tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52376549288355513902024-03-13T00:02:01.757+00:00Physics Satire About the Theory of EverythingSatire about the search for a theory of everything in physics, sometimes about the strand-spaghetti model.Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comBlogger258125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-1261111144514887472019-11-10T06:54:00.000+00:002019-11-18T04:29:01.033+00:00How can we test a Theory of Everything? - The answer of scientists vs that of sect membersHow can we test a Theory of Everything? We take the theory at hand and calculate all the fundamental constants of nature, especially<br />
<ul>
<li>the fine structure constant (137.03), </li>
<li>the mass of all particles, as fraction of the Planck mass, </li>
<li>the other constants of the standard model,</li>
<li>the constants that describe deviations from the standard model,</li>
<li>the cosmological constant, </li>
<li>the constants that describe deviations from general relativity. </li>
</ul>
<i>Then we compare the results of our calculation with experiment. </i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The answer is clear: that is how any Theory of Everything must be tested. Yes, the fine structure constant comes first. The answer is old. Sommerfeld gave this answer. Eddington gave it. Pauli gave it. Dirac gave it. Feynman gave it. There is no doubt about this answer. Any theory about fundamental physics is tested by its explanation of the fine structure constant and all the other constants.<br />
<br />
That is the scientist's path. Of course, as usual in this world, certain researchers disagree. In particular, various theoretical physicists avoid the test with data. And they avoid the test of the fundamental constants. These researchers disagree because something funny is going on in their mind: they want to avoid negative test results.<br />
<br />
In many researchers, the avoidance of negative results is so pervasive and so intense that they even start to question the validity of the answer just given. When researchers reach this level, they have chosen another path: they have joined a sect.<br />
<br />
The most common sect's name is "We didn't find the TOE ourselves and we will now make it as hard as possible for you, young woman, young man, to find it either: We will confuse your ideas on the way to proceed, confuse your ideas on the aims of the TOE, confuse your ideas on how to test a TOE, lead you astray, discourage you in every step towards a TOE, and ask you permanently to join our sect." Researchers regularly leave science to join this sect. The sect offers many advantages: it provides you with many friends and ensure that you are well paid.<br />
<br />
There are many such sects. Several ones have longer credos, more detailed and more specific. The advantages are the same.<br />
<br />
The world is funny. But remember: this is satire.<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
<br />
P.S. Let us work for a common goal: no woman should lead such a sect. Ever.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-68432022945374525472019-07-04T21:49:00.001+01:002019-07-06T20:04:04.427+01:00No madnessSabine complains about the madness of theoreticians working in fundamental physics. Sabine is so sad. Sometimes she is bitter. She did her best, did not want to lie, worked hard, but did not succeed - yet.<br />
<br />
Above all, she is disappointed about <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/07/physicists-still-perplexed-i-ask-for.html">modern theory papers in fundamental physics</a>. But some modern theories do not continue the madness and stagnation she is describing. The spaghetti model claims to reproduce both general relativity and the standard model, with no additional particles, no new forces, and also without any quantum gravity effects. Maybe a similar proposal will bring the end of stagnation, a proposal by her or by another woman. Sabine, go on! Take young women along with you.Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-84806249813110375872019-06-07T21:46:00.003+01:002019-06-21T06:13:08.311+01:00More Spaghetti My friend Olga told me that the spaghetti model has now appeared in print in a Russian physics journal, at <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1063779619030055">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1063779619030055</a> ; the cheaper preprint is at Schiller's site <a href="http://www.motionmountain.net/research.html">http://www.motionmountain.net/research.html</a>. Oh, and there are some more preprints as well.<br />
<br />
I've not followed the spaghetti model for some time. It seems that the main ideas are still the same. Just some tangles have changed. Schiller's style is still more intuitive than exact. But even after all this time, spaghetti still taste well. It reminds me about my younger years. I still like those crazy ideas.<br />
<br />
The central idea is still hat nature is a pot of boiling spaghetti. Particles are tangles of spaghetti. The noodles are special, though: they have no ends, cannot tear and they are really thin: their radius is the Planck length. It's more a spaghettini model, less a spaghetti model. In the preprints, I like the recurring sentence after the many predictions that are made: "If a deviation is observed, the strand conjecture is falsified."Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-42450527833508761962019-04-16T20:27:00.001+01:002019-04-29T04:23:35.762+01:00Wikipedia, physics and menOne of my best friends, a German physics teacher, wanted to improve the wikipedia article (in German) about movement in physics. His improvements were reverted, because the German wikipedia physics editors - all are male - told him that "light does not move". This is not a joke. This did not happen in the year 800 BC, but in 2019 AD.<br />
<br />
Then my friend provided the text of Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity, where the second principle states "Light always moves .... with velocity V". He also told them that Maxwell's equations are equations of motion of the electromagnetic field. He told them how moving light produces shadows.<br />
<br />
That was not enough to convince the German wikipedia editors. They wrote: "Light does not move." And "You have not proven that it does."<br />
<br />
The real world is better than any satire.<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-33461804747193424642019-03-17T21:14:00.001+00:002019-03-22T04:29:17.527+00:00Finally, Motl gets troubleFinally, Motl gets what he deserves: a letter from the lawyer. As much as I enjoy his physics comments, it is time that he gets a lesson on the law - and on the way to behave.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sabine, you are great! People like him, so verbally abusive, do not belong into the public space. </div>
<div>
He now plays the victim - like all violent people do.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sabine, go on!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-20124245332184875432019-02-02T08:02:00.001+00:002019-02-03T07:41:25.335+00:00Lying particle physicists against caring mothersAs mothers, we care about children. We do not like politicians spending billions for missiles and bombers. We also do not like liars. We do not want our children to grow up to be liars.<br />
<br />
There are many particle physicists who think that they are the smartest people, and that they are the only people worth existing. I have seen people with PhDs writing that other physicists should be gassed, that other physicists should stop research, that whoever does not not believe them should go drown in the toilet, or that whoever says the truth is bad.<br />
<br />
And the people writing these things got their PhDs for false statements. You will not believe it, but there are several domains of physics where you can get a PhD for writing about supersymmetry, about string theory, about axions, or about many other fairy tale concepts that are in contrast with data and with all experiments performed so far.<br />
<br />
Where has theoretical particle physics gone? How can it be that you get degrees and, worse, that you make a career with work that is wrong?<br />
<br />
These people are liars. They are not nasty, of course, and they also lie to themselves. They really believe what they say. They do not do much harm. But they destroy their lives, and poison their environment. Some of them are aggressive towards critics, and they fight angrily for money that their lies "deserve".<br />
<br />
Sabine Hossenfelder, in contrast, is a caring mother. She believes that physicists should not lie. Not to the public, and not to anybody else, including themselves. Other bloggers, who have never cared for anything else than their own ego, are attacking her. And they are many. Do they think about what they are doing to their children?<br />
<br />
In the end, truth and love will win. Mothers are stronger than angry boys.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-26222842500100733812018-12-29T08:32:00.000+00:002018-12-29T13:08:13.115+00:00Older women against CERN Should CERN ask for money for the future circular collider FCC or not? If you like particle physics, read the internal CERN yellow report <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2270978">https://cds.cern.ch/record/2270978</a> . It is a (partial) list of things that could be done with the machine.<br />
<br />
Have a look at the section "beyond the standard model". It is much shorter and really depressing. There is no real reason to build the FCC given in it.<br />
<br />
My colleague Sabine Hossenfelder also says so in <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/cern-produces-marketing-video-for-new.html">http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/cern-produces-marketing-video-for-new.html</a> where she writes: "After the discovery of the Higgs-boson, there is also no good reason for why there should be something else to find, neither at the LHC nor at higher energies, not up until 15 orders of magnitude higher than what we can reach now. "<br />
<br />
But when she says so, she is abused by all sorts of people. When CERN writes the same in its own report, nobody says anything.<br />
<br />
CERN is shooting in its own foot. Real life is better than any satire.Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-51065478749649368972018-12-10T10:00:00.002+00:002018-12-10T10:00:54.882+00:00Why is there no theory of everything yet? It is our - women's - fault! Physicists are special people. Many are careful, delicate, dreamers, smart, introverts, hard-working and much more. Why did we not find our theory of everything yet? After all, there are so many of us.<br />
Are they looking in the wrong places? Yes. Are they using the wrong models? Yes. Are they afraid to think in different direction? Yes. Are they afraid not to get grants? Yes. But why do they continue like this?<br />
<br />
Here is the answer: it is because of us women. We all know that men try to perform to impress us. This is also true for theoretical physicists. So we have all these young male physicists around who try to maximise the impression they make on us. And of course, they think that we want a husband with a safe job. They think that a woman prefers a string theorist that is well paid to a lonely researcher that is right in his theory but has no job. And of course, these men are right.<br />
<br />
Worse, some of us, like Sabine Hossenfelder, now start making fun of all men working on the theory of everything. How can a young researcher entering theoretical physics think productively if women, especially older women like Sabine and me, make fun of him? He will never find out anything, I promise you.<br />
<br />
Yes, all this is a conspiracy of women to ensure that no man finds the theory of everything. We want men to continue searching in dead ends. We want a woman to get the prize!Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-10817816922933420832018-11-24T22:23:00.000+00:002018-11-24T22:23:08.629+00:00Researchers need encouragement, not hypocrites<br />
Go to arxiv.org and search for "theory of everything". You get 82 results. 82 preprints in 24 years. That is really low. After all, researchers are all looking for theory of everything, aren't they? Two preprints are by Nobel prize winners, but both are nonsense. The other 80 preprints are equally nonsense. The truth is this: 0 real papers about the topic.<br />
<br />
Imagine that a manager heading an organisation with 5 000 employees that work for 24 years to find a law of nature. He pays them a salary and promises money and fame to the finder. Of the 5 000, in over 24 years, nobody succeeds. The manager did something wrong. So did the 5 000 employees.<br />
<br />
But the story gets even better. A few commenters state loudly that something is wrong. But when asked, they refuse to give hints where to search, they refuse to give advice, and they refuse to encourage others. These hypocrites are a disaster: they discourage their peers more than the lack of results does.<br />
<br />
When you search, you need encouragement, not hypocrites. Shut the hypocrites up - or change them into encouraging fellows.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-38984795790203774272018-11-21T19:06:00.002+00:002018-11-21T19:06:38.229+00:00Get an attic to find the TOEPeter Shor offers this advice to those searching for a TOE:<br />
<br /><i>So the only advice I have is that more physicists need to not worry
about grants, and go hide in their attics and work on new and crazy
theories, the way Andrew Wiles worked on Fermat's Last Theorem. </i><br />
<br />
But there is a little issue: most researchers have no <b>Attics</b> any more - by which I mean a topic dear to their heart on which they will work in special time. So far, I have only met a handful of researchers that had one.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the majority of them were women. There is hope. I think women will reach there first.Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-70223292728779271292018-11-18T17:13:00.001+00:002018-11-18T19:01:20.430+00:00Physicists and their Loch Ness monstersTrue story: We all know why people around Loch Ness tell the story of a monster: to get tourists there. They invent stories to get money.<br />
<br />
Satire: We all know why fundamental physicists tell the story about supersymmetry being a symmetry of nature: to get more funding. They invent stories to get money.<br />
<br />
Satire: We all know why solid state physicists tell the story about quantum technology being the future of technology: to get more funding. They invent stories to get money.<br />
<br />
Moral of the story: do not confuse the situations: The people around Loch Ness are crooks. The researchers in supersymmetry and into the solid state are honourable. Please treat them with great respect.Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-40926475134114147772018-11-13T05:51:00.000+00:002018-11-13T05:51:12.585+00:00Riding a sick horse is better than commenting about a dead oneA decade ago, when I was a young blogger, I made fun of pompous opinion makers who stated that loop quantum gravity and string theory were the way to go. They were riding sick horses, and some of them still do.<br />
<br />
Today, the opinion makers have changed. Now they criticize string theory and quantum gravity. But they are more pompous than their predecessors. The older generation was at least trying something out and encouraging others to come with them. It did not work, but they tried to achieve something. The new generation are not even searching any more; they are not trying anything. They are just discouraging everything and everybody else.<br />
<br />
The new generation is more disillusioned, more bitter and more pompous than the old one. Like the catholic church, we now have opinion makers commenting the mistakes of others. These opinion makers in public pretend to do nothing wrong and to be holy, but in private they sin more than the average, while commenting the mistakes of others.Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-74201078071749864502018-10-28T12:43:00.002+00:002018-10-28T12:43:52.462+00:00I wrote Sabine Hossenfelder about Lost in Mathand sent a comment to her <i>Backreaction</i> blog. I like her, because she is passionate about fundamental physics, because she wrote the preprint<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02176.pdf"> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02176.pdf,</a> because she dislikes string theory and the multiverse, and on top of all this she dislikes certain less than kind Czech bloggers.<br />
<br />
I had written her that <i>Lost in Math </i>is a good book. It explains that researchers got lost because of too much math, and too much apparently "beautiful" math. I added that the trouble seems to start with the idea that the standard model is 'ugly' (as I wrote a few posts ago). Finding an argument showing that the standard model is beautiful would be the best solution: it would change the situation completely, and it would discourage young researchers from taking the wrong path.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, she did not approve my comment. I will try again another day.Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-75720297370735014312018-10-27T11:24:00.001+01:002018-11-18T16:54:09.410+00:00What experiments in fundamental physics? CERN is lost - in math and nonsenseTrue story: CERN is looking for input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics. They look for input from anybody, and are setting up a <a href="http://europeanstrategyupdate.web.cern.ch/call-input">website</a> to collect it.<br />
<br />
Satire: We all know what this means: we have a multi-billion dollar project that does not know what to do. They have proven the standard model right, found no physics beyond it. And now they worry what to do. Indeed, what should they do with all that money? Please help them!<br />
<br />
True story: Scientists already had such a situation. Once upon a time, chemists discovered the periodic table of the elements. Then they filled up the gaps. There are few open topics, but the field is now essentially closed.<br />
<br />
True story: Now CERN is in the same situation. The tables of elementary particles are filled up, and the field is now essentially closed. The research race is a different one: calculate the parameters of the standard model.<br />
<br />
Satire: Now imagine, you have thousands of scientists in CERN and universities who do not know what to do. Some of them have not yet noticed, some of them changed from physics to offending others, some of them are lost in math, in supersymmetry, in multiple Higgs fantasies, and some of them are lost in real nonsensensical theories - from strings to - maybe - spaghetti.<br />
<br />
Satire: What will these scientists tell their children? They have a hard time ahead. Use the accelerator to invent new products. Use the computers to calculate. Use the left over data to stop exploring failed theories. Tell the world the truth, and and then change it to a better place.<br />
<br />
True story: Of course, this will not happen. When have men with a lot of money ever told the truth? Men with money always want more money.Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-78934351333019107042018-10-21T17:07:00.002+01:002018-10-21T17:35:48.711+01:00Ugly or beautiful - Sabine is rightSabine Hossenfelder is worried about the <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/06/lost-in-math-out-now.html">misuse of beauty in physics</a>. The idea of beauty led many researchers to the wrong theory. She wrote a book about the issue. So I took her seriously and had some fun the last few days searching on the internet for "standard model" and "ugly". I was astonished. There are many hits, starting with Stephen Hawking. It is also called "ugliest", "ugly as hell", "unnatural", "unsatisfactory" and more.<br />
<br />
If you claim that the standard model is ugly, you direct your research efforts elsewhere. And you direct young researchers elsewhere. But are you right in doing so? Sabine is skeptical, and so am I.<br />
<br />
Is the standard model ugly or beautiful? It depends on the way you describe it. Many call the standard model ugly because it is ad hoc and has around 24 parameters that are chosen arbitrarily. But Christoph Schiller would call the standard model beautiful, because all the parameters might follow from wiggling spaghetti and thus are not arbitrary at all. Who is right?<br />
<br />
If Sabine is right, we must hope that Christoph follows her advice and calculates better approximations for the 24 parameters. Christoph, listen to Sabine!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-31694704993397594302018-10-13T19:24:00.000+01:002018-10-14T06:40:49.783+01:00Fun or serious? The spaghetti model - the newest sauceYesterday I read the newest text on the spaghetti model on <a href="http://www.motionmountain.net/research.html">www.motionmountain.net/research.html</a><br />
There are few changes in some particle tangles, and a new way to explain elementary particle physics. Schiller now shows that the Feynman diagrams arise from spaghetti deformations. This is new, and I like it. In this way, Schiller can argue that the spaghetti model reproduces the standard model, without performing any calculation at all; he only needs to draw a number of spaghetti diagrams. More details are found in the paper.<br />
<br />
Is this serious science? The paper lists experimental predictions and claims that there are no disagreements with experiments, but agreement with the standard model and with general relativity. Schiller proposes a way to approximate the fine structure constant. The approximation is bad, but it is a start. For a physics paper I cannot ask for much more. <br />
<br />
How can a paper with little math claim to achieve unification, while hundreds of people have not managed to do so using much more complex math? Who is more crazy in this story: Schiller or his fellow researchers?<br />
<br />
We should make more jokes about the spaghetti model. Nobody in his right mind will ever believe that particles have tethers (the official word for "spaghetti"). We should not listen to the argument that the model agrees with data. Only losers use such logic.<br />
<br />
We should make more fun about such lone researchers. Schiller must be quite stubborn to do what he does, without support from anybody. He must be crazy to develop a theory that agrees with observation. In unification research, nobody has ever cared about experiments. Look at all those people working on loops, strings and the like; they are our shining examples in this matter.<br />
<br />
How can a theory correct that uses other people's math? A theory that is based on research by others? This crackpot does not even use higher dimensions. He does not mention supersymmetry. The dreamers have told since decades that we need complicated math, not a paper that any normal physicist can understand.<br />
<br />
Let us listen to Dijkgraaf, to Witten, or to other dreamers: they tell us to believe in the multiverse, not to explain down-to-earth issues like why there are three particle generations. They tell us to fantasize, not to check with data. Those are real men: they do not care about reality in their theories - they just care about reality when looking for funding.<br />
<br />
We need more people with double standards like string and loop theorists; we do not need lone workers who make actual predictions for future experiments! Only wimps make predictions that can be checked.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-4553672519797639682018-06-08T08:19:00.001+01:002018-06-13T18:23:32.265+01:00Robert Dijkgraaf, the Genius: one paper, many Nobel prizesRobert Dijkgraaf, an important string theorist, is a real Genius. Not a simple one like Einstein, Maxwell, Heisenberg or Bohr. He is much more. Look at his new article:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-are-no-laws-of-physics-theres-only-the-landscape-20180604">https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-are-no-laws-of-physics-theres-only-the-landscape-20180604</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The title says it all. There are no laws of physics. Please, believe him!</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Energy is not conserved.</li>
<li>The speed of light is not a limit.</li>
<li>Charge is not conserved.</li>
<li>Gravity can be repulsive.</li>
<li>Momentum is not conserved.</li>
</ol>
<div>
With statement 1, Dijkraaf has revolutionized the energy industry. Everybody will have energy at will from now on! Forget worrying about the oil prize! With statement 2, he has shown that Einstein was a fool. I met a few others that thought so, but most of them are locked up in institutions in the meantime. Forget these poor souls, Robert is much smarter than them! With statement 3, he avoids paying his electricity bill! With statement 4, he lets his roof float above his house! And with statement 5, he can reduce the speed of cars on the highway just by the power of his thoughts. No accidents any more! He is already saving many lives!</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Lets start a <b>twitter campaign</b>! Hail the Genius! Not a small genius like the others you have read about until now. Robert truly is the Great Genius with a capital G! The next Nobel prizes in physics, economy and medicine should go to him!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-12754930383071697822018-03-24T15:09:00.002+00:002018-03-27T06:41:04.688+01:00Spaghetti vs. strings - and the neutrino chanceSchiller claims that his strand-spaghetti model contains general relativity and also the standard model of particle physics. <a href="http://www.motionmountain.net/Schiller-Strand-Colour-Talk.pdf">See here </a>and <a href="http://www.motionmountain.net/research.html">here</a>. What should we make of this claim? I summarize my scepticism.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The spaghetti model predicts that there is <span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: purple;"><i>no physics beyond the standard model</i></span></span>. This is a bold claim; it could be true and it could be wrong. Most particle physicists would disagree; especially theoreticians like to point out that the standard model cannot be right or at least, that it cannot be complete. Are their arguments correct or wishful thinking? This is hard to tell. The topic would be worth a separate investigation. One thing is sure: many researchers disagree with the prediction.</li>
<li>The spaghetti model predicts that there are <span style="color: purple;"><i>no additional elementary particles</i></span> in nature. It claims that dark matter is nothing different from usual matter and black holes. Obviously, experiments can prove this prediction wrong at any time. Supersymmetry and dark matter fans disagree, but they are rather quiet at present.</li>
<li>The spaghetti model <i><span style="color: purple;">did not calculate absolute particle masses</span></i> yet. This is a big issue, because neutrino masses are not yet known. The model would gain instant credibility if a neutrino mass value would be calculated, published and then confirmed by experiment. Why does this not happen? Is it really so difficult to calculate mass values? </li>
<li>The spaghetti model predicts cosmology with a <span style="color: purple;"><i>decreasing cosmological constant</i></span>. There are no good measurements about this issue yet. And the proposal is rather uncommon in the community.</li>
</ol>
<div>
Do we just need to be patient and to wait for more results? Here are a few other points that make me think:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<li>Schiller <i style="color: purple;">did not publish yet. </i>He did not publish a single paper on strands. On his website, Schiller writes that his work is not ripe for publication yet. Are the spaghetti not cooked enough yet?</li>
<li>Schiller has <i><span style="color: purple;">made mistakes and changed his model</span></i> in the past. He once predicted that the Higgs boson would not exist. He then added the Higgs. And he eliminated knots. Like in real spaghetti.</li>
<li>Schiller has <span style="color: purple;"><i>no support</i></span> from other researchers. He seems to work alone.</li>
<li>And Schiller is <i><span style="color: purple;">not a woman</span></i>, as I always wanted any good researcher on unification to be. OK, this is not a serious argument. </li>
<br />
<div>
Are these points of any weight? I do not know; probably not. Also, there are unquestionable positive sides: Experiments agree with his spaghetti model. There is no multiverse in the spaghetti model. The press and the media are not involved. There is no mention of holography and string theory. (A dark point: Schiller does mention qubits...) And finally, because the spaghetti model agrees with data, but not with string theory, an ignominious ex-researcher from Czechia called Schiller a "crackpot". That is how deep string theorists have fallen: if you make statements that agree with experiment, you get ad hominem attacks. Schiller should bear this as a badge of honour - at least until disagreement with data occurs. Insults by Czech or other string theorists are a good sign. Spaghetti or strings, that's the question!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What should I make of all this? My own conclusion: I will wait to write more biting satire until the neutrino mass is predicted or until the spaghetti model is falsified. </div>
Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-40349215302091287212018-02-06T05:33:00.002+00:002018-03-24T10:49:17.580+00:00Satire or Reality? Unification vs Experimental Data - On Funding and IQI read Schiller's slides about his strand model again. I got the latest version from <a href="http://www.motionmountain.net/Schiller-Strand-Colour-Talk.pdf">http://www.motionmountain.net/Schiller-Strand-Colour-Talk.pdf</a> His simple model retrodicts general relativity, quantum theory, the spectrum of elementary particles and the gauge groups. And it proposes ways to calculate the standard model parameters.<br />
<br />
<b>The ideas could be true.</b> After all, they agree with experimental data so far.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>The ideas cannot be true.</b> After all, why should a single researcher with little funding deduce more results that thousands of heavily funded string and quantum gravity researchers?<br />
<br />
A non-funded model cannot be true. Why should there be interest for a unified model that agrees with data? Why should there be interest for a unified model that deduces everything known? Researchers are proud of their funding. There will be no interest for the model in the coming years. Because theoretical research is not a battle for right or wrong; it is a battle for funds. A new entrant that reduces other people's funding is not interesting. Interest will only appear once funds are available.<br />
<br />
<b>The ideas cannot be true.</b> They are much too simple. They do not require a high IQ.<br />
<br />
<b>The ideas could be true.</b> They agree with data.<br />
<br />
A simple model cannot be true. Why should there be interest for a simple model that agrees with data? We all know that unification must be hard, really hard to understand. Researchers in theory are proud of their IQ. Because theoretical research is not a battle for right or wrong; it is a battle to show off your IQ. Showing off your IQ is more important than agreement with data.<br />
<br />
All this real world satire. My opinion? I like the model; it is cute. But it is not finished. Time will tell.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-54198050336782481782018-01-17T07:17:00.000+00:002018-01-17T07:17:06.237+00:00MeToo in Physics BloggingWhen I see what <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.de/">Sabine Hossenfelder</a> has to endure, when I look at the comments I sometimes get on this blog, when I see what other female bloggers must cope with, I am sad - and angry. How can some men (not <i>all</i> men, but <i>some</i> men!) write things to and about female bloggers they don't even know that are so full of hate? Don't they have mothers, grandmothers, greatgrandmothers? Don't they have fathers, grandfathers, greatgrandfathers? <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All of us have mothers and fathers. We all have female and male sides, and female and male gifts. I am amazed by what women did and can do, and I am amazed by what men did and can do. Life comes to each of us through both. We are different, but we are all where and what the universe wants us to be.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-75744901324683703342018-01-06T18:33:00.003+00:002018-01-10T05:28:24.567+00:00The spaghetti model of nature - really a theory of everything?Schiller has posted a pdf with 16 slides: "From Strand Model Unification to the Fine Structure Constant" on his site <a href="http://www.motionmountain.net/research.html">www.motionmountain.net/research.html</a> . It is a concise summary of his ideas and saves reading his much longer book.<br />
<br />
He defines his model, explains his calculation of black hole entropy with strands, and then gives his model for Dirac particles as tangles. He presents his specific particle models and continues with his strand model of interactions as deformations and summarizes his U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) deduction from strands. He also lists quite a number of experimental predictions. All this in just 11 slides. Then he uses just 4 more slides to deduce an approximation for the fine structure constant. He gives an integral expression. There is a summary on the last slide.<br />
<br />
As a reader, I was a bit overwhelmed at first. He has the whole of cosmology in a quarter of a slide. OK, it is not the focus of his talk, but its is a daring feat. On slide 11, the end of his introduction of the strand model, he basically says: "sorry folks, there is nothing beyond the standard model - but now we can calculate its parameters." That is quite a claim.<br />
<br />
He then only talks about the fine structure constant. I want to check his formula in the coming days. I do not like his approximation yet. And I have several issues with the whole argument. More soon.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-29487787963543170522017-12-09T13:16:00.000+00:002017-12-09T13:16:03.153+00:00A new spaghetti sauceAn email convinced me to read the text on the spaghetti model again, in its newest version. Yep, Schiller has changed quite a few things in the last two years. His "strand model" is still crazy. In its latest edition, he has no knots any more, just tangles. That simplifies the correspondence with particle interactions.<br />
<br />
But some of the tangle-particle assignments are still doubtful: the tangles for the last two neutrinos, for the up quark and also for the W might need revision.<br />
<br />
Undaunted, Schiller has a new calculation for the fine structure constant from his model. His simple approximation produces a result within 10%. Amusing. I tend to be skeptical about calculations of the fine structure constant, and I am not sure that Schiller takes his calculation seriously either. But who knows? The model has explained more than any other conjecture that I have read about.<br />
<br />
Even though the model is produced by a man, I like it: it is so different from anything else. And it predicts no new physics. That looks like real courage to me. The spaghetti model is a slap in the face of all those pompous theoreticians that claim that their own theory is the only game in town. I do not whether to laugh or to cry. Let's see wether this sauce is more sucessful.Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-19061824865189404502017-12-03T06:10:00.000+00:002017-12-03T06:50:30.203+00:00Witten - It from QubitWitten and many others repeat it like a mantra: "it from qubit". This rallying cry of depressed theoreticians has never led to any tangible result. That is what all my friends and acquaintances told me since I can remember.<br />
<br />
But isn't the <a href="http://www.motionmountain.net/research.html">spaghetti model</a> a realization of the mantra? I hate to put such a loose idea as 'it from qubit' - and such a looser's idea, to be honest - in the neighborhood of the spaghetti model. But the analogy is striking. Is the basic principle of the spaghetti model a qubit?<br />
<br />
Is Witten advertizing the spaghetti model?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-67743148940677234012017-10-28T21:56:00.002+01:002017-10-28T21:58:59.281+01:00Niels Bohr, my physics professor and Peter WoitI like Peter Woit; he is a nice and honest man. Nevertheless I want to poke a little bit of fun at him.<br />
<br />
My physics professor at university told me to read Niels Bohr. That is not easy. But I did it. Most of it I did not like. But I liked one idea of his: Bohr used to write that quantum mechanics is summarized in the statement that hbar is not zero. So did my teacher.<br />
<br />
My prof told us that starting from a nonzero hbar value we can distinguish state and measurement. And then quantum mechanics appears. hbar is even at the origin of the term "quantum".<br />
<br />
The world was ok - until modern mathematical physicists appeared. Peter Woit is one of them. These people refused this connection between hbar and quantum theory. They claim that is is not that simple, that quantum theory exists by itself, independently of hbar, and that hbar is not the reason for the Hilbert space. History and facts shows the opposite, but who cares? :-)<br />
<br />
The ideology behind such mathematical opinions explains why mathematical physicists will *not* succeed in finding the unified theory - especially when male.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-85999652774914327622017-10-22T12:51:00.001+01:002017-11-19T19:23:55.039+00:00The conformal standard model from BerlinThe Conformal Standard Model - finally an attempt for a unified model in arixv! There have not been such speculations for years. Here it is: <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06149">https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06149</a> by <a href="https://arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Lewandowski_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Lewandowski</a>, <a href="https://arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Meissner_K/0/1/0/all/0/1">Meissner</a>,
and <a href="https://arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Nicolai_H/0/1/0/all/0/1">Nicolai</a>.<br />
<br />
So, what should we think about it? The model fits experiments and makes predictions: (few) new particles, dark matter is one of them, and a few more details. So far so good. We will wait for the experimental tests and then see what happens.<br />
<br />
But there are reasons to be unsure. A number of questions are not addressed:<br />
<br />
- How does the particle spectrum arise? No real answer is given.<br />
- What determines the gauge groups? Is there any answer?<br />
- How exactly do the gauge couplings arise? The answer in the paper is not so clear.<br />
- What about mixing matrices, electric dipole moments and neutrino masses? No numbers are predicted, but (indirectly) ranges of values; so this might be plausible.<br />
- Why does space have three dimensions? No answer is given.<br />
- What happens at the Planck scale? No answer.<br />
- Does inflation occur? No answer - but then, no one is needed anyway.<br />
<br />
So what shall we think of the paper? The nice side about it: No supersymmetry, no axions, no strings, no loop quantum gravity. The more questionable side: new particles are predicted that nobody has seen yet.<br />
<br />
If they are flowers, they will blossom!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.com0