Freeman Dyson on String Theory

Thinking about putting this in my sig.

String theory IS detestable.

Thinking about putting this in my sig.

Perhaps you could post up links to those observations of strings (circlons), as well.

String theory IS testable. It is also based on observation and has explanatory power, unlike the creator hypothesis which suffers from many problems such as infinite regress. You seem very willing to dismiss it because it sounds weird, exotic and extreme yet we have solid evidence from observation and experimentation that reality is weird, exotic and extreme or maybe you haven't heard of quantum mechanics.

Every time we look at nature we see complexity is able to be described by a few very simple rules. Proposing a complex being as the explanation for simplicity does not seem very prudent. Where is the explanation for the designer's complexity? If everything has an answer, the idea of a creator answers nothing at all and is just another way of saying "I don't know."

PBS Nova - The Elegant Universe Part II

Strings the Thing [google.com]



Enjoy!

The part of the book I found most interesting was the part which tells how the string theorists were scammed by Nature (or Mathematics). Of course, Smolin doesn't put it exactly like this, but imagine the following conversation.

String theorists: We've got the Standard Model, and it works great, but it doesn't include gravity, and it doesn't explain lots of other stuff, like why all the elementary particles have the masses they do. We need a new, broader theory.

Nature: Here's a great new theory I can sell you. It combines quantum field theory and gravity, and there's only one adjustable parameter in it, so all you have to do is find the right value of that parameter, and the Standard Model will pop right out.

String theorists: We'll take it.

String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, our new theory won't fit into our driveway. String theory has ten dimensions, and our driveway only has four.

Nature: I can sell you a Calabi-Yau manifold. These are really neat gadgets, and they'll fold up string theory into four dimensions, no problem.

String theorists: We'll take one of those as well, please.

Nature: Happy to help.

String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there's too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one.

Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you'll be all set.

String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now!

Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly.

String theorists: It does?

Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you'll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests.

String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory.

Okay, I've taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin's book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it's hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your effort. One of the questions Smolin addresses in the rest of the book is why the theoretical physics community has kept with string theory and largely abandoned all the other approaches to quantum gravity. The short answer is that it's hard to admit that you've been scammed. The long answer is much more complicated. Another thing Smolin addresses in the book is other approaches to quantum gravity. And as could be predicted, he gives lots of space to his own approach and too little space to others, especially Alain Connes' non-commutative geometry. But overall, I found it very worthwhile and entertaining, and a good explanation as to how theoretical physics came to be in the state it is today.

It is not testable. Relativity and quantum mechanics, have been experimentally tested. How can you test 10 and 11 dimensions? It's all presumptive, well actually that would imply there is evidence for multiple dimensions, when there is none. I could just as easily say there are 100 dimensions and we live in one of many bubble universes, bubbling up from the bellies of exotic fish in an extra-dimensional aquarium.

Grading String Theory [columbia.edu]

Posted on September 30, 2010 by woit

Commenter Shantanu points to this video of a recent colloquium by Andy Strominger at Harvard, which includes some extensive comments on the current state of string theory. Strominger is one of the most prominent string theorists in the business, and has been working in the field for more than a quarter-century since the first “Superstring Revolution” of 1984. In the talk (at about the 52 minute point), Strominger gives a “report card” for string theory, where he assigns it 3 As, 2 Bs, 3 Ds and 2 Fs, for an average grade of about C. It gets an F for making no unambiguous testable predictions, a D for prospects of saying anything about LHC, an F for the CC (Strominger isn’t sold on the anthropic landscape) and a D for cosmology. Some of the high grades are debatable, with an audience member pointing out to him that there was a tension between his A for “Not being ruled out as theory of nature” and F for no testable predictions. Strominger repeatedly claimed that most string theorists would agree with him on these grades (except maybe the F for the CC).

As an overall evaluation, he said that it was debatable whether this was a passing or failing report card, then arguing:

Quote : But this is the only student in class, so if you flunk her you have to shut the school down.

Along the same lines, a bit earlier in the talk one of his slides characterizes all that theorists can do as “go home and watch TV” if they believe in the landscape (“String theory is everything”) or if they think string theory is a failure (“String theory is nothing”). The positive argument he was trying to make is that there still is something for string theorists to do even after they are forced to give up on particle physics: they can try applying AdS/CFT and black holes to other areas of physics (nuclear physics, solid state physics, fluid mechanics).

I think Strominger is right that his grades and point of view about string theory are now conventional wisdom among leading theorists. What I find striking about this is the argument that if you are forced to give up on string theory, you have to “shut the school down” or “go home and watch TV”. More than 25 years of working on string theory has left Strominger and others somehow believing that there is no conceivable alternative. The failure of string theory as a theory of particle physics leads them to the conclusion that they must not abandon string theory, but instead must abandon particle physics and try and apply string theory to other fields.] The obvious conclusion that string theory is just one speculative idea, and that its failure just means you have to try others, is one that they still do not seem willing to face up to.

I don't dismiss general relativity or quantum mechanics. String comsomology or theory, whatever, is a crock of untestable nonsense. It's modern physics biggest stumbling block. Anyhow the idea of a creator is untestable but to me it's easier to swallow a being, an architect of some kind, purposely designing something, versus vibrating strings, branes, and such in 10 and 11 dimensional space. It seems the deeper you get into string cosmology the more exotic and extreme the circumstances have to be to explain the principles behind it.

On the Origin of Everything [nytimes.com]

Review of ‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss

By DAVID ALBERT
Published: March 23, 2012

Science Will Never Explain Why There’s Something Rather Than Nothing [scientificamerican.com]

By John Horgan | April 23, 2012

Strange.
I hold the exact opposite view.
String Theory is MUCH more tenable to me than some omnipotent being pulling the puppet strings of everything in the universe, and all things in ALL universes.

I also find it MUCH easier to believe that BOTH ideas are likely wrong and yet a third alternative is even MORE likely, though I haven't a clue what that 3rd alternative might be.
You might say I just take it on "faith".

I probably should never have seen the Wizard of Oz, I can no longer believe in omnipotence.

It's no different than a human creating a environmentally controlled habitat. Are we not puppet masters of many things on our own planet? What is so untenable about a being of some sort catalyzing the creation of something from nothing, they would just be doing it on a much grander scale (instead of towns and cities, entire planets, galaxies, etc). Does a house not have an architect? You could use all the time since the Big Bang and no combination of events would ever piece together the proper arrangement of subatomic particles to build a house. Btw, have you ever read the book Flatland?

Complexity comes from simplicity.

You're claiming something infinitely more complex is the reason for everything except of course it's own existence.

That is intellectual dishonesty of the highest magnitude.

Spamming articles to keep your opponents busy reading is not the same as supporting your argument.