One more BS paper

Look at this preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5120 called "Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity" by Banks and Seiberg. Read it sentence by sentence. It is incredible.

Not a single sentence is about physics. Not a single sentence is about nature. Not a single sentence makes sense.

Now, these two people are not stupid. They are smart by any usual standard. They are well-known. They are professors of physics in the best institutions. Nevertheless, they write complete nonsense. 

What is going on here? How can two men devote their full professional life to write nonsense? In a few years, hopefully, psychological research will answer this question.

Bousso and Susskind in Fantasialand

Bousso and Susskind have left physics. Just read their latest paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796 on the multiverse. Every sentence is nonsense. What a pity to see two smart people falling so low.

A further strand model

In a new preprint (http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3658), "Spacetime Geometry as Statistic Ensemble of Strings", Botta Cantcheff argues that space is an ensemble of "strings". He explains that the thermodynamics of strings reproduces the derivation of the field equations of general relativity by Jacobson. By strings he means some one-dimensional objects that are similar, but not exactly the same as the strings of string theory.

So here is a further researcher that understood that space is a collection of one-dimensional lines. He agrees with what Carlip says, and with what Schiller says, who argues the same connection between general relativity and the thermodynamics of strands. And he arrives at the result independently of them. A good sign!

On nonsense about crossing black hole horizons

Every other day a preprint appears on arxiv, in the gr-qc section, that discusses what happens when an observer crosses a black hole horizon, and how he arrives at the singularity. All these papers are written by people who believe that space is continuous, and that it can be extended beyond the horizon. Sadly, this nonsense is even found in many books. But it remains nonsense. Space and space-time cannot be extended beyond the horizon, because they are not continuous. Speaking about "beyond the horizon" is like counting angels. There are no angels. But angels have been classified, it might be said: after all, there are seraphim, and cherubim, and many others, and several angles are known by name, such as Gabriel and Raphael. Despite all this, angels are a delusion. Neither is it possible to cross the horizon or hit a singularity; that is a delusion.

There are people getting their PhD on angiology, and there are people getting their PhD on what happens beyond black hole horizons. The value of the work is the same.

A problem wit strands/spaghetti

When the weak and the electromagnetic interaction mix, they form the gauge group U(1)_Y for hypercharge Y. This occurs above the electroweak scale, so above around 100 GeV.

In the spaghetti model, it is unclear, when the U(1) group is described, whether U(1)_EM or U(1)_Y is meant. This looks like a major issue!

Update: this is a serious issue, but not a major one. The main results of the model remain valid.

Spaghetti or loops?

Loops, strings, spaghetti: all these ideas are similar. All explain the area dependence of black hole entropy. But


- Loops explain gravity, but not at all QED and the nuclear interactions.
- Strings explain gravity, but not uniquely QED and the nuclear interactions.
- Spaghetti explain gravity, but also QED and the nuclear interactions.

The explanation of all interactions with the spaghetti model is also the first ever found. Schiller even says that it allows to calculate the coupling constants. Guys, have a look at it!

No Higgs yet - II

Again, the prediction of the spaghetti model is vindicated: CERN clarifies that no Higgs was found, despite rumors to the contrary. This will happen again and again in the coming months.

The spaghetti model, a model that anybody who knows physics can learn in an hour, still has all its predictions in agreement with experiments.

Fun about dark matter

Again, tiny statistical effects are interpreted as dark matter.

We should recall that "dark matter" is a term similar to "extraterrestrials". They are claimed to exist, but nobody has ever seen them. Thus we will hear such claims for the decades to come. After all, they could be there, couldn't they?

Nobody is spending big money for searching for extraterrestrials. Why are we spending big money for dark matter searches? And how can honest people waste their own time doing this? Are these people all out of their mind?

Fun about Wilczek and his chase for flying toasters

If you ever have a look at the video here, you will see Frank Wilczek adding nonsense to nonsense for the largest part of his talk. Of course, Wilczek is a kind man, and has received a big Swedish prize. But nonsense remains nonsense.

Wilczek explains the running of the coupling constants, and notes that they do not meet in one point, as they should if a grand unified theory (a GUT) existed. Instead of concluding that GUTs are falsified by experiment, he adds a second invention without experimental support (supersymmetry) and then, in addition, fantasizes that most of the spartices (supersymmetric particles) appear at a few TeV.

He acts like a man that is looking for flying toasters and sees none. Instead of concluding that flying toasters do not exist, he deduces that extraterrestrials eat them and now starts looking for them instead.

This game can be repeated without end. Once the LHC will show definitely that supersymmetry does not exist, we can invent another crazy idea that explains why it is hidden, and so forth. (It is like saying: we do not see extraterrestrials, because they are all sick at the moment.)

Wilczek is half conscious of what he is doing. He calls this process of inventing excuses "truthification". Not only is the word horrible, its content is as well. What a pity that another great scientist has left science and opted for the land of fantasy.


---

Why does this happen? Because GUTs are wrong. GUTs do not exist. The nonsense arises because people do not want to face this inconvenient truth. And why not? Because they have no clue. Stop this nonsense. People, go and read the spaghetti model! There you will find a proof that GUTs do not exist, and a solution for all the problems of the standard model.

Hard problems in mathematics: knots or the Riemann conjecture?

Do read Schiller's 6th volume. Many intriguing facts are given. Take this one:

• Nobody knows the geometric shape of a tight trefoil knot. 

I asked around. It is true. Even a school child knows the shape of a tight torus. But nobody knows the shape of a tight granny knot. Nobody. Nor that of any other knot. Open or closed, it makes no difference: the shapes are unknown.

Take a rope, add a knot, pull it tight. Ask your mathematician friend to describe the shape. He cannot! What, he can solve Fermat's theorem but cannot solve this little problem? And he is still working on the Riemann conjecture? Tell him to do something sensible instead, like this little problem! He will become famous on his own right. And he will help the proof of the theory of everything.