Comments on: Stringing Up String Theory http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/ The Shortest Distance Between You and Science Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:16:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: jim http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-1546 jim Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:22:03 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-1546 The electron and proton were treated as point particles, because the numerical tools during the early part of the 20th century were paper, pencil, and lookup tables. Special relativity and quantum theory were invented as patches for this non-physical model. Electric charge confined to a point implies infinite self energy, no magnetic spin, no angular momentum, no ability to radiate or absorb energy, etc... . As a result of the point particle theory, Physics became obscure Mathematics with many fudge factors thrown in to accomodate experiments. Physics in no longer physical at all. The inane statement "that no one understands quantum theory", should not be acceptable to anyone who claims to be a rational scientist. There is a model of the electron and proton, which gives them spatial extension and the shape of a toroid. This model uses only classical Physics, is free of contradictions and non-physical absurdities, and predicts the observed sub-ground states of Hydrogen. Unfortunately, the well tenured Physics community is off studying the even more absurd model of multi-dimensional strings. The Standard Model and String Theory are the Earth Centric theories of modern times. The electron and proton were treated as point particles, because the numerical tools during the early part of the 20th century were paper, pencil, and lookup tables. Special relativity and quantum theory were invented as patches for this non-physical model. Electric charge confined to a point implies infinite self energy, no magnetic spin, no angular momentum, no ability to radiate or absorb energy, etc… .

As a result of the point particle theory, Physics became obscure Mathematics with many fudge factors thrown in to accomodate experiments. Physics in no longer physical at all. The inane statement “that no one understands quantum theory”, should not be acceptable to anyone who claims to be a rational scientist.

There is a model of the electron and proton, which gives them spatial extension and the shape of a toroid. This model uses only classical Physics, is free of contradictions and non-physical absurdities, and predicts the observed sub-ground states of Hydrogen. Unfortunately, the well tenured Physics community is off studying the even more absurd model of multi-dimensional strings. The Standard Model and String Theory are the Earth Centric theories of modern times.

]]> By: Ronald Mirman http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-957 Ronald Mirman Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:34:08 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-957 The blogs are -- Science blog impunv.wordpress.com or impunv.blogspot.com Political blog randomabsurdities.wordpress.com The blogs are

–
Science blog
impunv.wordpress.com
or
impunv.blogspot.com

Political blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com

]]> By: Ronald Mirman http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-956 Ronald Mirman Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:32:46 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-956 String theorists will say the sum is 6 (or maybe 6000). See my blogs for further discussion. Can anyone disagree? String theorists will say the sum is 6 (or maybe 6000). See my blogs for further discussion. Can anyone disagree?

]]> By: Ronald Mirman http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-652 Ronald Mirman Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:30:32 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-652 String theory has been proven with mathematical rigor to be wrong. It has long been known that physics (a universe)would be impossible in any dimension but 3+1. Also there is a quantum theory of gravity, the only possible one since it is required by geometry: GR. The description of the books showing this is at impunv.blogspot.com. For the dimension see Our Almost Impossible Universe: Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely R. Mirman and for the derivation of GR from geometry (the Poincare group) and quantum gravity see Massless Representations of the Poincare Group electromagnetism, gravitation, quantum mechanics, geometry R. Mirman. The proofs are rigorous and verified by others. String theory has been proven with mathematical rigor to be wrong. It has long been known that physics (a universe)would be impossible in any dimension but 3+1. Also there is a quantum theory of gravity, the only possible one since it is required by geometry: GR. The description of the books showing this is at impunv.blogspot.com. For the dimension see

Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely
R. Mirman

and for the derivation of GR from geometry (the Poincare group) and quantum gravity see Massless Representations of the Poincare Group electromagnetism, gravitation, quantum mechanics, geometry
R. Mirman.
The proofs are rigorous and verified by others.

]]> By: Bobby http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-623 Bobby Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:39:11 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-623 Imagine a hardened steel box impervious to any known means of opening the box. A tiny window in the box reveals the only clue to what's inside. Inside, a cube appears to be suspended in mid air. Now, formulate some theories as to why the cube is suspended without ever manipulating the box or cube. If one of the theories postulated seemed viable and everyone ganged up, then a beautiful theory could arise and a lifetime spent perfecting the theory. Then, somebody experimenting reaches into the box, cuts the thin wire suspending the cube. Imagine a hardened steel box impervious to any known means of opening the box. A tiny window in the box reveals the only clue to what’s inside. Inside, a cube appears to be suspended in mid air. Now, formulate some theories as to why the cube is suspended without ever manipulating the box or cube. If one of the theories postulated seemed viable and everyone ganged up, then a beautiful theory could arise and a lifetime spent perfecting the theory. Then, somebody experimenting reaches into the box, cuts the thin wire suspending the cube.

]]> By: Kurt TeKolste http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-608 Kurt TeKolste Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:22:30 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-608 Why can't string theory simultaneously be wrong, circular, and useful? I haven't read Woit's book yet, but the title implies that the pursuit of string theory is actually hindering progress. With the admitted shortage of alternative approaches (only three roads, per Smolin), it would seem impossible to demonstrate that playing in one of the few sandboxes available is actually harmful. On the other hand, starting with an incorrect theory and fixing it would seem to be a perfectly rational approach. It is not as if string theorists do not appreciate the scientific mandate for disprovable predictions... The implication that there is an enforced orthodoxy is a serious issue. But the perception and reality of resistence of the new by the established has been true throughout the history of science (and other fields). The claim of resistence by suppression is not always limited to only one of the competing camps -- I believe, for example, that Greene feels that string theory is resisted and its practitioners excluded from some opportunities. It is hard from a distance to distinguish paranoia from persecution. Why can’t string theory simultaneously be wrong, circular, and useful?

I haven’t read Woit’s book yet, but the title implies that the pursuit of string theory is actually hindering progress. With the admitted shortage of alternative approaches (only three roads, per Smolin), it would seem impossible to demonstrate that playing in one of the few sandboxes available is actually harmful.

On the other hand, starting with an incorrect theory and fixing it would seem to be a perfectly rational approach. It is not as if string theorists do not appreciate the scientific mandate for disprovable predictions…

The implication that there is an enforced orthodoxy is a serious issue. But the perception and reality of resistence of the new by the established has been true throughout the history of science (and other fields). The claim of resistence by suppression is not always limited to only one of the competing camps — I believe, for example, that Greene feels that string theory is resisted and its practitioners excluded from some opportunities.

It is hard from a distance to distinguish paranoia from persecution.

]]> By: Fred M http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-606 Fred M Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:23:23 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-606 I'd like to see Woit's response to Brian Greene's writing on the subject. Perhaps this is covered in his recent book or blog, I will have to check it out. I’d like to see Woit’s response to Brian Greene’s writing on the subject. Perhaps this is covered in his recent book or blog, I will have to check it out.

]]> By: steven hawking http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-604 steven hawking Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:06:14 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-604 The more you study string theory, the more you will see that it reflects the characteristics of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bell's inequality and the double-slit experiment are both examples of how much real explanation is still needed. String theory has not led to a greater understanding of the universe and its functions, but only to a greater understanding of string theory itself. Its logic is circular. As humans, we need to base our assumptions off testable and graspable ideas. The argument of "our minds just can't understand it" is often used in favor of string theory and Hawking's seemingly increasing amount of dimensions. Like a media plague, string theory has cast itself over the public, and "if its this popular, it simply must be true." String theory is a severely extensive amount of math that cannot be applied to reality, so reality must be applied to it. This is simply the wrong way to go about science; Einstein and Feynman would be ashamed. The more you study string theory, the more you will see that it reflects the characteristics of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bell’s inequality and the double-slit experiment are both examples of how much real explanation is still needed. String theory has not led to a greater understanding of the universe and its functions, but only to a greater understanding of string theory itself. Its logic is circular.

As humans, we need to base our assumptions off testable and graspable ideas. The argument of “our minds just can’t understand it” is often used in favor of string theory and Hawking’s seemingly increasing amount of dimensions. Like a media plague, string theory has cast itself over the public, and “if its this popular, it simply must be true.”

String theory is a severely extensive amount of math that cannot be applied to reality, so reality must be applied to it. This is simply the wrong way to go about science; Einstein and Feynman would be ashamed.

]]> By: T. Boone Pickens http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-603 T. Boone Pickens Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:42:28 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-603 I've been waiting a very long time to see an opposition to the baseless string theory. I'm very happy to see this has gotten some publicity. Maybe now people will start to understand that science is more than numerology, and that it has basis in reason. A sound scientific theory is based very carefully upon the layers of reasoning below it. As many experienced mathematicians know, if one is looking too hard in one place (string theory), one will find exactly what they are looking for...whether its right or wrong. I’ve been waiting a very long time to see an opposition to the baseless string theory. I’m very happy to see this has gotten some publicity. Maybe now people will start to understand that science is more than numerology, and that it has basis in reason. A sound scientific theory is based very carefully upon the layers of reasoning below it. As many experienced mathematicians know, if one is looking too hard in one place (string theory), one will find exactly what they are looking for…whether its right or wrong.

]]> By: Brockeim http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/comment-page-1/#comment-602 Brockeim Sat, 30 Dec 2006 01:54:50 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/#comment-602 String, string, string.... it is so much more than string theory. ;) <a href="http://brockeim.blogspot.com/2006/12/string-25-uses-and-beyond-truth-and-fun.html" rel="nofollow">String - 25 Uses and Beyond: Truth and Fun</a> String, string, string…. it is so much more than string theory. ;)

String – 25 Uses and Beyond: Truth and Fun

]]>