This morning’s New York Times has a long and prominently placed article about the 20th anniversary of the “First Superstring Revolution”. The Times has a long history of producing overhyped uncritical articles about string theory, for a classic example, see “Physicists Finally Find a Way to Test Superstring Theory”. This one does allow some critical voices to be heard, including Lawrence Krauss, who is quoted as describing string theory as a “colossal failure” (which is different than a miserable failure)
Krauss is also quoted as saying “We bemoan the fact that Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life on a fruitless quest, but we think it’s fine if a thousand theorists spend 30 years of their prime on the same quest.”
Witten is quoted extensively, but he doesn’t sound very optimistic these days, saying “It’s plausible that we will someday understand string theory”, and making the rather weird statement that string theory is “so vast, so rich you could say almost anything about it” (for instance that it is a colossal failure?). He also seems to have given up on the idea that there is some fundamental new symmetry underlying string theory, instead putting his hopes on the existence of some new principle for constructing space and time.
The article also says that few theorists will give up on string theory when supersymmetry is not found at the LHC, with Witten interpreting this not as evidence that string theory is wrong, just that unfortunately it will be harder to get experimental evidence for it than he had hoped. String theorists in general seem to have trouble getting their minds around the idea that it is even possible the theory is wrong. Jeff Harvey does admit that sometimes he wakes up thinking “What am I doing spending my whole career on something that can’t be tested experimentally?”, but the question of “What am I doing spending my whole career on a colossal failure?” doesn’t seem to keep him awake nights.
The article ends by quoting an exchange between Steve Shenker and my colleague Brian Greene. Shenker quotes Churchill, describing the state of research into string theory as “perhaps it is the end of the beginning”. Brian seems to be one of the few string theorists around willing to actually consider the idea that the theory might be wrong, arguing that if string theory is wrong, it would be good to know this soon so physics can move on.
I am surry in my previous post I missed the PI:
“G=1/2N
N=exp(2/3*\alpha)”
It should be
N = PI * exp(2/3*\alpha)
G is a dimentionful value and N is a dimentionless value. Does it really bothr you that in
G = 1/(2N)
I simply omitted the units that should follow 1/(2N). Is that a problem, 99.999% of physicists do not include notations of kg, meter, second in the equations they derived. I never see that as a problem.
There is a reason for that specific form of exponent exp(2/(3*alpha)). These are not arbitrary choosen numbers, they are not any arbitrary fractional number. I can tell you it’s related to the 3-D space and 4-D spacetime. But it is simply not possible to discuss all details of a great theory in short messages on a BLOG web page. Youc an discuss the basic ideas and give some typical calculations, but you simply can’t go into too details.
I have shown how I obtained the precise value of proton mass. I would have also shown how I derived the EXACT mass of the neutron, based on known half life of nutron being 1013 seconds. It has 9 places of effective digits and is well within the experimental error of the best known experimental value.
I did not use any fractional number or expansion series. The calculation is extremely simple, and has physics reasons behind it. It is definitely and absolutely no coincident when you get a number accurate to the 9th digit, and matches NIST experimental values exactly.
I respect Peter’s request. I will refrain from posting more about my theory today. I will discuss how my neutron mass is calculated and give the detailed description, at a later time, if there is any curiousity.
Someone wrote:
“Now in the natural unit let Newtons constant G be
G=1/2N
N=exp(2/3*\alpha)
…………
G is dimensionful and N is dimensionless–you can’t equate dimensionful and dimensionless quantities! All you get for G is a dimensionless number thats wrong. In natural units (hbar=c=1)
G still has units of m^{2} or cm^{2}so you still cant equate it to N or alpha in any way unless you have an extra factor that makes it dimensionful. Even then what you get is a total rubbish and meaninglessly contrived “formula” for G that could have been contrived in countlessly many ways from alpha.
There is no mathematical basis, proof, derivation or justification or reason for presenting your N other than it will give the numbers you want by working backwards. Why not N=pi exp(4/5alpha) or
N=pi exp(1/10alpha)? Since there is no rigorous derivation or justification then these are just as good. But those simply dont give the answers you want or the “mysterious coincidences” do they?
Contrived numerical “coincidences” involving the fine structure constant are very easy to make up. For example, I can quickly make up my very own “magic N” right now and get a “theory”. Lets see…if
N=exp(9593/(10000 * alpha)) then calculate
M=m_{p}* N were m_{p} is the proton mass I get
M=(1.67^{-24}g) exp(131.4241)
=1.99 x 10^{33} grams, which is the exact mass of the sun, assuming I have’nt made any mistakes. So what?! Totally meaningless since I just made N up to get the right answer I wanted, via 30 secs on a calculator. With a little more and time you can contrive really good ones and its made easier by the fact you are calculating very big or very small numbers. The trick is to take as many decimal points in the accepted values and work backwards. The fine structure constant is actually interesting but this is all nonsense.
We need a way to measure NCG in the microstates.
If gravity is strong, there would be indication that such a resonance curve would have revealled itself? Spectrally, your Guitar would make wonderful music?:)
An important feature of atomic spectra that arises from relativity is fine structure – so called because what at first appears to be a single line in a spectrum is actually seen to consist of two or more closely spaced lines when analysed with high precision. Fine structure arises because the electron has an intrinsic angular momentum or spin that interacts with the magnetic field that is produced, for example, as the electron orbits the nucleus at relativistic speeds. The strength of this interaction is characterized by the fine-structure constant, a, given by e2/2e0hc, where e is the charge of the electron, e0 is the permittivity of free space, h is Planck’s constant and c is the speed of light. This dimensionless constant has a value of around 1/137. The equations for fine structure contain a factor of a2, so the spacing between the lines is suppressed by over a factor of 10 000.
Plato:
I was aware of all the noises about changing alpha or other fundamental physics constants.
It’s all nonsense. There hasn’t been any solid experimental data showing alpha is ever changing. Any miniscue “change” observed are just experimental errors. Actually the very notion that alpha could be changing would be strange for any one to have, except for that the SuperString camp probably need to have that changing alpha, just as they desperately need to find a decaying proton.
Should alpha be different billions of years ago, then shouldn’t it also be different today but at a location billons of light years away? The special relativity tells us time and space are all relevant. Two different time can well be transformed to two different location in another reference frame. So if alpha is different in different part of the universe, then there could be no physics because you no longer have a set of physics laws that are consistent within the whole universe.
Alpha could never be change and should have the same value here or there, now or billions of years ago. I have demonstrated that alpha is directly related to the size of the universe, because the big N can be calculated easily from alpha. And the radius of the universe equals to a trivial factor times the big N. If you measure the size of the universe from different location, you would get the same number, and hence the same alpha. For the same reason alpha should be the same at different times.
Some in the establishment crackpot science even suggested C be changing over time. That’s absord!
How do you know one meter billions of years ago equals to one meter today, and one second time billions ago is the same as one second today? You need that scale consistency to make a meaningful comparison between a speed value billions of years ago and a speed value today. Otherwise you can’t even do a comparision and find out any change. And what could provide that ruler that is consistent? Any ruler made of materials could change, even the space itself could be expanding or shrinking, according to theoretists, so light speed in vacuum is the ONLY ruole you can rely on for such a comparison.
So by that notion, the vacuum light speed has been a DEFINED VALUE and it could never possibly change. For the same reason, the time scale, which rely on atomic clocks, would not change either. So the physics that atomic clock rely on, including the alpha, can not change. So these physics constant can not change because they are the very things that define the scale of length, time, and mass.
Alpha does not change, hbar does not change, C does not change, G does not change, the Universe radius does not change. They are all connected and they have been in this universe even before there was space and time. and they can not change.
Without them being constant by definition, we don’t even have rulers and clocks for any physics measurements.
Quantoken
Not in natural units and not in QED where the fine structure constant is the coupling constant. I also meant dimensionless physical quantities Y are the dimensional multiples
Y=X* habr^{a}*c^{B}G^{c} for some suitable exponents a,b,c.
Changes in the Fine Structure constant?
Matt also said:
“Natural or Planck units ONLY work when you have combinations of hbar,c and G that are dimensionless multiples as discussed.”
I say: go figure and try to come up with a combination of hbar, C and G that is DIMENTIONLESS. Because if you do find such a combination, except for the trivial one hbar^0 * C^0 * G^0, then they will have to return all Nobel physics prizes ever awarded.
You can’t find such a dimentionless combination out of hbar, C and G and nothing else. I thought your physics teacher should have taught you that in high school physics.
Quantoken
Matt:
I am curious where did you go to school and who taught you physics and how you get your degree, if you have one. They need to recall you for a failed physics education.
Alpha is the fine structure constant and it is a dimentionless physics constant. As such, the value of alpha never changes, regardless of the unit system you adapt, and regardless of any physics theory you develope. On another planet if there’s intelligent life developing a different set of science, they will find alpha to be the same value.
Physicists like to write alpha as alpha = e^2/(hbar*C), for the convenience of calculation, Because normally to get quantities like interaction energy, the change e most times occur in the form of e^2. So any time you see a e^2 you do the calculation using the help of alpha. But you never actually plug in the e value in columb to calculate.
To do the calculation strictly in MKS unit sets, there are additional factors to be inserted in the formula, it is not just e^2/(hbar*C). It is actually e^2/(4*PI*Epsilon0*hbar*C). When you counted every thing in, alpha is still a dimentionless number, and remains unchanged under any unit system.
Quantoken
You defined a quantity in your natural units as
Mo=m_{e}/alpha=1.248 x 10^28kg = me *137
where m_{e} is the electron mass in kg and you used alpha=1/137. I just checked that on my calculator.
However, in natural units with hbar=c=1 (and leaving G fixed and NOT equal to one as you prefer) then
alpha=e^{2}, where e is the charge of the electron. Since alpha=e^{2}/(hbar* c) = 1/137 it is NOT dimensionless in this unit system when hbar=c=1.
You can’t have a computation where hbar=c=1 AND alpha=1/137 like you have done, even if G is not set to one…even if you forget G exists! When hbar=c=1 then the quantity you computed is actually Mo=m_{e}/e^{2}, which of course is not in kg. Nothing you say therefore makes any sense at all especially the statement “Assuming the electron mass is equal to the fine structuree constant in natural units” (your words).
It is electron charge that is related to alpha in any unit system and not electron mass.
However, you also take your Mo and compute
an Eo=Mo*c^{2}then define a ro=hbar*c/Eo but you then used the FULL values of habar and c again when you already said these quantities where defined in “natural units” of for hbar=c=1! But it is all academic anyway since you can’t define Mo in the first place using your own natural units!
Also your N =exp(2/(3alpha)) can’t be defined in your natural units of hbar=c=1 since the exponent now has units of e^{-2} where e is the electron charge. Again, thats with hbar=c=1 and G left alone and NOT equal to one! Since you can’t define N when hbar=c=1 then you cant define your G as G=(1/2N) either. When hbar=c=1 then N must have units of m^{-2}or cm^{-2}if G is a gravitational constant.
Natural or Planck units ONLY work when you have combinations of hbar,c and G that are dimensionless multiples as discussed. Even if your choice of natural units is only to set hbar=c=1 as you say and leave G the same you are still wrong since again alpha is still then not equal to 1/137 and your N is simply not defined since you can only take the exp of a dimensionless quantity.
I will quit here for good I think since I really don’t want to clog up Peter’s blog with all this pointless discussion or encourage any more. The readers here can easily decide for themselves about what is wrong or not even wrong.
Matt:
Before you further distort my words. Let me make one thing clear. My natural unit set is NOT the same as the claimed natural unit set on the textbook, which was obtained by setting hbar=C=G=1, i.e., the Planck Scale.
My natural unit set do NOT set G=1, that’s a big difference. Just ask theorists why their calculation of vacuum energy or the cosmological constant is always off by a huge margin of 120 orders of magnitude? Why they can never get the number right? Because they used G as if it is a microscopic constant, stupid!
G is not microscopic constant! They can replace G and use the height of Mount Everest, or the mass of the moon instead in their calculation of vacuum energy, and it would not be better or worse than using G in their calculation. All of those are macroscopic numbers and they shouldn’t use them to compute physics at microscopic scale.
Do you realize physicists are in a dead end for this 120 orders of magnitude problem? Or are you going to deny existence of this problem altogether?
Quantoken
Matt:
Why do you have to distort what I said in order to argue with me? My original wording is:
“But first let me adopt a set of natural unit, the unit is derived by setting HBAR and C to be exactly one, and assuming the electron mass is alpha, the fine structure constant, when measured in the natural unit:
m0 = Me/alpha = 1.2483×10^-28 kgs
E0 = m0*C^2 = 1.121928×10^-11 Joules
r0 = (HBAR*C)/E0 = 2.81794×10^-15 meters
t0 = r0/C = 9.39964×10^-24 seconds
r0 happen to be the classical electron radius, but don’t read too much into it. There is nothing classical.
Now, in the natural unit set, let the Newton gravitational constant G be defined as:
G = 1/(2*N)”
Clearly, I fixed my natural unit set by setting the numerical value of hbar and c to be one, and fixing the numerical value of electron mass to be equal to alpha. Once you fix the three, you get a natural unit set because there are three measurements to be fixed, the length scale, the time scale and the energy/mass scale.
In the later formula I said in the context of natural unit set:
G = 1/2N
Clearly in no way did I imply G is dimention-less. G has an implied unit which I stated to be that constructed from the natural unit. So my formula tells the numerical value of G, in natural unit set.
The important thing is this is not just an arbitrary unit set. The time and length scale is the correct scale at which time and space lose continuity.
It remains that my theory arrives at the exactly correct CMB temperature, which no ther theory can. And as a bunus I also gave the correct solar constant in the same set of calculation.
Quantoken
Total nonsense Quantoken. For one thing, in the forum web pages you quoted, farther down in the thread in your first post, you begin by totally abusing the natural unit system. You defined c=hbar=1 then formed a “dimensionless quantity”
G=1/(2N) where N is a dimensionless number, which you give as
exp(2/3 * \alpha) where alpha is 1/137 and G is Newtons constant. However, when hbar=c=1 then G is about G=2.5 x 10^{-70}m^{2}. Note the units now. G is still dimensionful! N would have to have units of m^{-2}or cm^{-2} in this system and is therefore not dimensionaless. If you set hbar=c=G=1 then your number N is just N=1 and won’t give you the answers you want and then contradicts the value of N given by your exp formula. The rest of your derivation then falls on its face. All you did here was essentially take the accepted values of the constants or what you are trying to calculate, altered them at so many decimal places then worked backwards to contrive a “formula” that calculates them “with great accuracy”. There is no theoretical basis or underpinning to any of it.
All physicists know that it is virtually impossible in this natural system of units to use dimensional analysis or to check results for consistency even if you intend to put back c and h and G. The system only works in the first place because for all suitable exponents (A,B,C) and (A’,B’,C’) the interesting physical quantities are dimensionaless multiples of
M_{P}^{A}*L_{p}^{B}*T_{p}^{C}
= hbar^{A’}* c^{B’}* G^{C’}
where M_{P} is the planck mass, L_{P} is the planck length and T_{p} is the Planck temperature.
It is useful and elegant in quantum gravity and cosmology if done right. However, I see from previous posts that explaining anything concrete to you is like trying to nail a rice pudding to the wall.
Now I am going to give a detailed rebuttal to Mr. M-?’s comment on CMB. First quoting his words:
“Yes I CAN honestly say the CMB is NOT star radiation since the CMB is homogeneous and isotropic to an astonishingly high degree. That is, it is the same everywhere in the universe and in every direction. This has been measured with great precision. It is in thermal equilibrium, is blackbody and is absolutly uniform! It is also part of the horizon problem in cosmology, which inflationary models seek to address. The CMB background also has Gaussian fluctuations, which have been measured.
The energy density of starlight falls off as the inverse square so that far from a star, at a distace R, the luminosity is L/4 \pi R^{2}. At sufficiently large distances (and the interstellar spaces are pretty large!)then L–>0. Total radiation from all stars in the universe or a galaxy cannot reach thermal equilibrium and is NOT homogeneous and isotropic. If you have a spherical cluster of millions of stars then the radiation density or luminosity at R (say with respect to the centre of the cluster) is different from the radiation density/luminosoty at some R’. Far from the cluster the radiation density falls to near zero. Hence you need a big telescope to see it!
An infinite, eternal, static and Euclidean universe full of eternal stars can reach thermal equilibrium but then every line of sight would then terminiate at a star’s surface and the night sky would be blazing white and not dark. This is the Olbers paradox and is in direct contradiction obviously to what is observed. The resolution is that redshift effectively cuts off the infinite energy density of starlight.
Also The “M” in CMB stands for “microwave” and stars emit mostly in the visible and IR in case you hadnt noticed. The reason the CMB is “microwave ” is because it has been redshifted. It is a remnant of the time radiation and matter decoupled as the universe expanded. That is why is it so astonishingly homogeneous and isotropic. There is no other possible expanation for it and is the strongest piece of evidence for the Big Bang. Along with predicting redshifts of galaxies and the correct ratios of hydrogen to helium.”
Here are my comments:
I accept every observational facts you cited. But I reject every interpretations of them cited from standard textbooks. I agree that any sounding theory must be self-consistent, and be able to account observational facts without contradicting OTHER known facts. The textbook explainations do not meet this later criteria.
The textbook has NOT been able to explain away where does all the regular star radiations go? Unless you have a giant blackhole to suck up all star radiations, they should still be there and should be observed, in the right amount of energy density per unit volume. The CMB happen to provide the correct amount of energy accounted for the star radiations. we know the CMB is virtually all the radiation energy there is filling the cosmos space. All other frequency spectrums only acocunt for a very small proportion of all the radiation in the universe.
My theory, on the other side, do account for the homogeneous and isotropic and blackbody radiation spectrum properties of the observed CMB, and do not need to answer the puzzle where does all the star radiation go. Because star radiations ARE the source of CMB.
In my theory, star radiation do shift to the lower frequency end as they travel through the space for billions of years. This redshift, having nothing to do with Dopler Effect or gravity red shift, is made necessary by a fundamental requirement of my theory, that the quantum information in the universe is a conserved amount. If star lights do not red-shift, we would be able to obtain information from any arbitrarily far away distance, and hence the amount of information would not be a fixed amount, but rather an infinite amount.
Quantum information conservation not only leads to the Hubble Redshift we observe. It also leads to the conclusion that the observable universe is neither expanding nor shrinking. Hence the radius of the universe will not change. Therefore the relationship between G and the universe radius that was discovered by Paul Dirac is NOT just a coincidence that we happen to live at a time when the universe happen to expand to the correct radius for that relationship to be true. Instead it is not coincidence at all and the relationship reflects a fundamental physics principle that has always been true, regardless of what time we live in.
Remember the Mach principle which says the whole mass of the universe caused gravity and inertia?
Once again, my theory accounts for all observation facts and makes precise predictions, without any self-consistency problem. I just have not got a chance to reveal the full details of my theory, yet. Given time, I will do it. If you are serious in pursuing scientific truth, please reserve your judgement until you learn the full details of my theory.
Now, can any one do me a favor, and show a calculation of star radiation energy. And see what’s the energy density is when averaged over the volume of the universe? Such calculation should be easy, given the known radius of the universe, the critical density according to Einstein Equation, and the baryon density being about 5.4%, and we know the radiation of a typical star like our Sun, which at 2×10^30kg mass, shines 1360 watts per square meter, at a distance 1.496×10^11 meter away from its center.
Can any one do such a calculation and compare the result with CMB energy density?
Quantoken
Mr. M-? said:
“So if I am “clueless” and a “moron”, as you put it then I am in good company.(Here is another one for you–the average stellar mass is
(hc/G)^{3/2}]/m_{p}^{2}=3.77 x 10^33 grams)”
I say: Sigh! Why do you have to invite insults to youself, by volunteering yet some more solid evidences that you are indeed incapable of doing the kindergarten arithmetics, even with a scientific calculator right at your hand.
Your calculation is simply not right. Let me teach you a bit arithmetics for free, even though Einstein would have done that for some coockies from a little girl.
(hc/G)^{3/2}]/m_{p}^{2}
= (2*PI)^(3/2) * (hbar*C/G)^(3/2) / (m_proton)^2
= 15.7496 * m_planck^3 /m_proton^2
Go find the Planck Mass and Proton Mass at this site:
http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?eqplkm|search_for=Planck+Mass
http://www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp|search_for=proton+mass
The result should be:
(hc/G)^{3/2}]/m_{p}^{2}
= 15.7496 * (2.17645×10^-8 kg)^3 / (1.67262171×10^-27 kg)^2
= 5.8039×10^31 kg
= 5.8039×10^34 gram
Your number 3.77×10^33 gram, is simply not right.
Even give you the benefit of doubt that you confused h and hbar, which is differ by 2*PI, the result would have been 3.685×10^33 gram, not 3.77×10^33 gram. I do not know how you could get the decimal numbers wrong by that much, with a computer sitting right in front of you.
There is a subtle difference between order of magnitude coincidence and exactly match to the precision of several decimal places. The later could not be by chance.
I never said I will not comment on the CMB thing, but I said I will save it until we have clarify the issue whether you are capable of doing simple math calculations. Looks like you don’t.
So I will get back to discuss the CMB in just a little bit. Meanwhile why would I want to juin the establishment science camp and wasting my lifetime, without finding any real scientific truth, when I already have a decent job and marvelous income, doing the kind of things I like and at the same time I can do my own scientific explorations and find the real truths?
Quantoken
Dear Quanto
It is clear any dialogue with you is pointless.
First of all the relation between proton mass and Hubble constant was discussed by Weinberg, Hermann Bondi (Cosmology, 2nd edition Cambridge University press, chapter III, 1960)and by Dirac.
So if I am “clueless” and a “moron”, as you put it then I am in good company.(Here is another one for you–the average stellar mass is
(hc/G)^{3/2}]/m_{p}^{2}=3.77 x 10^33 grams)
My comments on the CMB are matters of undeniable fact you can find in any basic textbook. Your not responding to it proves you don’t actually understand the nature of what the CMB is.
I gaurantee that you won’t ever find anyone anywhere with any real physics/math education who will ever take you seriously. Perhaps if you could tell us your degrees, institutions attended, papers published in peer-reviewed journals, or articles in the Arxiv (even if only one or two) then your opinion might carry some weight. BUT this is how science and mathematics is done and why it is so remarkably successful as a dynamic mode of human thought. The system is not perfect but it is the best there is and in the end it always works. Calculations, even simple arithmetic ones, can only presented within a rigorous, coherent and logically self-consistent structure or framework with reference to previous work. You have not done that.
If you think I was “rude” then submit your “piece of gold” arithmetical calculation to Physical Review or Astrophysical Journal then you might get some really rude replies. Of course, predictably, you will view all this as the “physics establishment” out to get you or censor you. You could never accept that you are just spouting ignorant self-deluded nonsense or are just plain wrong, but would only accept that you are being rejected or persecuted on “political reasons”.
If you want to do science you have to go through this long hard route just like to be a heart surgeon takes 10 years of hard work and dedication at medical school! Self-taught surgeons are avoided. This is how science works and the only way it can work…something you don’t seem to understand. Frankly I am getting really tired of crackpots always pushing “their theories” and I have already given you more time than anyone else would or will.
Quanto,
You are running up against a well established trend of developing insight that has fallen short by some of our most profound mathematical minds here:)
Even I, as a commoner like to embrace all of them(theoreticists and mathematicians a like) and try and keep them in line, with a encapsulated view of reality, but first we have to contain the legitimacy of what is being relayed.
It has to all make sense?:)
Further commenting on M-“”. He said:
“Also The “M” in CMB stands for “microwave” and stars emit mostly in the visible and IR in case you hadnt noticed. The reason the CMB is “microwave ” is because it has been redshifted. It is a remnant of the time radiation and matter decoupled as the universe expanded. That is why is it so astonishingly homogeneous and isotropic. There is no other possible expanation for it and is the strongest piece of evidence for the Big Bang. Along with predicting redshifts of galaxies and the correct ratios of hydrogen to helium.
The mass of the proton can easily be evaluated from Mp=Ho^{2}/GN, where N=baryon number density, Ho is the Hubble constant and G is Newton’s constant. The mass of a typical elementary particle is (h^{2}H_{o}/Gc, where h is Planck’s constant. So what?? These are well known. And you can replace Planck’s constant h with e^{2}/c=137h, the fine structure constant. These numerical coincidences have been known for a very long time.”
Looks like that’s further evidence M-“” does not know how to do simple arithmetic calculations. If that is not the case, please plug in some real numbers and show us exactly how you calculated the Mp from hubble constant and baryon number density, and what is the value of Mp you obtained that way. Also you seem to have no clue that astronomers first tried to obtain baryon mass density based on observation data, then try to use that, plus known Mp, to calculate baryon NUMBER density, instead of the other way around to obtain Mp.
I obtained a precise value of Mp based on first principle, to an accuracy of many decimal places.
I would be happy if you can show me that your calculation is only off by one or two orders of magnitude.
I would have answered to your comment on CMB and star radiations. But since you are so clueless, I will save that till you can show me that you are capable of doing the kind of elementary school arithmetics, that Einstein taught an eight year old kid in exchange for her sweet cookies, in his late years.
Mr “”(noname) said:
“Your ‘derivation’ of the proton mass is of course total bunk”
I am sorry. But tat’s very rude and uneducated behavior on your part. Your comments only shows how ignorant you are. You have no idea what I have been taking about. You are totally clueless and you still feel you can make judgement of my theory. I am sorry you are such a M-?!.
An educated scholar would never be shy to admit things he doesn’t understand, and would not comment on something until he learns at least some basic facts of the thing he is going to comment on.
I put a piece of gold in front of you but you could not recognize it, because you are blind. I have shown you how I obtained the precise mass of the proton, detailing every single step, though the computation is so simple there is really not that many steps to shown.
Wouldn’t you at least politely acknowledge the fact that there was no math error in my calculation? Or you are unable to verify and make a judgement on my math?
Let me give you a hint. The spin state of proton is an external state, so it has nothing to do with proton mass. The “states” I was talking about are the internal, intrinsic states, which certainly can not be observed directly, but has to be infered from other facts. It’s just like Quarks, they can never be observed as stand alone particles but their existence can only be infered from other experimental evidences.
Most physicists agree protons, as well as some other fundamental particles that can change. The fact that they changes implies that they have some sort of internal structure. Seeing those particles as point particles and hence there are no structure to be found of those particles in our 4-D spacetime, some of the physicists turn towards some presumably exist additional dimentions to look for that intrisic internal structure. That’s the whole idea where Super String theory came from.
That’s where the science made a wrong turn. Why do one need additional dimentions to provide background for some sort of intrinsic structure? You don’t need to. You can have structures without a spacetime background, and certainly without a 11 dimentional super space.
It’s rather illogical to me that physicists can accept the idea that below a certain small scale, the space and time loses continuity, and hence no longer exist, however they still can not accept the idea that you can have physics structures without spacetime background at all.
Also amazing to me that they believe the Planck Scale is the cut off, hence below Planck Scale there is no longer a continuous space and time dimentions, and hence these 4 dimentions no longer exist. However they believe in the other 6 dimentions, each though not longer than the Planck Scale, could still be continuous and meaningful, even if they are smaller than the Planck Scale!!! I do not know how their logic works.
At scales smaller than the discontinuity cutoff scale, both space dimention and time dimention are no longer meaningful physically, and hence physicists must throw away any equation that involves space and time, and use a brand new concept to construct some new physics.
That’s the whole idea of my GUITAR theory, Generalized Universal Information Theory And Relativity. My theory has resolved all the puzzles the extablishment theories could not resolve, and has succesfully been verifies by many precise calculations.
Unfortunately it does not seem that there are any one here who can understand it. I meantioned the Bekenstein Bound, and it does not pull a ring for any one. Hasn’t anybody heard about what Bekenstein Bound is? Also hasn’t any one heard that Einstein said “God does not toss a dice”. Hasn’t any one heard about Paul Dirac’s Large Number Postulation?
I do not just had a dream one night and came up with my new theory. Everything in my theory is solidly based on previous researches by well known scientists.
Quantoken
Your ‘derivation’ of the proton mass is of course total bunk. The nuclear dipole moment of a proton in a magnetic field forms a 2-dimensional Hilbert space of states +> and ->, which can be identified with qubits 1> and -> as the basis for a quantum computer for example. You can calculate Shannon or Von Neumann entropies for qubits. Your entropy formula is wrong (the Von Neumann one is the correct one in this context of quantum information using the density matrix) and even if you can compute the quantum entropy associated with the states of a proton that has absolutely nothing to do with its rest mass!
Yes I totally agree. I did say “eternal stars”. But as a resolution I was thinking more along the lines of the redshift argument in Weinberg’s Gravitation and Cosmology, pages 611 and 612. Olbers paradoxes are only relevant for steady state universes that have existed for an infinitely long time.
Someone wrote:
“An infinite, eternal, static and Euclidean universe full of eternal stars can reach thermal equilibrium but then every line of sight would then terminiate at a star’s surface and the night sky would be blazing white and not dark. This is the Olbers paradox and is in direct contradiction obviously to what is observed. The resolution is that redshift effectively cuts off the infinite energy density of starlight.”
Actually, the resolution of Olber’s paradox lies in the finite lifetime of stars. Expansion contributes no more than a factor of a few. See papers by Wesson and Harrison on the subject. Or just read the relevent sections out of Harrison’s textbook, “Cosmology: The Science of the Universe”.
“Can you honestly say that CMB is NOT star radiation…where does all the star radiation go?”
……………….
Yes I CAN honestly say the CMB is NOT star radiation since the CMB is homogeneous and isotropic to an astonishingly high degree. That is, it is the same everywhere in the universe and in every direction. This has been measured with great precision. It is in thermal equilibrium, is blackbody and is absolutly uniform! It is also part of the horizon problem in cosmology, which inflationary models seek to address. The CMB background also has Gaussian fluctuations, which have been measured.
The energy density of starlight falls off as the inverse square so that far from a star, at a distace R, the luminosity is L/4 \pi R^{2}. At sufficiently large distances (and the interstellar spaces are pretty large!)then L–>0. Total radiation from all stars in the universe or a galaxy cannot reach thermal equilibrium and is NOT homogeneous and isotropic. If you have a spherical cluster of millions of stars then the radiation density or luminosity at R (say with respect to the centre of the cluster) is different from the radiation density/luminosoty at some R’. Far from the cluster the radiation density falls to near zero. Hence you need a big telescope to see it!
An infinite, eternal, static and Euclidean universe full of eternal stars can reach thermal equilibrium but then every line of sight would then terminiate at a star’s surface and the night sky would be blazing white and not dark. This is the Olbers paradox and is in direct contradiction obviously to what is observed. The resolution is that redshift effectively cuts off the infinite energy density of starlight.
Also The “M” in CMB stands for “microwave” and stars emit mostly in the visible and IR in case you hadnt noticed. The reason the CMB is “microwave ” is because it has been redshifted. It is a remnant of the time radiation and matter decoupled as the universe expanded. That is why is it so astonishingly homogeneous and isotropic. There is no other possible expanation for it and is the strongest piece of evidence for the Big Bang. Along with predicting redshifts of galaxies and the correct ratios of hydrogen to helium.
The mass of the proton can easily be evaluated from Mp=Ho^{2}/GN, where N=baryon number density, Ho is the Hubble constant and G is Newton’s constant. The mass of a typical elementary particle is (h^{2}H_{o}/Gc, where h is Planck’s constant. So what?? These are well known. And you can replace Planck’s constant h with e^{2}/c=137h, the fine structure constant. These numerical coincidences have been known for a very long time.
Basically, everything you have said is not even “not even wrong”
Quantoken: your numerical result looks ok, but while you’re not telling us how you compute your number of possible states of a protons you’ll understand that we can only reserve our judgments. Have you written down the *details* somewhere ? (If not, the group sci.physics is unmoderated.)
Before I start to calculate the proton mass, a quest that no establishment theories ever dreamed of accomplishing, but so trivial in my theory, let me explain the main concept of my theory.
1.The universe is composed of nothing but quantum information, or quantum entropy. The entropy is measured in qubits, if the system takes one of two possible states, it’s one qubit. i.e., one qubit is ln2 entropy when using the traditional entropy definition of ln Omega.
2.The amount of quantum information is exactly integers of qubits. That’s the source of quantization of all physical observatives.
3.”God does not toss a dice”. The total amount of quantum information is a CONSERVED quantity, it never increase or decrease. In fact it could not possibly increase or decrease because quantum information do not exist in a space time background, hence there is not even a concept of increase or decrease.
4.Spacetime, and other observable properties of the physics world are just statistical manifestations of quantum information. Theories like the Bekenstein Bound, provides hint how to relate quantum information and use them to construct space time. Specifically, it can be described by a model where all quantum information distribute on the surface of a 4-D spacetime volume.
For point particles, it’s measured mass is associated and proportional to its intrinsic internal quantum information.
Now consider protons. Starting with an eight fold structure. I fugured out the number of possible states a proton can sit in to be 1, the base state, plus 3 kinds of excited state, each contain 5! possibilities, and one another kind which has 7! possibilities. Plus the charge can be in one of two different states. So the total number of states are:
S = 2 * ( 1 + 3*5! + 1*7!)
That’s how you calculate the proton mass. You can find the answer using a calcul
S = 10802
Measured in qubits, that’s
S = ln 10802 / ln 2 = 13.399011
That would be equal to the proton mass. i.e., the
proton mass is 13.399011.
Remember I use the Natural Units, whose unit of mass equals to the electron mass divided by fine structure constant.
If you want SI unit,
Mp = 13.399011 * m0 = 13.399011 * 1.24831335×10^-28 kg
Mp = 1.67262×10^-27 kg
The published proton mass is at:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp|search_for=proton+mass
(1.67262171 x10^-27 kg)
You make the judgement.
Quantoken
What do you mean “back of envelope” calculations? Do you remember Occram’s Razer? All things considered, the simplest theory that gives the correct answer is the correct theory.
OK, so my calculations takes the back of an envelope, so what they leads to the correct answer. OK, so Super String calculations are complicated. To calculate amoung some 10^123 different super string “landscapes” you probably needs to construct a quantum computer using the whole resource of a galaxy, and you still won’t be able to come up with an answer. Not a correct answer, not even an incorrect answer. Nothing. Not even wrong.
That’s what I call crackpot science when you can’t even come out with a reality-relevant answer, be it right or wrong, given 20 years of development and after consuming thousands of the best intelligent minds on this planet. As I asked, how many multiples of the already spent in-vain efforts does it take the scientific community to waste, before you will finally give up?
You know, the special and general relativity was not developed by one of those thousands of people who had worked in the field for decades. They were developed by a little third class patent clerk whose name was never known. Who failed the colleage entrace exams, who could not even find a job teaching in high school, and who would probably never been able to publish anything in today’s environment despite of much wider access to information. Next year is the centenual anniversary of his great discoveries.
My theory is not a back-of-envelope theory. It takes more papers to write down. But the main idea and some of the typical calculations are indeed simple enough to be written on a few pages.
Next, I will show you one more thing that’s trivial, but has puzzled the physicists for so longer they no longer seen to be bothered any more.
I am going to show you exactly how much the mass of a proton should be, and why, and it’s ratio to electron mass. Starting with a slightly different “8 fold method”. And yes the main calculation can be written on the back of an envelope. And there will be no adjustable parameter.
Quantoken –
Saying that the big bang theory is wrong does not make you a crackpot, but claiming that you have an “ultimate correct answer” when all you have is a few plausibility arguments and back-of-envelope calculations does. Take your business elsewhere.
Plato said:
“You must have a “compass” and have a way of knowing your coordinates from your passenger’s seat?:) Maybe “making coffee” and taking on stewardess functions as well?:)”
Are you sure you are not losing a bit of intelligence by knowing too much contemporary junk science? Like, here is a trivial question, do you know whether there exists a way how to get from point A to point B, without the aid of any type of manual or machine powered transportation carrier?
A sane person with the slightest intelligence would tell you directions without help of a compass, and without a need of coordinates. Actually the concept of directions like North, South, East, West were formed way back before compasses were invented and the concept of coordinate system was formed. Actually compasses do not tell you the directions, it merely tells you which way the north geo-magnetic pole is. On modern airplanes they no longer use a compass for navigation helps.
My theory is still in development, I do not expect it to explain every thing yet. But at least it explains some of the important things very well, that other theories fail to explain. There is not another theory which can calculate the correct CMB temperature. There is not another theory which gives the correct cosmological constant but mine can. There is not another theory explaining exactly what is the origin of gravity, but mine can.
The CMB temperature is certainly not the most important thing. As I said, the important thing is what we observe. We know stars radiate energy. No theorist can deny that. We can calculate how much energy stars radiate, and again there can be no dispute regarding the star radiation energies. These energy do not disappear. And the star radiation energy come up to be exactly the right amount of energy in the CMB background.
So can you honestly say CMB is NOT star radiation? Can you still continue to insist that CMB is the remains of BigBang? If you attribute CMB to BigBang, you’ve got to tell me where does all the star radiation go? Where are they now? All swallowed up by a giant black hole?
And I haven’t even started to talk about my theory yet. I just gave a few calculations that any one with a calculator can verify and check against the most accurate experimental results.
Unfortunately the PhysicsForums web are so paranoid that once I uttered a word suggesting the BigBang was wrong. They immediately banned me before I could utter the first word explaining exactly what my theory is based on.
I have not started talking about my theory yet. But I can tell you it is based on what Einstein says “God does not toss a dice.”, it is also based on the Bekenstein bound and what is meant by “God does not toss a dice.”
Both the Super String Theory camp and Loop Quantum Gravity camp are wasting their time without the possibility of achieving any meaningful physics results, because they are working on the wrong scale, the Planck Scale. They keep wondering why their calculation of vacuum energy is off by at least 120 orders of magnitude, without realizing they used the wrong constant in their calculation.
The space and time loses continuity and hence is no longer meaningful, at a scale far higher than the Planck Scale.
Quantoken
More Comedy Then:)
You must have a “compass” and have a way of knowing your coordinates from your passenger’s seat?:) Maybe “making coffee” and taking on stewardess functions as well?:)
Quanto as much and pleasing that these equations might be consistent with one more “prospective view,” without gravity in the understanding, how would you explain resonance curve?
Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathematical core of general relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory.Brian Greene
Without the “potential” of the supersymmetical reality, you would have no consistent way to view the cosmo, yet, you recognize the temperature values as important?
Just wondering?
Hi Quantoken –
In regard your “ultimate correct answer”, thanks for the welcome comic relief. The discussion was getting too intense.
Let me comment on the dispute between Peter and Lubos. Lubos seems to suggest that for any one to have the qualification to even criticise Super String Theory one has got to be an expert in the field first, or else he/she should shut up.
Nothing is more absord than that logically. Surely ANY ONE can criticise SST, even one who know little physics. The important thing is SST has NOT delivered anything that it promised, and it has not proven itself to be a relevant physics theory of this physics world. It may be a good mathematical theory but so far there is no evidence it has anything to do with physics at all. That’s an accepted and undisputed fact.
Let me use an analog: As a passenger I boarded an airplane, and found it’s heading to the wrong direction. Shall I have the right to question and challenge the captain, or should I shut up because I absolutely no nothing about how to fly an airplane, and have not read the first few pages of the pilot manual? Surely I do, because it does not take an export to figure out that the pilot is not delivering what he is expected to deliver.
Let’s face it: SuperStringTheory is most probably wrong and is not going any where. Now let me ask this question: Suppose it is wrong. What does it take for the scientific community to recognize it as a colossal failure?
Certainly, several thousands of scholars of some of the best intelligences on this planet wasting the prime of their lifetimes without achiving anything physically significant, is still not enough to convince them they are on the wrong track. How about 3 generations of best scientists wasting their lifetime in an invain search for an ultimate theory in super string for over a hundred year, just to find out they are wrong?
Or how about 10 generations and a few hundred years? How much is too much? How long is too long? At what end of a fruitless pursuit, will superstring theoriests finally ackowledge that they have been all wrong and they have wasted their intelligence their whole lifes?
Serious I want to know the answer. How many more years should we continue to try, before finally giving up? Maybe you will give up whe the tax payer money runs dry?
Both SST and LQG are wrong all the time. I have the ultimate correct answer. The evidence being I have been able to calculate a number of important parameters of the universe to an amazing precision, including figuring out the exactly CMB temperature and solar radiation constant, with very simple calculation. See:
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=49938
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=49935
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=49934
Quantoken
This is what I mean, Lubos. Obviously, to anyone with a functioning mind, Larsson not only knows what HE’S talking about, he knows more about what YOU’RE talking about than YOU do. So to flame him like this makes you look ridiculous, like one of those snapping little toy dogs giving a big dog the business, while the big dog just yawns and thinks – “mmm snack”.
What I want to know is – how long have you been bamboozling your colleages, fellow students, parents, neighbors etc. etc.? You make a good Czech hockey player – you know, irritating and fast…
-drl
I’m somewhat uncertain whether it is reasonable to reply to pitiful creatures such as the Gentleman signed as “Thomas Larsson” below.
Nevertheless, even most of children interested in physics who are above 10 years old with IQ above 90 know that string theory predicts consistent dynamics of quantum gravity as well as all required physics of the Standard Model in the appropriate regime.
Some of the solutions of string theory are *pure* Standard Model at low energies, see e.g. the recent intersecting braneworld paper by Christos Kokorelis.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412035
But we don’t know whether we should expect a pure standard model – SUSY and GUT at higher energies is more attractive because of many reasons.
Aaron Bergman has written a lot of relevant technical comments, and I encourage all participants with IQ above 70 to try to read and understand Aaron’s comments as opposed to the idiotic rants signed by “Thomas Larsson”.
DMS,
Your wait for “ST-implies-SM-gauge-group” will be a long one. Because honestly speaking, ST can be used to derive any possible gauge group, not just the standard model—this is “prediction” for string theorists.
…
Clearly, there is nothing “unique” about this contrived construction. But throw in enough buzzwords (like branes, orientifolds), and you will silence the doubters by hiding the arbitrariness and keep harping about the “uniqueness of string theory”. This is dishonesty, plain and simple
That Motl decides to lie about string theory predicting the SM is somewhat surprising. After all, it is not a sofisticated lie, it is just a plain stupid lie, which any non-specialist can see through. This is really stupid, because it leaves the impression that lying is all that string theory is about. What is even more surprising is that the rest of the string community seems perfectly happy to let this barking Harvard puppy define the public image of a string theorist. (It seems like he has been forced to retract his “interesting” opinions about women, though.)
(although Prof. Motl does surprise on occassion, as on the anthropic stuff),
I think we should be grateful to Susskind and Douglas to make string theory’s inability to explain any experimental data manifest and quantitive. Today it takes days or maybe even months to work out the properties of a compactification (with the wrong sign of the CC). Even if you could automate this process to only take a fraction of a second, covering a Landscape of 10^1500 vacua will still take significant time; remember that our universe is only 10^80 seconds old. I think that the prospects of not making any progress in the next 10^1500 seconds might deter future students. Or does anyone believe that string theory will pick up steam once Witten retires?
Just to get this out of the way, I’m not Lubos, and I’m not speaking for him.
To respond, here are a few examples. The relationship between Chern-Simons theory and the open topological string was derived by Witten from applying his open string field theory of the full string theory to the topologically twisted model.
Later Gopakumar and Vafa took Maldacena’s ideas from AdS/CFT and applied them to large N transitions in topological strings. This led to the conjecture that the Chern-Simons theory on S^3 is equivalent to closed topological strings on the resolved conifold, (The transition here is the ‘conifold transition’ from T*S^3 to O(-1)+O(-1) -> P^1.) This has consequences for Gromov-Witten invariants.
If I remember, there are other conjectures that come about from embedding the topological string in the full string theory and using the various known facts (especially dualities) about the full string theory. I think the existence of Gopakumar-Vafa invariants follows from such embedding.
Marcos Mariño covers a lot of this in hep-th/0406005. Is that what you wanted?
JC,
Arguably there’s a fine line between a genius and a crackpot. The genius turns out to be correct in the long term, while the crackpot remains a “madman” forever.
So was Einstein a Genius, or a madman? If his last thirty years were unproductive, maybe a madman?:)
Einstein’s search for a unified theory is often remembered as a failure. In fact, it was premature: physicists first had to understand the nuclear forces and the crucial role of quantum field theory in describing physics–an understanding that was only achieved in the 1970s.
So you see, you might of thought of him as a madman all the while, you just didn’t understand him:)
Aaron and Lubos,
yes, as a mathematician I am well aware
that Gromov-Witten invariants, etc originated
(or were re-born) in physical models, notably topological theories. Many mathematicians
are also keenly interested (and participating in)
the prospected construction of “topological M-theory”
a la Okounkov, Nekrasov, Vafa, and others.
My question, however: what, SPECIFICALLY,
does Lubos have in mind when he claims that
such results are simply “truncations” of work
done in string theory. There is a huge and
obvious difference between
A. “truncating” the whole theory to form a
toy model, but using techniques specific
to the toy model to get results (e.g. as a test
for the larger theory), versus
B. taking a “truncation” of results in the big
theory to get results about the toy models.
My impression (from talks by Vafa, for example) is
that it’s mostly A that’s been done. Lubos
appears to be claiming that B happens, so that successes in Gromov-Witten theory, etc are also successes of string theory. I’m asking what is the situation from the point of view of someone who works
on string theory.
So far the only answer from Lubos was to call
me an idiot. Which only tanks his credibility
further.
Yes JC, but someone like LM is just wrong, period. He doesn’t have a secret plan to save physics from the North Viet Cong and the insurgents. What he claims is just wrong. Peter doesn’t go around claiming things that are flat wrong.
The funny thing is, I think LM would be better off if he’d get behind something that isn’t so easily dismissed as nonsense. I’d rather believe in something completely implausible rather than in something that is demonstrably wrong and even anti-scientific.
-drl
Plato, et. al.
Some folks like to bury their heads in the sand, for whatever reasons. Whether they are being in “denial” or are in a genuine state of “ignorance is bliss”, is debatable.
Whether they are right or wrong in the long term, they are entitled to believe whatever they want. In the end, who really cares what anybody else thinks?
Arguably there’s a fine line between a genius and a crackpot. The genius turns out to be correct in the long term, while the crackpot remains a “madman” forever.
JC
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to listen to Peter and/or Lubos in the first place.
Why would anyone ignore the basis of what is happening between these two gentlemen/unless you choose not to bury your head in quantum geometry?:)
Einstein refused to accept the quantum mechanical positions, but we have seen how things have progressed?:)
As far as I’m concerned, people are going to say whatever they want. If you don’t like what Peter and/or Lubos is saying or not saying, you’re entitled to say whatever you want. Or for that matter, one is also entitled to completely ignore Peter and/or Lubos, or anybody else for that matter.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to listen to Peter and/or Lubos in the first place.
the Higgs mass.
the lightest sparticle mass.
OK, now I’ve defused all criticism once and for all. I never thought it would be so simple! 😉
Lubos can defuse all criticisms once and for all by telling us the Higgs mass.
And for encore, the lightest sparticle mass.
Responding to:
As regards to anything related to the topological string (Homological mirror symmetry, Gromov-Witten, Gopakumar-Vafa, Donaldson-Thomas, yadda yadda yadda) many (if not most) of those spectacular successes were originally derived using intuition from string theory and were later (sometimes) proven to be correct by mathematicians. I think if you ask any mathematician who works on those areas, they will tell you that physical reasoning has been extraordinarily fecund.
As a commoner(a child of the universe and a impressionble one) it has become important for me to distinquish where the pulse is in these exchanges:)
If both areas deal in mathematical structures then it would be essential that a common bond be linked through the mathematics? If agreement is struck in theoretical advances, then supportive features of the physics would be important?
Where Brain Greene had made such a statement about moving on if such a concept as strings/Mtheory was resolved, Lubos also made same. Being critical of what one has gained in information about subject would seem important to me, to make a careful assesssment?
But I am more intrigued about the advances of quantum gravity and the perspectives forming around this. Why are not, all models attack with such vigor? I have many links you can choose from:)
Do you not all have the same departure point?
I think I will post Smolin and Susskind exchange again, to hone up on what’s going on.
It’s good to see that both have agreed on some basis to move from and that Peter is asking questions. What other theory asks the question about the unity and arises from the planck epoch in a systematic way?
Haha, Peter, you’re funny. You probably think that it is completely OK to misunderstand this statement, but you’re wrong. Misunderstanding this statement means that you had to misunderstand the whole picture.
You know, one can follow some formulae on 6 pages, but if one does not understand why these formulae are written down, then it’s completely useless – it’s like the basic school kids who memorize something that they don’t understand.
OK, you should not be intimidated by the first sentence you don’t understand. You should try at least 150 pages of Zwiebach. Do it for me! 😉 And don’t cheat – you know very well that the first 6 pages of the book are NOT string theory yet.
OK Lubos, I checked a few more pages in Zwiebach, and you’re right. When I get to page 6 he writes “String theory is an excellent candidate for a unified theory of all forces in nature”. Yup, there’s a statement I don’t understand.
Sorry, Peter, but I said – and I still say – that you don’t understand the first *pages*, not just one page. Be sure that one page is not enough.
Indeed, you have written a lot of rubbish about string theory. And it’s also true that the people may decide for themselves which writing is more scientifically reliable.
No doubt, there exist intellectual dwarves who will say “Peter Woit is the more trustworthy party about string theory”. You know very well that I don’t care a single bit about what complete idiots are thinking.
What I would find more disturbing would be if an *intelligent* person happened to attend your blog and if she were manipulated into thinking that your rants are relevant for science. That would be sad.
This is why I find it very important to emphasize that you, Peter Woit, have no idea what string theory is.
DRL—
Your wait for “ST-implies-SM-gauge-group” will be a long one. Because honestly speaking, ST can be used to derive any possible gauge group, not just the standard model—this is “prediction” for string theorists.
The rough explanation is that you get a U(N) Yang-Mills fields on the world-volume of N coincident D-branes. By a suitable kind of D-brane configurations, the standard model gauge group can be easily arrived at. A nice discussion can be seen in Chapter 15 of Zweibach’s book, though I am sure there are summer school articles in arxiv that show the same. Furthermore, on intersecting D6-branes wrapped on a 6-torus (with orientifolds , to be precise) the standard model with fermion content can be “derived”. But ” little details” like symmetry breaking etc. remain to be worked out.
Clearly, there is nothing “unique” about this contrived construction. But throw in enough buzzwords (like branes, orientifolds), and you will silence the doubters by hiding the arbitrariness and keep harping about the “uniqueness of string theory”. This is dishonesty, plain and simple (although Prof. Motl does surprise on occassion, as on the anthropic stuff), so it is not surprising to see personal attacks on Woit.
DMS
I just checked the first page of my copy of Zwiebach’s “A First Course in String Theory”, and I’m pretty sure I understand it.
As for the rest of Lubos’s claims, by now there’s a huge amount of material about string theory written by me and by him on our weblogs and various other places on the internet. People can judge for themselves which of these two bodies of writing is scientifically more reliable.
I did not make any attacks. I am just carefully explaining to everyone on this forum that Peter Woit has no idea about string theory.
In my opinion, it is extremely important to say so because many people who attend this blog – obviously and provably – don’t realize this fact.
Peter Woit never studied string theory, he never understood even the first pages of the most elementary textbooks for the undergrads. Obviously this implies that he could have never written a paper about it and his opinions about string theory are scientifically irrelevant.
It’s nothing personal. I insist that if Peter were honest, he would emphasize his ignorance about the field at the beginning of every single article that he writes.