Is String Theory A Waste Of Time?

[Juan R.]

In almost every text on GR one is first introduced to the curved spacetime as gravity method by pertubation around a flat metric. One is then convinced that the geodesic motion reduces to standard Newtonian mechanics. This is of course not general relativity, but my point is that since a perturbation as such does not account for all the phenomena that GR predicts one can not be sure that it will not be possible in the future. Perhaps this could be achived by some radical new discovery in differential geometry?

No! In "perturbative" GR causality is defined with respect to full metric g, not to flat metric h! There is no violation of GR by GR methods!

String theory is different and inconsistent, this is the reason for searching of M theory.

Yes, but compactification doesn't change the physics of the theory. That's why string theorists use the concept of fibrations, the functions defined on the spaces are topologically homotopic.

No! String theory "predicts" 10D. Universe looks 4D. String theory does not explain why and compactification is forced by hand. That is not theory or derivation. Moreover, with each compactification one obtain a different universe (different physics) and the question is on choosing the correct physics "explaining" universe that we look. One is not obtaininr or predicting one is doing a kind of phenomenological adaptation (previous) of theory to reality. One need to know first the correct answer for "obtaining" it from ST. That is not physics!

This is not true. For instance, D-branes wrapped over compactified dimensions act like black holes and predict black hole entropy. Astronomical observations seem to favor the existence of cosmic strings:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506400

No! prediction is when one take the theory and obtain a result, no when one know the result and force the theory (adapt it) to previously known result. Moreover, there is no serious astronomical observation of cosmic strings and "BH" "derived" in string theory are idealized models not the same BH predicted by GR (in fact this is a criticism by LQG, which work with GR BH).

Note: string theory desesperetely needs some empirical confirmation. Each certain time (since 20 years ago) a string is observed in some place. It is a recurrent theme somewhat like perpetual machines :-) I still remember past claims of first observation of cosmological strings...

It seems to me that most of your objections to string theory stem from the fact that by itself it can't explain everything. IMHO, this is no reason to stop pursuing string theory as it would far too ambitious to require of the theory to be so fundamental, especially since everyone admits that is a work in progress.

Everything? No! I am saying that all that work is a waste of time, like money, 30 years, and net results (zero) confirm. Even Lubos Motl admits that current string theory cannot predict anything (see my non-technical article).

It is wrongly developed with outdated concepts. It is not a TOE, in fact it is not even a correct apporach to quantum theory of gravity or to unification, as said in my firsts posts.

I call "a work in progress" when one introduces 5 (open) postulates and after of research one discovers that a postulate was wrong and other needed to be admended. That is WORK IN PROGRESS.

String theory is "to claim 5 postulates that explains all". No wait, are incorrect, claim other 5, not wait, now claim 6 postulates, not wait, now claim 3 postulates, not wait. Begin again, now claim 5 postulates for the Final Theory (this and this other guy are wrong), not wait they are not wrong, copy their work and to make a new theory. Huy, we forget this, copy this theory and launch a new theory...

The multiple (10^1) versions of the theory are my best proof. Moreover, string theorists are copying the work done by others and after rename like "string theory" (i even cited to a string theorist that admit this) and people (layman) think that WAS discovered by string theorists.

Open theory would be, for example

Universe dimension is 4D, not wait it is finally 5D. GOOD!

String theory research look like

Universe dimension is 4D,

not wait it is 5D,

not wait it is 26D,

not wait it is 10D,

not wait it is 11D,

now there are people working in more that a time dimensions, whereas Segal claim that we are missing versions of 4D-string theory...

 

[Juan R.]

Juan, you've just been informed by 3 staff members that there is in fact a problem here. Claimants always either supply links or present full arguments. That is how we do things at PF. If you haven't got the time to present references (as marcus and Berislav do), then you haven't got the time to make claims such as the ones you have been making.

I really meant it when I said that I like what you are doing (attacking specific points), but you need to follow through on them with citations.

No problem!

I and others already know that string theory is a waste of time. During a time i followed the last fad in the theory but i discover that was a complete waste of time. Only "100" fanatics believes on them (i do not count layman who have no idea).

I waited to open a non-technical debate in this interesting topic. Especially seeing that some people contacted with me despite my criticism on string theory. Some young students are very confounded and begin a PhD in string theory...

Some years after they leave the field.

I respect you criticism to that i may suply correct links, full references. Ok i respect PF "policies". Of course, this is not the place for a thecnical discussion on string theory. It was no my aim!

I only was searching for some distended discussion. I'm sorry to say this but i do not see PF like a high thecnical forum for discussion of string theory and most of references that i would cite are very advanced.

Whereas the last fad in Dp-brane today is to substitute outdated Hilbert-Fock space quantization by doubled H-space and tilde operators (developed by other people of course), when that is already substituted in gluon-quark plasma by TFD-II or NESOM-TFD in doubled L-space because one cannot explain spacetime bubbles with the old approach.

If the most "advanced" noncritical formulation of "strings" one is substituting usual QM framework and evolution equations of standard ST by a mixture of open spacetime foam following Brushels formalism developed in 60s . But that formalism is outdated! and now we are working in LPS in Gelfand triplets! Moreover, basic equation (10) of arXiv:hep-th/9403133 is incorrect. But author have idea of nothing and cannot see the errors. Of course, other parts of article are a complete nonsense. It is funy! String theorists are smart!

Schwartz and his infinite ignorance is still claiming for a unitary evolutor in the 2003!

arXiv:astro-ph/0304507

When in the 70 we already discover that an unitary evolutor is a approximation to universe!

See p17 of

http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-lecture.pdf

Of course that work is outdated but was copied (incorrectly) in recent non-critical string theory.

In the last conference Quantum Future one heard

"Although much progress has been made, of course, in elaborating
the formalism, particularly in quantum field theory, its main elements, such
as the superposition principle and the probability interpretation as encoded in
the Hilbert space formalism, have been left unchanged. This is even true for
tentative frameworks such as GUT theories or superstring theory. Although the latter may seem "exotic" in some of its aspects (containing D-branes, many spacetime dimensions, etc.), it is very traditional in the sense of the quantum theoretical formalism employed."

(The black font is mine)

Of course string theory is fantastic! String theorists are advancing science a lot of! In chemistry we are perplexed of high mathematical level of string theory, so great that even cannot explain RMN protein formalism

http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1991/ernst-lecture.pdf

(which is developed in L and S spaces and therefore does not reduced to string M-theory that need to be generalized, for example by crane theory (abandoned because string theory is wrong and i don't waste my time with it more) what is many times more complex that noncriticla string approsach which is, even in his more recent approaches, valid only in very idealized situations, e.g. markovian limit for vacuum transitions, commutative differential manifolds, linear approach for quantum states, second order in coupling contant, reducction of S-space algebra to minimum, idealization of states by stable quantum states (string theory based in QFT cannot explain rigogorusly instable quantum systems, look for Sudahshan work in Kaon systems, etc) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.).


I'm sorry but this occupies to me many time and i leave this post now. If people want learn more please to search in literature.

 

[Chronos]

Nice try, Tom. I haven't succeded in getting Juan to explain how binary pulsar orbits decay without invoking gravitational waves. Specific questions seem to elicit vague replies.

 

[marcus]

Berislav, I want to congratulate you, since I have not yet done so, on your beginning your undergraduate physics studies as of this October.
Hope to see more of your posts and sometime to have chance for PF internet discussion

 

[Berislav]

No! In "perturbative" GR causality is defined with respect to full metric g, not to flat metric h! There is no violation of GR by GR methods!

Yes, you are right in that regard. The fact that you mentioned that leads me to think that you misunderstood what I was trying to point out. I was merely giving an example of how pertubations can work well in low-energy cases and hinted at the possibility that this could be exploited in some way in the future by string theory.

String theory is different and inconsistent, this is the reason for searching of M theory.

Yes, string theory has it's problems.

No! String theory "predicts" 10D. Universe looks 4D. String theory does not explain why and compactification is forced by hand

This is because compactification is one of the viable explanations as to why we observe the universe to have 3+1 dimensions.

Moreover, with each compactification one obtain a different universe (different physics) and the question is on choosing the correct physics "explaining" universe that we look. One is not obtaininr or predicting one is doing a kind of phenomenological adaptation (previous) of theory to reality. One need to know first the correct answer for "obtaining" it from ST. That is not physics!

It is the choice of the space on which the compactification is carried out which changes the properties not the compactification itself. But, I see your point - "trying out" different spaces until one finds the one that suits your theory is not a very exact method. Still, I don't think that it's a sufficient reason to dismiss string theory.

Moreover, there is no serious astronomical observation of cosmic strings

With which part of the cited paper do you disagree with? That is, why do you think the observation mentioned in it is not a serious candidate?

and "BH" "derived" in string theory are idealized models not the same BH predicted by GR (in fact this is a criticism by LQG, which work with GR BH).

IMO, it can't be exactly the same black hole predicted by GR. After all, string theory should be a theory of quantum gravity.

I waited to open a non-technical debate in this interesting topic

I don't think that's possible. Since you are questioning the worth of a theory, you will have to show why you think it's not credible and hence go into the technical aspects.

I'm sorry to say this but i do not see PF like a high thecnical forum for discussion of string theory and most of references that i would cite are very advanced.

I'm not sure how I would fare against the full wrath of technicality, but many members here are very knowlegable, some are even experts so you don't have to hold back.
In fact I think that you should give some more concrete and detailed explanations as to why you think string theory is a lost cause, if your time permits it, of course.

Whereas the last fad in Dp-brane today is to substitute outdated Hilbert-Fock space quantization

Quantization via Hilbert spaces is outdated?

Brushels formalism developed in 60s

I have no idea what that is.

come on Berislav, no false modesty here, you are great

Thank you for the compliment.

I don't pretend to debate with you, just to continue an interesting conversation
and others will come in and help out

I look foward to it.

Berislav, I want to congratulate you, since I have not yet done so, on your beginning your undergraduate physics studies as of this October.

Thank you.

Hope to see more of your posts and sometime to have chance for PF internet discussion

I'm sure that I will benifit from and enjoy participating in PF's discussions during my undergraduate studies and hopefuly even later, as I did before.


P.S.
Juan, as I stated before, I don't know much about physical chemistry, so I can't comment on your other statements.

 

[mcgucken]

Does string theory have any postulates or laws?

Is string theory the first physical theory without postulates and laws?

I've been trying to find string theory's postulates and laws somewhere.

Thanks!

 

[Donski]

It seems that String Theory has no postulates nor laws. Does it even want postualtes or laws?

I only have one thing to say about strings, "lissajous", it's just an illusion so postulates and laws could expose it for what it is.

 

[Icebreaker]

What sort of answer would sufficiently satisfy the question of "why" there are, for example, 10 spatial dimensions as opposed to any other number? Empirical evidence? Or some sort of mathematical deduction?

 

[ahrkron]

What sort of answer would sufficiently satisfy the question of "why" there are, for example, 10 spatial dimensions... ?

I think it needs to be two-fold: you'd need to show some basic principle to be true via experiment[/color], and then find a solid argument showing that the same principle logically implies N dimensions (of course, this is a greatly simplified description).

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think it needs to be two-fold: you'd need to show some basic principle to be true via experiment[/color], and then find a solid argument showing that the same principle logically implies N dimensions (of course, this is a greatly simplified description).

IF there were expeiments that validated superstring theory - a big if - then it would follow that there are 10 or 11 dimensions because superstring theory (resp M-theory) cannot live without 10 (resp 11) dimensions. That end of the inference is firm. The problem is to get superstring theory to make some distinctive and testable prediction.

 

[Juan R.]

With which part of the cited paper do you disagree with? That is, why do you think the observation mentioned in it is not a serious candidate?

If experimental data is correct, with the part, "Hey guy since we cannot explain, a priori, this data from 'usual' lensing thecniques, then that may be a cosmic string." This appears a joke, like the recent claim of string in a superconductor.

People is a bit exhausted of crankers. Somewhat like perpetual machines and cold fusion and all that.

IMO, it can't be exactly the same black hole predicted by GR. After all, string theory should be a theory of quantum gravity.

No. In LQG gravity one works with realistic BHs. In fact, one can derive the entropy for a Schwarzschild BH in the semiclassical limit. String theory does not work with realistic BH (in fact, ST works with noting real), it works just with a conjetured mathematical concept called BPS states. In the words of Smolin,

The results in string theory do not concern, precisely, black holes, as they are found in a limit in which the gravitational constant is turned off but they concern systems with the same quantum numbers as certain black holes

Those "BH" are not GR BH and are called extremal BH. Again string propaganda has effect...

Quantization via Hilbert spaces is outdated?

That standard quantization via the Hilbert-Fock space is outdated was well known for decades in other fields of science (people in other fields also use their brains ).

See above link to Prigogine Nobel lecture for chemistry. String theorists, arrogant and ignorant as they are, claimed that all would be explained by ST a wonderful theory (they believed!). Of course, people did mocking of that.

Now after of 40 years, they are beginning to admit (so say, of course they do not say that others were corrects 40 years ago) that was completely wrong and the last fad is quantization via thermal spaces and tilde operators (they do not developed nothing of this).

Still that is not suficient (string theorists are really ignorant and crackpots ) but i suspect that around 2040 they will launch a new theory with ideas that others are working now.

 

[Juan R.]

Does string theory have any postulates or laws?

Is string theory the first physical theory without postulates and laws?

I've been trying to find string theory's postulates and laws somewhere.

Thanks!

Other theories have well defined laws, postulates, etc. For example LQG has well defined laws and experimental predictions.

In string theory there is no laws or postulates, just a mathematical gulash that is adapted each time that an inconsistency or sound error is found in the formalism. In fact, there is no real theory. String theory is a just program for searching a theory already called string theory. In M-theory is still poor. Nobody know that M-theory is, but it is claimed that is elegant

What arrogance!

Since string theorists are arrogant crackpots with no idea like Nature work, they call string theory to ALL is introduced in string theory even if was developed by others (then they do not cite the source). A mathematician has confirmed to me this point in a personal mail, since mathematical work developed decades ago is being introduced now in M-theory like if it was invented by string theorists!

This begin to be admited even by some honest string theorists

string theorists are arrogant enough that whatever comes up in their
research, they will call it string theory.

Ethic (or absence of) apart, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at Stanford admits

People have been changing string theory in wild ways because it has never worked.

For a simple non-technical review of dozens and dozens of string theories and why all failed please see www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf[/URL]

 

[Juan R.]

What sort of answer would sufficiently satisfy the question of "why" there are, for example, 10 spatial dimensions as opposed to any other number? Empirical evidence? Or some sort of mathematical deduction?

i cited above Robert B. Laughlin (Nobel laureate) words.

String theory is best explained like the history of succesive 40 years failure. Nothing, absolutely nothing can be predicted or rigorously computed from string theory. All there exists is fascinating marketing program for laymen.

One of miths of string theory is that is not testable and then string theorist are forced to do research in difficult situations. Oh my God!

But it is false, as noted by Laughlin. String theory always was tested and all test invalid it. String theorists will say to you that whereas 4D dimensionality is introduced by hand in the standard model, 10 or 26 dimensions are required in string theory. Therefore, string theory is the best, best, best theory newer invented because provide answers to inimaginable question... Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla... Just propaganda.

Curiously string theorists omit to say to public why bosonic string theory needs of 26 dimensions. It is not a prediction (it is a needed) because other dimensionality is permited by the formalism.

But for D =/= 26 one finds either inconsistent answers or experimental violation, e.g. presence of tachions which are not observed in experiment (it would violates SR). Therefore the D=26 is the result of an experimental test.

The reduction to D=10 is the result of other experimental data (fermions), the compactification 10D -> 4D x 6D is the result of other experimental data (GR and experimental evidence of macrospacetime is for 4D), etc, etc, etc.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But it is false, as noted by Laughlin. String theory always was tested and all test invalid it. String theorists will say to you that whereas 4D dimensionality is introduced by hand in the standard model, 10 or 26 dimensions are required in string theory. Therefore, string theory is the best, best, best theory newer invented because provide answers to inimaginable question... Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla... Just propaganda

The bolded text is untrue. The extra dimensions ARE required by the stringy physics. Seems to me all you express in these posts is attitude, your own or somebody else's. There are pertinent things to say against string theory, but you haven't said them, and you can't as long as you refuse to couple to what the theory really says. I recommend Zweibach's book for a fast track introduction..

 

[Mike2]

The bolded text is untrue. The extra dimensions ARE required by the stringy physics. Seems to me all you express in these posts is attitude, your own or somebody else's. There are pertinent things to say against string theory, but you haven't said them, and you can't as long as you refuse to couple to what the theory really says. I recommend Zweibach's book for a fast track introduction..

So, selfAdjoint, did you ever finish Zweibach's book? Did you manage to do the exercises too?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So, selfAdjoint, did you ever finish Zweibach's book? Did you manage to do the exercises too?

Nope, too many other calls on my time. I am now TRYING to go through Peskin & Schroeder again. People tell me if you do it a second time the right way you can break through to real understanding.

 

[Juan R.]

The bolded text is untrue. The extra dimensions ARE required by the stringy physics. Seems to me all you express in these posts is attitude, your own or somebody else's. There are pertinent things to say against string theory, but you haven't said them, and you can't as long as you refuse to couple to what the theory really says. I recommend Zweibach's book for a fast track introduction..

Please read carefully my complete post before doing "incorrect" replies.

As said

Curiously string theorists omit to say to public why bosonic string theory needs of 26 dimensions. It is not a prediction (it is a needed) because other dimensionality is permited by the formalism.

I was expressing that popular idea of that 10D is a consequence of elegance of string theory is not true, since that dimensionality is forced to fit experimental data on tachions and others inconsistencies. Therefore, it is a adaptation of the formalism of string theory to available experimental data and not a question of mathematical elegance or a "derivation" from it.

Moreover, let me illustrate to you that some people is searching 4D versions of string theory like a form of eliminating compatification problems.

 

[Berislav]

If experimental data is correct, with the part, "Hey guy since we cannot explain, a priori, this data from 'usual' lensing thecniques, then that may be a cosmic string."

Well, if it has the observed properties of a cosmic string.

In fact, one can derive the entropy for a Schwarzschild BH in the semiclassical limit.

One can do that without quantum gravity. It can derived from QFT in curved spacetime, as done by Hawking. So, I really don't see your point.

String theory does not work with realistic BH (in fact, ST works with noting real), it works just with a conjetured mathematical concept called BPS states. In the words of Smolin,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smolin
The results in string theory do not concern, precisely, black holes, as they are found in a limit in which the gravitational constant is turned off but they concern systems with the same quantum numbers as certain black holes


Those "BH" are not GR BH and are called extremal BH. Again string propaganda has effect...

If ST black holes were GR black holes then something would be wrong with ST. ST should be a theory of quantum gravity. If it predicted only GR black holes then it wouldn't be complete, because, for one thing, the BH wouldn't be quantizated.

That standard quantization via the Hilbert-Fock space is outdated was well known for decades in other fields of science (people in other fields also use their brains ).

There's no reason for this and other insults.

Curiously string theorists omit to say to public why bosonic string theory needs of 26 dimensions.

Insisting that the quantization be Lorentz covariant forces the 26 dimensionality (there are residual terms in the commutation of the Lorentz boost + angular momentum operator)

But for D =/= 26 one finds either inconsistent answers or experimental violation, e.g. presence of tachions which are not observed in experiment (it would violates SR).

One finds a tachionic vacuum even when D=26 in bosonic string theory.

Nope, too many other calls on my time. I am now TRYING to go through Peskin & Schroeder again. People tell me if you do it a second time the right way you can break through to real understanding.

Would this book be good after reading 't Hooft's lectures?

There are pertinent things to say against string theory, but you haven't said them, and you can't as long as you refuse to couple to what the theory really says.

Quite. I'm still waiting for him to mention the Landscape.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Would this book {Peskin & Schroeder} be good after reading 't Hooft's lectures?

A friend told me the way to do a physics text was (a) Read through for meaning, and don't worry about derivations or excercises), then (b) read again doing the derivations if possible and getting someone to help you if you run into trouble, and finally (c) do the excercises with the same stipulations as (b). So right now I am finishing up (a) on chapter two of P&S and next weeek I'll start on (b). This is where I fell down before, but now I have people who can help me. If I can get over this hump, I am hoping I can eventual go forward on my own. It's "the tricks of the trade" that give me problems.

Whether it would be good after 't Hooft depends on what you want. P&S is oriented to giving you the capability of doing relevant calculations: N point functions, crossing symmetries, cross sections, lifetimes, et al. It's a real working physics text.

 

[Juan R.]

Well, if it has the observed properties of a cosmic string.

Yes, if. The idea of observed strings (like the idea of observed supersimmetry) is recurrent. It sound like perpetual machines invented each some time by guys, or like the experimental "proofs" of violations of the second law. The last "proof" i know was published in 2002 in PR.

Already in 1986 Paczinski published a paper suggestinge that several large separation gravitational lens candidates could be explained by the existence of cosmic strings. It was very popular then, because a lens with such a large separation is difficult to explain with unseen conventional objects and requires a large mass to light ratio for the lens. The first cosmic verification of string theory. Whow!

Subsequent observations suggested that the quasar pair was not lensed!

Moreover, even if data is correct, the claim that one could explain that from a string theory is, obviously, a nonsense. It is a waste of time

One can do that without quantum gravity. It can derived from QFT in curved spacetime, as done by Hawking. So, I really don't see your point.

Rigorously? does he not used quantum gravity? Also logaritmic corrections? If it is so simple, why is the derivation of "BH" entropy claimed to be one of main successes of ST, e.g. in the Elegant Universe?

If ST black holes were GR black holes then something would be wrong with ST. ST should be a theory of quantum gravity. If it predicted only GR black holes then it wouldn't be complete, because, for one thing, the BH wouldn't be quantizated.

1) Correspondence principle 2) one may derive the proportionality factor and a counting of the microscopic states of entropy. ST may explain GR black holes, not idealized (extremal) "BH" which are not studied (predicted) in Eintein GR.

You claim is completely wrong. If ST was only a theory of quantum gravity as you claim, then would be a nonsense the ST popular claim of derivation of Einstein field equations and the string criticism to LQG of that still cannot derive them.

LQG does not predict only GR black holes, as already said, but ST cannot obtain GR black holes. You would be not hungry with me if ST is a waste of time.

There's no reason for this and other insults.

There exist not insults on

That standard quantization via the Hilbert-Fock space is outdated was well known for decades in other fields of science

or

(people in other fields also use their brains ).

but the the string philosophy of

i-have-no-idea-of-you-are-working-but-my-theory-is-the-most-fundamental-possible-
and-you-are-doing-nothing-important

expresed elocuently by

string theory continues to show ever increasing signs of being the
correct approach to understanding nature at its most fundamental level.

Or the talk/book popular claim of string theory "is the only approach to quantum gravity" is also other form of insult, it sounds like "hey guy your decades of work on loops are nothing."

There is dozens of insults, like the idea of people that does not study string theory is not smart. One recent is the following

For five years, I and Lubos have disagreed about the consistency of gauge anomalies. His argument was always "A gauge symmetry is a redundancy of the description, you idiot". With my last post, I think I convinced him that he was wrong, since a counterexample can be found in the most elementary chapter of GSW.

One first step in the developing of a new theory is to know that is being done in the field by others. In fact, this basic principle of scientific research is just ignored by crackpots and hoaxes like Peter Lynds.

If Ed Witten claim, in a popular interview, that all of chemistry is already reduced to physics and he has not studied chemistry seriously and newer read articles in Foundation of chemistry (for instance), then he is not different (here) from other hoaxes or crackpots.

Insisting that the quantization be Lorentz covariant forces the 26 dimensionality (there are residual terms in the commutation of the Lorentz boost + angular momentum operator)

As said if D=/=26 either you obtain an inconsistent theory or violating experimental data one, e.g. special relativity. There is no special elegance in D=26 version, the result obtained from string theory are not elegant ones, just the result of adapting it to experimental data known. As brilliantly explained by Nobel laureate i cited above, string theory is modified each x time because it has newer work. Moreover the idea of string theory is untestabel is another mith. If was untestable, one would not worry of failure of Veneziano formula for describing correctly the cross sections that we observe, unseen tachionic behavior, or compactification, or supersimmetry (also unobserved), or p-branes, etc.

All of that added for compatibility with experimental data

People is being just misinformed. Take like the last example that i known, the recent Sean article in cosmic variance (http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/07/21/two-cheers-for-string-theory/)

Whow, that fantastic sound string theory in popular press!

But when you read comments on the blog you discover that almost all is either completely wrong or exagerated. It is impressive like Sean talk about things that he does not know (increasing the miths about string theory between laymen).

I posted a long reply. I said to Sean that he is misguiding several importants points, e.g. she does not notice that today string theory is not a theory of strings.

String theorist Lubos Motls has posteriorly said the same in his own blog

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/07/strings-as-microsoft.html

I repeat again all past claims of string theorists were false and the name string theory is leaved by marketing purposes.

One finds a tachionic vacuum even when D=26 in bosonic string theory.

Yes, but whereas one could attempt to "re-absorved" it in a vacuum redefinition, there are not posibilities for advancing already with the first excited state, and D=26 arises due to violating of experimental data known.

 

[Berislav]

Subsequent observations suggested that the quasar pair was not lensed!

Yes, but until further data debunks the paper I mentioned there is no reason to think that it is not a credible observation.

If it is so simple, why is the derivation of "BH" entropy claimed to be one of main successes of ST, e.g. in the Elegant Universe?

I'm not sure. Maybe it's because string theory predicts a phenomena that is derived from an established theory which boarders with quantum gravity.

As said if D=/=26 either you obtain an inconsistent theory or violating experimental data one, e.g. special relativity.

That's seems like a weird statement to me. It's like saying that QFT is wrong because Feynman's invariant perturbation formulation is only adapting it to special relativity.

If ST was only a theory of quantum gravity as you claim, then would be a nonsense the ST popular claim of derivation of Einstein field equations and the string criticism to LQG of that still cannot derive them.

I would like to see some references to the contrary.

Whether it would be good after 't Hooft depends on what you want. P&S is oriented to giving you the capability of doing relevant calculations: N point functions, crossing symmetries, cross sections, lifetimes, et al. It's a real working physics text.

I see. Thank you for the information. I think that I will purchase it sometime in the near future.

A friend told me the way to do a physics text was (a) Read through for meaning, and don't worry about derivations or excercises), then (b) read again doing the derivations if possible and getting someone to help you if you run into trouble, and finally (c) do the excercises with the same stipulations as (b).

It sounds like good advice. I too will try to use that method.

 

[Chronos]

But when you read comments on the blog you discover that almost all is either completely wrong or exagerated. It is impressive like Sean talk about things that he does not know (increasing the miths about string theory between laymen).

So Sean Carroll is the latest addition to your wax museum of scientists who don't know what they are talking about? Absurd, but still hilarious.

 

[Juan R.]

Yes, but until further data debunks the paper I mentioned there is no reason to think that it is not a credible observation.

I agree. Simply i said that the asumption of that that effect was predicted from string theory is wrong, because from string theory one cannot predcit anything (see also Lubos Motls comments on his blog below or quote in my non-technical article www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf[/URL] in its four page).

[QUOTE=Berislav]
I'm not sure. Maybe it's because string theory predicts a phenomena that is derived from an established theory which boarders with quantum gravity.[/QUOTE]

No, string theory does not predict that result, string theory [B]is adapted to[/B] that previously known result. Moreover, as already said one only obtain a numerical coincidence with entropy of GR BH, because, string theory does not work with GR BH, unlike LQG.

[QUOTE=Juan R.]
As said if D=/=26 either you obtain an inconsistent theory or violating experimental data one, e.g. special relativity.
[QUOTE=Berislav]
That's seems like a weird statement to me. It's like saying that QFT is wrong because Feynman's invariant perturbation formulation is only adapting it to special relativity.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

No! You are not fixing the point.

If you develop a QFT violating SR, then you are developing a wrong theory, because violates experimental data known. Then one formulates a QFT consistent with SR postulates and the bundle is called relativistic QFT. OK?

Now turn to ST. You can mathematically develop bosonic ST for D=4, D= 9, D=236945, etc. The point is that for D < 26 you obtain tachionic behavior and this is incompatible with SR (you obtain imaginary masses states). Then you force your bosonic theory to D=26. Therefore, D=26 is not an elegant derivation from string theory as is claimed in talks or oriented laymen books. Simply the result D=26 is an adaptation of ST to experimental data known. That is, it is a test of ST.

This is an important point, because the history of ST is the history of succesive experimental failure. Veneziano formula was invalidated experimentally, and abandoned by QCD.

Then people suggested a generalization to gravity (string theory was not only a theory of strong force they claimed). Bosonic string theory in 4D is experimentally inconsistent and then one introduces 26D, but our world is 4D (that is another violation of experimental data) and one introduces Kaluza-Klein (that in original unification scheme predicted "Dicke" scalar field not experimentally found) and one obtain again inconsistency with experimental data and then one add supersimmetry (newer experimentally found where "predicted" and then the scale of energy increased by hand several times for consistency) and posibility for fermion families (string theory was not only a theory of strong force more gravity they claimed)) and again one obtain an experimentally inconsistent theory (nobody has shown breaking of supersimmetry to low energies [b]required[/b] by experimental data) and after of more than 30 years...

Finally one obtains a perturbative series that nobody has shown to be convergent for a theory (of everything) in a classical flat metric with perturbation, but again this is experimentally incorrect, since GR claims that causality is defined on curved g metric not on a flat n metric and then people searchs for M-theory that nobody knows that is but all people agrees that is not a theory of strings.

Note: In the past, string theorists claimed that one would not take GR seriously and one would define causality on the flat metric with graviton like a perturbative addition. Still yesterday James Graber has claimed in Cosmic variance (see above link) that

[QUOTE=James Graber]
That is, despite the observational confirmations of General Relativity predictions and the success of Inflationary ideas, it still appears that we live in a flat universe. The fact that quantum mechanics is so hard to formulate in curved spacetime may be telling us that we live in a universe that is necesarily exactly flat, not just approximately flat, or accidentally flat. Perhaps the universe is not background independent, but rather requires a flat background.[/QUOTE]

Which is obviously a complete nonsense and by this reason people is searching a M-theory. That is string theory is the history of succesive failure, and string theorists simply are modifing their ideas to ideas expreseed previously by others.

Still Hilbert-Fock quantization of string is incompatible with experimental data on quark gluon plasma and now people is using doubled quantization and tilde operators in a new version of Dp-brane theory, but that new quantization methods were not originated on string theory they were in plasma physics, etc.

And recent noncritical approach in Gelfand triplets is also wrong and violates basic experimental stuff known in other fields, etc.

and recent unitary theorems (including unitarity in BH evaporation) are wrong with well-known material in chemical physics (see Nobel lecture that i cited above). a simple electron transfer reaction already violates superstring theory and recent Schwartz (2002) claims.

Etc, etc, etc.

Since that string theory is a waste of time, there is a joke that said that recent failure of string theory in cosmology ("complete failure" according to cosmologist Krauss who is writting a book about the joke called string theory) implies that string theory was not a theory of everything it was really a theory of more than everything.


[QUOTE=Berislav]
I would like to see some references to the contrary.[/QUOTE]

I do not understand. Contrary to what?

 

[Juan R.]

So Sean Carroll is the latest addition to your wax museum of scientists who don't know what they are talking about? Absurd, but still hilarious.

Nice comments Chronos! Let me quote to Lubos Motl (from link above).

Also, another problem with Sean's text is that he paints string theory as we knew it 20 years ago or so.

And

Today, string theory is not just a theory of strings.

And, also,

Today, "string theory" is a kind of misnomer.

It is also interesting the real status of string theory like a theory of everything where one is deriving all, including cosmic strings.

But in order to achieve the goal fully, it should also be used to derive the right spectrum of particles with the right parameters either from no input or from a smaller set of assumptions than required by the previous theories.

Today, "string theory" cannot predict anything of this world, it is not a theory, it is not based in strings, and Sean would remain silent...

 

[brunardot]

ST has a unique approach that satisfies the enigmas of bonds

Other theories have well defined laws, postulates, etc. For example LQG has well defined laws and experimental predictions.

In string theory there is no laws or postulates, just a mathematical gulash that is adapted each time that an inconsistency or sound error is found in the formalism. In fact, there is no real theory. String theory is a just program for searching a theory already called string theory. In M-theory is still poor. Nobody know that M-theory is, but it is claimed that is elegant

What arrogance!

In general, I agree with your statement; however:

From ST, that is, the logic of the geometry of the strings' formation and coalescence, Pauling, shortly before his death, indicated that he agreed that one might predict the mechanics of bonding . . . as applicable to subatomic bonds, atomic bonds (5 chemical bonds), including the Bjerknes hydrodynamic “action-at-a-distance” effect, van der Waals forces, and the Casimir force.

 

[Juan R.]

In general, I agree with your statement; however:

From ST, that is, the logic of the geometry of the strings' formation and coalescence, Pauling, shortly before his death, indicated that he agreed that one might predict the mechanics of bonding . . . as applicable to subatomic bonds, atomic bonds (5 chemical bonds), including the Bjerknes hydrodynamic “action-at-a-distance” effect, van der Waals forces, and the Casimir force.

?​

A related question for you:

What is a bond?

 

[Juan R.]

Some people claim in Cosmic variance for experimental observation of decreasing of Newtonian force at short scales. If true this would be the final knock to string theory before the well-known claim of that string theory will be finished at HLC.

String and M-theories "predicts" strong effective gravitational interaction to shorter distances.

Somewhat like the rule 1/r^(2+d) for d extra dimensions (some recent RS brane model introduces Yukawa like exponential correction from extra 5th dimension).

I will say next is not rigorous but intuitive.

We can observe that smooth behavior is obtained formally with

d < 0 for r –> 0 on 1/r^(2+d) for d "extra" dimensions.

It is interesting the chossing d = -2 for short scales (dimensionality in string M theory is fixed to 10-11D but it is not in other advanced approaches) because:

i) It is compatible with recent advances in triangulations quantum gravity (hep-th/0505154). Where dimensionality of spacetime is reduced not increased to short scales.

That is, Calabi-Yau manifolds conjeture vanishes and all formalism of string theory turns wrong. Moreover spacetime become fractal to shorter scales and therefore the use of differentiable manifolds (CY, G2) on string, brane, and M theory again is an oudated (wrong) method.
Again i was correct and string M theorists (of course smart as they are :-) completely wrong.

As explained in April www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf[/URL]

I and others are working in nondifferentiable manifolds time ago, but string theorists (irrelevant and ignorant as they are) still believe that one can model universe using a CY (10D string theory) or recent M2 manifolds (in 11D M-theory).

Above June preprint exposes ideas similar to derived from canonical science: fractality and non-diferentiability.

ii) d -2 for r –> 0 imply formally elimination of divergencies on (1/r^2) force strengh since (1/r^2) —-> (1/r^0) and this would permit to us the developing of a non-divergent full quantum gravity.

 

[Berislav]

Simply i said that the asumption of that that effect was predicted from string theory is wrong, because from string theory one cannot predcit anything (see also Lubos Motls comments on his blog below or quote in my non-technical article

I disagree. String theory predicts the existence of cosmic strings. The newly discovered phenomena can be interpreted as a cosmic string and to my knowledge not as anything else, for the time being, at least.

No, string theory does not predict that result, string theory is adapted to that previously known result.

I will respond to this issue later. Since I can't find any references at this time.

Now turn to ST. You can mathematically develop bosonic ST for D=4, D= 9, D=236945, etc. The point is that for D < 26 you obtain tachionic behavior and this is incompatible with SR (you obtain imaginary masses states).

Bosonic string theory is developed by at first leaving the number of dimensions unknown. One then (as I said before) because of unphysical (as you say, tachionic) residual terms in the commutation relation of the Lorentz boost and angular momentum operator imposes the 26 dimensionality. The residual terms are then zero. I don't see anything wrong with this. Maybe it isn't "elegant", but then again that is a subjective concept.

and then one add supersimmetry (newer experimentally found where "predicted" and then the scale of energy increased by hand several times for consistency) and posibility for fermion families (string theory was not only a theory of strong force more gravity they claimed)) and again one obtain an experimentally inconsistent theory (nobody has shown breaking of supersimmetry to low energies required by experimental data) and after of more than 30 years...

Aha. So you dislike supesymmetry as well as string theory.

Still Hilbert-Fock quantization of string is incompatible with experimental data on quark gluon plasma and now people is using doubled quantization and tilde operators in a new version of Dp-brane theory, but that new quantization methods were not originated on string theory they were in plasma physics, etc.

And recent noncritical approach in Gelfand triplets is also wrong and violates basic experimental stuff known in other fields, etc.

I don't know about those approaches. I do know however about the BRST formalism, which is a supersymmetry! And to my knowledge works quite well.

I do not understand. Contrary to what?

Contrary to "the ST popular claim of derivation of Einstein field equations". That is, that supersymmetry coupled with gravity isn't the low energy limit of superstring theory.

Some people claim in Cosmic variance for experimental observation of decreasing of Newtonian force at short scales.

This sounds like a very important discovery! I thought that we couldn't reach the necessary energy to observe such radical changes in the laws of spacetime. Some references, please!

In general, I agree with your statement; however:

From ST, that is, the logic of the geometry of the strings' formation and coalescence, Pauling, shortly before his death, indicated that he agreed that one might predict the mechanics of bonding . . . as applicable to subatomic bonds, atomic bonds (5 chemical bonds), including the Bjerknes hydrodynamic “action-at-a-distance” effect, van der Waals forces, and the Casimir force.

?​

I agree with Juan R.

 

[mcgucken]

The beautiful paradox of String Theory is that anyone dumb enough to devote 30 years of their life to a non-theory--a theory without postulates, laws, and experimental evidence--will also be dumb enough to defend that theory to the death.

 

[brunardot]

Bonds

?​

A related question for you:

What is a bond?

A bond, as originally referenced herein, must be a physical manifestation, as must all phenomena . . . unlike currently proposed “action-at-a-distance.”

A bond is an attractive force that arises from the motion of energy when that energy is such that it is trying to separate that which intrinsically resists separation because of counter forces or the intrinsic nature of the source of that which will not separate.

Fundamental bonds are interacting, hyper-relativistic, complex-oscillating solitons that are within and without the nucleus of an atom. “Dark” energy is an extreme example of this solitonic phenomena as heuristically described by Taisoids. See: http://www.2-CQ.info/TaisoidDiscussion/

The beautiful paradox of String Theory is that anyone dumb enough to devote 30 years of their life to a non-theory--a theory without postulates, laws, and experimental evidence--will also be dumb enough to defend that theory to the death.

I have similar sentiments concerning the defense of paradigms that do not internally reconcile, do not reconcile with one another, and only reconcile with observation within narrowly, contrived parameters.

Concerning alternative theory, as per Weinberg's "new physics," Planck appears to have it right with his pessimism concerning "scientific innovation."