Like many physicists, I too receive messages saying that "truth does not exist". Since this statement also applies to the person making it, I understand that the person - usually a man - does not want to be taken seriously.
Then there are the people who uses lies to discredit others. Sentences such as "strings do not make experimental predictions, but are the only possibility for a theory of everything" or "there is no alternative to supersymmetry" or "the spaghetti model claims that particles are knots and thus cannot be correct" show that many people have a distant relation to truth and honesty.
Remember what Huxley did for evolution? 150 years ago, facts were on the side of evolution, lies on the other side. And Darwin's bulldog rubbed it all under their noses. The creationists and the string people are indeed similar. All facts so far prove that creation is wrong and that creationism is nonsense. Facts show: evolution is correct. And all facts so far prove that supersymmetry is wrong, that strings are nonsense. Facts show: the spaghetti/strand model is correct.
29 April 2011
26 April 2011
About 't Hooft's latest ideas
Gerard 't Hooft received the Nobel Prize for his work on the weak interaction. And he is a gentle person. Since many years, he is trying to work towards unification. Here is is latest paper. Read it. The title is good: "A class of elementary particle models without any adjustable real parameters".
Unfortunately, many ideas for which Hooft became known are missing. He does not talk a lot about smallest distances on black hole horizons, even though he was one of its main proponents. It is nice to see that he mentions strings and supersymmetry only only in passing. But he asks questions about black hole evaporation and about conformal invariance; why is he still worried about these issues?
And unfortunately, the whole discussion leads nowhere. There is no tangible proposal, no tangible idea, no hint about where to go to. The only interesting statement in the whole paper is the title. What a pity! After all, any theory of everything should belong in the class of models "without any adjustable real parameters"! But the paper does not present such a model. Not even a glimpse about one.
Why is this so disappointing? Hooft stills believes that space and time exist "beyond the Planck scale". If you believe that, you never get anywhere. Hooft thinks about conformal invariance, its breaking and the dilaton. All these problems only appear if you believe that space and time exist "beyond the Planck scale". Yes, Hooft shows us: if you believe that space exists beyond the Planck scale (which is not true in this universe), then you are forced to think about many problems that do not exist in this universe.
Ex falso quod libet.
Unfortunately, many ideas for which Hooft became known are missing. He does not talk a lot about smallest distances on black hole horizons, even though he was one of its main proponents. It is nice to see that he mentions strings and supersymmetry only only in passing. But he asks questions about black hole evaporation and about conformal invariance; why is he still worried about these issues?
And unfortunately, the whole discussion leads nowhere. There is no tangible proposal, no tangible idea, no hint about where to go to. The only interesting statement in the whole paper is the title. What a pity! After all, any theory of everything should belong in the class of models "without any adjustable real parameters"! But the paper does not present such a model. Not even a glimpse about one.
Why is this so disappointing? Hooft stills believes that space and time exist "beyond the Planck scale". If you believe that, you never get anywhere. Hooft thinks about conformal invariance, its breaking and the dilaton. All these problems only appear if you believe that space and time exist "beyond the Planck scale". Yes, Hooft shows us: if you believe that space exists beyond the Planck scale (which is not true in this universe), then you are forced to think about many problems that do not exist in this universe.
Ex falso quod libet.
25 April 2011
No Higgs yet
CERN is a great place. It is the place where people do the best they can with present technology. But since a few years, unrealistic wishes took over. They want to prove supersymmetry, higher dimensions, and other false fixed ideas. Now, an obscure internal memo claims to have seen a Higgs-like signal. I hope that it is not due to the desire to show that 5 billion euro were well spent.
22 April 2011
Why spaghetti are not popular among particle physicists
The strand-spaghetti model predicts all forces, all standard model particles and quantum theory.
It might well be that this is the only model in the universe that achieves this. But Schiller is really making it hard to swallow. He pisses off most theoretical physicists on the planet. For example, he has a microscopic model for quantum theory. Researchers have searched for such a model for almost 100 years, and he just presents it in a chapter and goes on. In normal life, such a discovery is sufficient to build a career plus a whole research group.
Schiller then explains the gauge groups as consequences of knot deformations. This will piss off all mathematicians working on knot theory for the last 50 years, because they missed the discovery. I do not know any of them, I must ask around.
He then deduces black hole entropy from spaghetti. This feat alone should make him well-known about quantum gravity people. But he does not care and goes on.
He then deduces the particle spectrum. Nobody has ever deduced a particle spectrum. This feat, again, is unique. What does he do? He explains the quark model and goes on. He explains the quark model! Nobody ever did that. Be he does give a damn and goes on.
And then he starts thinking about masses and the fine structure constant. And he is not as successful. He clearly needs people to help him. But people do not manage to follow him. He is simply too fast. He cruises through physics in a way that is much too demanding.
We women must get together: spaghetti taste better if a woman prepares them. We must find a way to make them more palatable.
It might well be that this is the only model in the universe that achieves this. But Schiller is really making it hard to swallow. He pisses off most theoretical physicists on the planet. For example, he has a microscopic model for quantum theory. Researchers have searched for such a model for almost 100 years, and he just presents it in a chapter and goes on. In normal life, such a discovery is sufficient to build a career plus a whole research group.
Schiller then explains the gauge groups as consequences of knot deformations. This will piss off all mathematicians working on knot theory for the last 50 years, because they missed the discovery. I do not know any of them, I must ask around.
He then deduces black hole entropy from spaghetti. This feat alone should make him well-known about quantum gravity people. But he does not care and goes on.
He then deduces the particle spectrum. Nobody has ever deduced a particle spectrum. This feat, again, is unique. What does he do? He explains the quark model and goes on. He explains the quark model! Nobody ever did that. Be he does give a damn and goes on.
And then he starts thinking about masses and the fine structure constant. And he is not as successful. He clearly needs people to help him. But people do not manage to follow him. He is simply too fast. He cruises through physics in a way that is much too demanding.
We women must get together: spaghetti taste better if a woman prepares them. We must find a way to make them more palatable.
21 April 2011
What string theory does not explain
These are some points, inspired by a table from Schiller's html page on the strand model:
- Strings do not explain (yet) the interactions of nature.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the gauge groups and coupling constants.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the number of particle generations- Strings do not explain (yet) the particle spectrum.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the validity of the least action principle.
- Strings do not explain (yet) any quantum number and mass of any elementary particles.
- Strings do not explain the validity of quantum theory and quantum field theory.
- Strings do not explain the least action principle.
In two points, there is no "yet", because the items are put into string theory by fiat.
String theory might well explain gravity, but that is all. String theory does not explain anything about quantum theory and the standard model. It has no explanatory power whatsoever in the microscopic domain. String theory is not a candidate theory of everything; it is a full, complete and total failure.
This is not new; Woit says some of this all the time. But I was surprised noticing that string theory does not explain a single item of the standard model. It is wrong to say that the emperor has no clothes; there is not even an emperor.
Loop quantum gravity does not fear any better, by the way. I discovered an underlying symmetry that relates string theory and loop quantum gravity: any statement on one theory is also a statement on the other. Both theories are fantasies about quantum gravity, and neither describes the standard model.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the interactions of nature.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the gauge groups and coupling constants.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the number of particle generations- Strings do not explain (yet) the particle spectrum.
- Strings do not explain (yet) the validity of the least action principle.
- Strings do not explain (yet) any quantum number and mass of any elementary particles.
- Strings do not explain the validity of quantum theory and quantum field theory.
- Strings do not explain the least action principle.
In two points, there is no "yet", because the items are put into string theory by fiat.
String theory might well explain gravity, but that is all. String theory does not explain anything about quantum theory and the standard model. It has no explanatory power whatsoever in the microscopic domain. String theory is not a candidate theory of everything; it is a full, complete and total failure.
This is not new; Woit says some of this all the time. But I was surprised noticing that string theory does not explain a single item of the standard model. It is wrong to say that the emperor has no clothes; there is not even an emperor.
Loop quantum gravity does not fear any better, by the way. I discovered an underlying symmetry that relates string theory and loop quantum gravity: any statement on one theory is also a statement on the other. Both theories are fantasies about quantum gravity, and neither describes the standard model.
20 April 2011
Susy and little green men
Little green men were born in the mind of people who watched too much TV in the 1950s. After that date, many people searched for little green men. Of course, they are never convinced that they do not exist. After all, we haven't searched everywhere. A little green man could hide anywhere in the universe.
Supersymmetry was born in the mind of people who read too many science speculations in the 1970s. After that date, many people searched for susy. Of course, they are never convinced that it does not exist. After all, we haven't searched everywhere. A little sparticle could hide anywhere in the universe.
String theory ...
University studies do not make people smarter than others.
Supersymmetry was born in the mind of people who read too many science speculations in the 1970s. After that date, many people searched for susy. Of course, they are never convinced that it does not exist. After all, we haven't searched everywhere. A little sparticle could hide anywhere in the universe.
String theory ...
University studies do not make people smarter than others.
19 April 2011
Spaghetti beat strings
On some obscure corner of the internet a string theorist claimed that the strand/spaghetti model is "taken" from string theory.
Given that spaghetti categorically refute supersymmetry and higher dimensions, this is really bizarre. Maybe this string theorist unconsciously knows that they are wrong, that strands are correct, and wants to claim some of the success for himself?
After all, no other candidate for the theory of everything unambiguously predicts the four forces and the three fermion generations. So we have to conclude that spaghetti are the only present candidate for a theory of everything.
Viva l'Italia!
Given that spaghetti categorically refute supersymmetry and higher dimensions, this is really bizarre. Maybe this string theorist unconsciously knows that they are wrong, that strands are correct, and wants to claim some of the success for himself?
After all, no other candidate for the theory of everything unambiguously predicts the four forces and the three fermion generations. So we have to conclude that spaghetti are the only present candidate for a theory of everything.
Viva l'Italia!
18 April 2011
Can particles exist at the fundamental level?
In an informal group brainstorm, a male friend recently told me:
"If we want to understand the world, the concept of particle must be eliminated."
I asked what he meant and he said that elementary particles cannot be the basic bricks of matter. If they did, he said, there would be no way to understand their properties. The idea of elementary particle, he argued, prevents people from finding the theory of everything.
A simple argument, but a correct one. And one I never saw in print.
Only a few candidates for the theory of everything realize this requirement: string theory, loop quantum gravity - including Bilson-Thompson's braids - and the strand model.
"If we want to understand the world, the concept of particle must be eliminated."
I asked what he meant and he said that elementary particles cannot be the basic bricks of matter. If they did, he said, there would be no way to understand their properties. The idea of elementary particle, he argued, prevents people from finding the theory of everything.
A simple argument, but a correct one. And one I never saw in print.
Only a few candidates for the theory of everything realize this requirement: string theory, loop quantum gravity - including Bilson-Thompson's braids - and the strand model.
17 April 2011
Woit and ElBaradei - Weapons and the Standard Model
When the ElBaradei and IAEA consistently said for years: "There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq", in agreement with the facts, the Bush government got more and more furious. Putin remarked dryly: "I would have found some."
When the Woit and experimental particle physics said for years: "There are no deviations from the standard model", in agreement with the facts, many string theorists got more and more furious. Some people swore: "We are going to find some."
This is the correct way to interpret all these desperate claims for new physics that are popping up every other month (such as this one). The political background is also the same. Conservative and honest people like ElBaradei and most experimental and theoretical physicists follow the facts, and then right wing ideologists then call them "communists". For example, conservative and honest physicists like Woit, Dorigo and many others who point out wishful thinking and ideologies are regularly insulted for pointing out the true and obvious.
O tempora, o mores!
When the Woit and experimental particle physics said for years: "There are no deviations from the standard model", in agreement with the facts, many string theorists got more and more furious. Some people swore: "We are going to find some."
This is the correct way to interpret all these desperate claims for new physics that are popping up every other month (such as this one). The political background is also the same. Conservative and honest people like ElBaradei and most experimental and theoretical physicists follow the facts, and then right wing ideologists then call them "communists". For example, conservative and honest physicists like Woit, Dorigo and many others who point out wishful thinking and ideologies are regularly insulted for pointing out the true and obvious.
O tempora, o mores!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)