Dax discussions of Beyond SM theories/including newcomer questions

[Lt_Dax]

Dax, honestly, no one cares and will never care what exactly is a "theory" and if string theory qualifies as one.

Correction, some string theorists don't care. Many thinking people do care. I'm not alone. You have a nerve accusing me of childishness, when you try to dismiss an entire thread with "nobody cares"! That's school playground language!

People only care about results.

And what makes something a "result"? Is something a result because it gets accepted for publication? This viewpoint stinks. Just because an idea is published, doesn't mean it represents physical reality. Maybe it's true that people only care about the number of publications and citations they get. Publish or perish?

And for the love of god (pun intended) do stop already with creationist vs evolutionist argument. It's childish, getting old, and you're misusing it.

In what way am I misusing it (care to explain)? It's highly relevant. There isn't one definition of science in evolutionary biology, and another in physics. The methods of science are universal. We only divide science into separate subjects to make it easier to understand. Nature doesn't have clean dividing lines.

You can't conveniently dismiss the discussion about evolution/creation just because it comes from a different subject. It illustrates the point perfectly about what a theory is. Need I repeat that it means something much more precise than just an idea? This really matters, whether you think it does or not.

I repeat that it's quite amusing of you to accuse me of being childish, when your concluding argument seems to be merely "it doesn't matter, nobody cares, stop whining". Is that the best you can do?

 

[Haelfix]

I just want to pick up on this if I may. I never said that hypothesizing is not part of science. I said that engaging in hypothesizing alone, and claiming it is progress, or even discovery, as your hypothesis becomes more and more complex, is meaningless.

Suffice it to say, I think you'll find that most proffessionals will disagree with this statement. I certainly do, and I suspect most others will as well.

Sometimes progress can be made in pure theory, without the need for experiment. Its particularly true that you can falsify most ideas, long before you ever test them.

When a statement is inconsistent with logic, then that's all there is too it. I don't need experiment to tell me that the collision between two gravitons does not output pink elephants.

The reason so many people believe in string theory, is that there aren't many (arguably any) viable alternatives and you are very much bootstrapped into this way of thinking through a rather tight network of highly plausible inferences (for instance, the existence of black holes as being 'real').

In some ways, it is the theory with the minimal set of assumptions necessary that also simultaneously explains the bewildering array of modern physics that is observed.

This is not supposed to be *obvious* to a layman! They see complicated mathematics, extra dimensions and a bunch of structure that looks many steps removed from the laboratory and immediately complain. Well, until one actually does the math and see's that the arguments for each step are actually pretty tame and natural, be sure that the person will stay hostile to the idea.

 

[Lt_Dax]

Suffice it to say, I think you'll find that most proffessionals will disagree with this statement. I certainly do, and I suspect most others will as well.

Hypothesizing is not discovery, no matter how sound or simple the step of logic used to achieve your hypothesis. It still needs to be tested to become a theory - a description of reality. A "professional" is not correct just because they have authority.

Sometimes progress can be made in pure theory, without the need for experiment.

The word progress could mean anything here. What do you mean? Lots of publications? By the way, the concept of "pure theory" is a contradiction in terms. A theory is linked to experiment by definition.

Its particularly true that you can falsify most ideas, long before you ever test them.

You can't falsify a hypothesis without testing it, by definition. However, if something is logically flawed, then it never gets called up for testing in the first place. It's not even a hypothesis, it's trash, surely.

The reason so many people believe in string theory, is that there aren't many (arguably any) viable alternatives

Alternatives in doing what? You're going to have to be more clear than this.

In some ways, it is the theory with the minimal set of assumptions necessary that also simultaneously explains the bewildering array of modern physics that is observed.

Most of observed modern physics is explained with the standard model, and the rest of the unsolved observations are not explained by string theory, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. So what are you talking about?

This is not supposed to be *obvious* to a layman! They see complicated mathematics, extra dimensions and a bunch of structure that looks many steps removed from the laboratory and immediately complain. Well, until one actually does the math and see's that the arguments for each step are actually pretty tame and natural, be sure that the person will stay hostile to the idea.

Well, I'm not a layman (although I'm not a string theorist), so I don't know how this applies in this case. I resent the implication that I'm too stupid to see how wonderful and beautiful string theory is. This sounds a lot like when religious people say that a person just doesn't have god's spirit and therefore couldn't possibly appreciate the beauty and truth of said belief. It's a bogus argument and a fallacy.

 

[Haelfix]

When I say progress, I mean discovery about how the real world works (tm). When I say alternatives, I mean alternatives about the nature of the Planckian world.

"Most of observed modern physics is explained with the standard model, and the rest of the unsolved observations are not explained by string theory, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation"

Umm, String theory contains the standard model as a low energy limit, and I don't know which 'unsolved observations' you are referring too? B/c in principle, it does contain the explanation! That's what it means to be a possible theory of everything! If you can find an observation about the real world that string theory does not contain, then by definition you have falsified the theory.

"You can't falsify a hypothesis without testing it, by definition. However, if something is logically flawed, then it never gets called up for testing in the first place. It's not even a hypothesis, it's trash, surely."

Now you are playing with semantics and besides, this is wrong! You *can* falsify theories without testing them. Most of the time a Gedanken is all that is required.

For instance, I don't need to test the nature and predictions of creationism. I know its wrong, b/c it is logically inconsistent and absurd and clashes with many known phenomenon that have been tested.

 

[Lt_Dax]

When I say progress, I mean discovery about how the real world works

To find out how the real world works you have to interrogate nature. There is simply no alternative - even if your ideas are wonderful, they have to be tested.

When I say alternatives, I mean alternatives about the nature of the Planckian world.

We bring up alternatives as and when they are needed. Special relativity was proposed because there were unexplainable experimental observations. We do currently have unexplainable experimental observations, but string theory doesn't explain them, it purports to do something different (I assure you that if string theory explained these things we don't understand, it would be all over the world's media).

Umm, String theory contains the standard model as a low energy limit, and I don't know which 'unsolved observations' you are referring too?

String theory contains the standard model, so what? Why reinvent the wheel? Some people have suggested that ST is merely a calculational device for amplitudes. In that case then, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, it's just a tool. Some unsolved observations: Dark energy/matter, the arrow of time, the origin of mass, explaining confinement, neutrinos etc. etc. Has string theory had explained these things? If it had we'd have heard about it.

Now you are playing with semantics and besides, this is wrong! You *can* falsify theories without testing them. Most of the time a Gedanken is all that is required.

No, my semantics (meaning) are clear. I have been crystal clear about what I mean by "theory", "result", "hypothesis" - on the other hand, you contradict yourself within the same sentence even! You've already changed from "hypothesis" to "theory" in your response! So who's playing games with meaning? Not only that, but you merely made an assertion (that you can falsify a theory without experiment) without explanation. And I don't know what a Gedanken is...

For instance, I don't need to test the nature and predictions of creationism. I know its wrong, b/c it is logically inconsistent and absurd and clashes with many known phenomenon that have been tested.

Creationism does not qualify as a hypothesis because the existence of god, for example, can neither be proved or disproved and is therefore not a scientific question. This proves my point, not yours.

 

[marcus]

... String theory contains the standard model as a low energy limit, ...

Haelfix I don't think it is true that any version of SST contains the SM and its 20-some mass etc parameters (correct me if I'm wrong) but I would be interested if you would give me an arxiv reference to some paper which documents a version of SST which comes closest to that desirable goal. If you have a favorite amonst the many alternatives, I'd be delighted to read about it.

...String theory contains the standard model, so what? Why reinvent the wheel?...

But Lieutenant, where did you hear that SST contains the standard model of particle physics? I have always heard the contrary, from sources I consider reliable. They have made great efforts, trying various ways to roll up and stabilize the extra dimensions, in the attempt to get standard particle physics with its various particle masses, coupling constants and so forth. I think it would be great news if those efforts had succeeded!

Let's see what journal article preprint (online arxiv source) Haelfix offers us.

 

[Lt_Dax]

But Lieutenant, where did you hear that SST contains the standard model of particle physics? I have always heard the contrary, from sources I consider reliable.

I was just taking his word for it really - although since I've not seen any publication which shows this myself, I share your skepticism.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Lt_Dax do you think you can tell me what exactly everyone is arguing about, is it the merits and faults of String Theory? This has become very unclear to me.

 

[Lt_Dax]

Kevin_Axion, my primary point of contention has been about why it is justified to claim physics discovery and what it means to discover anything in science - my viewpoint has somewhat hardened from asking a question to making an assertion - mainly because it has become clear that many practicing string theorists have never sat down to think about what all these words we chuck around actually mean (I no longer feel like an inexperienced student asking a question - I overestimated the wisdom of the people I was asking.)

But as I've said in the distant past, this is not about questioning the interesting nature of string theory or its usefulness in model building - but I've never been able to have a decent conversation about this because some string theorists have been using words like theory, hypothesis, model, framework, result, progress interchangeably. Others are dismissive and say it doesn't even matter and that I should stop "complaining". So I agree with you that it is confusing, but this is not your fault or mine.

 

[samalkhaiat]

If this was 1954, this thread would have been about Yang-Mill’s theory! Back then, some people (mostly non-professionals) called it “fancy mathematics”, others (including some professionals) said: “it is worthless” because it disagreed with the observed short-range nuclear force. But, a class of good physicists saw Yang-Mill’s as a “beautiful and logical next step in theoretical physics”.
It took those good physicists 20 years of hard work to realize that nature is indeed fundamentally Yang-Mill’s. They, deservedly, got Nobel prizes and we (thanks to them and to Yang and Mill) got the electro-weak and QCD.
So, people work on string theory because they see it as “the one and only logical next step in theoretical physics". Those who can't see this, well they just can't!

Regards

sam

 

[negru]

Well maybe this is the thing you're misunderstanding. String theory is both a framework and a model - it's just that awesome.

How to reconcile these things? Work in progress.

What are you arguing about? Results in any of these two categories?

-As a framework, it has already proven useful in a many areas, like scattering amplitudes. Anyone working on scattering amplitudes is just shooting himself in the foot by ignoring string theory.

-As a model, technically we're just missing a selection principle to choose from the landscape. Hardly an obvious dead-end or utter failure.


Progress in both of these areas is happening everyday. Sometimes small steps, sometimes larger ones. Why is everyone so anxious?

 

[Lt_Dax]

@samalkhaiat @negru

So it comes back to this argument - I'm just too dumb, too naive to see the awesome, wonderful, beautiful truth. Who knows, maybe it's true, and I just can't see what these towering genuises can see.

Of course, there's nothing more suspicous than a self-declared genius or a self-declared revolution. That is reason enough to remain skeptical.

 

[Haelfix]

Again it depends what you mean by the 'standard model'. If you mean the group structure, generations and form of the particles and interactions then yes, string theory has had this for a long time. If however you want calculations of the exact mass of the Higgs down to 5 decimal places, sorry but the calculation is prohibitively difficult in many vacua. The best you can do is proof of concept.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512177 for an example of a paper with realistic vacua that also contains the SM. There are literally hundreds of other ones, that appear weekly on Hep-ph.

"I don't know what a Gedanken is..."

Oye! Look, I'm not going to continue this anymore. I don't feel like getting lectured about the scientific method... Seriously!

 

[negru]

There's a difference between being skeptical and what you're doing in this thread. Personally, I'm also skeptical of the traditional path to unification, I'm more of a gauge/string duality fan. But I just leave everyone do their own thing, how's it any of my business what others work on? Including creationists. If you like evolution so much, why are you so stressed out? Natural selection will make sure wrong theories eventually die out, no?

 

[Lt_Dax]

I don't feel like getting lectured about the scientific method... Seriously!

Well then learn what it is. Nobody will lecture you about it then.

 

[Fra]

Isn't the question somehow, here we are in all our ignorance: What do we do to learn more in the most optimal way?

Some people apparently think the best we can do is to keep working on ST.

Some people, think otherwise, but then the question isn't ST or not. The question is: what else? No need to keep referencing to ST, let's get on with the discussions. ST is not a standard in my eyes, except in the sense that it has become the major BTSM field.

ST will have to prove itself eventually just like any other program.

/Fredrik

 

[Lt_Dax]

how's it any of my business what others work on? Including creationists.

Creationism isn't a part of science even in principle, even as a hypothesis, so your analogy is bogus.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

You've been referencing creationists in a lot of your arguments, just pointing that out.

 

[Lt_Dax]

You've been referencing creationists in a lot of your arguments, just pointing that out.

Yes, why is that a problem? Are you a creationist? As I've explained, it illustrates the point well. In science we can't use multiple definitions of a theory across disciplines. Science is universal. The meaning of a theory in evolutionary biology is the same as in physics. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

No, I'm not, but you were refuting someone's point upon the basis of them using creationism yet sixty percent of the arguments you've made have referenced creationists. It just seems to be a loss of continuity. Anyways I don't want to argue, this thread has achieved absolutely nothing and it will remain this way.

 

[arivero]

Natural selection will make sure wrong theories eventually die out, no?

Er, no. Natural selection permits the accumulation of "wrongs" if they are compatible with the ambiance in the sense that they do not handicapp the species survival compared to others. In this way, Natural selection can build complex structures, which is where a set of "wrongs" becomes, surpresively, because of accumulation or because of a change in ambient conditions, a "right"

 

[Lt_Dax]

sixty percent of the arguments you've made have referenced creationists.

Don't exaggerate.

this thread has achieved absolutely nothing and it will remain this way.

In your opinion. Stating something doesn't make it the case.

I tell you what, the quality of arguments from these so-called experts has been poor.

 

[negru]

I tell you what, the quality of arguments from these so-called experts has been poor.

In your opinion. Stating something doesn't make it the case.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Exaggerating isn't the point, it's the principle in which states that you've made a hypocritical post.

 

[Lt_Dax]

No, I'm not, but you were refuting someone's point upon the basis of them using creationism yet sixty percent of the arguments you've made have referenced creationists. It just seems to be a loss of continuity.

Hey hang on - you were accusing me of hypocrisy here. The other person who raised creationism did so in a way that created a fallacy. He wasn't using it to create the same point I was making. I was using evolution to justify my point, not creationism. Read more carefully before you accuse someone of having double standards.

 

[Lt_Dax]

In your opinion. Stating something doesn't make it the case.

Oh aren't we the clever one. Actually, my statement just backs up something which is manifest. His statement was without support.

 

[marcus]

... If you like evolution so much, why are you so stressed out? Natural selection will make sure wrong theories eventually die out, no?

Good you mentioned that, Negru. Something analgous to natural selection happens with human theories, concepts, even mathematical ideas. As long as the community retains its critical standards.

I that is the root issue in this thread. The scientific community is a traditional aristo self-selecting community that decides who is and who isn't a scientist, and decides what is what isn't a scientific theory, what gains cred and is copied and replicated, and ultimately decides when a theory is no longer interesting---according to the subjective, sometimes adversarial application of some traditional standards.

You can't argue from definitions and axioms here--a lot of it is subjective, and even social. Somehow the scientific community continues to operate pretty well, however.

Historically there is a kind of put up or shut up rule, after a while if something produces no testable results it goes out of favor. The issue here, in this thread, I think is should the physics community relax its standards.

If standards were relaxed then natural selection would work differently. I suppose we could evolve in the direction of multiversalist fairytales---abandoning the effort to explain why this particular universe we live in is the way it is. Some overarching untestable theory provides for a landscape of 10¹⁰⁰⁰ possible versions of physics, and we just happen to live in one of them.

Or evolution could take many other courses---the explanatory fantasy of myth etc etc. If you change the selection criteria, natural selection goes on a different track. I don't want to speculate---just suggest that different futures are possible.

For me, in this thread, string is not the central issue. It is only people who see it as threatened and rush to its defense that make string an issue. The real issue is the perpetuation (or not) of Baconian scientific standards and expectations.

If we eliminate all references to string from our posts we would still have a discussion--maybe even a more interesting one.

 

[Lt_Dax]

Here's at least one reason this thread has not been pointless - I've learned something - that even practicing professionals can be arrogant, self-serving, nest-feathering and mentally manipulative, which further solidifies a view I had already acquired long ago that my mentors and colleagues at work only care about publications, travel, career kudos and what the next restaurant they want to eat in is. They don't seem to care about the methods of science, as long as they get the citations. My decision to not carry on in academia has been strengthened, not weakened.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

How exactly did his post create a fallacy, he was merely stating that he believes it is not the customary observer's perspective to state what is and isn't right, people will do what they wish and care less about how one person believes high energy physics should be guided principally. I'm not arguing against you, I'm just stating what is.

 

[Lt_Dax]

His fallacy was that people's right to believe in creationism justified the right to study string theory. They cannot be equated. I pulled him up on that, and you bizarrely accused me of hypocrisy, like the wise old expert that you are (!)