Maldacena's strings 2011 talk is about the "wavefunction of the universe". You have to be drunk to use the term, but you need to lose your marbles to give a complete talk about it.
Seiberg's talk is as wrong and narcissistic as all the talks he gave since the 1990s. He lost his marbles already back then. His missionary zeal, combined with the nonsense he talks about, is distressing.
Witten's talk on maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories is not about physics at all, but about knots. Witten shows again that he left physics for mathematics.
David Gross still thinks he is a great physicist; it seems that nobody told him that repeating nonsense is not the way to become one. His opening address is really bad and self-centered. He still hopes that supersymmetry will be discovered at the LHC. We will see.
It really seems that the main figures of string theory have lost their marbles even more than the less well known ones.
28 June 2011
Eliminating the Higgs - with the Tunnel of Babylon
According to this talk by CERN's Fabio Zwirner, 1 inverse femtobarn is sufficient to eliminate a Higgs above 120 GeV. Now, the LHC has achieved that value a few days ago. So I am looking forward to the corresponding data analysis!
Above all, I am looking forward to see the faces of CERN managers when they will admit that there is no Higgs boson. And to the Homeric laughter that will follow across the world.
The LHC will then be renamed "Tunnel of Babylon". (The expression is my copyright...)
Or are they holding back the result already, to avoid loosing face?
Above all, I am looking forward to see the faces of CERN managers when they will admit that there is no Higgs boson. And to the Homeric laughter that will follow across the world.
The LHC will then be renamed "Tunnel of Babylon". (The expression is my copyright...)
Or are they holding back the result already, to avoid loosing face?
27 June 2011
Strands, data and gender
Have a look at the comments on the strand model at this blog. A few people say about the strand model that it is "sketchy", "outrageous", and "speculative". This is the modern world: feelings and opinions instead of facts.
When I point out that there are hard predictions of Schiller's strand model that match the data, the answer is that these predictions are "not new." Wow; it is suggested that a model has to make new predictions to be taken seriously. But nature does not work that way; nature is as she is.
Ervin points out that there are other ideas to keep the standard model of particle physics correct to high energy. I'll look into his paper as soon as I get hold of it.
Kea directly asks whether I "know any physics". The old truth remains: no man is ever as nasty to a woman as another woman. The fun is that Kea claims that the prediction of three particle generations goes back to Ehrenfest. This is as correct as claiming that it goes back to the dinosaurs.
When I point out that there are hard predictions of Schiller's strand model that match the data, the answer is that these predictions are "not new." Wow; it is suggested that a model has to make new predictions to be taken seriously. But nature does not work that way; nature is as she is.
Ervin points out that there are other ideas to keep the standard model of particle physics correct to high energy. I'll look into his paper as soon as I get hold of it.
Kea directly asks whether I "know any physics". The old truth remains: no man is ever as nasty to a woman as another woman. The fun is that Kea claims that the prediction of three particle generations goes back to Ehrenfest. This is as correct as claiming that it goes back to the dinosaurs.
24 June 2011
No electroweak unification and no electroweak interaction
Why do so many people think that the electromagnetic and the weak interaction have been unified? They have not. The two interactions mix, because the W boson is charged. But they are not unified. The two interactions still have two unrelated coupling constants.
Yes, the coupling constants are related via the W and Z masses. But the argument remains: the two interactions are not unified in the standard model.
It is wrong to say that there is an "electroweak" interaction. There is no such thing. The mistake is found everywhere: in books, in textbooks, in Wikipedia, in the announcement of the Nobel committee, and in blogs.
Yes, the coupling constants are related via the W and Z masses. But the argument remains: the two interactions are not unified in the standard model.
It is wrong to say that there is an "electroweak" interaction. There is no such thing. The mistake is found everywhere: in books, in textbooks, in Wikipedia, in the announcement of the Nobel committee, and in blogs.
19 June 2011
"Beyond the standard model" - really?
The expression "beyond the standard model" is so common that it even has a wikipedia entry (though a bad one) . But why is the expression so common?
"Beyond" is such a simple word. Most people thing that there "must" be something "beyond" what we know. But is that true? Are there speed values, for energy, beyond the speed of light?
"Beyond" implies that what we know is incomplete. But is that true? So far, the LHC is telling us otherwise. There are indeed things about the standard model that we do not understand. But there are no observations that contradict the standard model. Not one. So why do people dream of something beyond it?
"Beyond" often is taken to imply that there is, somewhere, some extension of the "standard model". Now this is really a heavy statement. Also for this prejudice there is no hint at all. Why should the standard model be contained in the final theory, or even only in a more general theory? Instead, Schiller proposes that the standard model is an approximation to the final theory, without being contained in the final theory. This idea alone is so radical that most theorists cringe. We will see at the end of 2011 who is right.
"Beyond" is such a simple word. Most people thing that there "must" be something "beyond" what we know. But is that true? Are there speed values, for energy, beyond the speed of light?
"Beyond" implies that what we know is incomplete. But is that true? So far, the LHC is telling us otherwise. There are indeed things about the standard model that we do not understand. But there are no observations that contradict the standard model. Not one. So why do people dream of something beyond it?
"Beyond" often is taken to imply that there is, somewhere, some extension of the "standard model". Now this is really a heavy statement. Also for this prejudice there is no hint at all. Why should the standard model be contained in the final theory, or even only in a more general theory? Instead, Schiller proposes that the standard model is an approximation to the final theory, without being contained in the final theory. This idea alone is so radical that most theorists cringe. We will see at the end of 2011 who is right.
4 June 2011
The standard model holds up to at least 1 TeV
The first 2011 results from the LHC are coming in. In June 2011, the LHC collected much more than 10 times the data collected in 2010. The first published results confirm the predictions by the spaghetti model: no deviations from the standard model were found. And there is no trace of supersymmetry or of new physics.
Above all, see this summary slide.
The investment in the LHC, over 7 billion Swiss Francs, starts looking like the investments in Maddoff's Ponzi scheme: an almost complete loss.
Update: The newest 2011 data analyses from the LHC, 30 different ones, all imply that the standard model holds up to 1 TeV. This limit will be pushed to 2 TeV in the course of 2011. Recall that for 30 years almost every theoretical particle physicist has sworn that deviations from the Standard model must occur between 1 and 2 TeV ...
Above all, see this summary slide.
The investment in the LHC, over 7 billion Swiss Francs, starts looking like the investments in Maddoff's Ponzi scheme: an almost complete loss.
Update: The newest 2011 data analyses from the LHC, 30 different ones, all imply that the standard model holds up to 1 TeV. This limit will be pushed to 2 TeV in the course of 2011. Recall that for 30 years almost every theoretical particle physicist has sworn that deviations from the Standard model must occur between 1 and 2 TeV ...
3 June 2011
Relative absurdity
Have fun, read arXiv:1106.0313 "Relative locality: A deepening of the relativity principle". It proves that four established physicists are able to write a paper without a single sensible idea.
If their teaching is as bad as their research, their students are having a really bad time ...
If their teaching is as bad as their research, their students are having a really bad time ...
31 May 2011
Next effect "beyond" the standard model vanishes
See this link. Still nothing new beyond the standard model, despite rumors to the contrary.
Third spaghetti model issue: U(1)
Electromagnetism has a U(1) gauge. So has the weak hypercharge. Which U(1) group is the one from the spaghetti model? And what is the other U(1) then?
This is the third problem with the strand model. Here is a summary of the three problems:
1 - Why is the fine structure constant for protons and positrons the same?
2 - Why is the weak mixing angle given both by the mass ratio of the weak bosons and by the ratio of the electromagnetic and weak coupling constants?
3 - What are the two U(1) groups of the standard model, electromagnetism and weak hypercharge, in the spaghetti model?
These three questions must be answered to improve the chances of acceptance of the spaghetti model.
This is the third problem with the strand model. Here is a summary of the three problems:
1 - Why is the fine structure constant for protons and positrons the same?
2 - Why is the weak mixing angle given both by the mass ratio of the weak bosons and by the ratio of the electromagnetic and weak coupling constants?
3 - What are the two U(1) groups of the standard model, electromagnetism and weak hypercharge, in the spaghetti model?
These three questions must be answered to improve the chances of acceptance of the spaghetti model.
Spaghetti issue with electroweak mixing
Here is another issue with the spaghetti/strand model. Electroweak mixing implies that the W/Z mass ratio is the cosine of the weak mixing angle, and that the ratio e/g of the couling constants is the sine of the weak mixing angle. Thus
(m_W/m_Z)^2 + (e/g)^2 = 1
a relation that had been verified experimentally to great precision. With the spaghetti model, there is no explanation of this relation - none at all!
(m_W/m_Z)^2 + (e/g)^2 = 1
a relation that had been verified experimentally to great precision. With the spaghetti model, there is no explanation of this relation - none at all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)