Does String Theory Satisfy Einstein's Conditions for a Physical Theory?

[MistyMountain]

**
You say string theory is based upon QFT.
Does this mean that QFT is more fundamental than string theory? **
They can claim whatever they want, but for example people are busy with string scattering dynamics which can be related to euclidean 2-D quantum gravity models with topology change (the so called matrix models) - the latter being (formally - in terms of the feynman series) a QFT.
**
I have researched tons of String Theory papers, and have yet to see one that accounts for or discusses entanglement, action at a distance, the EPR paradox, or Bell's Inequality. **
They do not need to do that - just as LQG does not need to - since they use quantum theory as a cornerstone.
Look, as SelfAdjoint said, you should better first explain your theory in the independent research section but frankly, I am pessimistic. From talking with you, it seems that you do not have a proper understanding of the problems at hand.
Cheers,
Careful

Physics dictates that we stick with the facts every step of the way.

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.

 

[Careful]

I don't know if you understood my comments, but you are repeating things which I already answered (corrected) and you are denying things I partially agreed with. Also, you seem to be judging string theory on the marketing pep talk and not on their undeniable mathematical accomplishments. I repeat myself: post your theory and I will see myself if you are smarter than Einstein or not

I note that you answered until now none of my criticisms on YOUR remarks I hope your ears will be in a better state when you post your brilliant theory.

Cheers,

Careful

 

[MistyMountain]

I don't know if you understood my comments, but you are repeating things which I already answered (corrected) and you are denying things I partially agreed with. Also, you seem to be judging string theory on the marketing pep talk and not on their undeniable mathematical accomplishments. I repeat myself: post your theory and I will see myself if you are smarter than Einstein or not
I note that you answered until now none of my criticisms on YOUR remarks I hope your ears will be in a better state when you post your brilliant theory.
Cheers,
Careful

There you go again--speaking in ambiguities. "Things here and things there." Speak in specifics please.

String Theory is a physical theory--is it not supposed to be physics? Does it not have its own forum at Physics Forums? Again, string theory has failed in everything it has attempted. I am judging String Theory in the context of physics. It is you who are giving it a marketing pep talk. All these great accomplishments--and you can't mention a single one. THAT'S A FACT.

I have addressed every single criticism you have made on my remarks.

But you shy away from defending String Theory against the following FACTS of its failure to advance physics.

Physics dictates that we stick with the facts every step of the way.

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.

 

[Careful]

**There you go again--speaking in ambiguities. "Things here and things there." Speak in specifics please. **

?? Your entire list of objections of what contemporary physics cannot offer answers to contained quite a few bloopers which I adressed specifically (everyone who knows english can verify that).

**
String Theory is a physical theory--is it not supposed to be physics? **

Sigh, this is an example where I partially agreed with you

**
It is you who are giving it a marketing pep talk. All these great accomplishments--and you can't mention a single one. THAT'S A FACT. **

I am not a string theorist, but as far as I have heard string theory has uncovered beautiful results in the fields of algebraic and differential geometry (through amongst others, the study of moduli spaces and Gromov Witten invariants), and AFAIR also in number theory. But it is better that a string theorist adds here some concrete references. Again, I am not giving a marketing pep talk for string theory, far from.

**
I have addressed every single criticism you have made on my remarks. **

You have adressed NONE (see my first remark).

Are you finally going to post your theory Einstein ? We shall give it an unbaised review.

 

[MistyMountain]

Yes, I agree that concrete references would be nice.

So far here are the rules according to you:

1) String Theory need not provide a physical framework to unify QM, SR, and GR at a more fundamental level.

2) You yourself do not understand String Theory, but because you "have heard" it is beautiful, you consider it to be a most accomplished theory, worthy of hundreds of millions in funding.

3) You agree that it would be nice for a String Theorist to provide some concrete links or references to support your claims, but that you yourself are unable to do so.

I hope that you uphold the same elevated standards when judging my theory.

Will I be expected to utilize logic and reason and provide references and concrete examples, or will I only have to proclaim that my theory is beautiful for it to succeed?

Again, if there is any REAL String Theorists out there who can address the following, that woudl be great:

Physics dictates that we stick with the facts every step of the way.

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.

 

[Careful]

**

So far here are the rules according to you:

1) String Theory need not provide a physical framework to unify QM, SR, and GR at a more fundamental level. **

That is an oversimplified statement which I do not agree with (and I never said that).

**
2) You yourself do not understand String Theory, but because you "have heard" it is beautiful, you consider it to be a most accomplished theory, worthy of hundreds of millions in funding.**

I understand string theory up to some level (which is sufficient for me to reject it), but I am not aware of state of the art research and neither are you as far as I can judge

**
3) You agree that it would be nice for a String Theorist to provide some concrete links or references to support your claims, but that you yourself are unable to do so. **

Well, I am too lazy to do so, but search on the webpage of Dijkgraaff and you shall undoubtely find references. But I am sure that you would keep on nagging, therefore it is better for a string theorist to kill you off.

** I hope that you uphold the same elevated standards when judging my theory. **

Well, your theory is so dazzling that I shall judge it by the highest standards

**
Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory. **

Which facts, all that matters is that you solve everything, no ?
BTW you ignored your previous bloopers again

Be serious, and stop this silly game. Go to independent research and finally do what you claim to be able to (which you are not).

Cheers,

Careful

 

[MistyMountain]

**
So far here are the rules according to you:
1) String Theory need not provide a physical framework to unify QM, SR, and GR at a more fundamental level. **
That is an oversimplified statement which I do not agree with (and I never said that).
**
2) You yourself do not understand String Theory, but because you "have heard" it is beautiful, you consider it to be a most accomplished theory, worthy of hundreds of millions in funding.**
I understand string theory up to some level (which is sufficient for me to reject it), but I am not aware of state of the art research and neither are you as far as I can judge
**
3) You agree that it would be nice for a String Theorist to provide some concrete links or references to support your claims, but that you yourself are unable to do so. **
Well, I am too lazy to do so, but search on the webpage of Dijkgraaff and you shall undoubtely find references. But I am sure that you would keep on nagging, therefore it is better for a string theorist to kill you off.
** I hope that you uphold the same elevated standards when judging my theory. **
Well, your theory is so dazzling that I shall judge it by the highest standards
**
Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory. **
Which facts, all that matters is that you solve everything, no ?
BTW you ignored your previous bloopers again
Be serious, and stop this silly game. Go to independent research and finally do what you claim to be able to (which you are not).
Cheers,
Careful

I have made no bloopers but for one--taking you seriously.

So far you have stated:

1) you are too lazy to find references to back up things you believe
2) you do not understand string theory, but enjoy defending it
3) you have no interest in addressing or studying the state of the art research in string theory

Well I have done so, and I have arrived at the following FACTS concerning state-of-the-art String Theory. They will also be addressed in my upcoming paper, and I just wantto form a foundation here--since you are too lazy to defend your suppositions on your own, I am urging you to deal with FACTS instead of prejudices, as physics can only work in the realm of physical FACTS.

So good--this is progress. The necessary progress before you undertsand my theory, as my theory requires the humble acknowledgment of FACTS.

Good. Good.

So it now you agree with the following FACTS:

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.

I can hardly wait to do so, but first you must promise that you will hold facts and PHYSICS superior to rumors, gossip, hearsay, hand-waving, prejudices, popularity contetsts, fads, propaganda, and pr press releases.

 

[MistyMountain]

**
Well, I am too lazy to do so, but search on the webpage of Dijkgraaff and you shall undoubtely find references. But I am sure that you would keep on nagging, therefore it is better for a string theorist to kill you off.
Cheers,
Careful

"I shall undoubtedly find references." Ha ha ho hee ha ha!

"therefore it is better for a string theorist to kill you off."

I am LONGING for A REAL STRING THEORIST to BRING IT ON.

We warrior physicists are tired of the mamby-pamby, lazy poseurs such as yourself, who can never find the time to find the non-existent references to back up anything you say. How very unscientific.

If a String Theorist can kill me off with logic and reason, I will consider it quite an honor to die in battle.

But there seems to be little hope of honor in battle with you.

You're all talk.

Again, would someobody please acknowledge these FACTS--once I can be sure that FACTS will be honored in these forums, I will post my theory--I can hardly wait:

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.

 

[Careful]

Sigh, can someone please put an end to this ?
Come, REFER US to YOUR papers, so that we can remove our ignorance Do it now ! You make silly errors in elementary comments and we are going to believe that you have it ?? Moreover, I said I understand string theory up to some level. You claim to have a proof that it is false: show us your papers which prove that you have some affinity with it

 

[MistyMountain]

I have read thousands of papers on String Theory, and I cannot find one that provides an underlying physical framework that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity.

I am still waiting for someone to kindly show me the paper.

I have not found one paper on string theory that shows that entanglement and relativity emerge form the same physical framework. Now that would be something! Surely you agree! And that's what my theory does, among many, many other things.

I am LONGING for A REAL STRING THEORIST to BRING IT ON.

We warrior physicists are tired of the mamby-pamby, lazy poseurs such as yourself, who can never find the time to find the non-existent references to back up anything you say. How very unscientific.

If a String Theorist can kill me off with logic and reason, I will consider it quite an honor to die in battle.

But there seems to be little hope of honor in battle with you.

You're all talk.

Again, would someobody please acknowledge these FACTS--once I can be sure that FACTS will be honored in these forums, I will post my theory--I can hardly wait:

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.

 

[Careful]

SHOW US FACTS

 

[MistyMountain]

I have shown you FACTS.

You must accept the following FACTS, or refute them.

Or stop posting.

FACTS:

I have read thousands of papers on String Theory, and I cannot find one that provides an underlying physical framework that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity.

I am still waiting for someone to kindly show me the paper.

FACT: No such paper exists.

I have not found one paper on string theory that shows that entanglement and relativity emerge form the same physical framework.

FACT: No such paper exists.

Now that would be something! Surely you agree! And that's what my theory does, among many, many other things.

I am LONGING for A REAL STRING THEORIST to BRING IT ON.

We warrior physicists are tired of the mamby-pamby, lazy poseurs such as yourself, who can never find the time to find the non-existent references to back up anything you say. How very unscientific.

If a String Theorist can kill me off with logic and reason, I will consider it quite an honor to die in battle.

But there seems to be little hope of honor in battle with you.

You're all talk.

Again, would someobody please acknowledge these FACTS--once I can be sure that FACTS will be honored in these forums, I will post my theory--I can hardly wait:

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.

 

[Careful]

I mean : show us your STUFF. This is independent from string theory ! Until now, you are performing a bad show:
(a) there is no evidence that you know string theory (at least I mentioned some things they research - which I doubt you knew)
(b) you are misusing my honest statement that I am not a specialist but know it only up to some level (of two graduate courses)
(c) many of your comments are blatant nonsense as you refuse to acknowledge.
so, save your ass and show us the miracle. You are confirming what I said in the beginning (and you denied it vigorously) : you are nothing but a frustrated person who wants to measure himself Einsteinian qualities.

Show it now or shut up !

 

[MistyMountain]

What do you mean I do not know string theory?

I know it very well--it fails at everything it tries to do in physics. I keep waiting for you to post to one reference reflecting its success. Surely after thousands of theorists and hundreds of millions dollars, there must be one reference out there. Right?

I have shown you FACTS.

You must accept the following FACTS, or refute them.

Or stop posting.

FACTS:

I have read thousands of papers on String Theory, and I cannot find one that provides an underlying physical framework that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity.

I am still waiting for someone to kindly show me the paper.

FACT: No such paper exists.

I have not found one paper on string theory that shows that entanglement and relativity emerge form the same physical framework.

FACT: No such paper exists.

Now that would be something! Surely you agree! And that's what my theory does, among many, many other things.

I am LONGING for A REAL STRING THEORIST to BRING IT ON.

We warrior physicists are tired of the mamby-pamby, lazy poseurs such as yourself, who can never find the time to find the non-existent references to back up anything you say. How very unscientific.

If a String Theorist can kill me off with logic and reason, I will consider it quite an honor to die in battle.

But there seems to be little hope of honor in battle with you.

You're all talk.

Again, would someobody please acknowledge these FACTS--once I can be sure that FACTS will be honored in these forums, I will post my theory--I can hardly wait:

Fact 1: String Theory claims to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics and relativity.

Fact 2: String Theory provides no physical model of the universe that predicts 1) entanglement and other quantum behavior 2) the constant velocity of light and relativistic phenomena.

Fact 3: String Theory is not more fundamental than QM, SR, and GR, nor does it unify them in a physical framework.

Now these are facts, and unless you provide hard, tangible papers or references that demonstrate otherwise, they will remain facts.

Saying that String Theory doesn't really need to do anything that it set out to accomplish is kinda ridiculous. It's a lame excuse for abject failure.

Saying that String Theory works fine because it tries nothing and succeeds at the same might get millions from the NSF, but it won't trump my theory which does provide a deeper physical framework unifying QM, SR, and GR.

Just making sure we're going to deal with FACTS here, before I post my theory.

 

[Doc Al]

You are welcome to submit your personal theory to our Independent Research forum; do not post it here. Your ranting and railing against String Theory is getting old as well. Locked.