The Pacific Institute for Theoretical Physics, based at UBC in Vancouver, held a Showcase Conference a couple weeks ago, which was supposed to “celebrate the exciting new developments taking place in theoretical physics”. According to the organizers there are lots of exciting new developments in string theory, since six of the invited speakers (Myers, Ooguri, Randall, Schwarz, Shenker, Susskind) spoke on that topic, but no one at all spoke about elementary particle physics. There were also quite a few talks on condensed matter physics.
The talk of John Schwarz consisted mainly of the standard recounting of the history and basics of string theory that anyone who has been to conferences like this has heard a hundred times. This part stopped with Maldacena’s work more than 7 years ago. On more recent topics, about the anthropic explanation of the cosmological constant, Schwarz says: “Is there another explanation? I hope so.” He ends by putting up a long list of questions about string theory, more or less the same list everyone has had for twenty years now.
Steve Shenker spoke on Emergent Quantum Gravity, with “emergent” the new buzzword of the field. There was a separate workshop on emergence overlapping with the Showcase conference, organized by Phil Anderson and others, with Susskind the only string theorist allowed to speak there. Shenker introduced a new terminology to justify string theory: it is “An algorithmically complete, consistent description of quantum gravity”, although he does add the caveat “In certain simple situations (like flat space)”. By this I guess he is trying to get around the problem of how to claim that your theory is complete and consistent when you don’t know what it is. The idea is that at least you have an algorithm for doing computations. Perhaps he means perturbative string theory, although that is neither consistent nor complete (the expansion in the number of loops diverges). Perhaps he means a non-perturbative formulation like a matrix model, which works in 11 flat dimensions, but then he really should note that he’s not talking about quantum gravity in four dimensions, which is what most people care about.
There was an interesting panel discussion on The Theory of Everything?, which was moderated by Steve Shenker. He seemed mainly interested in making the obvious point that string theorists weren’t actually claiming that their theory explained anything about, say, biochemistry. The panel was actually balanced between string theory enthusiasts (Shenker, Schwarz, Randall), and skeptics (‘t Hooft, Unruh, Wald). Some of Shenker’s introductory remarks are inaudible, but he did repeat his claim about the “algorithmically complete” nature of string theory. “t Hooft had some quite interesting comments. He recalled that at a conference back in 1985 he had been the only one who didn’t think that twenty years later string theory would have solved all the problems of particle physics, noting that it was now 20 years later, he had been right, everyone else at the conference wrong. He was making the point that string theory now is extremely far from solving any problems in particle theory, and one can’t tell if this situation will change in 20, 200 or 2000 years. He tried to say some positive things about string theory, but they were pretty half-hearted. For instance he noted that dualities were very interesting, but they linked one ill-defined theory to another ill-defined theory. He also noted that in its present formulation string theory is only defined on-shell, which he takes as meaning that it doesn’t give a true local description of what is going on. He has reasons for being suspicious of people who claim that all one needs is an on-shell theory.
Schwarz attributed the TOE terminology to John Ellis. He said that he feels string theory is very far from explaining anything about elementary particle physics, that it was “almost hopeless to find the right vacuum”. He described what landscapeologists are doing in a skeptical tone, but didn’t actually criticize this. Answering ‘t Hooft, he claimed that back in 1985 he and Mike Green were actually more pessimistic than most other people about the prospects for getting quick results out of string theory.
Bill Unruh made the standard criticism that what is wrong with string theory is that string theorists are motivated by beautiful math, not physics. He doesn’t seem to have noticed that few string theorists are now doing math, since unfortunately most of them have taken to heart the criticisms of people like him. The failure of string theory has unfortunately reinforced the skepticism of many people like Unruh about the use of math in theoretical physics.
Wald quoted what sounded like a recent description of what string theorists think they are doing, then revealed that his quotes were from the 19th century, and referred not to string theory, but to the popular theory of the time that atoms were vortices in the ether. He deftly made the point that it is quite possible, if not likely, that string theory is just as wrong an idea as the vortex one.
Lisa Randall made some defensive comments about string theory as a guide for future research, even if it turns out not to work. These included the bizarre political analogy that it was wrong to worry about string theory ruining the credibility of physics, because, after all, the bogus WMD business didn’t seem to have hurt Bush’s credibility.
There were then some questions and comments from the audience. Susskind was in the first row, looking very peevish and defensive. He kept repeating that the field of theoretical physics had “no real choice but to track this down”, meaning to investigate the infinite landscape, and that this would take the efforts of many physicists. He explicity worried that funding agencies would not give any grants to anyone working on the landscape, to which Unruh responded that the shoe was really on the other foot, with some NSF panelists refusing to fund anyone who wasn’t doing string theory.
The conference web-site also includes an explanation of string theory which claims that in recent years string theory has “evolved very rapidly”, that the reason it can’t be tested is because of the small distance scales involved, and that it may be testable by observing a “5th force”, all of which is a load of nonsense.
Lubos Motl has an interesting post going over all the possible ideas he can think of that might lead to the next superstring revolution. Needless to say, they all sound extremely unpromising to me. Judge for yourself. He also quotes the promotional material for Susskind’s book due out late this year. It seems that “the Laws of Physics as we know them today are determined by the requirement that intelligent life is possible”.
Hi Kea,
I’d be interested to hear more about the formulation of non-standard analysis in the context of topos theory.
“one need more advanced math, like nonstadard analysis or better (epsilon calculus)”
Hi Juan
For anyone who is interested: non-standard analysis comes under the umbrella of topos theory
I was not asking about total area of BH, i was talking about quantum of area (in the spirit of LQG).
Some of my questions were “redundant” because i already know the reply. For example the authors are interpreting incorrectly the “continuum limit”. If really one takes the limit of area (or volume) –> 0 one obtains a kind of spacetime Zeno effect and nothing changes in spacetime.
This confussion is usual in quantum gravity, due to false statement of that GR is works with continuum spacetime. This cannot be studied from usual math, one need more advanced math, like nonstadard analysis or better (epsilon calculus). There one discovers that area is newer zero. This is not speculation, is well-proven, even there are experiments that can prove this. Moreover, mathematically one can prove trhat in the limit of area (quantum of) zero there is no Hawking radiation and BH are stationary ones.
In string M-theory, people still believes in differentiable manifolds (like new G2). I will always say that string M-theory is a waste of time because is being developed by – people. It is really interesting that each year string theorists agree with things that i said years ago.
Juan, naturally I cannot speak for the CDT researchers. It is only recently that I have begun to watch this line of research carefully. I want to keep current some of your questions about CDT and perhaps respond (even though not authoritatively)
You ask about CDT model of BH. This goes to some of the most recent work: a paper by Loll and Dittrich that just appeared, and the PhD thesis of Dittrich which unfortunately is written in German. So far there is almost nothing written about the way the BH should be modeled in CDT.
I think this new BH research will be prominent at the October conference (“Loops 05”) at Potsdam AEI. Dittrich is at AEI and is one of the local organizers, Loll is one of the invited speakers.
You asked about the area. So far, in what I know of what is published, neither BH area nor entropy have been calculated in CDT.
So that we do not forget the questions from your earlier post, I will copy some interesting ones of them:
[[…
…I have also my doubts about the mathematical machinery for taking the “continuum limit”. Or there is continuum spacetime or one can measure quantums of area for example in a BH. Is not clear for me, What do authors say?
At macroscopic distances, they “claim” for demonstration that geometry is 4D. On other paper, they say
“Of course, we will never be able to show by computer simulations alone that the effective
dimension is exactly equal to four. What we are assuming here is that this dimension is
indeed an integer, because there are no classical theories describing the dynamics of geometries
of dimensionality 3.9, say.”
Interesting concept of “derivation”. It resembles to me the “derivation” of 4D GR from 10D string theory, i.e. when one knows the correct answer first and then modify/adapt the obtained reply from theory to the real, needed, reply.
Moreover there is available other approaches (i know some very much) that provide outcomes for experiments and can be tested. Is there something about this outside of paper. Experimental data perhaps? Author claim that no check if
Newton’s inverse square law can be recovered in an appropriate limit. Others have already proved this very important point.
A dynamically generated scale dependent
dimension from 2 to 4 is truly exciting news, i agree, but does work it in paper or in reality?
******************************************
And a joke for finish this large post. How many time will be necesary before string theorists claim that this is part of string theory? including the claimed reduction of dimension to short scales
Posted by: Juan R. at June 9, 2005 07:02 AM ]]
I have to laugh, Juan, because it is just as you said here:
[[You say,
“But the idea of dimension being around 4 at large scale and declining (more or less continuously) to around 2 at small scale, how could this idea be accommodated in string theory?”
A priori cannot be accommodated in today string theory, but like there is no string theory, just a big collection of conjeture, hypothesis, beliefs, etc. i wonder if future string theorists will claim that your ideas are really a part of string theory. String theory is great 🙂
Simply revise the history of field and see like the theory was changing and adapting to new ideas from outside of string community. For example, one or two decades ago LQG was nonsense, one could compute “nothing”, was called prerelativistic physics and garbage by string theorists. One decade ago, some (e.g. B. Greene) began to claim that perhaps LQG and string theory both were two sides of same reality. Now several string theorists claim that LQG may be a part of string theory…]]
and ALREADY a string-believer here at this blog is making ludicrous attempt to imitate the outside result:
[[ String worldsheet has dimension 2, background space has dimension 4. 4->2 is a typical string effect. QED ]]
😀
I can assure you he is not the real anonymous, only a second-rate imitation anonymous
This thread may have expired but I will stay around a while in case there is more discussion.
String worldsheet has dimension 2, background space has dimension 4. 4->2 is a typical string effect. QED
Dear “”,
“You suggest string theorists like to absorb every interesting idea into their polymorphic theory as a possibility. Or at least this may have been their custom.”
It is not my suggestion, it has been claimed by many people including own string theorists.
I can do is quote to string theorist Seiberg who said recently:
“string theorists are arrogant enough that whatever comes up in their research, they will call it string theory.”
You say,
“But the idea of dimension being around 4 at large scale and declining (more or less continuously) to around 2 at small scale, how could this idea be accommodated in string theory?”
A priori cannot be accommodated in today string theory, but like there is no string theory, just a big collection of conjeture, hypothesis, beliefs, etc. i wonder if future string theorists will claim that your ideas are really a part of string theory. String theory is great 🙂
Simply revise the history of field and see like the theory was changing and adapting to new ideas from outside of string community. For example, one or two decades ago LQG was nonsense, one could compute “nothing”, was called prerelativistic physics and garbage by string theorists. One decade ago, some (e.g. B. Greene) began to claim that perhaps LQG and string theory both were two sides of same reality. Now several string theorists claim that LQG may be a part of string theory.
String theorists are very arrogant and don’t love the idea of that anybody is working in more complex, sophisticated, and good theories than them (the most sophisticated that i know is non-criticial string theory in Lindblad form, a formulation totally outside of standard easy string theory. For instance, NCST is a nonunitary formulation violating Schwartz ineffective desires (an unitary theory is simply wrong). Curiosly there is not serious formal theory, just a generalization of usual (Schwartz, Greene, Witten, vafa, etc.) easy string theory to adapt it to theories known in other branches of physics since decades!!!!
The first versions of NCST (the 90s) used an old (really outdated) theoretical formalism developed by known chemist Ilya Prigogine. More recent versions are constructed from standard axiomatic theory developed by mathematical physics community. There six theories computing from different communities: chemists, decoherence physicsts, laser community, astrophysicists, etc.
From canonical theory one can derive all those efforts ( decoherence, etc.) from a single advanced theory. The standard axiomatic theory developed by mathematical physics community arise like a simple trivial theory after of four succesive approximations. that is the theory used in NCST, therefore we know that is simply a toy model and not the more fundamental theory like people as B. Greene claim.
Juan_R, thanks for your reply! Your joke is also an interesting question:
“How many time will be necesary before string theorists claim that this is part of string theory? including the claimed reduction of dimension to short scales”
I also ask myself this, especially the finding about dimension (as measured by a diffusion process) declining at short scale.
You suggest string theorists like to absorb every interesting idea into their polymorphic theory as a possibility. Or at least this may have been their custom.
But the idea of dimension being around 4 at large scale and declining (more or less continuously) to around 2 at small scale, how could this idea be accommodated in string theory?
You have asked several questions that either I cannot respond to, or would take us rather far from Peter Woit’s topic of this “PITP Showcase” conference blog.
I will come back to this if I see that it is not considered out of place.
Interesting posts “anonymous”,
if you want talk about triangulations was innecesary your “hey guy that you think about”.
If i don’t love dynamical triangulations, you would not are hungry… but seeing your special interest in the topic…
**************************************
It is really difficult for me to take seriously works, who authors still “believe” that wavefunction of universe may be a solution of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation
… and continue with Einstein-Hilbert (i wonder like will solve extragalactic problems from it), the use of piecewise Minkowskian geometries (like in “metric”-gravity approaches). It will be interesting that authors can say about “affine” gravity models and computation of astronomical orbits.
In one of papers they compute, wrongly, the wavefunction of the universe (eq 22). Fascinating for one so higghly estimated work (by its authors). The derived effective Euclidean
action is not correct.
The details of the renormalization mechanism (here open) were already solved in other methods (using also discrete structure).
What about the inclusion of matter fields? Are we claiming for a consistent quantum gravity or realistic quantum universes without matter or… only speculating? Will the method work fine with more realistic models?
The phase diagram is really interesting but does work it in paper or in reality?
What about the “fit” of used simulation method with standard QFT? I wait with impatience a rigurous study of this.
I have also my doubts about the mathematical machinery for taking the “continuum limit”. Or there is continuum spacetime or one can measure quantums of area for example in a BH. Is not clear for me, What do authors say?
At macroscopic distances, they “claim” for demonstration that geometry is 4D. On other paper, they say
“Of course, we will never be able to show by computer simulations alone that the effective
dimension is exactly equal to four. What we are assuming here is that this dimension is
indeed an integer, because there are no classical theories describing the dynamics of geometries
of dimensionality 3.9, say.”
Interesting concept of “derivation”. It resembles to me the “derivation” of 4D GR from 10D string theory, i.e. when one knows the correct answer first and then modify/adapt the obtained reply from theory to the real, needed, reply.
Moreover there is available other approaches (i know some very much) that provide outcomes for experiments and can be tested. Is there something about this outside of paper. Experimental data perhaps? Author claim that no check if
Newton’s inverse square law can be recovered in an appropriate limit. Others have already proved this very important point.
A dynamically generated scale dependent
dimension from 2 to 4 is truly exciting news, i agree, but does work it in paper or in reality?
******************************************
And a joke for finish this large post. How many time will be necesary before string theorists claim that this is part of string theory? incliding the claimed reduction of dimension to short scales
Who is the person loading us with CDT info?
Juan R mentioned Dynamical Triangulations research. Instead of arguing with his notion of its significance and impact, I will post a short reading list for anyone who wants to find out what is going on in that field
Basic papers:
http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0105267
Dynamically triangulating Lorentzian quantum gravity
41 pages, 14 figures
Nucl.Phys. B610 (2001) 347-382
http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0505154
Reconstructing the universe
52 pages, 20 figures
Report-no: SPIN-05/14, ITP-UU-05/18
Abstract: “We provide detailed evidence for the claim that nonperturbative quantum gravity, defined through state sums of causal triangulated geometries, possesses a large-scale limit in which the dimension of spacetime is four and the dynamics of the volume of the universe behaves semiclassically. This is a first step in reconstructing the universe from a dynamical principle at the Planck scale, and at the same time provides a nontrivial consistency check of the method of causal dynamical triangulations. A closer look at the quantum geometry reveals a number of highly nonclassical aspects, including a dynamical reduction of spacetime to two dimensions on short scales and a fractal structure of slices of constant time.”
—-
Recent short papers giving new results:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404156
Emergence of a 4D world from causal guantum gravity
11 pages, 3 figures; final version to appear in Phys. Rev. Lett
Phys.Rev.Lett. 93 (2004) 131301
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0411152
A semiclassical universe from first principles
15 pages, 4 figures
Phys.Lett. B607 (2005) 205-213
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505113
Spectral dimension of the universe
10 pages, 1 figure
SPIN-05/05, ITP-UU-05/07
Lecture notes to introduce graduate students to the field
http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0212340
A discrete history of the Lorentzian path integral
R. Loll (U. Utrecht)
38 pages, 16 figures
Lect.Notes Phys. 631 (2003) 137-171
Yes, there has been a lot of discussion on this topic of dynamical triangulations.
Ambjorn, Loll and collaborators have provided some new material for strings theory, more correctly that a theory of membranes may be relevant for a background independent form of string theory.
These triangulations appear to be useful in some models of spacetime foam. I don’t know if are used in LQG. Possibly dynamical triangulations can be a computational approach to some basic aspects of quantum gravity. It is possible that finally it modifies some aspects of particle physics: high-energy behavior, cut-offs, etc. but I don’t wait for some really profound.
Thanks Tony, nice article
Lee Smolin in an opinion article in the June 2005 isssue of Physics Today (pages 56-57) said in part:
“… In the present system, scientist feel lots of pressure to follow established research programs led by powerful senior scientists. Those who choose to follow their own programs understand that their career prospects will be harmed. …
Those who invent their own research programs … are often undervalued and underappreciated …
Several young string theorists have told me they simply have neither the time nor the freedom to ask their own questions or develop their own ideas. …
young theorists who pursue alternatives to string theory have had great difficulty finding any academic positions in the US. …”.
Smolin proposes that “… Scientists should be penalized for doing superficial work that ignores hard problems and rewarded for attacking the longstanding open conjectures …
A research program should not be allowed to become institutionally dominant until supported by convincing scientific proof of the usual kind. …
A foundation or agency could create … fellowships, to go specifically to theorists under 40 who invent their own ideas and programs aimed at solving foundational problems in physics …”.
Cynically, Smolin’s article could be viewed as an attack on superstring theory and a plea for more funds for his LQG program, especially since he characterizes his Perimeter Institute as having a “… specific mandate … to be a home for independent foundational thinkers …”.
Even though Smolin’s article may be self-promoting, at least some of its points may have some validity.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
“Peter, what do you and other posters think about the
theory of dynamical triangulations…”
There has been a lot of discussion on this over at PF lately.
I’m glad people are working on dynamical triangulations, maybe this will give a viable verion of quantum gravity. But, like LQG, I don’t see any way to connect this stuff to particle physics, which limits my interest in it, since my main motivation comes from that direction.
Peter what do you and other posters think about the
theory of dynamical triangulations pioneered by
Jans Ambjorn and collaborators . From what I understand this is the third alternative approach
to quantising gravity besides string tehory and LQG.
do you think one can learn particle physics from this approcah?
Scott ,
Far from any interpretation, I simply cite your previous phrase.
“I would suspect that any chemists who share this view do not trully understand what the implication of QM is.”
The problem that I remarked is perfectly well known. I see no problem that you can easily find literature in the topic.The most easy violation of QM is to observe that full QM is not used in computational programs in molecular chemistry physics (e.g. Gaussian) only part of QM is used, whereas other part is ignored, when one reintroduces all of QM in the equation one observe that the concept of molecule disappear. This is not so strange since there is no structural aspects in QM, one cannot obtain the description of structures. There is no “problem” in atomic physics.
In the reference that I provided you can find some easy (at undergraduate level) discussion regarding methyl acetylene, allene, and cyclopropene. See reference cited for more information.
Now you add “Also your point has to do with the concept of chemical structure in general whereas I was originally questioning why DNA’s incomplete quantum explanation in particulare deserved special attention, which is a seperate issue entirely. ”
Far from personal interpretation, I read your past post “Personally I am not aware that biochemists were having any trouble understanding DNA structure so I see no reason why the laws of physics would need to be changed to accomodate DNA.”
I simply have pointed that we need change them for accommodate DNA since a pure QM description of DNA does not work. That was my point, only that.
Torbjorn Larsson
Simply I wanted state the stupid elitism in some members of academia.
Thanks by your mention to Baez’s index, we would agree that many string theorists are effectively crackpots.
You are right, these results were eventually published, but in some cases was a question of luck (there are well documented cases), in other occasion the publication was in an obscure journal and only after several decades that work recovered like excellent. Other works are rejected for publication during many decades (e.g. 25 years). All those cases I know are for “simple” theories in a very specialized subfield of a part of science (e.g. Yukawa Meson theory), modifying only a 1% of accepted mainstream in that field (e.g. physics) and practically nothing in the rest of science (e.g. ecology). Therefore the initial rejection was from a small part of comunity believeing in mainstream.
I ask, what for a revolutionary theory modifying physics, chemistry, biology, etc. at the same time?
Previous editor-in-chief of Nature said that today Newton theory would be rejected for peer-review publication. What about a theory that violates the policies of compartimentalized journals, uses parts of different theories of physics, chemistry, etc., or even do not use “writting style” and “recomendations” (different for chemistry, physics, ecology, medicine, etc.)
Weinberg said that a new theory demonstrating that the concept of field is not fundamental would be a sensation. Imagine a hypotetical rigorous and advanced theory that modifies fields, GR, QM, thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, statistical mechanics, Maxwell EM, etc. Do you really believe that would be published by any editor of usual journals?
My previous use of words “true” or “TOE”, of course, was only prose for remarking the point.
About consciousness, I can assure to you that QM is not sufficient. I have no doubt. It is true Gell-Mann discusses an effect connected to specific brain structure, but he use a reformulation of standard QM that when properly improved (Gell-Mann/Hartle is non rigorous in several crucial points) offers to us a new formulation of nature generalizing QM.
Many fanatics and some crackpots completely refuse to answer questions in plain english without any obfuscation and/or waffling. They also frequently get angry whenever hard questions are asked directly to them. Their tactics frequently involves ad hominem attacks against the questioner themselves, instead of answering the hard questions directly.
Perhaps there’s some validity to the notion that “the truth hurts” for many people.
Meep! 173rd post! 40th prime post!
-drl
Still not correct enough:
“distingush” – distinguish
“throw more money in” for experiments, even if new theories have superseeded the first.
(Redfaced, again.) Umm, I thought I vetted my last commentary enough. Let’s see:
“learn ST” – well, get to know some more about it, more likely.
“everythere” – everywhere.
“statistics” – probability models.
Seems like most of the arguments I’m involved in borders to the content of blog and post, so I’m back:
Juan:
Crackpotism – Thanks for the interest! I think it’s hard to measure alone due to different arenas (someone may be perfectly normal outside his eccentricity) and the consensus nature. Thomas mentions Baez measurement tool (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) that lets one judge the most common crackpots outhand. But there remains social factors.
Publication – You mention difficulties, but these results were eventually published. I’m not sure what you mean by “true “TOE”” – something outright called “true” or “TOE” will not get published due to the implied crackpotism.
Consciousness – What I argued with Matti was that QM and consciousness cannot be fundamentally connected, if not TGD replaces todays QM. Gell-Mann discusses an effect connected to specific brain structure. If you ask me however if such QM (or ST) is needed to explain consciousness my answer would be ‘no’ from Occam’s razor, in lack of further evidence.
QT:
First, I will offer my apologies for being such an arrogant bastard, whether you noticed it or not. Web posting seems to be an excellent social arena, and apparently while I can spot arrogant behavour in others, I need to put my nose in my own mess to recognise it.
Second, I’m not an “SSTer” or even STer. I’m probably going to try learn some of it though.
Third, on dimensions I didn’t make myself very clear. Obviously I can misinterpret a lot, being next to ignorant on string stuff. But one has to distingush between _spacetime_ dimensions and others. ST concludes that it has a finite number of dimensions. Apparently they don’t even need to have a geometry. Out of this, somehow, ST has to build spacetime.
So if you say 4 =! 11 or something similar, you are comparing apples and pears. You can’t do that. So no contradiction.
Maybe ST has elicited true statements, but if so they were already known. Mostly it is Not Even Wrong – but so are its contenders for QG. I don’t think you can call it crackpot – if you do, most will disagree.
However, you raise one very interesting point!!! How long may a theory be alive without any definitive answer?
Obviously, in math, a very long time. (Fermat’s theorem, for example.) But I think of math as an internal logic game, very few measurements here. 🙂 Unfortunately, since I’m Baeysian, I think that you must sooner or later measure in statistics. Obviously, everythere else you must, too.
In lack of better measure, let’s go for the money! So, I would say that 2-3 generations can be left hanging, since you probably want your children or grandchildren to benefit at least. So I would up your estimate to 3*30 years. After that it can be declared failed, and there is absolutely no use to throw more money in.
Also your point has to do with the concept of chemical structure in general whereas I was originally questioning why DNA’s incomplete quantum explanation in particulare deserved special attention, which is a seperate issue entirely.
juan,
my point wasn’t that the quote showed that they didn’t understand QM it was that if I am going to doubt qm’s ability to account for DNA I am going to need to see the evidence for myself untill then i am going to assume that it can account for it. I was hoping that someone might give me some details of this controversy as it seems very interesting and very helpfull if true. “the
view that structure is nothing but a metaphor”(and basically a meaningless statement anyways) is only one way to interpret the equations of QM and so that is why I suspected that there may not really be a controversy over this and requested actuall data showing some sort of violation of quantum mechanical principles. Still waiting for some info on this.
I said
“To list here the extensive research literature in the topic and the different models/proposals (by quantum chemists and molecular physicists) for improving QM would extenuate to me.”
Of course, string theorists know nothing of this and string theory is a simple (probably unitary) elementary QM.
This is another of dozens of reasons of that ST has failed like a theory of everything.
The irrelevant attempt, from string theorists, to explain “everything” knowing almost nothing (e.g. what theories are used in other fields or like fit experimental data) is the best example of crackpot that i know.
Scott , the reference you solicited
When chemists disagreed with physicists’ idea of that chemical reactions could be explained with classical mechanics. Physicists smile and claimed that didn’t understand the topic 🙂
When chemists disagreed with physicists’ idea on that chemistry reactions could not conserve energy. Physicists smile and claimed that didn’t understand the topic, in fact the law of conservation of energy was rejected by top physics journal and published by first time in Annalen fur Chemie 🙂
When chemists disagreed with physicists’ idea on that chemical bonds could be explained from classical electromagnetism smile and claimed that didn’t understand the topic. Please remember those childish models proposed by physicists (including several Nobel laureates for Physics like Stark). But chemical model (Lewis) was correct and was based in radical assumptions like the superposition principle BEFORE QM was developed by physicists 🙂
When chemists disagreed with physicists’ idea on that all of chemistry could be explained with Schrödinger equation. Physicists smile and claimed that didn’t understand the topic. Chemists shows that Dirac ideas on relativistic QM and chemistry was completely wrong. It is interesting that whereas many physicists (of course with no idea of chemistry) claim that famous Dirac’s quote is correct, Murray Gell-Mann said that “of course it was an exaggeration”. I am sure that Gell-Mann thinking is the outcome of his chemical friends that explain to him how things are in reality 🙂
The quote that perturb to you is not from a top research journal is from an basic educative journal.
J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 522–526.
To list here the extensive research literature in the topic and the different models/proposals (by quantum chemists and molecular physicists) for improving QM would extenuate to me.
You irrelevant claim, on that any chemists who share this view do not truly understand what the implication of QM is, would be remember in a future like today we remember the dozens of false claims of physicists from Newtonian époque. I’m sorry to say this.
Seeing your writing, especially your note on “exact explanations” and “complexity of DNA” suggests to me that you have no idea of the field that I was talking. I suspect that your knowledge of QM is very elementary one, perhaps at mathematical level of last Weinberg QFT manual?
Torbjorn Larsson said
A crackpot is “a person who is regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy”.
Humm!!! Really interesting, that is the definition of Einstein in his last years, when he was searching for a unified theory of fields and was considered an eccentricity (in his own words) caused by his old age.
“But the total risk is small for the really good stuff, so if you have great fears I would suggest that is because you have some other reason to be.”
Almost 35 of works after awarded by a Nobel Prize were rejected for peer review publication, and completely ridiculized by specialists. At least 18 of most cited works of all history of science were initially rejected for peer review publication.
The situation now is still poor due to increase of economic risks in usual journals, Editors prefer reject a good but problematic paper rather than lose one or two points in IF and similar measures.
Some editors simply admit that the true “TOE” cannot be published in usual journals because editorial and peer-review policies are not good enough.
“I think decoherence and/or consistent histories make consciousness unrelated to QM.”
Murray Gell-Mann (crackpot?) considers that consciousness and other questions of mind modeling may be explained from his consistent histories like a kind of quantum effect amplified by special biomolecular structure of cerebrum cortex.
Perhaps the crackpots are a 90% of those wonderful members of Physics departments. Perhaps those intelligent guys that rejected his quark theory for peer-review publication?
TL said:
“I think common logic tells the rest of us that even if SST isn’t successful (Uups, yet) it doesn’t contradict.”
The only common logic I know says that 4D != 11D. Maybe you SSTers have invented a different set of math in which 4 == 11. You still have not bridged the gap between 4 and 11.
But it is recognized that so far SST has NOT been able to make a single statement that is true about nature, and that can be verified to be true. How many papers have you guys published in 20 years, yet you have NOT made one damn true statement about the nature.
It is about time to call SST a crackpot theory. If you think 20 years is not enough, then I can give you another 20 years, or maybe more. But at the end of day it can not be allowed indefinitely or forever, there needs to be a finality to this craziness. Let’s call it what it is worthy: a crackpot theory.
Quantoken
Larsson (Are there two Larssons?), can you tell us more about your theory of quantum gravity using projective representations of the diffeomorphism group? You keep mentioning to online but never spell out the details.
Yes, there are two Larssons. It is a quite common Swedish name, meaning the son of Lars (or Lawrence). I’m called so because my great-great grandfather’s name was Lars Nilsson.
The most recent reference is hep-th/0504020; further references to published work by myself and others can be found therein. A very similar manuscript will appear as a chapter in a book on quantum gravity, probably scheduled to be released next spring. It has the same publisher as this book.
kea,
provide a link and i will look at it but i am in the middle of finals and am spending to much time dicking around as is to go find it myself.
anyways back on topic,
I find the fact that Susskind was worried that the landscape might stop being funded is a very good sign.
Uups again, thet should be “successful yet”.
Uups, sorry Peter, I missed your commentary about the content stringency at first. Now, I would like to withdraw with a response to QT, string part of which may be acceptable, otherwise feel free to delete:
QT:
About 3section I think Scott made my point eminently. You could call my argument a retrap. 😉
“For as long as there hasn’t been a successful attempt to reduce to 4-D from SST, the SST remains a contradiction to the known 4-D spacetime, and hence remain a crackpot.”
I think common logic tells the rest of us that even if SST isn’t successful it doesn’t contradict.
Anonymous:
“Are there two Larssons?”
Yup. I’m the ignorant one (on theoretical physics).
Scott:”there is no reason the structure of DNA should drive specualation over any other phenomenon that is only roughly described by QM due to its complexity”
At least read the paper referenced below.
I’ve been away much of the last week and haven’t had time to do much with the weblog. This comment section has unfortunately been taken over by people who want to carry on discussions that have nothing to do with the original posting. Please do this elsewhere, from now on I’ll start deleting such postings.
I’ll also try and write something later tonight or tomorrow about the workshop where I spent most of last week.
ok will then can you point to more accurate observations of DNA that contradict current theory? If not there is no reason the structure of DNA should drive specualation over any other phenomenon that is only roughly described by QM due to its complexity.
Scott: “..check out about this issue somewhat quickly..”
No one said it was easy.
…which is true but no more then any other structure must be explained by the new physics unless DNA is not adequately accounted for in the old physics…
Let me spell this out: Newtonian mechanics has a perfectly adequate description for the orbit of Mercury, so long as one doesn’t look too accurately. The situation here is analogous. Of course we know roughly what DNA is using standard QM. That doesn’t necessarily mean that our understanding cannot be improved.
Quantoken,
read what TL said about trisection again,
“On 3secting angles, of course some angles can be constructed as required, that is known since the Greeks I think. The problem is to 3sect _all_ of them. (Or any randomly chosen one, if you prefer.) You know, most of the time we complain that you don’t know, and don’t want to learn, basic physics. Now it turns out you don’t even know maths…”
he is saying not that you are wrong about being able to do this but that you lack the knowledge that this has been known for a long time(though of course from your wording that is not clear at all) So he was not nor ever did dissagree with your ability to trisect angles and hence did not fall into your “trap”
Kea,
I am in the middle of studying for finals right now, I don’t have time to go to the library and find and read 53 pages of this book, if you have some sort link i can check out about this issue somewhat quickly it would be much appreciated. I do not think I am misunderstanding you, you said “As a pragmatist I simply recognise that the structure of DNA appears with tortile tensor categories, and hence must play a role in the new physics”, which is true but no more then any other structure mus be explained by the new physics unless DNA is not adequately accounted for in the old physics for which i have seen no evidence.
“I was looking for something more specific I don’t have the time to read through 20 books to find this supposed evidence against QM.”
Scott – you appear to have misunderstood. We’re not saying anything against QM per se. We’re talking about theories of QG which go beyond QM.
Scott
How about
M.C. Shum
Tortile tensor categories
J. Pure Appl. Alg 93 (1994) 57-110
and references therein.
TL:
You made yourself a very good example to illustrate my point when I meantioned trisection angles. Go back and read my original word carefully, especially pay attention to the keyword “SOME” which I highlighted. The point is most people fall into such a mentality that they automatically close up at a first sight of something offending to their beliefs, and does not bother to carefully exam the fact. The fact is I have NOT said not a single thing that contradicts the conventional wisdom on trisection angles. But you thought I did and tried to argue with me.
You fall into the trap I set up to prove my point. Isn’t it great!!!
Now, about 4-D spacetime and SST. There is no disagreement that macroscopically the spacetime is 4D. There are various attempts to reconcile SST with the 4-D spacetime. None successful or convincing so far.
For as long as there hasn’t been a successful attempt to reduce to 4-D from SST, the SST remains a contradiction to the known 4-D spacetime, and hence remain a crackpot. So keep trying and trying harder to show me that you can get nothing but 4-D out of SST, until you do SST remains a crackpot theory!!!!!
As for microscopic scale, one that approaches the discreteness of spacetime. I think the dimentions would be zero, not 11. But I am not not going to discuss it here. The important things is any correct theory must tell us without ambiguity and without a second guess of possibility that the macroscopic spacetime is 4-D.
Quantoken
anon,
I was looking for something more specific I don’t have the time to read through 20 books to find this supposed evidence against QM. Thanks anyways though.
“Every so often, Peter W has to drive all the crackpots out of his comment section, and clearly this thread is ripe for another such cleanup.”
Perhaps you could clarify for us: precisely which posters on this thread are crackpots? Am I one? If so, then the lack of mathematical sophistication in your remark hardly makes my knees tremble.
Scott
You could start with the books on the list
http://au.expasy.org/seqanalref/bioinfbo.html
Juan,
“Most chemists react with complete incredulity to the
view that structure is nothing but a metaphor, pointing out the
seemingly overwhelming evidence for structure that comes from spectroscopic and other structural studies. They suggest that if a deep quantum mechanical analysis reveals molecular structure to be a mathematical artifact, then the fault must lie with present-day quantum mechanics and not with the deeply entrenched chemical notion of structure.”
where did this quote come from? I would suspect that any chemists who share this view do not trully understand what the implication of QM is. Show me an actual study with evidence that the observations of DNA can’t be explained by QM(not that an exact explanation doesn’t exist which it won’t due to the complexity of DNA).
Larsson (Are there two Larssons?), can you tell us more about your theory of quantum gravity using projective representations of the diffeomorphism group? You keep mentioning to online but never spell out the details.
TL – ok thanks.
-drl
Damn, I meant reviewing, not refereeing, of course. Sigh, I haven’t used my English part of the brain too much lately…
QT:
Taking your own advise, please tell us how SST contradict 4D spacetime? AFAIK it doesn’t, 4D may emerge and there are proposals how it does.
Nitpick: You can’t say that anything is allowed in QG, you mention some restrictions.
On 3secting angles, of course some angles can be constructed as required, that is known since the Greeks I think. The problem is to 3sect _all_ of them. (Or any randomly chosen one, if you prefer.) You know, most of the time we complain that you don’t know, and don’t want to learn, basic physics. Now it turns out you don’t even know maths…
If a guy has spent 27 years to insist on something without much out of it, au contraire, he _is_ totally nuts!!! I hope you will one day understand why…
You should not confuse nut with crackpot.
I know you don’t understand the latter concept completely. (Please don’t ask me why!) From the above, it seems you don’t know how to measure nuttyness, either. But a nut is someone who, however intelligent, is “afflicted with or exhibiting irrationality and mental unsoundness”. (Hmm, so me answering you once or twice may not be nuts. 😉 A crackpot is “a person who is regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy”. So you may seem crackpot without being nuts, or you may be nuts without being regarded as crackpot.
Specifically on Matti maybe my claim, in an earlier comment, on the problems with his consciousness claims will prove correct. Crackpot or nut or neither, I cannot however judge alone; at least there must be some consensus in regard of crackpotism, see the definition above.
I am hesitant to join a thread that overwhelm my ability to handle all sub-subjects, but it is raining outside and you all seem to have fun. (BTW, is there a theory for the growth of complexity in threads, however complexity is defined? 🙂 My interest stems from merely trying to orient myself shallowly on todays front edge physics, so I am eminently equiped to make a longwinded fool of myself here:
Aaron makes a lot of good points. As I understand it, it has been and will be ever more difficult (expensive and timeconsuming) to make experiments. In lack of definitive experiments, string theory as well as the contenders currently hang out there. Obviously string theory has merits, as Aaron and others point out, and it’s not the only theory out there, so the situation is normal.
Some posters seem to think that good science may be put down or will stay buried. I don’t agree.
There are some risk that ideas or results will be rejected outhand by mistake or purpose (to close to researchers own products), I know that from my own publishing and refereeing as PhD, alas not on theoretical physics. (Of course, I am biased since the refereeing was a consequence of my own papers being accepted.:-) Or papers may never be read and supported. This is characteristics of filters and of social contexts.
But the total risk is small for the really good stuff, so if you have great fears I would suggest that is because you have some other reason to be.
Chris:
How do you make sense out of “the Laws of Physics are determined by the requirement that the laws of physics are discoverable”? Is it not possible that there are laws of physics that will never be discovered (to become Laws of Physics) or explained? I think Goedel has something to say about that in an even simpler context.
Matti:
I thought the view that QM should have anything to say about consciousness was shown to be a dead horse long ago.
There are still no good definition of consciousness, so how do you measure and experiment?
And when we can do that, there is the matter of QM interpretations, or ‘different religions’ that I saw someone refer to them as. I think decoherence and/or consistent histories make consciousness unrelated to QM. If that happens, you probably cannot do what you propose to do, unless you can make these interpretations faulty. Honestly, in my consciousness you appear nutty on this. 😉