Who Are String Theory's Top Hypsters & Con Artists?

[mcgucken]

With so many cranks, hypesters, and con-artists posing as peer-reviewers, why does PF allow string theory to be discussed, and why does it have its own forum?

It has never been experimentally verified, and the theory makes no sense. It has accomplished absolutely nothing. Why is it allowed to displace logic, reason, and physics?

Who's string theory's greatest con-artist? Kaku?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

Is String Theory About to Snap?

The August issue of Discover magazine is out, with a cover story entitled "Is String Theory About to Snap?". The editors of the magazine describe how they recently became aware of the controversy over string theory when they organized a celebration of Einstein in Aspen last summer. They quote Lawrence Krauss as telling them "String theory may be in a worse position now regarding being testable than it has been at any time in the past 20 years." To get a response to this, they asked Michio Kaku to write something for them. They refer to him as a "cofounder of string theory", which I suspect some people might object to. Presumably they meant to repeat what is in their profile of him, which calls him a "cofounder of string field theory."

Kaku's article is entitled Testing String Theory, and is a thoroughly intellectually dishonest piece of writing, designed to mislead anyone without expertise in what is at issue here. He succeeded in misleading whoever wrote the blurb for the article which goes: "No experiment has ever allowed us to test whether any of the assumptions of string theory are true. That is about to change." No it's not. None of the experiments Kaku mentions will "allow us to test whether any of the assumptions of string theory are true".

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

Is Witten the greatest hypster of all time?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

Witten on CNN

Via David Goss and Lubos Motl, the news that CNN's Candy Crowley has a piece about Witten. Unlike Lee Smolin's Why No "New Einstein"? piece, CNN more or less identifies Witten as the new Einstein. Witten is quoted as giving the following rather defensive statement about string theory: "I just think too many nice things have happened in string theory for it to be all wrong... Humans do not understand it very well, but I just don't believe there is a big cosmic conspiracy that created this incredible thing that has nothing to do with the real world." He's kind of defending against a straw man, since virtually no one is saying string theory is "all wrong" or "has nothing to do with the real world".

Is Brian Greene the greatest scam artist?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000211.html

I am astonished that the self-proclamed ultra-advanced NC string theory (a radical modification of usual string theory in fixed background/cosmologies) used, in the last decade, advanced math developed in other fields of science by Prigogine and the Brussels School in the 60s. The delay of the “ultra advanced” theory is of most than 30 years for a supposed "profound" theory that, in the words of Brian Greene, is providing us the most basic understanding of nature! This is, obviously, false, simply propaganda.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000211.html

 

[quantumdude]

This thread has nothing to do with the particulars of string theory, and as such it does not belong in the Strings + QG Forum.

With so many cranks, hypesters, and con-artists posing as peer-reviewers, why does PF allow string theory to be discussed, and why does it have its own forum?

Discussions on why we have the subdivisions and policies that we do belong in the Feedback section, so that's why I've moved it.

 

[dextercioby]

String theory is purely research, even though there are a few universities out there which offer (intro) courses on string theory. Why not discuss research which has predicted and confirmed, for example, general relativity ? If it hadn't had any theoretical confirmation by one of the well established low-energies theories (GR and QFT), all posts should have ended in Theory Development, I'm sure.



Daniel.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

you not understanding it doesn't make it wrong. it isn't complete yet, so you can't expect for there to be too many experiments for it, although there are some being done in the near future.

 

[brunardot]

There is much wisdom in the arguments McGucken presents throughout all his postings. Those who critique should spend some time reviewing the entirety of these posts rather than carping at snippets.

That said. The fundamentals of string theory are based on much logic that springs from observation and natural phenomena. The theory, if it were complete, which it certainly is not, should easily be testable against observed phenomena and it should unlock most of the enigmas presented by current paradigms.

One problem with string theory is that it tries to reconcile the current irreconcilable metaphysics of the defined forces; an impossible task.

Until accelerating galactic recession can be explained; and, an alternative force to the Big Bang explained that can counter the effects of gravity, the unification that string theory attempts is near futile.

 

[Chronos]

I'm still waiting for the scientifically relevant discussion to begin.

 

[marlon]

I'm still waiting for the scientifically relevant discussion to begin.

:rofl:

i think you are going to have to wait a whole lot longer

marlon