Peter Woit is one of my heroes. One of the few men who tell clearly what is right and what is wrong. He is one of those people who are an example of what a man should be. If all people were honest and straight like he is, the world would be a better place.
In his new post, he writes about a German mathematician. And he writes that this guy clarified the math of the standard model. But all the work of this mathematician concerns continuous space and continuous time - both described by real number coordinates. But neither time nor space are continuous! We can shelve such theorems, they are useless.
Peter, please do not enter the world of mathematical physics! Leave Witten there, and Arkani-Something, and all the other guys who just need to feel busy instead of looking for advance. Peter, please, help readers to concentrate on physics, not one some obscure math which has no relation to reality!
30 May 2012
16 May 2012
Supersymmetry, epicycles and Santa Claus
1. Experiments show that there is no supersymmetry in nature. For most humans, this argument is sufficient. For the rest, here are a few more arguments.
2. The standard model has around 20 unexplained parameters. Supersymmetry introduces another 100 or so, even less unexplained ones, to "explain" the twenty. This means: supersymmetry has zero explanatory power. Nobody would believe that intelligent people reason like this. Supersymmetry is the epicycle theory of modern physics. No, epicycles needed fewer additional parameters, and epicycles actually described nature! Supersymmetry is worse than epicycles.
3. Supersymmetry only solves non-existing problems. Supersymmetry claims to be the only way to add symmetries in nature, but because of breaking, it really doesn't add any symmetry - it adds them only at energies where they cannot be checked. Supersymmetry claims to explain dark matter, but dark matter is not known with certainty to differ from ordinary matter. Supersymmetry claims to solve the hierarchy problem, but it is unclear whether there is such a problem. Supersymmetry claims to stabilize the Higgs mass, but it is unclear whether there is a Higgs at all. Supersymmetry claims to unify couplings - but this happens in an energy region were they cannot be measured. Supersymmetry claims to solve difficulties of string theory - but string theory has no evidence in its favor. And there are even more pseudosolutions to pseudoproblems. Supersymmetry is like Santa Claus: the more you look for it, the less you find him.
4. Imagine that the Higgs is not found. What will happen? Prediction: It will take only a few weeks and some researcher will say: nature has chosen a different path, so supersymmetry is still a candidate. Even David Gross, who has won 1/3 of a Nobel Prize for his work in particle physics, has said publicly many times that even if the LHC does not find supersymmetry, that is not an argument against it. (Children say the same about Santa Claus.)
5. Bloggers who propagate supersymmetry tend to be violent and lie. If supersymmetry were correct, they would just say: "wait and see for yourself". But their violence and lies mean that you must believe in supersymmetry, like you must believe in communism or in any other totalitarian nonsense.
Is supersymmetry nonsense combined with totalitarian behavior, or is it simply a mainly male, Santa-Claus-like delusion that needs professional treatment? The researchers on supersymmetry will tell us themselves, in the course of the year 2012.
2. The standard model has around 20 unexplained parameters. Supersymmetry introduces another 100 or so, even less unexplained ones, to "explain" the twenty. This means: supersymmetry has zero explanatory power. Nobody would believe that intelligent people reason like this. Supersymmetry is the epicycle theory of modern physics. No, epicycles needed fewer additional parameters, and epicycles actually described nature! Supersymmetry is worse than epicycles.
3. Supersymmetry only solves non-existing problems. Supersymmetry claims to be the only way to add symmetries in nature, but because of breaking, it really doesn't add any symmetry - it adds them only at energies where they cannot be checked. Supersymmetry claims to explain dark matter, but dark matter is not known with certainty to differ from ordinary matter. Supersymmetry claims to solve the hierarchy problem, but it is unclear whether there is such a problem. Supersymmetry claims to stabilize the Higgs mass, but it is unclear whether there is a Higgs at all. Supersymmetry claims to unify couplings - but this happens in an energy region were they cannot be measured. Supersymmetry claims to solve difficulties of string theory - but string theory has no evidence in its favor. And there are even more pseudosolutions to pseudoproblems. Supersymmetry is like Santa Claus: the more you look for it, the less you find him.
4. Imagine that the Higgs is not found. What will happen? Prediction: It will take only a few weeks and some researcher will say: nature has chosen a different path, so supersymmetry is still a candidate. Even David Gross, who has won 1/3 of a Nobel Prize for his work in particle physics, has said publicly many times that even if the LHC does not find supersymmetry, that is not an argument against it. (Children say the same about Santa Claus.)
5. Bloggers who propagate supersymmetry tend to be violent and lie. If supersymmetry were correct, they would just say: "wait and see for yourself". But their violence and lies mean that you must believe in supersymmetry, like you must believe in communism or in any other totalitarian nonsense.
Is supersymmetry nonsense combined with totalitarian behavior, or is it simply a mainly male, Santa-Claus-like delusion that needs professional treatment? The researchers on supersymmetry will tell us themselves, in the course of the year 2012.
26 April 2012
Siegel has given up
Warren Siegel is a physicist famous for his aggressive comments and his small stature. As a woman, I do not like nasty bearded dwarfs, so I admit being partial. Siegel works on strings and supersymmetry. His aggressive behavior against other people searching for a final theory is well-known. Besides, Siegel probably is the only person in the world claiming in writing that supersymmetry is predicted by experiment. Despite his religious devotion to supersymmetry, since many years, his papers lack any physical idea, any notable advance and any relation to experiment. And every new paper he writes is less interesting than the previous one. His last paper shows that he has effectively given up. This is understandable: the LHC has shown experimentally that most supersymmetric models are mistaken. Siegel has become a typical modern particle theoretician: with strong opinions that are wrong. If he is consistent, he will now start making nasty comments about his own work. That will be fun to watch. But it will make him more human, and more likeable.
22 April 2012
Men, women and passion
Weinberg, one of the most successful physicists ever, is now an old man. And he is sad and bitter that large particle experiments are so expensive and so tough to get funded. But why? Because his own passion took the wrong turn.
We women like men with a passion. We often are less passionate than men on issues, and are more passionate on human relations. We admire men with their abstract passions. Weinberg is such a man. He is passionate about particle physics since many decades, and has been an example to many.
Since 50 years he goes around saying: "Symmetry is the way to go forward! Look for larger symmetries, such as supersymmetry! The final theory will be found in that direction!" And essentially everybody agreed for 50 years. All particle physicists across the world followed him. But there is a tiny problem: he was wrong. The followers were lemmings.
Now Weinberg is sad. If he were a really great man, he would say: "Search elsewhere, I was wrong!" Instead, he is just a normal man, and goes on saying "Search harder! Spend more money!" His passion took the wrong turn. He is getting sad and bitter. And this despite the fact that everybody did what he wanted! How can such a successful man end up in such a mess?
Men need women who help them to remain sane and retain their good mood. And we need men for the same reason. My man will not end up being bitter and sad. We will take care together that our life, our deeds, our guiding principles and our successes do not lead us into a web of self-deception, despite all things that happened and that will happen.
Theoreticians, especially passionate ones, are in danger of getting entangled in falsities. Even more so when their environment agrees with them. Success is dangerous. But we all need to be careful, whether successful or not.
We women like men with a passion. We often are less passionate than men on issues, and are more passionate on human relations. We admire men with their abstract passions. Weinberg is such a man. He is passionate about particle physics since many decades, and has been an example to many.
Since 50 years he goes around saying: "Symmetry is the way to go forward! Look for larger symmetries, such as supersymmetry! The final theory will be found in that direction!" And essentially everybody agreed for 50 years. All particle physicists across the world followed him. But there is a tiny problem: he was wrong. The followers were lemmings.
Now Weinberg is sad. If he were a really great man, he would say: "Search elsewhere, I was wrong!" Instead, he is just a normal man, and goes on saying "Search harder! Spend more money!" His passion took the wrong turn. He is getting sad and bitter. And this despite the fact that everybody did what he wanted! How can such a successful man end up in such a mess?
Men need women who help them to remain sane and retain their good mood. And we need men for the same reason. My man will not end up being bitter and sad. We will take care together that our life, our deeds, our guiding principles and our successes do not lead us into a web of self-deception, despite all things that happened and that will happen.
Theoreticians, especially passionate ones, are in danger of getting entangled in falsities. Even more so when their environment agrees with them. Success is dangerous. But we all need to be careful, whether successful or not.
18 April 2012
Citing nonsense 20 000 times
A theoretical high-energy physicist called Arkani-Hamed appears frequently on the internet. Listen to his talks. He is not a physicist, he is a missionary. For him, the key to all is supersymmetry. But nothing he ever did fits with experiment. And he is cited in research papers, in total more than 20 000 times.
In today's papers, physicists do not cite correct results upon which their own correct results build. They cite friends who will help them in getting grants.
Citing missionary nonsense 20 000 times does not make it true. But at least it helps getting grants and research jobs.
In today's papers, physicists do not cite correct results upon which their own correct results build. They cite friends who will help them in getting grants.
Citing missionary nonsense 20 000 times does not make it true. But at least it helps getting grants and research jobs.
9 April 2012
American Physical Society gives a prize to a fraudster
The American Physical Society has given a prize to fraudolent string research. Peter Woit has the story here. The recipient claimed a prediction (on the Higgs mass) that was, in fact, a retrodiction.
On top of the fraud, there is still a good chance that he is wrong: it might well be that the Higgs does not exist at all...
Men without caring women are often lost creatures.
On top of the fraud, there is still a good chance that he is wrong: it might well be that the Higgs does not exist at all...
Men without caring women are often lost creatures.
29 March 2012
How fundamental physics research is influenced by violent men
Sabine Hossenfelder has a new preprint, on minimum length in nature: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6191 . Read it. What you find is a 70 page overview and not one conclusion that is noteworthy. It only sums up 80 years of research by saying that minimal length is implicit in essentially all of modern physics, but that its existence is still an open issue.
How can she make such a weak statement in the field she dedicated her life to? To understand this you must know that she is constantly attacked by one of the worst woman-haters around, Lubos Motl. Motl has a simple world view: women are bad and string theory is good. Of course, string theory implies a minimum length, but Motl is the only string theorist in the world that denies this. Armed with this inherent contradiction and all the hate he has accumulated in his life so far, he constantly hassels Sabine with the statement that there is no experimental evidence for a minimum length, and does so with all his nastiness. After all these years of fighting, Sabine has caved in: she avoids any statement that endorses minimum length, because "no experiment has seen it". This is also Motl's mantra.
But there is a tiny thorny issue: they are wrong. Planck showed already in 1899 that there is a huge number of experiments that show that a minimum length exists: every length measurement is based on a minimum length. The Planck length is the unit of length. Without a Planck length, without a minimum length, length measurements are impossible.
Yes, the minimum length makes length measurement possible. It takes only a bit of thinking to deduce that the minimum length itself is hard to measure in an experiment, because to see it, tiny black holes are necessary. (Schiller does not explain this well.) So, the minimum length exists, and at the same time it is hard to actually find it in a real measurement set-up.
In 2012, we know much better than Planck why the length unit is hard to measure. But honest women such as Hossenfelder are wary to explain this because violent men such as Motl unjustly criticize them. There is only one advice: Never, never, never give up.
Truth is defined by correspondence with data, not by lack of male violence.
How can she make such a weak statement in the field she dedicated her life to? To understand this you must know that she is constantly attacked by one of the worst woman-haters around, Lubos Motl. Motl has a simple world view: women are bad and string theory is good. Of course, string theory implies a minimum length, but Motl is the only string theorist in the world that denies this. Armed with this inherent contradiction and all the hate he has accumulated in his life so far, he constantly hassels Sabine with the statement that there is no experimental evidence for a minimum length, and does so with all his nastiness. After all these years of fighting, Sabine has caved in: she avoids any statement that endorses minimum length, because "no experiment has seen it". This is also Motl's mantra.
But there is a tiny thorny issue: they are wrong. Planck showed already in 1899 that there is a huge number of experiments that show that a minimum length exists: every length measurement is based on a minimum length. The Planck length is the unit of length. Without a Planck length, without a minimum length, length measurements are impossible.
Yes, the minimum length makes length measurement possible. It takes only a bit of thinking to deduce that the minimum length itself is hard to measure in an experiment, because to see it, tiny black holes are necessary. (Schiller does not explain this well.) So, the minimum length exists, and at the same time it is hard to actually find it in a real measurement set-up.
In 2012, we know much better than Planck why the length unit is hard to measure. But honest women such as Hossenfelder are wary to explain this because violent men such as Motl unjustly criticize them. There is only one advice: Never, never, never give up.
Truth is defined by correspondence with data, not by lack of male violence.
27 February 2012
Do not trust womanizers
First google "Antonio Ereditato", spokesperson of the OPERA experiment at Gran Sasso, and watch some videos. Then continue reading here.
The guy is a womanizer. Such men should never be taken seriously. Here is why: when people in his experiment found that the neutrinos are not faster than light, but that a faulty cable falsely gave this result, he wrote a press report in which he claimed that there was a second error that could revive the sensational finding. This is a lie, obviously just added to save face.
Ereditato is a crook - like every womanizer is.
The guy is a womanizer. Such men should never be taken seriously. Here is why: when people in his experiment found that the neutrinos are not faster than light, but that a faulty cable falsely gave this result, he wrote a press report in which he claimed that there was a second error that could revive the sensational finding. This is a lie, obviously just added to save face.
Ereditato is a crook - like every womanizer is.
16 February 2012
Why the laws of nature cannot evolve
Smolin and several other particle physicists believe that the laws of nature evolve.
They don't. Experiment shows that Newton's law, Coulomb's law, or the conservation of energy and momentum are valid all the time and everywhere. Nature's laws cannot evolve. Laws are by definition that part of nature that stays the same.
"Evolutions of laws" is doublespeak. Let us put Smolin and his companions where they belong: into oblivion.
They don't. Experiment shows that Newton's law, Coulomb's law, or the conservation of energy and momentum are valid all the time and everywhere. Nature's laws cannot evolve. Laws are by definition that part of nature that stays the same.
"Evolutions of laws" is doublespeak. Let us put Smolin and his companions where they belong: into oblivion.
6 February 2012
Hep-th is doing badly - no honest theorist in sight
Reading the hep-th summaries, I note that here is almost nothing on string theory or supersymmetry since many months. There are no new proposals for unified theories since a long time. Why?
The LHC will provide data at the end of 2012. And obviously particle theoreticians have no courage to propose something that can be checked soon. The whole community is doing nothing. Almost nobody has the courage to predict: "This is what will be measured!"
Not only is there no honest physicist; there are also no leaders: there are no voices that show the path that should be followed. There are no voices of reason. No voices of reason in a community of thousands of theoretical physicists. What a sad situation.
The LHC will provide data at the end of 2012. And obviously particle theoreticians have no courage to propose something that can be checked soon. The whole community is doing nothing. Almost nobody has the courage to predict: "This is what will be measured!"
- When Einstein found general relativity, he wrote: This is what will be measured. Check my prediction!
- When string theory came, the proponents wrote: We do not know what will be measured, but what the others are doing is nonsense!
Not only is there no honest physicist; there are also no leaders: there are no voices that show the path that should be followed. There are no voices of reason. No voices of reason in a community of thousands of theoretical physicists. What a sad situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)