This week’s Time magazine has as article by Michael Lemonick about the controversy over string theory entitled The Unraveling of String Theory. It mentions my book and Lee Smolin’s, and there’s a quote from Sean Caroll. There’s the usual hysterical reaction from Lubos Motl: Time Magazine: Physics is a Sin.
Lemonick more or less gets the story right, describing the reaction of string theory critics to the landscape as:
It was bad enough, they say, when string theorists treated nonbelievers as though they were a little slow-witted. Now, it seems, at least some superstring advocates are ready to abandon the essential definition of science itself on the basis that string theory is too important to be hampered by old-fashioned notions of experimental proof.
Lemonick describes both Smolin and me as having worked on string theory. Smolin has done original research on the subject, but I certainly haven’t. I don’t agree at all with Sean Carroll that the problem is that not enough string theorists “take the goal of connecting to experiment more seriously”. Many of them take it very seriously, but the fact that it is a failed idea that doesn’t work is what has forced them into the landscape nonsense and other complicated, unworkable schemes.
The quote from me is a little bit out of context. I was making the point that physicists necessarily often start out with speculative ideas that are “not even wrong”, in the sense that they are so poorly understood that one can’t tell where they will lead, and that this is very much legitimate science. On the other hand, once a theory is well enough understood to see that you can’t use it to make predictions, if you keep pursuing it, you’re not doing science anymore.
Update: Tomorrow on Science Friday Ira Flatow will have Brian Greene and Lee Smolin on to discuss string theory. The September issues of Scientific American and Discover magazines have book reviews of Smolin’s book and mine. The Discover review is by Tim Folger and entitled Tangled Up In Strings; it begins:
In the mood for some no-holds-barred gossip or a nasty screed? Then start browsing the physics blogosphere, where some exceedingly smart people are spending an inordinate amount of time belittling one another. Alas, even this magazine has come under attack. The cause of all the commotion? Some nervy upstarts are questioning the validity of string theory, which is to physics what Wal-Mart is to retail: the biggest thing around, dominant for more than 20 years now. And woe unto anyone who doubts the orthodoxy….
The Scientific American review is by George Johnson and entitled The Inelegant Universe. Johnson notes one of his pieces for the New York Times six years ago carries what he now sees as an embarassing headline: “Physicists Finally Find a Way to Test Superstring Theory” (in his defense, this kind of headline is still appearing in over-hyped articles about string theory to this day). I’ve been a bit surprised at how friendly a reception Smolin’s book and mine have been getting so far from science writers. I think one reason for this is that many of them have repeatedly over the last twenty years written articles about string theory that repeat a lot of the hype promising imminent success in producing predictions. They’ve now been burned too many times and are very open to listening to the critics.
Chris, Kea and DRL are right. Without elaboration, may I say that there are more fruitful avenues of research than are currently being funded.
TL – Moral imperative? … if you say so.
“… nor is proposing a better alternative necessary … ” — oh dear. Surely proposing a better alternative is the whole point? So what if ST is doing a bad job? Can you do a better job?
Groups or cults or whatever, which attempt to stifle debate and drown out alternatives have historically never succeeded. The truth always wins out. But that truth will some in the form of expt data. One theory never wins over another simply because it is prettier. It wins because it does a better job of explaining data. QFT didn’t win out over S-matrix theory in the 1960’s (or early 1970’s) because of some intellectual theoretical debate. QFT (by which I mean the quark model, QCD and ElectroWeak) won out because of expt events, most especially charmonium. QFT explained the expt findings of the day, and furthermore made predictions about charmed bound states (which turned out tio be correct). Alternatives could not match this success.
There simply needs to be data (new puzzles, not merely confirmations of SM) from the LHC. Theoretical critiques of ST will go nowhere.
If you believe there is already data (e.g. cosmological), then put together an expt proposal to validate your non-ST ideas.
Dear Antonio,
Unfortunately the Reference Frame has also been hacked by cockneys.
It’s shockin’ wha’ ‘appens on the Internets, guv…
So what if ST is doing a bad job? Can you do a better job?
hep-th/0411028
Modulo some serious flaws (corrections in progress), the essential proposal is to replace QFT by QJT (J for jet), i.e. to expand all fields in a Taylor series prior to quantization. By doing so, one introduces a new datum: the expansion point. This is an essential modification, because it allows us to write down new gauge and diff anomalies, which lead to the higher-dimensional generalizations of Kac-Moody and Virasoro algebras.
There simply needs to be data (new puzzles, not merely confirmations of SM) from the LHC.
What if the ultimate theory of nature is essentially the SM coupled to GR, but treated within the framework of QJT rather than QFT?
Thomas Larsson referred to hep-th/0411028 and said “… the essential proposal is to replace QFT by QJT (J for jet) …”,
but
hep-th/0411028 did not refer to any of the extensive work of Gennady Sardanashvily on jet bundle physics, such as
math-ph/0203040 entitled Ten lectures on jet manifolds in classical and quantum field theory
as well as many further papers (some more recent) that can be found by searching arXiv for Sardanashvily as author. Would such works be helpful in Thomas Larsson’s program?
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
Ludbos’ post is even more ironic than usual.
“simply can’t have any respect for because of their complete lack of intellectual integrity”
Unsurprisingly, Luddite Moron absolutely fails to grasp the actual meaning of intellectual integrity itself. The absolute epitomy of intellectual integrity is questioning something(especially something as foul as String Theory) I would challenge anyone to give a better characterization of what -defines- intellectual integrity. The irony here should be obvious, while decrying an act of intellectual integrity as its opposite, Ludbboose himself is the poster boy for failed integrity.
So to set the record straight: Integrity is ad hominem attacks on detractors(which as a sideline, grow more desperate as these detractors become the majority) and challenging an non-explanation like String Theory is the cardinal sin of science?
Caboose Motl is certainly the last car on a train that’s heading out of town rapidly. Everyone smile and wave đ
TL – pursue your ideas to fruition (perhaps in collaboration – follow up on Tony Smith post – work by Gennady Sardanashvily), figure out some testable consequence, e.g. for cosmology or HEP beyond EW scale, and find an expt collaborator/submit an expt proposal to validate it. You have to do this on your own. The ST camp doesn’t owe you anything (such as a time slot at a conference). Ultimately your ideas have to survive on their own merits. Good luck.
Rickkk ~ If it makes you happy to write “Luddite Moron” and “Caboose Motl” good for you. You will ultimately go nowhere.
Pingback: EclectEcon
Personally, I just like to hear the views of all writers and for this I am glad to have this Blog to raed.
Well, there are writers, and there are scientists. Which ones do you prefer?
MoveOnOrStayBehind Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Well, there are writers, and there are scientists. Which ones do you prefer?
With all due respect, there have MANY first rate scientists who were (or are) also first rate writers.
Consider, to pick just a few at random, Pascal, Darwin, Galileo, Oliver Sacks, Roald Hoffmann, Gregory Benford…
Lost His Marbles, said, with respect to Thomas Larsson’s NON-superstring approach to theoretical high energy physics:
“… figure out some testable consequence … and … submit an expt proposal to validate it … on your own …”.
That is both true and reasonable.
Lost His Marbles went on to say:
“… The ST camp doesnât owe you anything (such as a time slot at a conference). …”.
In a fair and considerate world, that would also be true and reasonable,
BUT
as Peter quoted Tim Folger saying in Discover magazine:
“… [super]string theory … is to physics what Wal-Mart is to retail:
the biggest thing around, dominant for more than 20 years now.
And woe unto anyone who doubts the [superstring] orthodoxy …”,
so
our real world is “not considerate or fair”*,
and
LHM’s second statement quoted above is true but NOT reasonable.
In short,
the ST camp is so dominant a monopoly in high energy physics theory,
that
it DOES owe to alternative approaches fair treatment (such as time slots in conferences,
rights to post to the Cornell arXiv, etc).
The penalty to superstringers for their abuse of their monopoly position will be a place in history alongside the inquisitors of Giordano Bruno.
Bruno’s inquisitors were doubtless pleased with themselves for seeing Bruno dead,
but ideas don’t die so easily,
and
to slightly paraphrase LHM:
“… ideas WILL survive on their own merits …”.
If I were in the superstring establishment, I would be very thankful for Peter,
because
Peter is offering them a graceful exit from a position of great risk of a humiliating place in human history.
A graceful exit is possible because Peter is NOT pushing any particular alternative approach,
so the superstring establishment would not have to anoint a successor monopoly approach, but
only would have to admit that they have had their exclusive turn,
and now it is time to be inclusive of other approaches.
Following Peter would not even require anybody to give up their organizational positions of power, only to allow freedom of thought.
It would be sad indeed if the inevitable fall of the superstring establishment led,
not to the blooming of a thousand flowers,
but to a successor oppressor.
Would the Loop Quantum Gravity guys be any less oppressive about alternative approaches if they were to become a successor monopoly ?
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
*”not considerate or fair ” is a quote from Batman Begins (Ras al Ghul).
LHM – it is true that string theorists don’t owe me anything, but neither do I owe anything to them (except perhaps a four-year postdoc to Lars Brink, but that was many years ago). If you don’t like my marketing strategy, that’s your problem.
As a physicist, I find it very significant that all natural string theory predictions – SUSY, extra-dimensions, 496 gauge bosons, new long-range forces (unstabilized moduli), a non-positive cc, etc. – are in apparent disagreement with experiments, and I find it deeply dishonest that this fact has been systematically deemphasized for 20 years. If string theorists had told the public about these problems, rather than going on about how beautiful M-not-a-theory is, maybe they would have gained more sympathy.
However, at the end of the day it does not matter. Theories that don’t produce predictions (and correct ones) will flounder, just as companies that don’t show profit will. It is neither mine nor Peter’s fault that the cc is positive, that the proton refuses to decay, that the Tevatron and precision experiments show no signs of SUSY or extra-dimensions, etc. It is just Nature’s way of telling us that it does not like string theory.
By the way, Walmart just sold all the stores it had in Germany: it did not make any profit in any of the years it was active there. Is this a sign of things to come?
I believe that the whole issue of the anthropic principle is not irreconcilable with meaningful physics if you take the point of view propounded by some people (like Vafa, Verlinde and others in the context of Ads2*S2 universes), that the universe that we see is actually a collapsed state of the “universal” Wheeler-DeWitt wave-function. From this point of view it is quite conceivable that the multiverse is like a super-Fock space spanned by axes, represented by different universes with differing parameters. However I have to say that I don’t see a compelling need for the multiverse to be an exclusive product of string theory but that’s another matter. What I would like to point out is that given this viewpoint one can inculcate a more ambivalent attitude towards the anthropic principle than that it is usually accorded.
Tony Smith – I agree with much of what you say. I hope Thomas Larsson paid attention.
TL – if I don’t like your marketing strategy “that’s my problem”?? It doesn’t matter in the slightest what I think. It’s *your* ideas, you have to make of them what you will. See comments by Tony above.
There was a Goddess Zeta Monopole from Infinity,
From her three breasts flowed Milk, Wine and SuperSymmetry,
One zap of lightning from her Trident of Incredulity,
Could reduce the most hardened non-believer to abject impotency,
She was not to be trifled with, that Goddess from Infinity.
.
I composed this for drl, but pw can toss this out if he wants to. It’s not Shakespeare by a long shot.
John Rogers said
“… Walmart just sold all the stores it had in Germany … Is this a sign of things to come? …”.
It is NOT a “sign” that a dominant monopoly is crumbling.
Germany already had, BEFORE Walmart went there, established deep-discount chains such as Aldi,
so
failure of Walmart in Germany actually shows the POWER of entrenched monopolists (such as Aldi in Germany and superstringers in high energy physics theory).
Note that Aldi is trying to crack the Walmart monopoly in the USA, but seems to be having no more success than Walmart did in Germany.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
I was wondering why you call yourself “LostHisMarbles”. Now it is clear.
CO – he’s lost his marbles, but kept his yarbles đ
Thanks, KHY.
-drl
lol ty drl
Ah – A Clockwork Orange … I only saw it recently as it was banned in the UK until after Stanley Kubrick’s death. I wonder … maybe someone could make an updated version with Peter as protagonist. A band of middle-aged, science-hating thugs who have no respect for the establishment institute a reign of terror and eventually have to be sent to a special clinic for reprogramming (Lubos being a particularly sadistic doctor here).
CO – “Singin’ in the ‘Brane”?
-drl
Here we are looking for Nazzes (String Theorists) on the campus at Columbia.
L->R: Tony Smith, Danny, Peter, me.
No place for me?
Sorry, but we can’t include anonymous posters.
They’ve got no sharries, and just itty when the drat gets going.
gorblimey guv it’s a fair cop
What is it with you ‘non-stringers”? Are you saddened that others are grasping concepts that you are unable to? Here’s a simple question.
“Does ‘YOUR MODEL’ explain everything”?
Of course it doesn’t.
Well, like it or not, ‘SUPER STRING’ DOES explain everything.
Nothing you can say will change this reality.
When you go to ‘disprove’ ANYTHING, you are fighting a loosing battle. Especially with yourself. Others are merely laughing at you, while some are saddened for you because you simply cannot accept this reality.
It is no wonder with such ‘closed minds’ that festering attitudes of rediculousness abound.
No one has a need to remove science from this model. It is merely that ‘a few’ of the concepts ‘REQUIRED’ to further understanding on this theory require your mind to be able to grasp things that it was previously unable to grasp.
You poor jealous goofs don’t have a clue when it comes to reality. To say that something is false “REQUIRES FAR MORE, THE NEED OF A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT, THAN THE RESULTS OF THE ‘EFFECT’ OF THIS THING YOU CANNOT SEE’
So, until you ‘HAVE THAT PROOF’, please do all of us who “HAVE SUFFICIENT PROOF” a favor, and STFU. Besides, unless you can ‘back your attitude up’ with a ‘sustainable argument against reality’, you’re merely pissing in the wind. And believe me, most everyone is ;aughing at you while you do so.
I eagerly await the inevitable rebuttal to all of this (or pointed interview) from Professor Harold Hi— I mean Professor Michio Kaku. Unfortunately, it might be on AM radio at 0200. We might get lucky though and see a “controversy in physics matchup” on a cable news show.
String theory is obviously wrong. It fails to meet the criteria of beauty and simplicity. It is a Ptolemaic theory; it is more complicated than the standard model and GR. A unified theory is supposed to be simpler than the theories it reduces to, not orders of magnitude more complicated.
Reality, take your amazing mind over to PBS and watch Brian Greene tell the general public that string theory could all be wrong. Combining “it could all be wrong” with 20 years and a monopoly is really bad. Too many eggs all in one too wrong basket for too long.
Ask yourselves how/why ST became a monopoly in the first place. QFT and the SM were dominant in the late 1970s – early 80s. Why blame ST? Why did QFT not remain dominant?
Reality says:
“Well, like it or not, âSUPER STRINGâ DOES explain everything.”
This amazingly and weirdly sounds like something out of “The Incredibles”:
“SYNDROME: You sly dog! You got me monologuing. I can’t believe it. It’s cool, huh? Zero-point energy. I save the best inventions for myself. Am I good enough now? Who’s super now? I’m Syndrome! Your nemesis and…”
Sorry for this post, I’m off to do productive system administration now. (Bows)
LHM – Maybe I misunderstood you. It seemed like you were first saying that I wasn’t allowed to criticize the string theory hype because I lacked original ideas, and when I showed that I indeed had original ideas, string theorists have no reason to listen anyway. Quite an effective strategy for keeping string theory the only game in town đ
However, beauty has nothing to do with it, just inevitability. The multi-dimensional Virasoro algebra is important to quantum gravity for the same reason that the usual Virasoro algebra is important to string theory – it is the correct quantum form of the correct constraint algebra. That’s why I decided to discover it, many years ago.
TL (and anyone else for that matter) –
Nobody was obliged to listen to S-matrix theory in the 60’s, nor was anyone forbidden to criticize it. Nobody was obliged to listen to QFT either, or forbidden to criticize it. Julian Schwinger did, for example, opt out of both, and invented source theory.
“If you can’t join ’em, beat ’em”
– JS, dedication in Source Theory books
Nobody is obligated to believe ST, or anything else, nor is anyone forbidden to criticize ST, or anything else, nor is any ST person required to listen to any non-ST person.
If you have ideas, they must survive on their own merits. This the ideas do by proving their worth by explaining phenomena (to a better extent than rival ideas).
How did ST become a monopoly anyway? Other camps (QFT) had a fair chance to be heard.
“How did ST become a monopoly anyway? Other camps (QFT) had a fair chance to be heard.”
But string theorists are wiling to lie, cheat, and steal.
To hype, and hype, and lie, and hype, and lie.
Nice guys finish last.
” … lie, cheat, and steal.”
The scientific community at large is not obligated to believe any of ST. Historically the scientific community has shown itself to be effective at sorting out good ideas from bad. The truth wins out, despite religioius persecution, prejudice against “Jewish science” and other nonsense.
It does no good to merely proclaim “I have a (better) idea”. The idea has to demonstrate its worth.
“Nice guys finish last.” Don’t whine.
Technically speaking, any theory would be as good as string theory because string theory predicts everything and nothing.
Ergo the government should give equal funds to every theory.
Why should other theories have to prove themselves when string theory does not?
“Human–all too human,” is what String Theorists are.
Their vast yearning to be on Nova Star Trek specials has blinded them to their mendacious mediocrity, and it has brought out the very worst from their small, cowardly, conformist, group-think minds.
I wish String Theory had at least one postulate we could talk about, but the postmodern joke lackas even that.
KH Yarbles Says: “It does no good to merely proclaim âI have a (better) ideaâ. The idea has to demonstrate its worth.”
Does that mean that NSF should immediately stop funding String Theory which has failed to prove its worth for over thirty years?
Let’s write a letter to the NSF, and KH Yarble, the defender of all that is Right, and True, and Worth Something can be the first to sign it.
That way, funding can go towards better theories which are rooted in logic and reason, such a MDT.
KH Yarbles asked:
“… QFT and the SM were dominant in the late 1970s – early 80s.
… Why did QFT not remain dominant?
… how/why [did] ST bec[o]me a monopoly in the first place …” ?
Perhaps the existence of a monopoly in theoretical high energy physics is a reflection of the sociology/psychology of the USA high energy physics community.
Raoul Bott made an observation about the Princeton IAS under Oppenheimer:
â⊠Oppenheimer had taken over, and he was very dominant in the physics community. He had a seminar that every physicist went to.
We mathematicians always thought they ran off like sheep,
for we would pick and choose our seminars! âŠâ.
Consider some excerpts from other entries in this blog over the past year or so:
“… ObsessiveMathsFreak Says:
When you were young, you assummed that scientists were a magnamous, logical and rational bunch. You had great faith in their ability to be imparital and to discern the truth through the application of scientific rigour. You also thought they had great integrity and were above petty actions as they aspired to the greater goal that was The Truth.
Then you grow up … see that scientists are just as human as everyone else, pettiness included.
Itâs still very disappointing though. …”.
“… D R Lunsford Says:
It all sounds like groupthink … Groupthink seems to be at the bottom of much of our (USA) current dysfunction. …”.
“… Dumb Biologist Says:
… it seems …[superstring theorists]… have forged ahead so far away from attainable real-world checks and benchmarks that the system of peer review is all theyâve got, or perhaps will have, for a very, very long time.
How could the tyranny of groupthink not prevail in such an environment?
Itâs functionally equivalent to a church.
Very sad. …”.
In short,
the USA high energy physics community acts like a herd of sheep,
with more importance placed on being a member of the herd than on exploring new territory.
I fear that, unless that collective mind-set it changed,
if LHC fails to see supersymmetry and so puts the final nail in the coffin of conventional supersymmetry,
the herd will just follow the most then-charismatic shepherd
(Lee Smolin seems to be trying to fill that role, using his Loop Quantum Gravity program)
and continue in its dysfunctional group-think ways.
To use the church analogy, think of the Roman Catholic church being replaced in England by the Church of England.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
PS – Although I have a physics model that in my opinion substantially contradicts
(by calculating particle masses, force strengths, Dark Energy : Dark Matter : Ordinary Matter ratio, etc)
the assertion in a comment in this blog entry by Reality: “… What is it with you ânon-stringersâ? … Hereâs a simple question. âDoes âYOUR MODELâ explain everythingâ? Of course it doesnât. …”,
I would be very unhappy if my model were to be used as a monopoly that suppressed other approaches.
My view is that a thousand flowers should bloom, and that all important institutions (university departments, laboratories, institutes, etc) should encourage active investigation of ALL the blossoms,
by rewarding grad students, post-docs, etc., for work on whatever they find interesting.
If a studied model turns out to be wrong, then the work showing it to be wrong should not be considered a worthless negative result, but a useful contribution (like weeding a garden) to advancing physics by cultivation,
and such negative results should be just as important as positive ones in getting publications, Ph.D.’s, post-doc jobs, and faculty appointments.
PPS – Although the above is written about theoretical high energy physics, experimenters in high energy theory are not immune, with their groupthink problems being due to a combination of
necessary large collaborations
and
unnecessary insistence on a single consensus viewpoint with respect to results of data analysis.
Tony your fears seem a bit exaggerated, non-string QG is a bunch of different approaches. You say
**I fear that, unless that collective mind-set it changed, if LHC fails to see supersymmetry and so puts the final nail in the coffin of conventional supersymmetry, the herd will just follow the most then-charismatic shepherd (Lee Smolin seems to be trying to fill that role, using his Loop Quantum Gravity program) and continue in its dysfunctional group-think ways.**
There is no monolithic LQG program. Check out the contents of Oriti’s book (“Approaches to QG” Cambridge 2006?) a lot of which is already on arxiv. It is an association of separate initiatives. What I see John Baez students and former students doing is way different from what I see Laurent Freidel and collaborators doing. At present, neither of those approaches makes contact with what Lee Smolin has been pursuing recently (which itself is not conventional LQG either.)
Research funding policy is different from specific programs. Your PS sounds rather much like what Smolin has been proposing as a policy direction in fundamental theory research funding—support proven talent and independence, by individual rather than by program. That is an investment strategy at policy level, not an “LQG program” and it does not require a charismatic research tzar to implement. Both your PS and Smolin’s essays on the subject are directed against groupthink.
OS –
It’s Dr Yarbles to you.
“… That way, funding can go towards better theories which are rooted in logic and reason, such a MDT. ”
This repeats a fallacy which persists with many people. NSF does not have a pot of money which will be redirected elsewhere, if ST is defunded. There will be no money for MST if money for ST is cut. In fact, NSF has been defunding HEP for many years now, and the trend shows no sign of abating, e.g. the cut of RSVP (Rare Symmetry Violating Processes) at BNL.
” … KH Yarble[s], the defender of all that is Right, and True, and Worth Something … ”
a) I owe drl a debt of gratitude here, which I am not sure I can repay. But see below …..
b) I cannot even defend the chastity of a Goddess, and CO may have strong words about even that.
TL proposes non-SM ideas which he claims to be better than ST. A paper on arXiv is a good first step, but it is by no means the last. It is necessary but not sufficient. Make a falsifiable prediction and put together an expt team to test it.
Tony Smith writes much that is sensible. See also sensible reply by Who. What can a fool like I add?
Back in the early 80’s, QFT + SM was utterly dominant. The prevailing attitude was that the next step was unification of the strong, weak and EM interactions into one gauge group (GUT), the smallest candidate of which was SU(5). The immediate predicted consequence of GUT SU(5) was proton decay. This was a clear cut falsifiable prediction, but unfortunately
a) the prediction failed
b) QFT had no backup Plan B. It simply fell into disarray.
Equally unfortunately — and this is nobody’s fault — expt HEP simply did not turn up anything beyond SM, and after 30 years there is still nothing beyond SM from the particle accelerators. QFT relied on working closely with hep-ex, and there has been no food for QFT.
`Who’ is correct to note that non-ST (e.g. LQG) is not monolithic. ST’s source if strength is arguably simply that it is monolithic.
What is my answer? … Hep-th will languish until there is some new non-SM data from the accelerators. It is nobody’s fault. Rail against ST if it makes you feel better.
There was a Goddess from Infinity,
She was the final authority on g-string theory,
There were those who said it was all not even wrong,
Alas and alack, their yarbles were insufficiently strong,
She reigned supreme, that Goddess from Infinity.
YOU’RE MISSING THE POINT!!
NSF damages physics by a factor of 1,000 for every dollar it spends on string theory.
NSF influences billions of dollars of cashflow with its millions of dollars.
Brian Greene’s Hocus Pocus Diddly-Docus has set physics back a hundred years, as it has fostered a fan-boy star-trek atmosphere which has exiled physicicists who deal in reality, logic, and reason.
http://revver.com/video/48391/21022
KHY,
It doesn’t rhyme, it doesn’t scan and I don’t like the message. The only use for your limerick is for torturing prisoners.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon_poetry
Quote: “Technically speaking, any theory would be as good as string theory because string theory predicts everything and nothing.”
This is a point that I was making in a previous post, a point that isn’t made enough it seems.
The typical rebuttal, demonstrated many times in this post, is “DO YOU HAVE A BETTER MODEL?”
No-one has ever accused me of ever getting the point. There is a leverage factor of 1000 for every dollar spent by NSF? Fine… I have no idea. NSF damages physics by the dollars it spends on ST? … I also have no idea. Complain if you want to.
CO – I’ll take that as a compliment.
Darnit, I pushed enter too soon.
Anyhow, that rebuttal isn’t adequate. As the quote says(correctly) there are NO worse models, theories, or even speculations worse than string theory. This isn’t just angry slander or hyperbole, analytically speaking if there is a definition of a PERFECT, albeit perfectly bad theory, it is string theory. It is the model of avoiding predictions by predicting everything. It is absolute PERFECTION in its “badness”
I want to reemphasize, I am not being sarcastic here or even inflating the truth. I am genuinely impressed by the vacuousness of the yarn.
So, yes, I have a better model, my brother has a better model, my grandmother has a better model.
No model is better than string theory? Indeed…”no model” would be better or at the very worst, equivalent.