7 August 2016

From Standard Model to True Theory

The ICHEP Conference has shown: the Standard Model is correct. We should rename it the "True Theory".

Stop - you will say. It is well-known that the standard model "cannot be correct". Thousands of papers and presentations start in this way.

Cannot be correct? In the past years, I have tried to collect ALL the arguments at the origin of this statement. For example, that the standard model obviously is an effective theory, that its results cannot be true up to Planck energy, that supersymmetry must hold, that scientists have again and again believed to have found a true theory, that gravity must have an influence before the Planck scale, and so forth.

Listen, men, every one of those arguments does not hold water! The Standard Model is the "True Theory". Not only for all practical purposes, but really.

12 June 2016

Cassandra, Sabine and Lubos

Cassandra always told the truth, but nobody believed her. That was her destiny.

Sabine is a well-known blogger and researcher in quantum gravity. She tells the truth and people believe her. That is her destiny. She recalls that string theory is wrong and that supersymmetry is wrong. Who gets upset? Nobody of importance. The most upset person is a funny little man who has given up working on the field. Why did he give up?

Lubos has given up on string theory because he does not believe in it himself. Now he insults women to hide his own mistakes and lack of intelligence. To hide his own lack of motivation. And to hide his failure.

Lubos is the Czech word for Looser. We women know how to handle such men: we smile at them and turn away.

23 November 2013

Progress of particle theorists

Act 1
I see children shouting: "Only one bar of chocolate? I want more!"

Adult theoretical particle physicists, instead, are much deeper: "Only three dimensions? I want more!" "Only these symmetries? I want more!" "Only these particles? I want more!" "Only this energy? I want more!"

Act 2
After the answer "Sorry, there is none left.", children say: "You are nasty!"

Adult theoretical particle physicists, instead, are much deeper: "You are stupid!"

Act 3
After that, children get creative in some new direction.

Adult theoretical particle physicists get stubborn and go on. Who is wiser?

14 November 2013

The next nail in the coffin of supersymmetry

The newest measurement of the electron dipole moment reduces the likelihood of supersymmetry even more. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7534 . It is the newest step from supersymmetry to supercemetery.

Of course, this is not a surprise; enough people, including Nobel Prize laureates in particle physics, have stated since decades that supersymmetry is a "figment of the human mind". And of course, there is no string theory without supersymmetry. Yes, a tiny negative experimental result can destroy even the most ugly theory.

10 November 2013

Please DO THINK about alpha=1/137.03...

The value of the fine structure constant alpha=1/137.03 is one of the great mysteries of nature. Understanding it will yield a Nobel prize.

So, who is working on understanding the fine structure constant? Search the arxiv: no result. Ask string theorists: nobody. (This fact alone shows that string theory is worthless.) Ask any supersymmetry researcher: no answer. (So supersymmetry is worthless.) Ask any quantum gravity researcher: no answer. (So quantum gravity is worthless as well.) Ask most bloggers, crackpots, and fringe scientists: no answer. Look for talk slides on the topic: nothing (except for cosmological variations, which are of no use and are all nonsense anyway.) A few crackpots "work" on the problem, but they are so obviously mistaken that it is not even worth spending time on reading their confused ideas.

People do not work on 137 and do not think about it. There is a big gap in physics here. Nobody has filled it, in the 100 years since it was discovered. Will you? Think about this: Einstein has not succeeded, neither has Feynman or Pauli, who thought about the problem for a long time. After them, researchers stopped trying.

Please change the situation. Try. Try even more. You WILL succeed.

26 October 2013

Also quantum gravity is now religion

In quantum gravity, people are arguing about firewalls. Are black hole horizons hot or not?

Both sides argue with what happens behind the horizon. Yes, "behind" it. Of course, behind a horizon there is whatever you want. Behind a horizon there is only religion. Behind a horizon or outside the universe is the same. Whatever one says about it, it is nonsense.

I am missing a simple and clear discussion on whether a Rindler horizon is hot. That would be refreshing and clarifying.

But reading papers that use unproven conjectures in non-existing regions to make either one point or another shows only one thing: quantum gravity is mainly a belief system.

20 October 2013

Weinberg is depressed

Read this new article: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/07/physics-what-we-do-and-dont-know/ Weinberg is embracing the anthropic nonsense and writes that there is no explanation for the fundamental constants.

Weinberg, an actual scientist who once was an example to many, is publicly making the statement that for something there is no explanation. What a sad story.

This is the sadness of seeing death into the eye. That sadness induces him to say: "Because I did not find the explanation for the fundamental constants, nobody else will."

17 September 2013

Counting dimensions

High energy theorists are split in two camps. One camp believes that space and time have ten, eleven or twelve dimensions. The other camp believes that there are two or three dimensions, not four. Reading the arxiv preprints, we can see each camp presenting arguments for its respective view.

A normal person might say that the battle is futile, because no experiments will ever verify either camp. In the past, some experiments have been proposed, but they all had flawed premises. No experimental test seems possible, so that the camps will go on discussing.

But why will they continue? Both camps claim that there is a minimum experimental length in nature. That is bizarre. A minimum length means that there is no way to measure the number of dimensions. Dimensions only exist if lengths can be as tiny as imaginable.

So these theorists fight about something that cannot ever be measured. Isn't that sad?

27 August 2013

Why gauge?

This is the title of http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5599 by Carlo Rovelli. Read it. Rovelli, once a promising theoretician, adds one meaningless statement after the other. And of course, the title question is not answered at all.

Why is nature described by gauge theories? So far, nobody knows, not even crackpots. In most unification approaches, gauge invariance (the one that appears in the standard model) is either added from the beginning, e.g. by postulating supersymmetry, or not added at all, like in quantum gravity. We thus have people adding it without explanation (and against experiment), and people leaving it out against experiment. Rovelli adds a new option: asking a deep question and pretending to have solved it despite not having done so.

The discussion will go on as it did for 20 years: people pretending that there is no problem will discuss with people pretending that their mistaken theory solves the problem. Just follow the blogs.

In the past, men were more honest: they admitted that they had no answer. We women must gently lead men and women back to honesty.

23 August 2013

Arkani-Hasleft - after physics, now reality

If you have a job at the IAS in Princeton, and try to do better than Einstein, there are chances that you succeed.

Einstein went there in the 1930s, and did almost nothing. In fact, Einstein went there, searched for a unified field theory along a path that was clearly wrong and at the same time published papers in which he said that no unified field theory was possible. But Einstein had done a few things before.

What does it mean to do better than Einstein at the IAS? First, it means to tell everybody to take your wrong path as well, while knowing that it makes no sense at all to follow it.

On the subject of unification, the IAS has a strange result. The collection of the smartest minds of the US worked together for decades with an output:
This is the second part of what doing "better than Einstein" means at the IAS.

Next time, try a woman.