this approach. It has an element of objectivity.
 
  • #34
The landscape debacle is truly unfortunate. The premise that string is sufficient to allow for a TOE is undeniable. Contending it permits the existence of our universe is reasonable. Insisting it predicts everything because all other possible universes are equally probable is . . . insulting.
 
  • #35
Chronos said:
The landscape debacle is truly unfortunate. The premise that string is sufficient to allow for a TOE is undeniable. Contending it permits the existence of our universe is reasonable. Insisting it predicts everything because all other possible universes are equally probable is . . . insulting.
As I already said once, asking string theory to explain the Standard Model of "elementary" particles is like asking quantum electrodynamics to explain life on Earth.
 

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
3
Replies
76
Views
22K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
34
Views
14K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
31
Views
7K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
28
Views
6K
Back
Top