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.
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.
22 January 2012
Nonsense about tension
Strings have tension, theorists say. Particles are vibrating strings, they say. But tension is a macroscopic quantity, like temperature. So is vibration. What is the meaning of a macroscopic tension in the case of strings? None. "Vibrating strings" makes as much sense as "flying toothbrushes".
5 January 2012
Schwarz's history of string theory
Have a look at http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0981, where John Schwarz tells about "The Early History of String Theory and Supersymmetry". Read is as if you never had read anything on the topic before. Try.
The results is astonishing. Schwarz tells how string theory arose from a wrong description of the strong interaction and mesons and baryons. He tells how it arose from playing with the mathematics of the strong interactions. Then he tells how he and others generalized it to a framework for the description of all interaction and particles. He never says why this generalization makes sense, which problems it solves, which questions it answers.
The report sound like a man completely lost together with his research colleagues in a world of fantasy Lagrangians, fantasy dimensions, fantasy symmetries and fantasy dualities. There is no attempt to clarify ideas, to clarify the structure of what is being done, to clarify the goals, to present the progress in understanding or to present the advantages of the approach. It is a man running around in a forest of abstract mathematics, telling how pretty it is, but not explaining what he is doing or why. And Schwarz is an old man: he is 70 years old.
When we read texts by the old masters, like Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, they tell us what they did, why they did it, what dreams drove them, what motivations they had, what discoveries triggered them and why the enjoyed what they did. Schwarz is the opposite. He tells nothing of all this. It is obvious from his account that he is not a master of his field and that he does not know what he is doing. He keeps his motivations for himself. He obviously knows that they are not worth sharing. What a disappointment.
The results is astonishing. Schwarz tells how string theory arose from a wrong description of the strong interaction and mesons and baryons. He tells how it arose from playing with the mathematics of the strong interactions. Then he tells how he and others generalized it to a framework for the description of all interaction and particles. He never says why this generalization makes sense, which problems it solves, which questions it answers.
The report sound like a man completely lost together with his research colleagues in a world of fantasy Lagrangians, fantasy dimensions, fantasy symmetries and fantasy dualities. There is no attempt to clarify ideas, to clarify the structure of what is being done, to clarify the goals, to present the progress in understanding or to present the advantages of the approach. It is a man running around in a forest of abstract mathematics, telling how pretty it is, but not explaining what he is doing or why. And Schwarz is an old man: he is 70 years old.
When we read texts by the old masters, like Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, they tell us what they did, why they did it, what dreams drove them, what motivations they had, what discoveries triggered them and why the enjoyed what they did. Schwarz is the opposite. He tells nothing of all this. It is obvious from his account that he is not a master of his field and that he does not know what he is doing. He keeps his motivations for himself. He obviously knows that they are not worth sharing. What a disappointment.
1 January 2012
Indoctrination
In a recent blog there was a deep comment: the strand model cannot be correct because is contradicts string theory, which is the correct approach.
Obviously, nobody with a normal sense of logic would ever say something like that. But it shows how effective the string indoctrination has been. String theory is not physics any more, its a religion.
Obviously, nobody with a normal sense of logic would ever say something like that. But it shows how effective the string indoctrination has been. String theory is not physics any more, its a religion.
30 December 2011
Academic honesty
Which string theorist can honestly say that string theory is correct? Or that supersymmetry is correct?
Most universities require from their students "honesty in the search for truth". But universities are tricky beasts: they rarely apply to themselves what they require from others. If they did, university researchers and professors working on string theory would need to resign. Why don't they? Because of the money.
These researchers do not pursue truth. They pursue money.
Most universities require from their students "honesty in the search for truth". But universities are tricky beasts: they rarely apply to themselves what they require from others. If they did, university researchers and professors working on string theory would need to resign. Why don't they? Because of the money.
These researchers do not pursue truth. They pursue money.
18 December 2011
CERN is holding back data
CERN has collected about 5.7 fb^-1 data. But the December announcements by ATLAS and CMS only use 4.76 or 4.9 of them. The December announcements also do not analyze a number of other decay channels. Why?
Maybe the Higgs bumps would disappear with the larger number of data? Would the hint of a Higgs disappear if all data and all channels would be used? Did CERN tweak the data in such a way that it looks like a hint of Higgs, in order to keep optimism in the media?
Since many months (almost a year), CERN also did not update the sheet which summarizes all its (negative) BSM (beyond the standard model) search results.
My prediction from some time ago in this blog came true: CERN is holding back data that proves that there is no physics beyond the standard model, and is feeding the media with selected data that shows "hints" of new physics. And they are doing it so well that nobody seems to notice.
Maybe the Higgs bumps would disappear with the larger number of data? Would the hint of a Higgs disappear if all data and all channels would be used? Did CERN tweak the data in such a way that it looks like a hint of Higgs, in order to keep optimism in the media?
Since many months (almost a year), CERN also did not update the sheet which summarizes all its (negative) BSM (beyond the standard model) search results.
My prediction from some time ago in this blog came true: CERN is holding back data that proves that there is no physics beyond the standard model, and is feeding the media with selected data that shows "hints" of new physics. And they are doing it so well that nobody seems to notice.
Multiverse and Professor Doktor Dietmar Lüst
A friend sent me a new book about string theory by Dietmar Lüst (or Luest). Do not read it.
There is no original or interesting idea in the book. All is copied from other popularizing string theory books. He even manages to copy - copying text is a hobby in his country - only the worst ideas across the field: a lot about the book is on the multiverse.
I think every time a professor uses the word `multiverse', his salary should be cut by 20%. Lüst would be sleeping under bridges. He is an example of what happens when a smart man gets too much influence and no control (as most German professors): he goes bonkers.
There is no original or interesting idea in the book. All is copied from other popularizing string theory books. He even manages to copy - copying text is a hobby in his country - only the worst ideas across the field: a lot about the book is on the multiverse.
I think every time a professor uses the word `multiverse', his salary should be cut by 20%. Lüst would be sleeping under bridges. He is an example of what happens when a smart man gets too much influence and no control (as most German professors): he goes bonkers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)