| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"meltedown" |
| Date: |
25 Aug 2005 12:11:50 PM |
| Object: |
Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless |
String Theory's trendy, but baseless
From The Woodstock Times, Thursday, August 18
http://ulsterpublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=350699
Night Sky
Hanging by a thread
String Theory's trendy, but baseless
by Bob Berman
Science has long tried to come up with a Grand Unified Theory. It's a
wonderful concept: a way to tie together all the universe's forces.
Einstein struggled unsuccessfully with this most of his life, and he
wasn't alone. But, listening to the PBS NOVA special or reading some
self-serving books, one might conclude that the tussle is over, the goal
has been achieved. Its name is String Theory.
String Theory claims that at the tiniest levels of existence, a
trillionth of a trillionth the size of an electron, vibrating
one-dimensional threads wiggle around, and can loop or link in various
ways to produce all the universe's forces. This image is appealingly
simple, but the actual theory is incredibly complex. Brilliant people
are involved with it, and the rest of us may be intimidated into
thinking that, like some of the old Dylan lyrics, what's
incomprehensible is automatically profound.
But many physicists - including those in our region - have been shaking
their heads almost from the get-go. Since we first explored this topic
nearly two years ago, the pace of both advocacy and criticism has
accelerated. It's time for a second visit.
Problem One is that String Theory doesn't work in our reality of three
dimensions, plus one of time. To make it work, its creators had to
invent seven additional dimensions, for which our own senses and the
rest of science have not a shred of evidence. None of those other
dimensions can possibly be tested. They have to be taken on faith.
Problem Two is that String Theory is unfalsifiable. This means that no
experiment can tell if it's right or wrong.
Problem Three is that String Theory's only prediction (involving the
strength of the cosmological constant) proved to be incorrect by 55
orders of magnitude. Any other theory would have been tossed out at that
point.
Problem Four is that one can tweak those seven imaginary dimensions in
so many ways that there IS no such single entity as "String Theory."
Instead there are almost an infinite number of possible final things
that you can end up with. None of them has as yet been successful on any
level, except for some neat original math.
Problem Five is not so much a problem as a selling point. In the current
issue of Discover magazine, ST advocate Michio Kaku argues that one
factor in favor of ST is that it is "elegant." But skeptics see just the
opposite: a sewer of unattractively swirling ad hoc bandages.
All this makes Columbia University physicist Peter Woit adapt an old
exclamation used by Wolfgang Pauli nearly 75 years ago. In a recent
issue of New Scientist, Woit says of String Theory, "It's not even
wrong!" Having just discussed this subject at length with Woit last
week, I feel free to say that Woit is completing a book about ST with
this very title, which will be published in 2006.
We might all wonder why universities and the mass media would play with
strings for so long if the theory is neither testable nor has yielded
any practical results after two decades. Why would any grownup deal with
imaginary things?
The partial answer is that mathematicians routinely hang out in
make-believe playgrounds. Negative square roots, for example, are among
many imaginary numbers that cannot exist in the real world but are
mainstays in the classroom. Perhaps those who spend most of their time
in such circles start confusing the real world with stuff that exists
solely in the mind.
Until recently, science dealt with theories quickly and mercilessly.
They'd be tested. Confirmed ones were kept; wrong ones were tossed. But
this time, string theorists have managed to concoct dreamlike dimensions
without having to present a shred of evidence for any of them, then
argue that no testing is possible and then produce no results.
Magically, this fantasy world nonetheless coasts along for decades.
Peter Woit thinks that the main reason is because it's been the only
game in town, the hot-button label, the sure way for graduate students
to get funding and publicity. But he wonders how much longer the media
will waste its time on a perpetual, well-promoted but never-successful
investigation of a theory that has no connection with the physical world.
My own prediction: In the next two years the whole ball of yarn will
begin publicly to unravel - and theorists will finally start to move on.
Let's hope so. This is nonsense, and enough is enough.
.
|
|
| User: "Richard Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless |
25 Aug 2005 02:36:44 PM |
|
|
"meltedown" <groups2@reenie.org> wrote in message
news:qZmPe.145266$uo4.64570@fe01.news.easynews.com...
String Theory's trendy, but baseless
From The Woodstock Times, Thursday, August 18
http://ulsterpublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=350699
Night Sky
Hanging by a thread
String Theory's trendy, but baseless
by Bob Berman
Science has long tried to come up with a Grand Unified Theory. It's a
wonderful concept: a way to tie together all the universe's forces.
Einstein struggled unsuccessfully with this most of his life, and he
wasn't alone. But, listening to the PBS NOVA special or reading some
etc.
Not a great fan myself. BUT I am a great fan of mathematical elegance.
Hamiltonian theory of dynamical systems is probably a very good start. It is
argued purely on mathematical/transformation grounds. And it is brilliant.
The real trouble is the hype. It doesn't help that seemingly respectable
scientists espouse that a TOE is only a few years away. But whether it is
string theory or something else, I think you should allow mathematical
elegance. Personally, I think the mathematics is the correct theory and the
manifestation of the mathematics is what we call physical reality. If you
allow both physics and maths, you have two theories. Why should the physical
world follow maths? Ditch physics, stick with maths and you only have one
theory to explain and no approximate models. Are not probabilistic forces
the same as physical forces? If it is a constraint in maths, it is a
physical constraint that we feel or measure.
Denk mal daruber!
Richard Miller
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless |
25 Aug 2005 02:46:09 PM |
|
|
"Richard Miller" <richard@microscitech.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:del6k9$597$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
| "meltedown" <groups2@reenie.org> wrote in message
| news:qZmPe.145266$uo4.64570@fe01.news.easynews.com...
| > String Theory's trendy, but baseless
| > From The Woodstock Times, Thursday, August 18
| >
http://ulsterpublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=350699
| >
| > Night Sky
| >
| > Hanging by a thread
| > String Theory's trendy, but baseless
| >
| > by Bob Berman
| > Science has long tried to come up with a Grand Unified Theory. It's
a
| > wonderful concept: a way to tie together all the universe's forces.
| > Einstein struggled unsuccessfully with this most of his life, and he
| > wasn't alone. But, listening to the PBS NOVA special or reading some
|
| etc.
|
| Not a great fan myself. BUT I am a great fan of mathematical elegance.
Me too.
This is not all that elegant, though.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)).
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Androcles.
| Hamiltonian theory of dynamical systems is probably a very good start.
It is
| argued purely on mathematical/transformation grounds. And it is
brilliant.
| The real trouble is the hype. It doesn't help that seemingly
respectable
| scientists espouse that a TOE is only a few years away. But whether it
is
| string theory or something else, I think you should allow mathematical
| elegance. Personally, I think the mathematics is the correct theory
and the
| manifestation of the mathematics is what we call physical reality. If
you
| allow both physics and maths, you have two theories. Why should the
physical
| world follow maths? Ditch physics, stick with maths and you only have
one
| theory to explain and no approximate models. Are not probabilistic
forces
| the same as physical forces? If it is a constraint in maths, it is a
| physical constraint that we feel or measure.
|
| Denk mal daruber!
|
| Richard Miller
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless |
26 Aug 2005 04:59:57 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:36:44 +0100) it happened "Richard Miller"
<richard@microscitech.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
<del6k9$597$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>:
.....
elegance. Personally, I think the mathematics is the correct theory and the
manifestation of the mathematics is what we call physical reality.
Oops, and I wanted to refrain from posting today... so not to become addict.
The Chinese are going to require online games to have a 3 hour limit, after
that the 'avatar' loses much of its cunning.
(http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=4913)
Anyways, it all depends.
I think math is just a model to put some understanding in of the physical
world.
The physical world is the reality here.
Just for fun: you have this complicated mathematical relation (function).
You write it in some higher programming language.
Take your preference.
Next it is compiled, and it ends up as a lot of register loads and jumps.
THAT language (is not mathematics) ALSO describes the same thing.
A programmer would have little (well eh) problem understanding it.
An mathematician would be lost.
It is then further in hardware morphed to some electrons moving in silicon.
An OTHER physical reality.
Of cause it is abstract., but no, the physical reality is what should at all
times be (that is where experiment comes in) the measuring stick against
which to test you math.
Several years ago there was an interview with our national Nobel prize winner
in physics, and he was asked: 'What do you think of string theory, is it right?'
His answer was: "No".
This is the man from the quarks.....
Math, as we do it, is merely a construct IN THE NEURAL NET of our brain,
a model (chemically + electrically + mechanically ) of the reality we observe.
That really ticked Joan Baez of did it not ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "meltedown" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless |
26 Aug 2005 01:15:01 AM |
|
|
Richard Miller wrote:
"meltedown" <groups2@reenie.org> wrote in message
news:qZmPe.145266$uo4.64570@fe01.news.easynews.com...
String Theory's trendy, but baseless
From The Woodstock Times, Thursday, August 18
http://ulsterpublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=350699
Night Sky
Hanging by a thread
String Theory's trendy, but baseless
by Bob Berman
Science has long tried to come up with a Grand Unified Theory. It's a
wonderful concept: a way to tie together all the universe's forces.
Einstein struggled unsuccessfully with this most of his life, and he
wasn't alone. But, listening to the PBS NOVA special or reading some
etc.
Not a great fan myself. BUT I am a great fan of mathematical elegance.
Hamiltonian theory of dynamical systems is probably a very good start. It is
argued purely on mathematical/transformation grounds. And it is brilliant.
The real trouble is the hype. It doesn't help that seemingly respectable
scientists espouse that a TOE is only a few years away. But whether it is
string theory or something else, I think you should allow mathematical
elegance. Personally, I think the mathematics is the correct theory and the
manifestation of the mathematics is what we call physical reality. If you
allow both physics and maths, you have two theories. Why should the physical
world follow maths? Ditch physics, stick with maths and you only have one
theory to explain and no approximate models. Are not probabilistic forces
the same as physical forces? If it is a constraint in maths, it is a
physical constraint that we feel or measure.
Denk mal daruber!
Richard Miller
Thanks. I'm not sure I follow, but you seem to be saying that our
ability to gather evidence to support a theory is limited by our
material resources to a much greater degree than our ability to do the
math, so it should not be surprising that some math based theories will
end up being unsupported by the evidence, even if they are totally correct.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Berman: String Theory's trendy, but baseless |
25 Aug 2005 12:48:51 PM |
|
|
The resolved theory of quantum mechanics and relativy is truely as
difficult mathematically as ST. And ST is not boring crap like the
Standard Model.
Where in the world of theory class is the bright student to hang-out?
And when the larger problem still exists no matter where the scientist
endeavors, the area that gives the mathmatical capacity is the area to
suggest.
And ST is mathematically advanced and is work well spent no matter of
the incompletness problem.
Where else? Well, just roll up a theory and throw it out there.
It sure as heck has a strong and weak force dislocation though. And to
resolve the forces so artifically dislocated is the job of the student
angry at the dislocation.
blah blah, rant
Nonsense is called not trying.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
