The discussion centers around Hermann Nicolai's overview piece on string theory published in the "News and Views" section of Nature. Participants explore the implications of string theory as a potential framework for understanding particle interactions, particularly under the strong nuclear force, and the broader context of its application in theoretical physics.
Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the implications of Nicolai's piece and the applicability of string theory to particle physics. There is no consensus on the validity of the claims made about string theory's potential or its foundational status in theoretical physics.
The discussion reflects varying interpretations of string theory's role in physics, with some participants highlighting its mathematical foundations while others critique its practical applicability. The complexity of quantum chromodynamics and the challenges of making predictions within string theory are also noted.
The pun is told by David Gross, who once was told "you don't look Chewish" or something so. http://impunv.blogspot.com/ also uses the word, as in "are you a member of the Chewish religion".marcus said:I wonder why I never heard that pun until now about S-matrix being Chewish physics,
marcus said:Aaarghh!
Of course string theory has nothing to with science, nor is it meant to. It is purely a religion (and like a religion ignores what experiment --- reality --- requires). Replacing science by religion is not unusual in physics. A half century ago, for example, there was much excitement about ideas extended from dispersion relations, involving smoothness of surfaces. Its center was at Berkeley and its leader was Geoffrey Chew. There was so much excitement that people at Berkeley asked each other "are you a member of the Chewish religion?". That idea had no real rationale and was wrong but was not crackpot.