This is the start:
String perturbation theory is based on a generalization from point particles and Feynman graphs to strings and Riemann surfaces. It has the remarkable property of preserving the general properties of relativistic quantum fi eld theory, while eliminating the ultraviolet region and forcing the inclusion of gravity.This is the last sentence:
As a result, the correlation function under study and hence also the matrix element for the supercurrent to create the gaugino from the vacuum is proportional to (Vi), with a universal coefficient.It is not hard to notice that the paper has no conclusion. This master of physics is unable to write a conclusion!
It is not hard to notice that the paper speaks about gauginos. But they do not exist!
It is not hard to notice that the start is fantasy, not science.
We have the "successor of Einstein" writing nonsense. Yes, also Einstein made mistakes. But he corrected them after a year or two. Witten repeats the same mistakes since 30 years. What a tragedy.
'[String perturbation theory] has the remarkable property of preserving the general properties of relativistic quantum field theory, while eliminating the ultraviolet region and forcing the inclusion of gravity.'
ReplyDeleteHow can that be true yet it not have yielded any new predictions, testable against observation? Not in 30 years! It makes me think that the claim must have been a hopeful one (rather than matter of fact).
It's easy to get carried away with numbers and start seeing significances in them that aren't there. They call it numerology in physics (but proper numerology is far dafter than that). I wonder if the same doesn't happen with equations - call it equationology (I just Googled the word, and someone has already coined it).
And what about Planck units? What inviolable principle prevents them from being unfortunate nonsense? Yeah, they looked promising, but what actual observations have they lead to?
When Christoph Schiller does the 'deducing physics from limit laws', the limits he uses aren't the Planck units, are they? And when he deduces the mass ratio of the W and Z bosons, Planck units don't enter into it, do they?
Why does the minimum length, say, absolutely have to be the Corrected Planck Length and not some other value that is not a Planck-unit-like one?
Equationology is a great word!
ReplyDeleteAbout the exact value of the Planck units, you better ask Schiller.
Most people say that the smallest length in nature is around the Planck length; even string theorists claim that (not that this is a strong argument). Why are you skeptical about this?
General relativity and quantum mechanics particularly are very shocking. Nobody would have thought that was how things are 200 hundred years ago. If Planck units turn out to be nonsense, that will be very shocking to lots of physicists no doubt. But who is to say they are not in for just such a shock? Where is the observational evidence? What is the watertight argument that precludes that possibility?
ReplyDeleteWell, the Planck velocity c seems important to me. Also the Planck action h-bar. Both have a lot of observational evidence in their favor. Schiller's idea of the Planck force is puzzling but there is enough evidence as well.
ReplyDeleteBut maybe you mean the Planck length and time? There is no observation showing them. But if you do not like them, you are back to classical physics!