Does String Theory Satisfy Einstein's Conditions for a Physical Theory?

[caltechpostdoc]

Does String Theory Satisfy Einstein's Conditions for a Physical Theory?

In his autobiography Einstein said:

Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. However evident this demand may in the first place appear, its application turns out to be quite delicate. For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaption of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions. In any case, however, this first point of view is concerned with the confirmation of the theoretical foundation by the available empirical facts.
The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or " logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial. The problem here is not simply one of a kind of enumeration of the logically independent premises (if anything like this were at all unequivocally possible), but that of a kind of reciprocal weighing of incommeasurable qualities. Furthermore, among theories of equally "simple" foundation that one is to be taken as superior which most sharply delimits the qualities of system in the abstract (i.e., contains that most definite claims). Of the "realm" of theories I need not speak here, inasmuch as we are confining ourselves to such theories whose object is the totality of all physical appearances. The second point of view may briefly be characterized as concerning itself with the "inner perfection" of the theory, whereas the first point of view refers to the "external confirmation." The following I reckon as also belonging to the "inner perfection" of a theory: we prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint, it is not the result of an arbitrary choice among theories which, among themselves, are of equal value and analogously constructed.
Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume One, 1949, Autobiographical Notes, p 21--23,
Open Court, Cambridge University Press.

Does string theory conform to this?

did string theory ever have an original postulate?
did string theory ever have an original postulate?

if so, where was it stated?

who stated it?

was the whole point of string theory a way to get rid of points?

so strange that nobody knows string theory's original postulate, nor the person who stated it.

we can quote einstein, but who started string theory?

Does anyone know what the annual NSF budget is for string theory?

Is it worth it?

Is it a little bit like Enron, where elite insiders are playing a joke on the unsuspecting public, and profiting from it?

Does anyone know what the annual NSF budget is for string theory?

Is it worth it?

Is it a little bit like Enron, where elite insiders are playing a joke on the unsuspecting public, and profiting from it?

Have Ed Witten and Brian Greene gotten the math right?

If so, where is the equation?

Where are the equations that make them brilliant?

String Theorists have thrown thousands of speculative claims in the air, and not one has been backed up yet with math nor physics.

And indeed, what is wrong with physics in the first place? Why do we need string theory? What does it explain that is not expalined elsewhere?

Who says that math is the most basic requirment of physics?

I would argue that physics is the most basic requirement of physics.

As Richard Feynman said, "Physics is to math what sex is to
masturbation." He certainly knew what physics was, did he not?

"I don't believe in mathematics." --Albert Einstein.

Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.
Quoted in P A Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist (Evanston 1949).

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom. --Einstein
Quoted in H Eves Return to Mathematical Circles (Boston 1988).

Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. --Einstein (NOT STRING THEORY)

Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.
Quoted in A P French, Einstein: a Centenary Volume

[caltechpostdoc]

NSF crackpot fund:

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/piSea...Search#results

[astro]

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105196

An excellent thread about String Theory's shortcomings

Does String Theory Satisfy Einstein's Conditions for a Physical Theory?

In his autobiography Einstein said:

Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. However evident this demand may in the first place appear, its application turns out to be quite delicate. For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaption of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions. In any case, however, this first point of view is concerned with the confirmation of the theoretical foundation by the available empirical facts.
The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or " logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial. The problem here is not simply one of a kind of enumeration of the logically independent premises (if anything like this were at all unequivocally possible), but that of a kind of reciprocal weighing of incommeasurable qualities. Furthermore, among theories of equally "simple" foundation that one is to be taken as superior which most sharply delimits the qualities of system in the abstract (i.e., contains that most definite claims). Of the "realm" of theories I need not speak here, inasmuch as we are confining ourselves to such theories whose object is the totality of all physical appearances. The second point of view may briefly be characterized as concerning itself with the "inner perfection" of the theory, whereas the first point of view refers to the "external confirmation." The following I reckon as also belonging to the "inner perfection" of a theory: we prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint, it is not the result of an arbitrary choice among theories which, among themselves, are of equal value and analogously constructed.
Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume One, 1949, Autobiographical Notes, p 21--23,
Open Court, Cambridge University Press.

Does string theory conform to this?

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105196&page=2

First off, thanks to everyone here & happy holidays. Though my words seem heated at times, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to everyone in this thread. You all seem fairly adept and intelligent. Physics is a tough sport, and I appreciate all the good sports here.

Is there any theory out there that accounts for both quantum mechanics and relativity with a simple postulate?

I have one, and I will post it soon. I am currently writing up a $1.00 NSF grant proposal. With it I will buy some pencils. I will get the paper out of my own pocket.

Yes--c is constant. But why is it constant? How is it constant? What underlying physical reality makes it this way? Does string theory answer this? Does any theory answer why? Remember how Newton said that Gravity held the moon in orbit about the earth? The theory was excellent--almost perfect, but then Einstein asked how and why, and he came up not with new math, but with new physics--the curvature of space-time.

Also, where does string theory take entanglement into account? Where does string theory account for action at a distance? I thought that we had agreed here long ago that string theory made no mention of these things, providing no deeper framework for the EPR paradox.

I will soon post my theory in Independent Research. But first let's address some of the current shortcomings of current theories:

Why is the speed of light constant in all frames?
Does any theory address this? Does any theory provide an underlying physical framework for this?

Why are light and energy quantized?
We know that they are, but does any theory tell us why they are? What underlying physical reality dictates this?

How can matter and energy display both wave and particle properties?
Does any theory provide an underlying physical reality that predicts that matter and energy can display both wave and particle properties?

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics?
Why is there action at a distance? What physical reality causes the EPR paradox?

Why does time stop at the speed of light?
We know it does, but why? What's the physical reality behind this?

How come a photon does not age?

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?
What is the physical reality that causes this?

Why are mass and energy equivalent?
What is the physical reality that causes this? We know E=mc^2, but what does this imply about the deeper reality behind it all.

Why is time not the fourth dimension, but an emrgent property of the fourth dimension interacting with three spatial dimensions?
Our physical reality dictates that time is not the fourth dimension, as we can not move backwards through it. We can't even stand still in it.

Why is time a scalar, and yet also sometimes considered a dimension?

Why does the block universe make no sense? We do have free will, so the block universe cannot exist--this theory shows that a block universe does not exist.

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? Why
entropy? What is the physical reality behind entropy?

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling
with the velocity c?

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity?

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?

What underlies the laws of Inertia?

Why does general relativity fail at short distances? Why does quantum
mechanics dominate at short distances?

Why have so many great minds, like Einestein, Godel, Wheeler, Hawking, and Penrose called for a new conception of time? What should that new conception of time look like? What is the physical reality of space-time?

Why is the maximum and minimum four-velocity of every single object in the universe c? What does this say about the underlying physical reality of space-time?

Neither LQG nor String Theory address any of this.

I wish that String Theory did all of this, as it would free me up to go skiing.

But alas, just as thousands must get paid by NSF and go skiing at cool conferences, someone's gotta further physics.

I will post in Indpendent Research soon.

And again, a big thanks to everyone here.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105196&page=2

[T.E. Jones]

Interesting... Peter Woit has explained that the two big claims for string theory are vacuous; first, it doesn;t actually predict gravity (string theory is just a theory which may allow spin-2 gravitons if a suitable perturbative quantum gravity theory is ever discovered), and second, string theory doesn't predict anything useful about SUSY (supersymmetry). Supersymmetry is a way of getting exact quantum field theory unification for electroweak and strong nuclear forces at energies far beyond any test can possibly be made. It is not strong science, because it isn't testable. The supposed prediction of 1:1 boson:fermion superpartners is not scientific because it doesn't predict what energy the superpartners have. All this speculative stuff may look impressive mathematically, but it is not leading anywhere despite official funding and decades of research. (You might as well be saying that string theory predicts what happens before the big bang, without mentioning that it is not testable or onservable.)

The main rival to string theory is quantum loop gravity, which is currently best pictured using the spin foam vacuum model of John Baez.

Loop quantum gravity is claimed to have the following advantages:

"1) It is a nonperturbative quantization of 3-space geometry, with quantized area and volume operators
"2) It includes a calculation of the entropy of black holes
"3) It is a viable gravity-only alternative to string theory"

In quantum field theory, the Feynman diagrams tell us that forces arise from the exchange of gauge bosons. These bosons for electromagnetism and gravity travel with light speed. If this is the model for gravity, namely an exchange of these bosons between masses throughout the universe, the expansion of the universe will affect the bosons as it does light: (1) those coming from the greatest distances are coming from times near the time of the big bang (times in the past) when the density of the universe was greater, and (2) the gauge bosons from large distances will also be red-shifted like light coming from those distances.

One simple analysis obtains gravity from these considerations, predicting the strength of gravity correctly:

"1. Feynman shows that forces arise from the exchange of gauge bosons (coming from distances at light speed, hence coming from times in the past).
2. The big bang mass has a speed, in the spacetime which we see, from 0 toward speed of light c with times past of 0 toward 15 billion years (or distances of 0 to 15 billion light-years), giving outward force by Newton’s 2nd empirical law: F = ma = m.dv/dt = mc/(age of universe).
3. Newton’s 3rd law gives equal inward force, carried by gauge bosons, which shielded by mass, proves gravity and electromagnetism to within 1.65%"

However, this is ignored in favour of string theory which is supposed to be the correct approach to quantum gravity, because Edward Witten stated in the April 1996 issue of Physics Today: "String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity", although this was later repudiated by Roger Penrose in his book The Road to Reality p.896: "in addition to the dimensionality issue, the string theory approach is (so far, in almost all respects) restricted to being merely a perturbation theory".

It seems that innovators outside string theory are all too easily dismissed and banned from being heard.

I wonder if this forum might be the right place to discuss alternatives to string theory which make testable predictions and resolve problems?

[caltechpostdoc]

Yes--we welcome all theories based in logic and reason.

[T.E. Jones]

Originally Posted by caltechpostdoc

Yes--we welcome all theories based in logic and reason.

Thank you. Usually when someone points out a fundamental error and corrects it, making proved predictions, it is ignored unless he has friends in high places. The first defence against questions from outside is to ignore them.

"Correcting the Hubble expansion parameter for spacetime: at present recession speeds are divided into observed distances, H = v/R.

"This ignores time! The distance R is increasing all the time, so is not time independent.

"To get a proper Hubble ‘constant’ therefore you need to replace distance with time t = R/c.

"This gives recession constant as v/t which equals v/t = v/(R/c) = vc/R = cH. So the correct spacetime formulation of the cosmological recession is v/t = cH = 6 x 10^- 10 ms^-2.

"Outward acceleration! This means that the mass of the universe has a net outward force of F=ma = 7 x 10^43 N.

"(Assuming that F=ma is not bogus!) Newton’s 3rd law says there is an implosion inward of the same force, 7 x 10 ^43 N. (Assuming that Newton’s 3rd law is not bogus!) This predicts gravity as the shielding of this inward force of gauge boson radiation to within existing data! (Assuming that the inward force is carried by the gauge bosons which cause gravity.)

"Causal approach to loop quantum gravity (spin foam vacuum): volume contains matter and spacetime fabric, which behaves as the perfect fluid analogy to general relativity. As particles move in the spacetime fabric, it has to flow out of the way somewhere. It goes into the void behind the moving particle. Hence, the spacetime fabric filling a similar volume goes in the opposite direction to moving matter, filling in the void behind. Two analogies: (1) 'holes' in semoconductor electronics go the other way to electrons, and (2) a 70 litre person walking south along a corridor is matched by 70 litres of air moving north. At the end, the person is at the other end to the end he was in when he started, and 70 litres of air has moved up to fill in the space he vacated. Thus, simple logic and facts give us a quantitative and predictive calculating tool: an equal volume of the fluid goes in the opposite direction with the same motion, which allows the inward vacuum spacetime fabric pressure from the big bang to be calculated. This allows gravity to be estimated the same way, with the same result as the other method. Actually, boson radiations spend part of their existence as matter-antimatter pairs. So the two calculations do not duplicate each other. If the fraction due to radiation (boson) pressure is f, that due to perfect fluid pressure is 1-f. The total remains the same: (f) + (1 - f)= 1." - http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/