String theory is what?

[Farsight]

Thanks Jim. Yes, I saw some of that. It's a shame that people get heated, but that's life I suppose.

Nautilidae: it's good that people work in more than one area. And yes, working in one area for a while doesn't mean giving up on another. As for what happens when one makes progress in that area, it can get tricky. If you're the leader of a field and then you stumble on something in a competing field, what do you do?

As regards "fruitful", it's a question of degree I suppose. If string theory had been going for only a few years, one could cut it some slack. But it's forty years now, and it still has no actual experimental support. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_the ... dictive.3F and other articles for more. It's a rather different situation to say General Relativity, which dates from 1916 and was part-vindicated in 1919. There has to come a point when those other areas deserve more time and attention, and IMHO that's what we're seeing. I think it's a good thing myself, because there's a sense that the public are losing patience with physics and the lack of recent progress, at least here in the UK. Cuts in nuclear research funding of £40m were announced in December, and it hardly made the newspapers.

I'm fairly sure now that "grand unification" isn't going to come out of string theory, or even loop quantum gravity. And I'm also fairly sure that supersymmetry is flawed in a serious way, and that the information paradox is misguided, being based on the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler "geometrical" interpretation of black holes. I say this because a different approach seems to offer a coherent and simple route for completion of the standard model. It's geometrical, but in a different way. Sadly physics is rather competitive, and new approaches are not always well received. Collaborations or groups have a tendency to promote their own field, paint a picture of consensus that isn't always justified, and then "trash the competition". The behaviour we saw at CRU isn't quite as unusual as people might think.

[Nautilidae]

Nautilidae: it's good that people work in more than one area. And yes, working in one area for a while doesn't mean giving up on another. As for what happens when one makes progress in that area, it can get tricky. If you're the leader of a field and then you stumble on something in a competing field, what do you do?

How is topological field theory a competing field? As I already stated, topological field theory has important applications in string theory. It's only natural that he would study it.

As regards "fruitful", it's a question of degree I suppose. If string theory had been going for only a few years, one could cut it some slack. But it's forty years now, and it still has no actual experimental support. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_the ... dictive.3F and other articles for more.

I've already shown that string theory is quite testable. The only honest criticism people can give it is that it has yet to be experimentally tested. However, this is misguided; many theories that are commonly accepted, such as spontaneous symmetry breaking and Hawking radiation, have yet to be experimentally tested.

I'm fairly sure now that "grand unification" isn't going to come out of string theory, or even loop quantum gravity.

GUT was never meant to come out of loop quantum gravity. It is a theory of quantum gravity and nothing more. String theory, on the other hand, has made much progress in terms of grand unification. It has been shown that intersecting branes give rise to chiral matter, and spontaneous symmetry breaking gives rise to different masses for gauge bosons.

And I'm also fairly sure that supersymmetry is flawed in a serious way, and that the information paradox is misguided, being based on the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler "geometrical" interpretation of black holes.

Why would you say that supersymmetry is flawed? It has a rigorous mathematical backing that has allowed many theories to make progress.

Why is the information paradox misguided? To what are you referring? Black hole dynamics have been shown to be consistent, and the information paradox proposed by Hawking was indeed justified. Keep in mind that, while it was a stubborn thing to do, it physicists 30 years to finally reach a consensus that Hawking was incorrect. The information paradox wasn't misguided; it was merely a problem in physics that needed addressing.

I say this because a different approach seems to offer a coherent and simple route for completion of the standard model. It's geometrical, but in a different way.

I have a strange feeling that you are referring to Garret Lisi's E8 model. This model has been shown to be inconsistent both internally and mathematically. Unless these things can be fixed, I doubt that it has a future. If I am referring to the incorrect model, please correct me.

Sadly physics is rather competitive, and new approaches are not always well received. Collaborations or groups have a tendency to promote their own field, paint a picture of consensus that isn't always justified, and then "trash the competition". The behaviour we saw at CRU isn't quite as unusual as people might think.

If new approaches aren't consistent, physicists are justified when "trashing the competition".

[Farsight]

How is topological field theory a competing field? As I already stated, topological field theory has important applications in string theory. It's only natural that he would study it.

Because the world isn't made out of strings. Instead it's made of stress-energy travelling at c, and particles have a topology in 3+1 dimensions. For example, the proton is a trefoil knot.

I've already shown that string theory is quite testable. The only honest criticism people can give it is that it has yet to be experimentally tested. However, this is misguided; many theories that are commonly accepted, such as spontaneous symmetry breaking and Hawking radiation, have yet to be experimentally tested.

Like I said, if we were talking about a few years it wouldn't be a problem. But it's been too long. I don't have a big issue with spontaneous symmetry breaking myself, but IMHO Hawking radiation is a theory where the consensus is somewhat forced.

GUT was never meant to come out of loop quantum gravity. It is a theory of quantum gravity and nothing more.

We'll have to agree to differ on that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity. I'm not advocating LQG by the way. Attempts to quantize gravity are the result of a failure to understand the quantum of quantum mechanics.

String theory, on the other hand, has made much progress in terms of grand unification. It has been shown that intersecting branes give rise to chiral matter, and spontaneous symmetry breaking gives rise to different masses for gauge bosons.

The topology of stress energy gives chiral matter in a trice, see pair production, and the gauge bosons are more like events than particles in the usual sense.

Why would you say that supersymmetry is flawed? It has a rigorous mathematical backing that has allowed many theories to make progress.

Because it's studying non-real solutions whilst overlooking a viable electron model. IMHO one should understand the electron before proposing a whole new generation of particles.

Why is the information paradox misguided? To what are you referring? Black hole dynamics have been shown to be consistent, and the information paradox proposed by Hawking was indeed justified. Keep in mind that, while it was a stubborn thing to do, it physicists 30 years to finally reach a consensus that Hawking was incorrect. The information paradox wasn't misguided; it was merely a problem in physics that needed addressing.

Because the original "frozen star" interpretation is the correct one, information is just "signals", and if the coordinate speed of light is zero, they've stopped forever, and they aren't signals any more. That means they're gone forever.

I have a strange feeling that you are referring to Garret Lisi's E8 model. This model has been shown to be inconsistent both internally and mathematically. Unless these things can be fixed, I doubt that it has a future. If I am referring to the incorrect model, please correct me.

No, not at all. I'm not impressed by that either.

If new approaches aren't consistent, physicists are justified when "trashing the competition".

Sometime they say they aren't consistent, then trash them anyway. People can get very emotional and irrational about this sort of thing.

[Nautilidae]

Because the world isn't made out of strings. Instead it's made of stress-energy travelling at c, and particles have a topology in 3+1 dimensions. For example, the proton is a trefoil knot.

Again, topological field theories also have applications in string theory. For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_string_theory

Like I said, if we were talking about a few years it wouldn't be a problem. But it's been too long. I don't have a big issue with spontaneous symmetry breaking myself, but IMHO Hawking radiation is a theory where the consensus is somewhat forced.

Why not? SSB has been around about as long as string theory. If you criticize string theory for being around too long without experimental evidence, you have no reason to not have the same problem with SSB.

We'll have to agree to differ on that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity. I'm not advocating LQG by the way. Attempts to quantize gravity are the result of a failure to understand the quantum of quantum mechanics.

Quote from Wikipedia: The LQG theory also includes matter and forces, but does not address the problem of the unification of all physical forces the way some other quantum gravity theories such as string theory do.

Because it's studying non-real solutions whilst overlooking a viable electron model. IMHO one should understand the electron before proposing a whole new generation of particles.

Why exactly? The electron is well understood, especially in terms of QED.

Because the original "frozen star" interpretation is the correct one, information is just "signals", and if the coordinate speed of light is zero, they've stopped forever, and they aren't signals any more. That means they're gone forever.

Yes, but the Hawking radiation model causes the information to be destroyed. This violates quantum mechanical principles of information.

Sometime they say they aren't consistent, then trash them anyway.

That is exactly what I said. Are you agreeing with me?

[Farsight]

I'm not agreeing with you, Nautilidae, but see how it works? I could talk at length about every point, but before long we find we're in disagreement after disagreement and then we aren't talking any more, we're arguing. This is how it usually is when competing theories are involved. It's not quite as rational as we might like. For example, if I said to you that the electron is not well understood in contempory physics, you'd probably switch off. But it's things like this that are of absolutely crucial importance, and without such baselines to agree upon, we have no common ground on which to build. If you don't mind, I prefer not to get into an argument, but hope I've said enough to sincerely demonstrate that there are issues with string theory, that they are serious, and that those other approaches should be taken very seriously indeed.

[Nautilidae]

I'm not agreeing with you, Nautilidae, but see how it works? I could talk at length about every point, but before long we find we're in disagreement after disagreement and then we aren't talking any more, we're arguing. This is how it usually is when competing theories are involved. It's not quite as rational as we might like. For example, if I said to you that the electron is not well understood in contempory physics, you'd probably switch off. But it's things like this that are of absolutely crucial importance, and without such baselines to agree upon, we have no common ground on which to build. If you don't mind, I prefer not to get into an argument, but hope I've said enough to sincerely demonstrate that there are issues with string theory, that they are serious, and that those other approaches should be taken very seriously indeed.

The problem is that you don't exactly explain your points. For instance, you claim that the electron isn't well understood. You don't provide any evidence for this. So I will ask you this; why is it that the electron isn't well understood? What about it don't we understand? I don't want to make it seem that your opinion is meaningless. I'm simply trying to understand why you make the objections that you do and then decide wether or not those objections are misguided. I do respect your points, but I merely wish to see why you make them.

[hackenslash]

I say this because a different approach seems to offer a coherent and simple route for completion of the standard model. It's geometrical, but in a different way.

I want to hear more about this.

[Nautilidae]

I say this because a different approach seems to offer a coherent and simple route for completion of the standard model. It's geometrical, but in a different way.

I want to hear more about this.

If it's Nassim Haramein's work, I'm going to burst out laughing.

[lpetrich]

How is topological field theory a competing field? As I already stated, topological field theory has important applications in string theory. It's only natural that he would study it.

Because the world isn't made out of strings. Instead it's made of stress-energy travelling at c, and particles have a topology in 3+1 dimensions. For example, the proton is a trefoil knot.

In that form, topological field theory cannot be correct -- the quark model is VERY well-established.

It's been possible to calculate the proton and neutron masses with it to within about 2%:
[0906.3599] Ab-initio Determination of Light Hadron Masses

It's also possible to get the proton and neutron magnetic-dipole moments to within about 10%:
[1001.1131] Extracting Nucleon Magnetic Moments and Electric Polarizabilities from Lattice QCD in Background Electric Fields

There have been efforts to determine other observable features, like the "axial charge" (involved in weak interactions) and the "charge radius" (average spread of electric charge), though they have not been as successful:
[1002.0925] Status and prospects for the calculation of hadron structure from lattice QCD

Can topological field theory come close in either case?

[Anonymous]

Well since I am due to return tomorrow, let's end the suspense. Permanently ban me please, I can't reason with uptight idiots who are so rude that they wont even talk to me beyond saying I am right and you are wrong on this thread. Fuck you all Im out of here. 4 emails now and not one shred of a reply, you uptight little Nazis. What's a matter know you fucked up, overreacted in the first instance, broke your own rules, and unable to admit it?

Please bear in mind that this has nothing to do with String Theory that was just an act to keep people entertained. Patently all these fuckwits want is a sterile lifeless place where retards frot amongst themselves and not a real forum, from history where heated debates and the free exchange of ideas were the norm. Good luck with that. I'm not going to put up with being treated like a child, so fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Can't wait tille RD comes back on line, this place is a pale imitation of moderational ineptitude. Nothing against the posters, on any forum they are always worth far far more than the moderators, who are usually the most soulles and contemptable of human flotsam in my experience of 6 years on web forums. Pay peanuts get monkeys, what does that say about the unpaid?

The moral to this sorry tale of self righteous fuckwitts is:

People should observe one rule about the internet both about themselves and their e power (oymoron): imagine that no one cares what you think ever, and then proceed anyway for a laugh.

Yes I am The Dagda, no I don't care about your rules they suck, especially when you don't even have the integrity to follow them. Then they are a joke.



Thanks no really you are welcome.

By the way I hope Farsight makes a good case in my stead, although I don't agree with his theory let me add, too hypothetical. He's an acquaintance of mine, and you could do worse than listening to him he even has his own published work on the subject, which I will not be gauche enough to advertise here.

"Warnings are issued to members in the form of a warning of imminent suspension if the member continues their behaviour. An example might be, "Please stop doing that or you will be suspended for 24 hours". Board warnings (using the forum software) are never used as part of our reminder > warning > suspension policy. They are only ever issued in jest... mostly for bad puns or other fucking about. "

Sound familiar? Bit better than I am right and you are wrong isn't it? Here's an idea, how about in future you follow your own rules instead of being a self righteous ass and not admitting you made a mistake, how dya like them apples?

Yeah hypocrites.

One question how can you expect anyone to follow the rules when you yourselves are above them, and why should they?

[The Dagda]

I read the comments that were left last night.

The Dadga,

You have reached a dead-end. I didn't expect one to return to his usual behavior after a 24 hour suspension, but I was wrong. As a member of this board, you are expected to make coherent posts, be polite to others, and to follow the forum rules. You have insulted users, insulted moderators, and ignored the comments made by users. You do no support string theory. We understand that. However, your behavior is unacceptable. The arguments that you have made are far from coherent, and you accuse other physicists and CERN of lying (which is ironic, considering that you claimed that everyone at CERN didn't think that the LHC could prove string theory). Insulting hard working moderators as you did is completely childish. They are perfectly fair in their judgements.

I hope that a second suspension will teach you how to properly behave.

- Nautilidae.

I hope you grow up learn more about the subject than what you've read, and finally make yourself understood as someone who can actually understand more than superficially what the hell he is talking about. Because you talk the talk but you cannot walk the walk until you have at least a few A' levels or preferably a degree. You should be ignored because all you are doing is parroting other peoples ideas as your own, and that is plagiarism. You have shown no sign whatsoever that you fundamentally understand what you are talking about because you can't you are not qualified to and shouldn't give opinions therefore as if they are your own. You'll learn as has Ipetrich that when you quote something someone else said its good form to acknowledge your sources.

Mods & Nautilidae: I broke the rules because they broke the rules, like I say if you can't follow them why should I? I am not an automaton I am not living in 1984, and you are neither my mother nor the thought police. Although you act like it.

Save your excuses, I know they aren't really rules they are just for show, the peons must follow them but you do not need to as for you they are only guidelines. What the fuck ever.

[Tigger]

Well since I am due to return tomorrow, let's end the suspense. Permanently ban me please, I can't reason with uptight idiots who are so rude that they wont even talk to me beyond saying I am right and you are wrong on this thread. Fuck you all Im out of here. 4 emails now and not one shred of a reply, you uptight little Nazis. What's a matter know you fucked up, overreacted in the first instance, broke your own rules, and unable to admit it?

<snip: tl;dr>

Yay! Godwin was 'ere.

[hackenslash]

Stand back, I think it's gonna blow!

[FBM]

Well since I am due to return tomorrow, let's end the suspense...

Suspense? Were we supposed to be feeling suspense? Oops. I didn't get the memo.

[Nautilidae]

You must be joking, Dadga. You are banned for 1 week and you return spouting the same hypocritical garbage? Not only that, but you continue to make the same fallacies that you have been making for about 3 weeks now.

Some people never learn...