Look at this preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5120 called "Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity" by Banks and Seiberg. Read it sentence by sentence. It is incredible.
Not a single sentence is about physics. Not a single sentence is about nature. Not a single sentence makes sense.
Now, these two people are not stupid. They are smart by any usual standard. They are well-known. They are professors of physics in the best institutions. Nevertheless, they write complete nonsense.
What is going on here? How can two men devote their full professional life to write nonsense? In a few years, hopefully, psychological research will answer this question.
Satire about the search for a theory of everything in physics, sometimes about the strand-spaghetti model.
21 May 2011
20 May 2011
Bousso and Susskind in Fantasialand
Bousso and Susskind have left physics. Just read their latest paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796 on the multiverse. Every sentence is nonsense. What a pity to see two smart people falling so low.
19 May 2011
A further strand model
In a new preprint (http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3658), "Spacetime Geometry as Statistic Ensemble of Strings", Botta Cantcheff argues that space is an ensemble of "strings". He explains that the thermodynamics of strings reproduces the derivation of the field equations of general relativity by Jacobson. By strings he means some one-dimensional objects that are similar, but not exactly the same as the strings of string theory.
So here is a further researcher that understood that space is a collection of one-dimensional lines. He agrees with what Carlip says, and with what Schiller says, who argues the same connection between general relativity and the thermodynamics of strands. And he arrives at the result independently of them. A good sign!
So here is a further researcher that understood that space is a collection of one-dimensional lines. He agrees with what Carlip says, and with what Schiller says, who argues the same connection between general relativity and the thermodynamics of strands. And he arrives at the result independently of them. A good sign!
16 May 2011
On nonsense about crossing black hole horizons
Every other day a preprint appears on arxiv, in the gr-qc section, that discusses what happens when an observer crosses a black hole horizon, and how he arrives at the singularity. All these papers are written by people who believe that space is continuous, and that it can be extended beyond the horizon. Sadly, this nonsense is even found in many books. But it remains nonsense. Space and space-time cannot be extended beyond the horizon, because they are not continuous. Speaking about "beyond the horizon" is like counting angels. There are no angels. But angels have been classified, it might be said: after all, there are seraphim, and cherubim, and many others, and several angles are known by name, such as Gabriel and Raphael. Despite all this, angels are a delusion. Neither is it possible to cross the horizon or hit a singularity; that is a delusion.
There are people getting their PhD on angiology, and there are people getting their PhD on what happens beyond black hole horizons. The value of the work is the same.
There are people getting their PhD on angiology, and there are people getting their PhD on what happens beyond black hole horizons. The value of the work is the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)