string theory is a waste of time
Berislav said:
String theory proved successful in that respect - the relation of the scattering amplitudes of resonance states of baryons and mesons to the Regge trajectories.
False! The history of physics is there! The development of a string theory of ALL aspects of hadrons failed, and the theory was abandoned in favor of the, then new, QCD developed by Gell-Mann. This early failure of string theory is recognized even by string fanatics as Schwartz, who said
Schwartz said:
Be that as it may, the attempts to construct a string theory of hadrons were not fully successful.
Berislav said:
The brane model you are referring to is a rather crude one, if I'm not mistaken. There have been significant improvements in that regard, particulary pertaining to the use of anti-de Sitter space coupled with conformal field theory. See for instance:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0004056
http://ej.iop.org/links/q56/+Z5PIFb...ep062002026.pdf
I was referring to J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok. Phys. Rev. D 64, 123522 (2001), what is more modern that your ArXiv link. Lindé did not comment on the paper because was “rude” or “few detailed” still. Simply the computations were completely wrong (even if string theory was correct!) and, moreover, the authors introduced lots of assumptions and hidden hypothesis. Moreover in future works, string theorists (arrogant as they are) ignore all failures. Lindé says
Lindé said:
The original version of the ekpyrotic scenario contained many incorrect and unproven statements. In particular, instead of expansion of the colliding branes described in [article], one has contraction to a singularity. Despite the optimistic statements of the authors, the singularity problem in this scenario remains unsolved. The theory of density perturbations in this scenario is controversial; most authors believe that the mechanism of generation of density perturbations proposed does not lead to adiabatic perturbations with a at spectrum. Most importantly, this scenario offers no solution to major cosmological problems such as the homogeneity, flatness and entropy problems.
In fact, the homogeneity problem in this scenario is even much more complicated than in the usual non-inflationary big bang theory.
and add
Lindé said:
its authors recently issued a paper advertising this scenario in the popular
press and another one aimed at astrophysicists. These new papers, which were supposed to give a summary of the state of the cyclic universe theory, omitted any mention of the criticisms of the scenario. It was claimed in that the cyclic scenario is able to reproduce all of the successful predictions of the consensus model (i.e. of inflationary cosmology -A.L.) with the same exquisite detail.
Of course, Lindé like many of others experts disagree with last above claim. String theory does not work and when it is showed that does not work string theorist ignore the criticism and sent notes to mass media. This make part of string community sociology.
Linde expresses our belief in a brilliant form
Lindé said:
I really mean it. I think that we should be very grateful to its authors. Indeed, if a model speculating about an infinite number of singularities is the best alternative to inflation invented during the last 20 years, this means that inflationary theory is in a very good shape.
Cosmologists Kraus called string theory a
colossal failure and, if I am now wrong, he is writing a book on the topic that will released this year.
Berislav said:
Doesn't massless spin-2 field work?
You are following Feynman’s idea too arbitrarily. Let me focus on details. String action works in 10D and “defines” a perturbative expansion in a fixed background. 1) Gravitons has been not detected, in fact, even gravitational waves are not detected still. 2) The perturbative splitting of metric is incompatible with GR; in fact, GR causality is not supported. 3) If GR was unknown, nobody had substituted the fixed metric in the string by a dynamical one. Therefore, one is forcing ST to compatibility with GR, not deriving the latter from ST. 4) compactification to 4D is done by hand and, moreover, required (ad hoc) for compatibility with usual experimental data not predicted by ST. 5) string theory does not explain astronomical spacetime 6) string spacetime does not account cosmological expansion. 7) The practice in string theory is to assume that spacetime quantum field theory describes the large distance physics. First, a macroscopic background spacetime is chosen by hand, arbitrarily, from among the manifold of possibilities. 8) Etc.
Berislav said:
How can quantization of strings violate cosmology? Note: A simple method of quantization (which I know of) is to start with a classical string then impose the quantum light-cone gauge and use the Virasoro algebra.
You are very wrong, just like string theorists. What is the wavefunction of universe, if any?
Berislav said:
Hum, a note for navigators, Polchinski two volumes on string theory is not I call high-level physics. Brian Greene’s research in Calabi-Yaus is not I call sophisticated math.
In a differential manifold R4 (SR), Calabi-Yau (string theory), G2 (M theory), etc.
The space dx is
<br />
dx = vdt<br />
with v the velocity. In general, this is an approximation. The most correct formula is
dx = vdt + fdt
with fdt a non-differentiable element. Most of interesting formulas used in many fields (e.g. Ca^{2+} transport in living cells) are empirical (ad hoc). For example, the assumptions of
<br />
\langle f(t) \rangle = 0<br />
and
<br />
\langle f(t)f(t') \rangle = cte \ \delta (t-t')<br />
used in white chemical noise.
In canonical science (many times more sophisticated and advanced that stupid string theory), all of these
standard formulas arise from basic topological properties of omega coefficients and non-differential character of spacetime foam.
brunardot said:
I agree the public has been badly served by the PR of string theory; but such is the case with all of theoretical physics.
The public has been led to believe that the Big Bang and Black Holes at the center of galaxies are both certainties.
I agree, but in other cases, the theories are at least partially useful. The Big bang is not perfect but rationalizes lot of data. From string theory, one can predict or compute nothing in rigor. In fact, all popular claims on string theory are simply wrong. There is a joke in Internet that said that now string theory is a theory without strings, but people ignores this!
brunardot said:
A purpose of string theory and its derivatives is to unite SR GR and QM in such a way that natural phenomena can be explained with a single and/or a few fundamental concepts. String theory, thus, is a small, limited step towards TOE.
Yes, but it has failed in the unification. In fact, ALL string theorists -so excited in the past- now agree that string theory cannot do it and are searching for a new theory that nobody know and is dubbed M theory.
brunardot said:
The fundamental theory (TOE) must unify relativity and quantum mechanics and the non-physics disciplines as well.
Fantastic! But since string theorists have no idea of nothing complex (many of them still believe in the reductionist approach!), their theory is completely outdated. Canonical science is not reductionist, it unifies chemistry with ecology, economy, physics, etc. but still is not a true TOE. The TOE is a myth; it does not exist.
All macro-predictions of string theory (e.g. Black holes, cosmology, dark matter, etc.) are incorrect or very deficient. In cosmological issues, the discrepancy between theory (string th) and experimental data is far for more than 50 orders of magnitude. Yes you are read ok, 50!
Hurkyl said:
It's false that research into String Theory hasn't produced any results in other fields: not only has it generated a wealth of new mathematical ideas, but these theoretical physicists seem to have a knack for solving tough problems in classical mathematics, number theory in particular.
Nobody said that string theory was not useful in
some mathematical issues. Moreover, there is a popular exaggeration that said that modern math is just string theory math, which is simply stupid. The number of mathematicians working in string theory stuff or similar is really small. People working in other fields has also advanced math without working in string M-theory.
Hurkyl said:
It seems to me that people are criticizing string theory essentially on the basis that it's work in progress, rather than a finished product.
Of course than no! This is a typical string argumentation. The theory is permanently open by them!
If string theorist claim for a consistent perturbative regime of quantum gravity (e.g. without infinites) then I could say hey nobody has demonstrated absence of infinites at all orders. Then string theorist could claim that theory is open and I agree.
But if a string theorist claim that universe manifold is aCY or a G2 I said that is wrong and that is independelty of open issues regarding both of those manifolds. If string theorist write the wavefunction for a bosonic string I said that that is wrong if he argues that from string theory he can explain all I said that has no idea of nothing, etc.
That is I am not claiming that string M-theory is almost good with some obscure points that would be corrected in a future because the research is still open. I am claiming that ALL of current string M-theory is completely wrong for a TOE (or quasy-TOE).
The problem is that the name string theory has been maintained by
marketing purposes. Many people think that string theory now is the same that two or three decades ago, which is completely false. In fact, the history of string theory is a history of succesive failure due that string theorists are unable to achieve a consistent theory.
I find the next quote that will add to me own collection:
Keay Davidson said:
But skeptics suggest it's the latest sign of how string theorists, sometimes called "superstringers," try to colorfully camouflage the theory's flaws, like "a 50-year-old woman wearing way too much lipstick," jokes Robert B. Laughlin, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at Stanford. "People have been changing string theory in wild ways because it has never worked."
, criticism is available at www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf[/URL].
Thank you for the compliment.
).
