Read this, please. It is a description of how accelerator people envisage the future of high energy physics. The idea seems ok. But there is a little issue. Every mentioned "benchmark model" of theoretical research is nonsense. Every single one.
These smart people are planning the next particle accelerator and want to compare its results to nonsense. They could also compare it to flying pigs. They are actually planning to compare the results to nonsense. Thus their whole plan is nonsense as well.
Several of my friends work in companies. They told me that in business, they would get fired if they made or proposed plans based on questionable assumptions. How many of these high energy physicists would get fired?
18 January 2013
13 January 2013
The standard model and the perpetuum mobile
The standard model does not explain its 20 parameters and does not contain gravity. The standard model is incomplete. Does the incompleteness of the standard model imply that experimental effects exist that contradict the standard model?
No.
Not at all. The simplest scenario is that some yet unknown theory explains the standard model and its 20 parameters, that the explanation is valid up to an energy region close to the Planck scale, and that is all there is.
Is this scenario real? We do not know. Could the scenario be real? Yes, it could. This simplest scenario has been raised in discussions by various researchers. They always reject it. But all the arguments given by Strassler, Ellis, Arkani-Hamed, and all the other researchers boil down to wishes. They wish that the standard model is not correct. The arguments they give are all of the type "It is impossible that we already know everything."
Wrong, guys. It is well possible. We do have a theory that describes all of particle physics: the standard model. For reasons we do not know, it seems to be correct. Full stop.
It might well be that the search for effects beyond the standard model is similar to the search for the perpetuum mobile. The wish exists. But there is no way to realize it.
No.
Not at all. The simplest scenario is that some yet unknown theory explains the standard model and its 20 parameters, that the explanation is valid up to an energy region close to the Planck scale, and that is all there is.
Is this scenario real? We do not know. Could the scenario be real? Yes, it could. This simplest scenario has been raised in discussions by various researchers. They always reject it. But all the arguments given by Strassler, Ellis, Arkani-Hamed, and all the other researchers boil down to wishes. They wish that the standard model is not correct. The arguments they give are all of the type "It is impossible that we already know everything."
Wrong, guys. It is well possible. We do have a theory that describes all of particle physics: the standard model. For reasons we do not know, it seems to be correct. Full stop.
It might well be that the search for effects beyond the standard model is similar to the search for the perpetuum mobile. The wish exists. But there is no way to realize it.
12 January 2013
SM and TOE Fantasies by Moderates
Matt Strassler is a moderate. Nevertheless, he thinks, like most of his colleagues, that the standard model is wrong. He gives the following reasons (I cite from his slides):
1 – Gravity not included (though can be included at semiclassical level)
2 – Neutrino masses not zero (though higher dimension operators)
3 – Dark matter not predicted (though primordial black holes?)
4 – Strong CP problem not addressed
5 – Cosmological constant (“dark `energy’”) not predicted/explained
6 – Specific choices of particles and interactions
7 – Mass ratios and mixings, strengths of forces all put in by hand
The problem: all seven arguments are correct statements, but none of them implies that the standard model is wrong!
This shows: even moderate physicists are brainwashed. They cannot distinguish between reality and wishes. The reality is that the standard model works without a glitch. The wish is that it is wrong. This might well be one reason why all the researchers searching for a theory of everything (TOE) are not successful. They are led too much by their wishes, and not by reality.
1 – Gravity not included (though can be included at semiclassical level)
2 – Neutrino masses not zero (though higher dimension operators)
3 – Dark matter not predicted (though primordial black holes?)
4 – Strong CP problem not addressed
5 – Cosmological constant (“dark `energy’”) not predicted/explained
6 – Specific choices of particles and interactions
7 – Mass ratios and mixings, strengths of forces all put in by hand
The problem: all seven arguments are correct statements, but none of them implies that the standard model is wrong!
This shows: even moderate physicists are brainwashed. They cannot distinguish between reality and wishes. The reality is that the standard model works without a glitch. The wish is that it is wrong. This might well be one reason why all the researchers searching for a theory of everything (TOE) are not successful. They are led too much by their wishes, and not by reality.
9 January 2013
Black hole entropy in 2013
Did you ever look at the calculation of black hole entropy with the spaghetti model? It is on the pages 256 to 258 of the pdf on the strand/spaghetti model. Schiller starts with a drawing of a horizon and the definition of entropy from spaghetti. The first approximation of black hole entropy he gets is one bit per Planck area. Then he improves the calculation, until the final approximation yields the usual formula, with the correct factor 1/4. The calculation is simple and can can be understood by anybody who knows the definition of the number e=2.71828... No hard math is needed. All other calculations are either complicated, like those from string theory, or need fudge factors, like those from loop quantum gravity. So I asked a few experts for an assessment.
Male expert 1: "The assumed microscopic degrees of freedom are wrong - I tell you. I do not know the correct ones, but these are wrong. I do not like them."
Female expert 2 and male expert 3: "The calculation is much too simple to be true. It is nonsense."
Male expert 4: "The calculation does not work for more than 3+1 dimensions, thus it is wrong."
Expert 1 says that in quantum gravity, male authority counts more than results. Experts 2 and 3 say that personal wishes decide about true or false. And expert 4 says that personal fantasy can be used to criticize reality.
And such reactions are typical. Quantum gravity, a field without experiments, has become the playing ground for people that pretend to do research but in fact run in circles, without any results. A friend told me once that quantum gravity is a field with only one important issue: "What are the microscopic degrees of freedom of space-time"? Triggered by her remark I went through the past five years of research in arxiv/gr-qc. I found four papers adressing the issue. Over 99% of all researchers avoid it.
In a previous post I mentioned that almost nobody in high energy physics is actually working on a theory of everything. Something similar holds for quantum gravity: researchers are avoiding the most important issue. They are a group of people searching for a solution, all pointing to a specific spot, and whispering to each other: "Do not look there! Look elsewhere!"
So, if somebody claims to have searched the forbidden spot, despite all the whispering, instead of shouting "Wrong!", we should look carefully. The question is this: "Are spaghetti the microscopic degrees of freedom of space or not?" If they are, the calculation of black hole entropy follows.
Space made of spaghetti? How can this crazy idea be tested? Schiller claims that it implies the entropy of black holes, and thus indirectly, also general relativity. He even says that quantum gravity effects cannot be detected. This is dangerous: there are no possible gravitational tests for the spaghetti claim!
So spaghetti are similar to strings: both predict gravity (curved space) and both do not allow any gravitational tests. Gravity experiments cannot be used to check whether space is made of strings or of spaghetti. And this holds for any other proposal of microscopic degrees of freedom. That is why quantum gravity is an ideal field for theoreticians: tests are next to impossible! But not completely: experiments in particle physics can be used to check whether any proposed microscopic degrees of freedom are correct or not. What will 2013 bring us?
26 December 2012
2013 - what direction will TOE researchers take?
The Higgs found at CERN seems to be a standard model Higgs. If that is true, many researchers are in trouble. The Higgs answers no fundamental question of particle physics, as Ervin points out in his comments. None of the big issues is resolved. The theory of everything is as far as it ever was. Experiments did not provide a guide to where researchers for a theory of everything should look. Are we entering a dark age?
Supersymmetry is moribond, but not dead yet. Supersymmetry and string theorists can and will continue to claim, against all evidence, that supersymmetry and strings are a part of nature. Loop quantum gravity people will continue to work unimpressed anyway. Researchers in fringe fields will not change direction. Newcomers will not dare to propose new ideas, as the old ones still determine funding and science politics. Spaghetti seem to be dead; Schiller has given up and nobody else discusses his model. Wen and his "topological order" will continue not to address antiparticles and the nuclear interactions.
Never will I understand how men think. How can this happen? The standard model is full of unanswered questions. The 20 open parameters must be understood. And yet, almost nobody seem to have a clue. Theorists, be courageous! Dare to advance!
The spaghetti model, one of the few theories that promised progress, is not producing anything. Spaghetti, sorry, strands, are pretty. They are not compelling, but they are pretty. Schiller makes a decent job at explaining them. But for my taste they are not yet compelling. Please make strands more compelling. Is there really no alternative to strands? How can we be convinced? Nevertheless: Schiller, go on! You predicted that the Higgs does not exist - but in your last edition you explain that the prediction might have been mistaken. We all understand that you are unhappy about a mistaken prediction. Everybody makes mistakes! Please go on! Your model still is the only one that predicts the four interactions. That should give you enough motivation to continue. Mistakes are allowed! This is science. Research is not straightforward.
I also think about the average researcher. There are thousands of them. What are they doing? Where are their new proposals? Where are the new ideas? If men cannot help, let the women come forward. We are more courageous than men. We can teach them. We women take many more risks in life than men. If men took as many risks as we women do, we would have a TOE since a long time.
We take risks about life and death. We do so when we choose a husband, when we get pregnant. And we suffer even if we have no fault. That is our life, and we are proud of it. Men would not dare to do that. Women, let us take this issue into our hand. Let us show them, let us produce new ideas that are better than those around. Or at least, let us encourage our husbands to go on.
Supersymmetry is moribond, but not dead yet. Supersymmetry and string theorists can and will continue to claim, against all evidence, that supersymmetry and strings are a part of nature. Loop quantum gravity people will continue to work unimpressed anyway. Researchers in fringe fields will not change direction. Newcomers will not dare to propose new ideas, as the old ones still determine funding and science politics. Spaghetti seem to be dead; Schiller has given up and nobody else discusses his model. Wen and his "topological order" will continue not to address antiparticles and the nuclear interactions.
Never will I understand how men think. How can this happen? The standard model is full of unanswered questions. The 20 open parameters must be understood. And yet, almost nobody seem to have a clue. Theorists, be courageous! Dare to advance!
The spaghetti model, one of the few theories that promised progress, is not producing anything. Spaghetti, sorry, strands, are pretty. They are not compelling, but they are pretty. Schiller makes a decent job at explaining them. But for my taste they are not yet compelling. Please make strands more compelling. Is there really no alternative to strands? How can we be convinced? Nevertheless: Schiller, go on! You predicted that the Higgs does not exist - but in your last edition you explain that the prediction might have been mistaken. We all understand that you are unhappy about a mistaken prediction. Everybody makes mistakes! Please go on! Your model still is the only one that predicts the four interactions. That should give you enough motivation to continue. Mistakes are allowed! This is science. Research is not straightforward.
I also think about the average researcher. There are thousands of them. What are they doing? Where are their new proposals? Where are the new ideas? If men cannot help, let the women come forward. We are more courageous than men. We can teach them. We women take many more risks in life than men. If men took as many risks as we women do, we would have a TOE since a long time.
We take risks about life and death. We do so when we choose a husband, when we get pregnant. And we suffer even if we have no fault. That is our life, and we are proud of it. Men would not dare to do that. Women, let us take this issue into our hand. Let us show them, let us produce new ideas that are better than those around. Or at least, let us encourage our husbands to go on.
22 December 2012
The news of the season
Another year has passed, and no final theory has surfaced.
But numerous papers still appeared about the multiverse, about supersymmetry, about string theory, about the aether, about matrix models, and about additional fairytales that are in contrast to experiment.
One day, we will laugh about these papers. We will laugh about the misguided intensity of the authors, about these men who are so "dead serious", so hundred per cent "certain", and feel so "important".
It was a year of pompous research.
But numerous papers still appeared about the multiverse, about supersymmetry, about string theory, about the aether, about matrix models, and about additional fairytales that are in contrast to experiment.
One day, we will laugh about these papers. We will laugh about the misguided intensity of the authors, about these men who are so "dead serious", so hundred per cent "certain", and feel so "important".
It was a year of pompous research.
19 December 2012
Motl is not sick any more!
Some time ago, Motl, the violent blogger, wrote that he might have a deadly disease. During that time, his posts were human: he did not offend people any more, wrote constructively, and generally showed all signs of being a person that can be kind to others.
But his doctors must have told him that he has no disease at all. He started offending people again in his posts, is again ill-tempered, and lost his marbles again. He has forgotten that, like everybody, he must die anyway.
We are happy that he is healthy again, but we are also sad that his bad manners are coming back. He has forgot what he should remember.
String theory is as wrong as aether theory, and it does not help offending people who correctly state that string theory, like aether theory, has no relation to reality and no relation to experiment.
But his doctors must have told him that he has no disease at all. He started offending people again in his posts, is again ill-tempered, and lost his marbles again. He has forgotten that, like everybody, he must die anyway.
We are happy that he is healthy again, but we are also sad that his bad manners are coming back. He has forgot what he should remember.
String theory is as wrong as aether theory, and it does not help offending people who correctly state that string theory, like aether theory, has no relation to reality and no relation to experiment.
15 December 2012
Einstein did not sell Mickey Mouse stories
A press release from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology states that experiments have shown that all fermions are known; all matter particles are known. No new ones are expected.
But real theoreticians do not care about experiments. Real theoreticians are those of the IAS in Princeton, where all dream to do as well as Einstein. A well-known emulator is Arkani-Hamed. In his latest talk, he talks about many new fermions. For example, he knows all about "gluinos", his favorite fermions.
There is a good thing about giving a dream a name: it starts existing. Gluinos are as real as Mickey Mouse. Neither exists; but you can make a living with both.
This is what many Einstein emulators are doing: selling Mickey Mouse stories. What a difference to Einstein himself.
But real theoreticians do not care about experiments. Real theoreticians are those of the IAS in Princeton, where all dream to do as well as Einstein. A well-known emulator is Arkani-Hamed. In his latest talk, he talks about many new fermions. For example, he knows all about "gluinos", his favorite fermions.
There is a good thing about giving a dream a name: it starts existing. Gluinos are as real as Mickey Mouse. Neither exists; but you can make a living with both.
This is what many Einstein emulators are doing: selling Mickey Mouse stories. What a difference to Einstein himself.
6 December 2012
Who is really working on a theory of everything?
String theory is wrong. Loop quantum gravity is not a theory of everything. Garrett Lisi is wrong. Who then is working on a theory of everything? In the arxiv there are no proposals.
Let me summarize. Imagine that you are a young physicist. You dream about working on the theory of everything. You study physics and start putting your nose into research. What do you experience?
Hostility.
If somebody explores an option for the theory of everything, the first experience is what happens to string theorists. Caught between the obligation to follow Witten and his aggressive followers or to agree with the aggressive critics.
And both camps agree on one thing: if a young physicist does some research, even outside string theory, he is an idiot or crazy. Everybody in the field knows: whatever the young researcher does, he gets hostile criticism. Of course, the same happens to old physicists. The consequence? Nobody actually works on the theory of everything. Of the two or three-thousand researchers in high energy physics, "nobody" is actually working of the theory of everything.
Aggression is the reason that the theory of everything is still lacking. Homo homini lupus. If you have a story to tell, you are welcome to write me.
Let me summarize. Imagine that you are a young physicist. You dream about working on the theory of everything. You study physics and start putting your nose into research. What do you experience?
Hostility.
If somebody explores an option for the theory of everything, the first experience is what happens to string theorists. Caught between the obligation to follow Witten and his aggressive followers or to agree with the aggressive critics.
And both camps agree on one thing: if a young physicist does some research, even outside string theory, he is an idiot or crazy. Everybody in the field knows: whatever the young researcher does, he gets hostile criticism. Of course, the same happens to old physicists. The consequence? Nobody actually works on the theory of everything. Of the two or three-thousand researchers in high energy physics, "nobody" is actually working of the theory of everything.
Aggression is the reason that the theory of everything is still lacking. Homo homini lupus. If you have a story to tell, you are welcome to write me.
2 December 2012
What are interactions?
To me this is the most important question in physics. Of course, interactions are exchanges of gauge bosons. But what is happening? How do the exchanges take place?
In the past weeks, I read everything I could find about this topic. A sobering experience that I can summarize thus: white, English-speaking men know nothing about the answer. And they are even afraid of speculating about it. Other humans do not write anything about it.
Wikipedia's article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction is funny: "fundamental interactions are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another". One has to be drunk to write such a definition.
Most researchers only say that interactions are "particle exchanges described by a gauge group". They speculate about various gauge groups, or about supersymmetry, or about BRST. But no one speculates about how interactions appear in the first place.
Established researchers do not explore the question. But why? They do not even speculate about it. Are they afraid? I only found the spaghetti model as candidate proposal. What a poor harvest. And of course, it is written by a white, English-speaking man. What about black women speaking Swahili? Or South-American women speaking Quechua? And what shall we do before they come along?
One friend told me about a possible background. She said that white men are so nasty among each other that anybody daring to speculate is not invited any more to talks, to committees or to conferences. "Speculators" are discarded from the academic community. They know it and they fear it. They behave among themselves in the same way that they behave towards students in examinations.
Men have organized modern physics in a way that speculation has become impossible. Progress is impossible in modern theoretical physics. Dear sisters, please come along!
In the past weeks, I read everything I could find about this topic. A sobering experience that I can summarize thus: white, English-speaking men know nothing about the answer. And they are even afraid of speculating about it. Other humans do not write anything about it.
Wikipedia's article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction is funny: "fundamental interactions are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another". One has to be drunk to write such a definition.
Most researchers only say that interactions are "particle exchanges described by a gauge group". They speculate about various gauge groups, or about supersymmetry, or about BRST. But no one speculates about how interactions appear in the first place.
Established researchers do not explore the question. But why? They do not even speculate about it. Are they afraid? I only found the spaghetti model as candidate proposal. What a poor harvest. And of course, it is written by a white, English-speaking man. What about black women speaking Swahili? Or South-American women speaking Quechua? And what shall we do before they come along?
One friend told me about a possible background. She said that white men are so nasty among each other that anybody daring to speculate is not invited any more to talks, to committees or to conferences. "Speculators" are discarded from the academic community. They know it and they fear it. They behave among themselves in the same way that they behave towards students in examinations.
Men have organized modern physics in a way that speculation has become impossible. Progress is impossible in modern theoretical physics. Dear sisters, please come along!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)