21 April 2011

What string theory does not explain

These are some points, inspired by a table from Schiller's html page on the strand model:

- Strings do not explain (yet) the interactions of nature.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the gauge groups and coupling constants.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the number of particle generations- Strings do not explain (yet) the particle spectrum.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the validity of the least action principle.
- Strings do not explain (yet) any quantum number and mass of any elementary particles.
- Strings do not explain the validity of quantum theory and quantum field theory.
- Strings do not explain the least action principle.

In two points, there is no "yet", because the items are put into string theory by fiat.

String theory might well explain gravity, but that is all. String theory does not explain anything about quantum theory and the standard model. It has no explanatory power whatsoever in the microscopic domain. String theory is not a candidate theory of everything; it is a full, complete and total failure.

This is not new; Woit says some of this all the time. But I was surprised noticing that string theory does not explain a single item of the standard model. It is wrong to say that the emperor has no clothes; there is not even an emperor.

Loop quantum gravity does not fear any better, by the way. I discovered an underlying symmetry that relates string theory and loop quantum gravity: any statement on one theory is also a statement on the other. Both theories are fantasies about quantum gravity, and neither describes the standard model.


  1. Strand theory has a non-intuitive fundamental postulate. It does not give proper reasons why different physical fields exist. Do fluctuating strands cause fields or do the fields cause the fluctuation of strands? Why do strands exist? There must be a reason. This reason can be found in the granularity of nature. A granular GPS system has preferred directions. Thus, nature cannot have a GPS. That is why it has strands. Conclusion: there exist some cracks in contempory fundamental physics.

  2. I do not know what you took, but I advise you to change your drug dealer. His stuff is really bad.

  3. I presented a hint, then it is nicer to discover the cracks by investagating yourself, but you can also take the easy road and read:http://www.crypts-of-physics.eu/Cracksofphysics.pdf
    It presents an underpinning of the existence of strands.

  4. In my view, the strand model has a VERY intuitive postulate. (Did you ever look at the drawing?) And it explains well why different fields exists - in fact, here I agree with Schiller, it is the only such explanation that exists!

    And of course, there must be no "reason" at all why strands exist.

    In the strand model, nature is not granular and has no preferred directions. But it shows a minimum distance.

    But this is all nothing new. The latest version of the strand model is explained more coherently than the first one. Since Schiller added a finite strand diameter, I feel that the model is quite a bit more intuitive.

  5. Then tell me what is the timing of a crossing switch. When does is start? When does it end?
    The strand theory does not define clear separation between different physical fields. There is a gradual difference in functionality. Also causality can be put differently: strand fluctuations can cause fields (or field fluctuations) or field fluctuations cause strand fluctuations. Schiller does not explain why mass (the charge values of the gravity field) are non-discrete while all other charges are discrete. Still, I agree that Schillers's strand theory is far better than the costly string theory. So far LHC seems to obey his claims.

  6. Schiller struggles with mass. But it is discrete in his model, because knots are discrete. By this I mean: elementary particle mass is discrete in his model. Who says that mass is non-discrete?

  7. You mean rest mass is discrete. Nothing in universe is actually at rest.
    Many observations involve annihilation (detection)or scattering of particles. How does this conform with the crossing switch?

  8. Yes, rest mass is discrete. So we agree :-)

    What I get from the spaghetti description of QED is that is describes annihilation and scattering just like ordinary QED...