10 September 2011
No mass calculation
The strand model, though my favorite, lacks a good explanation for particle masses. It does explain certain mass ratios, but it does not explain the absolute mass values. We should help on this topic.
3 September 2011
Bilson-Thompson's dream is brought to a halt by his collaborators
Bilson-Thompson was a guy on a mission. His mission was to describe all particles with knotted bands. He progressed well while he worked alone, and he was almost as far with his ideas.
Bilson-Thompson wanted to find structures for all particles, to explain the gauge interactions, to deduce quantum field theory, and to explain the coupling constants.
But then he went to the US, and the people who worked with him convinced him to do nonsense instead of physics, to stop completing his model, to stop continuing on his path, and to do useless math instead. His environment now produces one nonsense paper every year, with no new ideas and no new results.
What a sad story!
Bilson-Thompson wanted to find structures for all particles, to explain the gauge interactions, to deduce quantum field theory, and to explain the coupling constants.
But then he went to the US, and the people who worked with him convinced him to do nonsense instead of physics, to stop completing his model, to stop continuing on his path, and to do useless math instead. His environment now produces one nonsense paper every year, with no new ideas and no new results.
What a sad story!
27 August 2011
Three mathematicians - one famous - make a fool of themselves
Three men, the famous Michael Atiyah, together with Nicholas S. Manton and Bernd J. Schroers, propose "Geometric Models of Matter".
This is modern academic comedy writing. You will note that they do not speak about quarks, nor about W and Z bosons. They also have problems incorporating spin 1/2. Nor do they describe interactions.
In short, they neglect most of modern physics, but still claim to have done something sensible. What is the truth? They just played a little with their favorite mathematical concepts. But they did not do anything sensible.
It seems that Atiyah has completely lost contact with reality. What a pity - he was one of the sharpest minds of mathematics.
This is modern academic comedy writing. You will note that they do not speak about quarks, nor about W and Z bosons. They also have problems incorporating spin 1/2. Nor do they describe interactions.
In short, they neglect most of modern physics, but still claim to have done something sensible. What is the truth? They just played a little with their favorite mathematical concepts. But they did not do anything sensible.
It seems that Atiyah has completely lost contact with reality. What a pity - he was one of the sharpest minds of mathematics.
23 August 2011
A further theoretician prefers prejudice to facts
Just read and enjoy this blog entry by L. Motl. It is incredible how deep a really smart man can fall.
A real smart man, Motl is led into a really primitive trap by the author of the preprint he is discussing. The otherwise unknown author, a certain Archil Kobakhidze, suggests that Verlinde's idea implies a momentum operator for a particle that differs from the usual one. Why? He does not say so - he just refers to another paper of his. (That is already a completely unprofessional attitude in itself. A woman could never write a paper like that.) Read that other paper, and you will find that the author is in need - well, let's say - of soothing care. The argument against gravity being entropic is deeply flawed, and obviously so, but Motl doesn't want to acknowledge this.
Two poor men, and now a woman is telling them all this ...
A real smart man, Motl is led into a really primitive trap by the author of the preprint he is discussing. The otherwise unknown author, a certain Archil Kobakhidze, suggests that Verlinde's idea implies a momentum operator for a particle that differs from the usual one. Why? He does not say so - he just refers to another paper of his. (That is already a completely unprofessional attitude in itself. A woman could never write a paper like that.) Read that other paper, and you will find that the author is in need - well, let's say - of soothing care. The argument against gravity being entropic is deeply flawed, and obviously so, but Motl doesn't want to acknowledge this.
Two poor men, and now a woman is telling them all this ...
17 August 2011
The failure of quantum gravity
Have a look at the overview article arXiv:1108.3269 "An introduction to quantum gravity" by Giampiero Esposito.
It lists 16 approaches to quantum gravity that were followed in the last 80 years - string theory is one of them. Then it lists their achievements. All are theoretical! Not a single of the achievements is a testable prediction.
Yep, quantum gravity is a dead alley. We all can stop reading gr-qc.
It lists 16 approaches to quantum gravity that were followed in the last 80 years - string theory is one of them. Then it lists their achievements. All are theoretical! Not a single of the achievements is a testable prediction.
Yep, quantum gravity is a dead alley. We all can stop reading gr-qc.
15 August 2011
Another theoretician left reality
This theoretician is too little-known to be named. He dislikes the strand model. But for a simple reason: He thinks that time has two dimensions.
This seems too crazy too be true. But some people get paid for saying and writing such nonsense. Modern research is full of nonsense.
This seems too crazy too be true. But some people get paid for saying and writing such nonsense. Modern research is full of nonsense.
9 August 2011
The next theoretician goes bonkers
This theoretician is too well-known to be named. When asked what he thought about the strand model, he answered that the strand model of a black hole could not be correct, because it does not work in 5 and 6 dimensions.
This answer is worth meditating. A physicists says, in writing, that a description of nature is wrong because it does not describe certain cases that have no relation to reality. He could equally say that F=ma is wrong because the equation does not describe Santa Claus or resurrection.
With this way of thinking the theoretician has maneuvered himself into the land of fairies. There is no way that he will ever be successful in finding a theory of quantum gravity.
This answer is worth meditating. A physicists says, in writing, that a description of nature is wrong because it does not describe certain cases that have no relation to reality. He could equally say that F=ma is wrong because the equation does not describe Santa Claus or resurrection.
With this way of thinking the theoretician has maneuvered himself into the land of fairies. There is no way that he will ever be successful in finding a theory of quantum gravity.
7 August 2011
Another theoretician goes bonkers
Vongehr is one of those people that wrote papers that nature has two times. He means two-dimensional time. No joke.
Experimental backing? Zero. That a guy writing this has studied physics at university is almost unbelievable. Some people have a degree and still cannot count.
Experimental backing? Zero. That a guy writing this has studied physics at university is almost unbelievable. Some people have a degree and still cannot count.
6 August 2011
Multiverse and polytheism
One can dispute whether the equivalence between the universe and god is accurate. Pantheists assume that universe and god are two words for the same concept. Einstein was a pantheist in this sense.
Assuming pantheists are right, the people that talk about the multiverse are reintroducing polytheism. It becomes clear again what a nonsense the concept of multiverse is.
Assuming pantheists are right, the people that talk about the multiverse are reintroducing polytheism. It becomes clear again what a nonsense the concept of multiverse is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)