Italian TV shows a Witten Interview, mostly in English language, which you can watch here. It is really depressing. We see a smart man who knows the history of physics very well, explains it in simple terms; and then he switches to string theory as if it was a natural continuation, even though its principles are unclear, the definition is unclear, and no experimental predictions are made. Witten effortlessly switches from the clarity of quantum theory and general relativity to the muddled world of string theory. It is obvious that he lives in a different universe, detached from reality. Nothing what he says about string theory has any connection to reality or to the theory of everything. He is just fascinated by its mathematical richness, but not about its relation to nature.
Witten has decided to live in a dream world, a world where nature plays no role, but where only the mathematical difficulties count; a world where machismo is to say "I have understood something that you will not even understand in ten years."
Do you remember Feynman? He was proud to explain things even to his grandmother. Witten is the opposite; he is proud if nobody else understands what he does. His aim is not to unravel nature; his aim is to run as deeply as possible into a world of abstractions where nobody else has been, and where others have difficulties to follow. This is deeply depressing.
10 January 2011
7 January 2011
Oh no - Witten gave up!
Witten now works on Khovanov homology. No, this is not a mistake. He is working on Khovanov homology. This is incredibly disappointing, for a simple reason: Khovanov homology is related to unification as much as dinosaur hunting is.
In other words, Witten has given up on finding unification - he is now doing pure mathematics.
To be honest, Witten has given up on unification already several years ago, but many hoped that he might come back to it. But now, as an old man, he has definitely left the quest. This is really really sad.
Witten was the inspiration for many people, with his uncompromising search for unification. But now he has chosen to do what he likes most: abstract mathematics that few people understand; abstract mathematics that has no relevance to physics.
That is the sadness of Witten's story: the smartest man on Earth has not succeeded in unification; he is so disillusioned that he left the quest.
Why did this sad story happen? His insistence to cling to supersymmetry, to higher dimensions and to string theory put him on the wrong path. And he was never able to backtrack.
For a really great man, look at Steven Weinberg. In contrast to Witten, he really is backtracking: Weinberg does not believe in supersymmetry any more, he is cautious about the Higgs, he does not believe in higher dimensions or strings any more.
That is the way one wants to grow old: getting rid of your prejudices, and getting nearer to wisdom. Instead, Witten has maneuverd himself into a prison defined by string theory. It will be interesting if he will ever leave it.
Mind you, this is interesting as a human destiny. The ideas Witten is proclaiming are not interesting since decades. What a sad story.
Many years ago, Buber once wrote a booklet around the question that God asks Adam in paradise: "Where are you?" Buber argues that God asks this question every day to every person: "Where are you?" Where are you on your path? Where are you in your life? Where are you in your calling?
Witten is a successful person by every standard one wants to apply. And maybe his calling was to show that string theory is a dead end. But was it really? Wasn't his calling to do more?
In other words, Witten has given up on finding unification - he is now doing pure mathematics.
To be honest, Witten has given up on unification already several years ago, but many hoped that he might come back to it. But now, as an old man, he has definitely left the quest. This is really really sad.
Witten was the inspiration for many people, with his uncompromising search for unification. But now he has chosen to do what he likes most: abstract mathematics that few people understand; abstract mathematics that has no relevance to physics.
That is the sadness of Witten's story: the smartest man on Earth has not succeeded in unification; he is so disillusioned that he left the quest.
Why did this sad story happen? His insistence to cling to supersymmetry, to higher dimensions and to string theory put him on the wrong path. And he was never able to backtrack.
For a really great man, look at Steven Weinberg. In contrast to Witten, he really is backtracking: Weinberg does not believe in supersymmetry any more, he is cautious about the Higgs, he does not believe in higher dimensions or strings any more.
That is the way one wants to grow old: getting rid of your prejudices, and getting nearer to wisdom. Instead, Witten has maneuverd himself into a prison defined by string theory. It will be interesting if he will ever leave it.
Mind you, this is interesting as a human destiny. The ideas Witten is proclaiming are not interesting since decades. What a sad story.
Many years ago, Buber once wrote a booklet around the question that God asks Adam in paradise: "Where are you?" Buber argues that God asks this question every day to every person: "Where are you?" Where are you on your path? Where are you in your life? Where are you in your calling?
Witten is a successful person by every standard one wants to apply. And maybe his calling was to show that string theory is a dead end. But was it really? Wasn't his calling to do more?
6 January 2011
Do think about alpha - to be a good theoretical physicist
The fine structure constant alpha=1/137.03... is really a taboo subject. Go to wikipedia and look at the entry "Theory of everything": there is not a word about the need to explain alpha. Go to the wikipedia article "List of unsolved problems in physics": the same. Yes, the prejudice is really strong: "If you think about alpha, you are not serious."
And that is the exact opposite of what Feynman said: "all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it".
Do you know anybody who worries about the number? Search the internet; you will find nobody who does. Ergo: we have no good theoretical physicists at present!
And that is the exact opposite of what Feynman said: "all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it".
Do you know anybody who worries about the number? Search the internet; you will find nobody who does. Ergo: we have no good theoretical physicists at present!
4 January 2011
Do not ask about alpha ...
One of the biggest mystery of nature is the origin of the fine structure constant alpha, 1/137.03 ..., and its running with energy.
There is a taboo asking about this origin - mostly because only cranks attempts answers. But not asking has bad consequences: it implies to let go the aim of the search for unification. If we do not go on asking, we will not find the answer; instead, we will get lost in fantasy land. The issue of alpha illuminates our aim: it tells us where we need to go.
But look at recent history. GUT proponents don't ask about alpha. SUSY proponents don't. String theorists don't. Loop quantum gravity researchers don't. Nobody asks! And indeed, all these researchers have lost the right way.
So, in fundamental physics we have a problem: if you think about alpha, you are doing cranky science. And if you don't, you do GUTs, or strings, or similarly cranky theories. What a situation! Prejudices have maneuvered researchers into an impasse. Whatever they do, it is cranky.
There is only one conclusion possible: be courageous and think about alpha - but seriously.
There is a taboo asking about this origin - mostly because only cranks attempts answers. But not asking has bad consequences: it implies to let go the aim of the search for unification. If we do not go on asking, we will not find the answer; instead, we will get lost in fantasy land. The issue of alpha illuminates our aim: it tells us where we need to go.
But look at recent history. GUT proponents don't ask about alpha. SUSY proponents don't. String theorists don't. Loop quantum gravity researchers don't. Nobody asks! And indeed, all these researchers have lost the right way.
So, in fundamental physics we have a problem: if you think about alpha, you are doing cranky science. And if you don't, you do GUTs, or strings, or similarly cranky theories. What a situation! Prejudices have maneuvered researchers into an impasse. Whatever they do, it is cranky.
There is only one conclusion possible: be courageous and think about alpha - but seriously.
3 January 2011
On points
One way to see them: A point is an infinitesimally small sphere.
Gravity and quantum theory imply that no length shorter than a Planck length can be measured or observed.
Given this, points are idealizations that have no basis in measurements. Space is NOT smooth and is not made of points.
But wait! How can we describe the world without space? Space MUST be smooth! How else can we write down evolution equations?
Space must be smooth and must not be smooth. What a bad situation to be in. Any theory of everything must show a way out.
Gravity and quantum theory imply that no length shorter than a Planck length can be measured or observed.
Given this, points are idealizations that have no basis in measurements. Space is NOT smooth and is not made of points.
But wait! How can we describe the world without space? Space MUST be smooth! How else can we write down evolution equations?
Space must be smooth and must not be smooth. What a bad situation to be in. Any theory of everything must show a way out.
2 January 2011
Where to search?
If grand unification, supersymmetry, higher symmetries, higher dimensions, string theory and loop quantum gravity are dead alleys, where do we have to search for a theory of everything? Nobody knows. If nobody knows, what can be done? To think. Let me try. No prejudices means
- There are 3 dimensions.
- There are no points.
- There are no other gauge groups.
1 January 2011
The ups and downs of entropic gravity
Electromagnetism is due to exchange of photons. Gravity is due to an exchange of gravitons.
Large numbers of photons have entropy. So do large numbers of gravitons.
Thus the electromagnetic field has entropy. Therefore, so does gravity and space-time.
Thus electromagnetism is entropic. Therefore, so is gravity and space-time.
There is nothing really new in all this. Nor is there anything to be questioned about it.
Why do people like Lubos Motl and Peter Woit get so upset about entropic gravity? This is a good case for studying prejudices.
Motl is upset because the argument makes it clear that an explanation of gravity with gravitons does not need superstrings. And he is upset because the argument makes clear that gravity is a purely three-dimensional effect. This does not fit his prejudice that the world is 11-dimensional.
Woit is upset because the argument is so simple. Woit, despite his fight against many prejudices, also promotes some of his own prejudices. And one that he promotes is: nature is complicated and needs complicated mathematics for its description.
We see that the most disparate scientists can criticize obviously true statements because of their prejudices. For both of them, prejudices count more than facts.
Large numbers of photons have entropy. So do large numbers of gravitons.
Thus the electromagnetic field has entropy. Therefore, so does gravity and space-time.
Thus electromagnetism is entropic. Therefore, so is gravity and space-time.
There is nothing really new in all this. Nor is there anything to be questioned about it.
Why do people like Lubos Motl and Peter Woit get so upset about entropic gravity? This is a good case for studying prejudices.
Motl is upset because the argument makes it clear that an explanation of gravity with gravitons does not need superstrings. And he is upset because the argument makes clear that gravity is a purely three-dimensional effect. This does not fit his prejudice that the world is 11-dimensional.
Woit is upset because the argument is so simple. Woit, despite his fight against many prejudices, also promotes some of his own prejudices. And one that he promotes is: nature is complicated and needs complicated mathematics for its description.
We see that the most disparate scientists can criticize obviously true statements because of their prejudices. For both of them, prejudices count more than facts.
31 December 2010
The curse of experiments - and the hope for 2011
Many experiments, at the LHC and elsewhere, have been performed in 2010. Result: the standard model rules. Nothing new. Nothing! A really bad situation. Nobody expected this. Let us hope that something new is found in 2011!
However, there is reason to doubt that anything new will be found. So my prediction for 2011 is simple: the standard model will remain untouched. But I still hope for something new.
However, there is reason to doubt that anything new will be found. So my prediction for 2011 is simple: the standard model will remain untouched. But I still hope for something new.
30 December 2010
On the multiverse
If the universe is defined as all there is, what can a "multiverse" be? Just bullshit. Nobody is his right mind can say that there is "more" than all there is.
How can people get away with such bullshit? Because they have no real friends who tell them. And because such people have no bosses who tell them. And because they are surrounded by people who depend from them. And, most of all, because they do not follow reason. One scientist that does not follow reason - that might be a tragedy. But dozens of such scientists - that is fraud covered by corruption.
The scientists who talk about the "multiverse" are paid by universities, by student fees. In the past centuries, scientists worked hard to get rid of the influence of the church, and to get rid of the influence of the state and politicians. Scientists always said that they were entitled to do so, because they were only following reason. But now we have scientists who are taking advantage of the system, and who are not even following reason itself. They are fraudsters.
The universities are paying these fraudsters. The students are paying them. The deans, colleagues and students allow the fraud to go on. That is corruption.
No it is not a conspiracy. It is fraud covered by corruption. Check your own university.
How can people get away with such bullshit? Because they have no real friends who tell them. And because such people have no bosses who tell them. And because they are surrounded by people who depend from them. And, most of all, because they do not follow reason. One scientist that does not follow reason - that might be a tragedy. But dozens of such scientists - that is fraud covered by corruption.
The scientists who talk about the "multiverse" are paid by universities, by student fees. In the past centuries, scientists worked hard to get rid of the influence of the church, and to get rid of the influence of the state and politicians. Scientists always said that they were entitled to do so, because they were only following reason. But now we have scientists who are taking advantage of the system, and who are not even following reason itself. They are fraudsters.
The universities are paying these fraudsters. The students are paying them. The deans, colleagues and students allow the fraud to go on. That is corruption.
No it is not a conspiracy. It is fraud covered by corruption. Check your own university.
29 December 2010
Why GUTs do not work
In the standard model, the origin of the values of the coupling strengths is mysterious. It takes only a few seconds to understand that GUTs do not solve the problem; they just shift the solution away. The same is true for supersymmetric GUTs.
Also the number of particle generations is not explained. Of course, one can claim that the number comes from the GUT Lie group [insert you favorite one here]. But what determines the Lie group? GUTs do not provide an answer. Again, the solution of a problem is just shifted away, into a region of higher abstraction.
GUTs also have another tiny issue: all GUTS that have been tested contradict experiment.
Thus, GUTs do not solve any problem of the standard model. So why are they popular? Because there is a lack of better ideas. But if an idea does not work, we should drop it, not continue to pay attention to it.
Also the number of particle generations is not explained. Of course, one can claim that the number comes from the GUT Lie group [insert you favorite one here]. But what determines the Lie group? GUTs do not provide an answer. Again, the solution of a problem is just shifted away, into a region of higher abstraction.
GUTs also have another tiny issue: all GUTS that have been tested contradict experiment.
Thus, GUTs do not solve any problem of the standard model. So why are they popular? Because there is a lack of better ideas. But if an idea does not work, we should drop it, not continue to pay attention to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)