Get an attic to find the TOE

Peter Shor offers this advice to those searching for a TOE:

So the only advice I have is that more physicists need to not worry about grants, and go hide in their attics and work on new and crazy theories, the way Andrew Wiles worked on Fermat's Last Theorem. 

But there is a little issue: most researchers have no Attics any more - by which I mean a topic dear to their heart on which they will work in special time. So far, I have only met a handful of researchers that had one.

Interestingly, the majority of them were women. There is hope. I think women will reach there first.

Physicists and their Loch Ness monsters

True story: We all know why people around Loch Ness tell the story of a monster: to get tourists there. They invent stories to get money.

Satire: We all know why fundamental physicists tell the story about supersymmetry being a symmetry of nature: to get more funding. They invent stories to get money.

Satire: We all know why solid state physicists tell the story about quantum technology being the future of technology: to get more funding. They invent stories to get money.

Moral of the story: do not confuse the situations: The people around Loch Ness are crooks. The researchers in supersymmetry and into the solid state are honourable. Please treat them with great respect.

Riding a sick horse is better than commenting about a dead one

A decade ago, when I was a young blogger, I made fun of pompous opinion makers who stated that loop quantum gravity and string theory were the way to go. They were riding sick horses, and some of them still do.

Today, the opinion makers have changed. Now they criticize string theory and quantum gravity. But they are more pompous than their predecessors. The older generation was at least trying something out and encouraging others to come with them. It did not work, but they tried to achieve something. The new generation are not even searching any more; they are not trying anything. They are just discouraging everything and everybody else.

The new generation is more disillusioned, more bitter and more pompous than the old one. Like the catholic church, we now have opinion makers commenting the mistakes of others. These opinion makers in public pretend to do nothing wrong and to be holy, but in private they sin more than the average, while commenting the mistakes of others.

I wrote Sabine Hossenfelder about Lost in Math

and sent a comment to her Backreaction blog. I like her, because she is passionate about fundamental physics, because she wrote the preprint https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02176.pdf, because she dislikes string theory and the multiverse, and on top of all this she dislikes certain less than kind Czech bloggers.

I had written her that Lost in Math is a good book. It explains that researchers got lost because of too much math, and too much apparently "beautiful" math. I added that the trouble seems to start with the idea that the standard model is 'ugly' (as I wrote a few posts ago). Finding an argument showing that the standard model is beautiful would be the best solution: it would change the situation completely, and it would discourage young researchers from taking the wrong path.

Unfortunately, she did not approve my comment. I will try again another day.

What experiments in fundamental physics? CERN is lost - in math and nonsense

True story: CERN is looking for input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics. They look for input from anybody, and are setting up a website to collect it.

Satire: We all know what this means: we have a multi-billion dollar project that does not know what to do. They have proven the standard model right, found no physics beyond it. And now they worry what to do. Indeed, what should they do with all that money? Please help them!

True story: Scientists already had such a situation. Once upon a time, chemists discovered the periodic table of the elements. Then they filled up the gaps. There are few open topics, but the field is now essentially closed.

True story: Now CERN is in the same situation. The tables of elementary particles are filled up, and the field is now essentially closed. The research race is a different one: calculate the parameters of the standard model.

Satire: Now imagine, you have thousands of scientists in CERN and universities who do not know what to do. Some of them have not yet noticed, some of them changed from physics to offending others, some of them are lost in math, in supersymmetry, in multiple Higgs fantasies, and some of them are lost in real nonsensensical theories - from strings to - maybe - spaghetti.

Satire: What will these scientists tell their children? They have a hard time ahead. Use the accelerator to invent new products. Use the computers to calculate. Use the left over data to stop exploring failed theories. Tell the world the truth, and and then change it to a better place.

True story: Of course, this will not happen. When have men with a lot of money ever told the truth? Men with money always want more money.

Ugly or beautiful - Sabine is right

Sabine Hossenfelder is worried about the misuse of beauty in physics. The idea of beauty led many researchers to the wrong theory. She wrote a book about the issue. So I took her seriously and had some fun the last few days searching on the internet for "standard model" and "ugly". I was astonished. There are many hits, starting with Stephen Hawking. It is also called "ugliest",  "ugly as hell", "unnatural", "unsatisfactory" and more.

If you claim that the standard model is ugly, you direct your research efforts elsewhere. And you direct young researchers elsewhere. But are you right in doing so? Sabine is skeptical, and so am I.

Is the standard model ugly or beautiful? It depends on the way you describe it. Many call the standard model ugly because it is ad hoc and has around 24 parameters that are chosen arbitrarily. But Christoph Schiller would call the standard model beautiful, because all the parameters might follow from wiggling spaghetti and thus are not arbitrary at all. Who is right?

If Sabine is right, we must hope that Christoph follows her advice and calculates better approximations for the 24 parameters. Christoph, listen to Sabine!

Fun or serious? The spaghetti model - the newest sauce

Yesterday I read the newest text on the spaghetti model on www.motionmountain.net/research.html
There are few changes in some particle tangles, and a new way to explain elementary particle physics. Schiller now shows that the Feynman diagrams arise from spaghetti deformations. This is new, and I like it. In this way, Schiller can argue that the spaghetti model reproduces the standard model, without performing any calculation at all; he only needs to draw a number of spaghetti diagrams. More details are found in the paper.

Is this serious science? The paper lists experimental predictions and claims that there are no disagreements with experiments, but agreement with the standard model and with general relativity. Schiller proposes a way to approximate the fine structure constant. The approximation is bad, but it is a start. For a physics paper I cannot ask for much more.

How can a paper with little math claim to achieve unification, while hundreds of people have not managed to do so using much more complex math? Who is more crazy in this story: Schiller or his fellow researchers?

We should make more jokes about the spaghetti model. Nobody in his right mind will ever believe that particles have tethers (the official word for "spaghetti"). We should not listen to the argument that the model agrees with data. Only losers use such logic.

We should make more fun about such lone researchers. Schiller must be quite stubborn to do what he does, without support from anybody. He must be crazy to develop a theory that agrees with observation. In unification research, nobody has ever cared about experiments. Look at all those people working on loops, strings and the like; they are our shining examples in this matter.

How can a theory correct that uses other people's math? A theory that is based on research by others? This crackpot does not even use higher dimensions. He does not mention supersymmetry. The dreamers have told since decades that we need complicated math, not a paper that any normal physicist can understand.

Let us listen to Dijkgraaf, to Witten, or to other dreamers: they tell us to believe in the multiverse, not to explain down-to-earth issues like why there are three particle generations. They tell us to fantasize, not to check with data. Those are real men: they do not care about reality in their theories - they just care about reality when looking for funding.

We need more people with double standards like string and loop theorists; we do not need lone workers who make actual predictions for future experiments! Only wimps make predictions that can be checked.

Robert Dijkgraaf, the Genius: one paper, many Nobel prizes

Robert Dijkgraaf, an important string theorist, is a real Genius. Not a simple one like Einstein, Maxwell, Heisenberg or Bohr. He is much more. Look at his new article:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-are-no-laws-of-physics-theres-only-the-landscape-20180604

The title says it all. There are no laws of physics. Please, believe him!

1. Energy is not conserved.
2. The speed of light is not a limit.
3. Charge is not conserved.
4. Gravity can be repulsive.
5. Momentum is not conserved.

With statement 1, Dijkraaf has revolutionized the energy industry. Everybody will have energy at will from now on! Forget worrying about the oil prize! With statement 2, he has shown that Einstein was a fool. I met a few others that thought so, but most of them are locked up in institutions in the meantime. Forget these poor souls, Robert is much smarter than them! With statement 3, he avoids paying his electricity bill! With statement 4, he lets his roof float above his house! And with statement 5, he can reduce the speed of cars on the highway just by the power of his thoughts. No accidents any more! He is already saving many lives!

Lets start a twitter campaign! Hail the Genius! Not a small genius like the others you have read about until now. Robert truly is the Great Genius with a capital G! The next Nobel prizes in physics, economy and medicine should go to him!

Spaghetti vs. strings - and the neutrino chance

Schiller claims that his strand-spaghetti model contains general relativity and also the standard model of particle physics. See here and here. What should we make of this claim? I summarize my scepticism.

1. The spaghetti model predicts that there is no physics beyond the standard model. This is a bold claim; it could be true and it could be wrong. Most particle physicists would disagree; especially theoreticians like to point out that the standard model cannot be right or at least, that it cannot be complete. Are their arguments correct or wishful thinking? This is hard to tell. The topic would be worth a separate investigation. One thing is sure: many researchers disagree with the prediction.
2. The spaghetti model predicts that there are no additional elementary particles in nature. It claims that dark matter is nothing different from usual matter and black holes. Obviously, experiments can prove this prediction wrong at any time. Supersymmetry and dark matter fans disagree, but they are rather quiet at present.
3. The spaghetti model did not calculate absolute particle masses yet. This is a big issue, because neutrino masses are not yet known. The model would gain instant credibility if a neutrino mass value would be calculated, published and then confirmed by experiment. Why does this not happen? Is it really so difficult to calculate mass values? 
4. The spaghetti model predicts cosmology with a decreasing cosmological constant. There are no good measurements about this issue yet. And the proposal is rather uncommon in the community.

Do we just need to be patient and to wait for more results? Here are a few other points that make me think:

Schiller did not publish yet. He did not publish a single paper on strands. On his website, Schiller writes that his work is not ripe for publication yet. Are the spaghetti not cooked enough yet?

Schiller has made mistakes and changed his model in the past. He once predicted that the Higgs boson would not exist. He then added the Higgs. And he eliminated knots. Like in real spaghetti.

Schiller has no support from other researchers. He seems to work alone.

And Schiller is not a woman, as I always wanted any good researcher on unification to be. OK, this is not a serious argument. 

Are these points of any weight? I do not know; probably not. Also, there are unquestionable positive sides: Experiments agree with his spaghetti model. There is no multiverse in the spaghetti model. The press and the media are not involved. There is no mention of holography and string theory. (A dark point: Schiller does mention qubits...) And finally, because the spaghetti model agrees with data, but not with string theory, an ignominious ex-researcher from Czechia called Schiller a "crackpot". That is how deep string theorists have fallen: if you make statements that agree with experiment, you get ad hominem attacks. Schiller should bear this as a badge of honour - at least until disagreement with data occurs. Insults by Czech or other string theorists are a good sign. Spaghetti or strings, that's the question!

What should I make of all this? My own conclusion: I will wait to write more biting satire until the neutrino mass is predicted or until the spaghetti model is falsified. 

Satire or Reality? Unification vs Experimental Data - On Funding and IQ

I read Schiller's slides about his strand model again. I got the latest version from http://www.motionmountain.net/Schiller-Strand-Colour-Talk.pdf His simple model retrodicts general relativity, quantum theory, the spectrum of elementary particles and the gauge groups. And it proposes ways to calculate the standard model parameters.

The ideas could be true. After all, they agree with experimental data so far.

The ideas cannot be true. After all, why should a single researcher with little funding deduce more results that thousands of heavily funded string and quantum gravity researchers?

A non-funded model cannot be true. Why should there be interest for a unified model that agrees with data? Why should there be interest for a unified model that deduces everything known? Researchers are proud of their funding. There will be no interest for the model in the coming years. Because theoretical research is not a battle for right or wrong; it is a battle for funds. A new entrant that reduces other people's funding is not interesting. Interest will only appear once funds are available.

The ideas cannot be true. They are much too simple. They do not require a high IQ.

The ideas could be true. They agree with data.

A simple model cannot be true. Why should there be interest for a simple model that agrees with data? We all know that unification must be hard, really hard to understand. Researchers in theory are proud of their IQ. Because theoretical research is not a battle for right or wrong; it is a battle to show off your IQ. Showing off your IQ is more important than agreement with data.

All this real world satire.  My opinion? I like the model; it is cute. But it is not finished.  Time will tell.