Again, tiny statistical effects are interpreted as dark matter.
We should recall that "dark matter" is a term similar to "extraterrestrials". They are claimed to exist, but nobody has ever seen them. Thus we will hear such claims for the decades to come. After all, they could be there, couldn't they?
Nobody is spending big money for searching for extraterrestrials. Why are we spending big money for dark matter searches? And how can honest people waste their own time doing this? Are these people all out of their mind?
6 May 2011
5 May 2011
Fun about Wilczek and his chase for flying toasters
If you ever have a look at the video here, you will see Frank Wilczek adding nonsense to nonsense for the largest part of his talk. Of course, Wilczek is a kind man, and has received a big Swedish prize. But nonsense remains nonsense.
Wilczek explains the running of the coupling constants, and notes that they do not meet in one point, as they should if a grand unified theory (a GUT) existed. Instead of concluding that GUTs are falsified by experiment, he adds a second invention without experimental support (supersymmetry) and then, in addition, fantasizes that most of the spartices (supersymmetric particles) appear at a few TeV.
He acts like a man that is looking for flying toasters and sees none. Instead of concluding that flying toasters do not exist, he deduces that extraterrestrials eat them and now starts looking for them instead.
This game can be repeated without end. Once the LHC will show definitely that supersymmetry does not exist, we can invent another crazy idea that explains why it is hidden, and so forth. (It is like saying: we do not see extraterrestrials, because they are all sick at the moment.)
Wilczek is half conscious of what he is doing. He calls this process of inventing excuses "truthification". Not only is the word horrible, its content is as well. What a pity that another great scientist has left science and opted for the land of fantasy.
---
Why does this happen? Because GUTs are wrong. GUTs do not exist. The nonsense arises because people do not want to face this inconvenient truth. And why not? Because they have no clue. Stop this nonsense. People, go and read the spaghetti model! There you will find a proof that GUTs do not exist, and a solution for all the problems of the standard model.
Wilczek explains the running of the coupling constants, and notes that they do not meet in one point, as they should if a grand unified theory (a GUT) existed. Instead of concluding that GUTs are falsified by experiment, he adds a second invention without experimental support (supersymmetry) and then, in addition, fantasizes that most of the spartices (supersymmetric particles) appear at a few TeV.
He acts like a man that is looking for flying toasters and sees none. Instead of concluding that flying toasters do not exist, he deduces that extraterrestrials eat them and now starts looking for them instead.
This game can be repeated without end. Once the LHC will show definitely that supersymmetry does not exist, we can invent another crazy idea that explains why it is hidden, and so forth. (It is like saying: we do not see extraterrestrials, because they are all sick at the moment.)
Wilczek is half conscious of what he is doing. He calls this process of inventing excuses "truthification". Not only is the word horrible, its content is as well. What a pity that another great scientist has left science and opted for the land of fantasy.
---
Why does this happen? Because GUTs are wrong. GUTs do not exist. The nonsense arises because people do not want to face this inconvenient truth. And why not? Because they have no clue. Stop this nonsense. People, go and read the spaghetti model! There you will find a proof that GUTs do not exist, and a solution for all the problems of the standard model.
3 May 2011
Hard problems in mathematics: knots or the Riemann conjecture?
Do read Schiller's 6th volume. Many intriguing facts are given. Take this one:
I asked around. It is true. Even a school child knows the shape of a tight torus. But nobody knows the shape of a tight granny knot. Nobody. Nor that of any other knot. Open or closed, it makes no difference: the shapes are unknown.
Take a rope, add a knot, pull it tight. Ask your mathematician friend to describe the shape. He cannot! What, he can solve Fermat's theorem but cannot solve this little problem? And he is still working on the Riemann conjecture? Tell him to do something sensible instead, like this little problem! He will become famous on his own right. And he will help the proof of the theory of everything.
- Nobody knows the geometric shape of a tight trefoil knot.
I asked around. It is true. Even a school child knows the shape of a tight torus. But nobody knows the shape of a tight granny knot. Nobody. Nor that of any other knot. Open or closed, it makes no difference: the shapes are unknown.
Take a rope, add a knot, pull it tight. Ask your mathematician friend to describe the shape. He cannot! What, he can solve Fermat's theorem but cannot solve this little problem? And he is still working on the Riemann conjecture? Tell him to do something sensible instead, like this little problem! He will become famous on his own right. And he will help the proof of the theory of everything.
2 May 2011
Muon colliders, linear colliders and other ways to waste money
Who will honestly use money to build colliders to search for physics beyond the standard model, if there is nothing to be seen?
Once it will be clear to everybody that the LHC did not find much, all these dreams about muon colliders, the international linear collider (ILC) and other nonsene projects will finally go where they belong: in the rubbish bin of history.
These colliders are all towers of Babel; they have common goals ("reach the sky") and will have the same results (nothing).
Once it will be clear to everybody that the LHC did not find much, all these dreams about muon colliders, the international linear collider (ILC) and other nonsene projects will finally go where they belong: in the rubbish bin of history.
These colliders are all towers of Babel; they have common goals ("reach the sky") and will have the same results (nothing).
Higgs, Hicks or Holy Grail?
Is the Higgs a particle or a brain hiccup? Many people tell us that finding the Higgs would answer several important questions of particle physics. But scanning through the list of open problems in physics shows that the Higgs does not answer any one of them (except its own mass)! I spent some hours on the matter but still cannot believe this.
This means that finding the Higgs has no added value for particle physics! If it is found, no problem of fundamental physics is solved. I think I will now switch from a Higgs believer to an unbeliever.
How can we introduce a concept that solves no problems? Agreed, the Higgs solves the problem of SU(2) breaking. But it does not solve any problem we are really looking for: it will not tell us how its own mass appears, will not tell us the origin of mass values, will not tell us anything about the origin of the particle spectrum, and it does not tell us anything about the origin of the four interactions. The Higgs would not help in the quest to understand the world. We are all looking for it since 40 years, but did we find it, we would not learn anything.
Wait a moment. Why did we invent it in the first place? We wanted to understand the origin of mass and the unitarity of W-W scattering. But we have been brainwashed: maybe we would understand the origin of mass, but we would not understand the origin of any particular mass. And W-W scattering may be unitary for many other reasons.
Wait another moment. Theoretical physicists that won Swedish prizes introduce a concept - "the Higgs boson" - that solves no problem at all? And all people repeat this "problem solution" since 40 years? And thousands of people are searching for it, using billions of franks? Is this really how we are doing research across the world? We search for something because everybody is doing this, but we have no special reason to believe that this "something" exists?
All this tells: The Higgs is as useful for fundamental physics as the aether is - namely not at all.
The Higgs is the holy grail of physics: it is something that exists only in myths and Hollywood movies.
We live in a bizarre world. Everybody is allowed to search for the holy grail. But what will happen if it is not found? Will the people that searched for it using taxpayer's money pay back that money? What will they do for society after they cheated on it for 40 years? Will the world call particle physicists "parasites"?
This means that finding the Higgs has no added value for particle physics! If it is found, no problem of fundamental physics is solved. I think I will now switch from a Higgs believer to an unbeliever.
How can we introduce a concept that solves no problems? Agreed, the Higgs solves the problem of SU(2) breaking. But it does not solve any problem we are really looking for: it will not tell us how its own mass appears, will not tell us the origin of mass values, will not tell us anything about the origin of the particle spectrum, and it does not tell us anything about the origin of the four interactions. The Higgs would not help in the quest to understand the world. We are all looking for it since 40 years, but did we find it, we would not learn anything.
Wait a moment. Why did we invent it in the first place? We wanted to understand the origin of mass and the unitarity of W-W scattering. But we have been brainwashed: maybe we would understand the origin of mass, but we would not understand the origin of any particular mass. And W-W scattering may be unitary for many other reasons.
Wait another moment. Theoretical physicists that won Swedish prizes introduce a concept - "the Higgs boson" - that solves no problem at all? And all people repeat this "problem solution" since 40 years? And thousands of people are searching for it, using billions of franks? Is this really how we are doing research across the world? We search for something because everybody is doing this, but we have no special reason to believe that this "something" exists?
All this tells: The Higgs is as useful for fundamental physics as the aether is - namely not at all.
The Higgs is the holy grail of physics: it is something that exists only in myths and Hollywood movies.
We live in a bizarre world. Everybody is allowed to search for the holy grail. But what will happen if it is not found? Will the people that searched for it using taxpayer's money pay back that money? What will they do for society after they cheated on it for 40 years? Will the world call particle physicists "parasites"?
1 May 2011
A collection of nonsense on the theory of everything
I did not know this forum and site, called "toequest". I did not know that one could write so much nonsense about the theory of everything. Sorry, I did; string theorists are only marginally better.
Number systems in physics
When mathematicians do physics research, most of the time the results are useless. (There are few exceptions.)
Physicists like to measure. Thus we need real numbers. When we add a phase, we often use complex numbers, as an abbreviation. Complex numbers add nothing new. Do we need quaternions or octonions? Possibly as an abbreviation. But not as structures that provide any new insights. End of story.
That is not a reason not to have fun with octonions or to research them. But math is not physics. No discussion in fundamental physics, such as whether the false ideas on the right of the page apply or not, can be solved with math, with number systems. They are solved with predictions and with experiments. Thus they are solved neither with octonions nor with strings.
Physicists like to measure. Thus we need real numbers. When we add a phase, we often use complex numbers, as an abbreviation. Complex numbers add nothing new. Do we need quaternions or octonions? Possibly as an abbreviation. But not as structures that provide any new insights. End of story.
That is not a reason not to have fun with octonions or to research them. But math is not physics. No discussion in fundamental physics, such as whether the false ideas on the right of the page apply or not, can be solved with math, with number systems. They are solved with predictions and with experiments. Thus they are solved neither with octonions nor with strings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)