Thank You For This Forum!! Physics Has Been Taken Over By Arrogant Idiot Poseurs!

[caltechpostdoc]

I'm a foreign caltech postdoc, and American physics has been taken over by bawdy strumpets, hookers, and prostitutes--no offense to workers in the sex industry--Vegas is cool.

A sign of the times is this:

http://cosmicvariance.com/

The site is complete with pictures of postmodern String Theorists using TAX PAYER DOLLARS (not mine) to SING AND DANCE!!!

Do Phenomenologists Sing and Dance Better Than String Theorists?
http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/07/21...rists/#more-51

LOOK AT THE PICTURES!! THEY'RE GIVING PHYSICS STUDENTS AND THE PUBLIC THE MIDDLE FINGER AS PHYSICS DIES!!

LOOK AT THIS HOME PAGE!! NO PUBLICATIONS!!!
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/slac/fa...ty/hewett.html

LOOK AT THE RESEARCH!!
Research Areas
Theoretical particle physics; phenomenology of electroweak interactions within and beyond the Standard Model, collider signatures and effects in rare processes. Heavy flavor physics. Signature of extra spacetime dimensions.

"SIGNATURE OF EXTRA SPACETIME DIMESNIONS???? IS THIS WHERE ELVIS'S AUTOGRAPH CAN BE FOUND?"

"HEAVY FLAVOR PHYSICS! SHE'S LAUGHING AT YOU AS SHE GETS PAID $100,000 OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WHILE SINCERE POSTDOCS AND GRAD STUDENTS STARVE!!!"

LOOK AT THIS HOMEPAGE!!
http://physics.usc.edu/%7Ejohnson1/

NO MEANINGFUL RESEARCH PAPERS!! IT'S ALL NEITHER HERE-NOR-THERE UNTESTABLE HOCUS-POCUS!! EINSTEIN!! NEWTON!! PLEASE FORGIVE US!!

LOOK AT THIS TOTAL BS!! (pardon moi francais) THIS IS NOT PHYSICS!! IT IS SCIENCE FICTION!!!
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/research.html#ctcs

# Time machines in (2+1)-dimensional gravity

Is it possible to travel backwards in time? Embarassingly, we don't know the answer to that question nearly as well as we should. I worked with Edward Farhi, Alan Guth and Ken Olum on obstacles to constructing time machines in (2+1) dimensional gravity, a possibility first suggested by Richard Gott (PRL server). We showed that (2+1) dimensional open universes could be classified into two types: those that inevitably contained a Gott time machine, and those that could never contain one. The case of closed universes was solved by 't Hooft (spires listing), who showed that any attempt to build a Gott time machine in a closed universe would be foiled by collapse to a singularity before the time machine could arise. Our work was briefly considered newsworthy. For general information on the sticky subject of time travel in the context of general relativity, see the sci.physics faq, Scientific American's ask the experts, or some thoughts from John Gribbin.

* S.M. Carroll, E. Farhi and A.H. Guth, 1992, "An Obstacle to Building a Time Machine,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 263; Erratum: 68, 3368. [pdf file; spires entry; references; citations]
* S.M. Carroll, E. Farhi, A.H. Guth and K.D. Olum, 1994, "Energy-Momentum Restrictions on the Creation of Gott Time Machines,'' Phys. Rev. D 50, 6190; gr-qc/9404065.

AMERICAN PHYSICS IS A BIG GOVERNMENT FUNDED HOAX--STRING THEORY IS A WAY TO ROPE HEALTH BENEFITS AND TAX AND TUITION DOLLARS!!! A PONZI GAME!!

I am an experimental physicist--I work for a living.

Loved these quotes!!

"The great irony of string theory, however, is that the theory itself is not unified. To someone learning the theory for the first time, it is often a frustrating collection of folklore, rules of thumb, and intuition. (IN OTHER WORDS IT IS NOT PHYSICS!!!) At times, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for many of the conventions of the model. For a theory that makes the claim of providing a unifying framework for all physical laws, it is the supreme irony that the theory itself appears so disunited!!"
Chapter 1. Path Integrals and Point Particles: Why Strings?
“Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory,” page 5. –Michio Kaku

“If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment, demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated beliefs. The unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more precisely the naïve version of ether that preceded relativity. The unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would be perfectly in character for him to reexamine the facts, toss them over in his mind, and conclude that his beloved principle of relativity was not fundamental at all but emergent—a collective property of the matter constituting space-time that becomes increasingly exact at long length scales but fails at short ones. This is a different idea from his original one but something fully compatible with it logically, and even more exciting and potentially important. It would mean that the fabric of space-time was not simply the stage on which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there might be something beyond.” –A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, Robert B. Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect.

“[String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be calculated or predicted more easily. Moreover, the complex spectroscopic properties of space accessible with today’s mighty accelerators are accountable in only as “low-energy phenomenology”—a pejorative term for transcendent emergent properties of matter impossible to calculate from first principles. String theory is, in fact, a textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system—in which emergence plays no role and dark law does not exist.”
–A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, Robert B. Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect.

[WARPULL]

i was reading passages on that "final theory book" it at first seems to me that
this person dosent understand alot of basic concepts.
for example he saying that physicists dont understand how freezing water expands and goes against what physics principles are today.i understand why.
and all the other examples he had ,i think he is trying to sell books to dumb people.
ILL EXPLAIN WATER EXPANSION> when the water loses its energy ; its really the molecules electrons taking the path of least resistance from its prior state
which is not bonded like a solid;the molecules are forced together by heat /own weight .the heat is the outer influence of radiation [light] which increases the bond [em]of the hydrogen and oxygen elements.
as the outer influence recedes the molecules take a organized lattice structure contengent of its own emf geometry.so the elctromagnetic field springs out to this lattice structure at the path to least resistance.
geometry of a magnetic field doesnt always require outer energy to expand .
water always has a tendency to push outward ,hydrogen by itself is a gas,so is oxygen>gas because it pushes away from its own element.outside pressure or energy causes these two elements to condense into liquid form.
so then you ask why are they cool in liquid form? because the hold the radiation in equilibrium ;in a path that does not conflict to the particles next to them> no radiation.

[T.E. Jones]

Originally Posted by WARPULL

i think he is trying to sell books to dumb people.

That's the brains behind the quacks. $tring theory is out to make money. It's a get rich quick $cheme.

‘t Hooft: ‘… I would not even be prepared to call $tring theory a ‘theory’ rather a ‘model’ or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it to identify the things one wishes to describe … Imagine that I give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing, and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon; whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair?’

Feynman: ‘I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like [it] that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation - a fix up… so the fact that it might disagree with experiment is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything…’

Glashow: ‘But superstring physicists … cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical outcome of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their formalism includes a description of such things as protons and electron. And they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental prediction… Until string theory people can interpret perceived properties of the real world they simply are not doing physics. Should they be paid by universities and be permitted to pervert impressionable students?’

All above quotations are from pages 180-2 of Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong, Cape, London, 2006, http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...916686-5566838

I cannot understand why string theorists don't take up Josephson's ideas of considering string theory as a paranormal theory.

The idea to use stringy paranormal "mental vacuum state" techniques to test string theory is outlined by the great authority Professor Brian Josephson in his paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012

Physics, abstract
physics/0312012

***String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal***

Authors: Brian D. Josephson
Comments: 20KB HTML file. To appear in the Proceedings of the Second European Samueli Symposium, Freiburg, October 2003. In this version minor errors have been corrected, and a concluding comment added concerning classification. Keywords: ESP, string theory, anthropic principle, thought bubble, universal mind, mental state
Subj-class: General Physics

"A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special 'mental vacuum state', whose origin is explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared 'thought bubbles' generated by the participants out of the mental vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to 'rule out' the possible existence of paranormal phenomena."

The physical mechanism by which string theorists employ shared thought bubbles in a mental vacuum state is of course related to their large, ever expanding branes. Each string theorist has an expanding brane which interacts with that from other string theorists, warping and distending some extra dimensions to create gravity with the exact weak strength observed (from the antropic principle). It makes specific 'predictions': telepathy, and the paranormal. Try falsifying those!

[Epsilon=One]

Your post is a bullseye . . . just a tad off center.

Originally Posted by T.E. Jones

That's the brains behind the quacks. $tring theory is out to make money. It's a get rich quick $cheme.

Yes, in its many lives, it certainly has been abundantly successful at creating jobs and generating funds for those involved.

The basic premise, nevertheless, is quite accurate; from there ST and its myriad offspring go quite awry.

There has never been a great scam where the due diligence wasn't "right on target"; the problem always begins with the extensions of that kernel of truth.

Unfortunately, all those that you quote have no aternative theories to the metaphysical standard models that are any better than ST at its worst.

[T.E. Jones]

Originally Posted by Epsilon=One

Your post is a bullseye . . . just a tad off center. ... Unfortunately, all those that you quote have no aternative theories to the metaphysical standard models that are any better than ST at its worst.

Surely you mean that general relativity and the Standard Model are abstract mathematics, not metaphysical?

Peter Woit has suggestions himself. See page 51 of Quantum Field Theory and Representation Theory: A Sketch (2002), http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0206135

He can reproduce the particles of the Standard Model in low dimensions just using Clifford algebra to represent spinors of quantum field theory.

'A generation of quarks has the same transformation properties except that
one has to take the “vacuum” vector to transform under the U(1) with charge 4/3, which is the charge that makes the overall average U(1) charge of a generation of leptons and quarks to be zero.'

If this is too abstruse for you and you want a physical explanation of how the charge of a quark is related to that of an electron, try this: the physical reason why quarks have fractional charge can be explained very simply indeed. Electric charges are shielded by the polarized vacuum field they create at short distances. If you hypothetically put three electron charges close together so that they all share the same vacuum polarization cloud, the polarization in that cloud will be three times stronger. Hence, the shielding factor for electric charge will be three times greater. So the electric charge you would theoretically expect to get from each of the three electron-sized charges confined in close proximity is equal to: -(1/3)e. This is the charge of the downquark.

Vacuum polarization is a key feature of quantum field theory, closely connected to verified experimental facts. So this explanation is the true cause of fractional quark charges. The fact that it comes from logical inference so easily is characteristic of the great beauty and simplicity of nature. God may well be a mathematician, but there is no indication He is a string theorist.

Consider what it means when the vacuum shields 2/3rds of the Coulomb force of an electron. Yang-Mills gauge boson exchange energy needs to be conserved. When charge is shielded by the polarized vacuum, the energy of the massless photons of the electric field is being converted - apparently - into the energy of a short ranged and hence massive force field.

Putting it another way: the electron has a higher electric charge than a quark because some of the gauge boson (charge) energy of electromagnetism is used as color force (strong nuclear) binding energy in hadrons like mesons (pairs of quarks) and baryons (triads of quarks), and as weak force (for example, the weak force controls the decay of neutrons into protons, and free neutrons are thus radioactive). This is predictive.

The physics of the polarized vacuum also offer a way to predict lepton and hadron masses and magnetic moments accurately:

... the fractional charge values of quarks has a natural physical explanation, and the charge reduction seen at large distances may be balanced by the energy of the nuclear binding forces (color and weak) at short distances.

If you think about force unification in terms of distance instead of interaction energy, you start to get into real, practical physics models. For instance, what happens to gauge boson energy when the charge varies with distance? It's pretty likely that the cause of unification at extremely high collision energies (near the middle of a particle) is due to conservation of energy for the different force gauge bosons. The Yang-Mills interaction picture seems to completely neglect physical dynamics of how the energy of exchange bosons is conserved. When a force strength (alpha) varies as a function of distance, the exchange energy passing through the surface must remain the same . Think about Green's theorem or hydrodynamics when contemplating exchange radiation. If you physically shield the charge (gauge bosons exchange dynamics), by vacuum polarization or whatever, the energy has to go either into heating the shield up or it gets converted into another force.

This is just what is observed in high energy physics: weak and electromagnetic charges increase with interaction energy, and the strong force coupling strength falls. Therefore, you'd expect unification without SUSY from conservation of charge energy.

If the strong force falls because the electroweak force is rising, then eventually you get perfect unification, unlike the picture in the Standard Model (minus SUSY) where the forces cross-over and go on increasing or falling indefinitely.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by T.E. Jones

Surely you mean that general relativity and the Standard Model are abstract mathematics, not metaphysical?

If by “abstract mathematics” you mean unproven mathematics; you are correct concerning mathematics.

With regard to metaphysical, "metaphysical" is exactly what I meant.

See: “The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics.”

As to the rest of your post:

There is much in it that seems to support some of my positions.

Your ability at research (or recall) is truly astounding. No telling where the world would be today if you would apply it to a fundamental understanding of your craft and its tools of logic; rather, than depending upon mainstream contrivances that are astounding in their manipulation of complex hunches without fundamental simplicity. Mainstream science philosophy (A term for theoretical physics that I believe Weinberg would accept) works backward. Something like trying to imagine a chicken from scrambled eggs.

Wilczek suspects the enigmas of Reality are just as likely to be solved with our "noodles" (mind) as with colliders. I believe that colliders have assisted as much as they every will be able to.

I really must go for today. You post faster than I can reply in the detail I would like to reply.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally Posted by T.E. Jones

(SNIP) If someone discovers the final theory, that person is a wicked, mean-spirited person. It will be the end of all dreams for millions of amateurs and professionals, killing off all their pet theories, scientific hopes and aspirations. (SNIP)

Hummm and if the "Discoverer" tells you that the Final theory is a 'Framework' (principals) that, not only needs be "filled in" but, adapts a vast and multitudenous array of possibilities-options with new directions for discovery, well .....then, what your comment refers to is the fact that it isn't 'you' who has it, and you do not want anyone else to have it, either, because somehow it will 'cease your ability to dream'...what a "Crock" that is!

OH!! Your the one who wanted to close the Patent Office ....right? 'no more new discoveries as they have all been discovered' that kind of Garbage.....

Aside from that learning enough just to know a full theory takes quite a part of a life time, what can be made following that, well, dreamers will be the ones who will discover it/that/thosethings, not people who rail against advancement simply to preserve their own ignorance.

BTW you are here, this forum, trying to 'Knock down' a couple of theories, yourself, (Right?) promote a couple of you own, yourself (Right?) .....aren't you? doesn't that make you the "Wicked Mean Spirited" person, and one who simply wants to keep open the opportunities for more of that kind of 'challenge'/chance (or is it Enjoyment to you?) ....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Oh yes, what if the T.O.E. successfully opens up 'physics' (Chemistry too) such that we can achieve Gravitational Flight, as in, thereafter, the Ability to explore this galaxy, isn't that acutally fueling the DREAMS of everyone you mentioned? Doesn't that simply open it up ....MORE?

What then? well, if we listen to you, we will never know, that IS sad!


BTW (I) am grateful for this forum, too!

P.S. is/does the basis of String Theory got anything to do with symmetry, Emmy Noethers' work? cause if it does, well, Ms. Noethers' work (unfortunately ?) suffers a 'Fatal Flaw' of sorts ...that would doom String Theory too if it stems from (uses) the Same source.

[T.E. Jones]

Robin,

You are right to point out the contradiction. Popper - if correct - would outlaw a final theory by demanding that it forever remain falsifiable. Archimedes is not a scientist to Popper, because in his books On Floating Bodies I and II, Archimedes used facts + logic to prove laws of buoyancy. These can't be falsified as such!

While excluding factual laws, Popper claims that falsified laws were science up until the instant they were abandoned by the mainstream. Hence, to Popper, phlogiston and caloric were science until they were disproved.

This is vacuous. Does it mean that "telepathy", "paranormal", UFOs and the Lock Ness Monster must be science until they can be falsified? Popper does not give a prescription which sorts out anything. Kuhn is even worse, because he assumes people want knowledge and will therefore clamor for a paradigm change when the evidence emerges. In fact, if the mainstream has already saturated the media with hyped extra dimensional prejudice (= science fiction), the truth (low dimensions) is likely to be dismissed as boring.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally Posted by T.E. Jones

(SNIP) In fact, if the mainstream has already saturated the media with hyped extra dimensional prejudice (= science fiction), the truth (low dimensions) is likely to be dismissed as boring. (SNoP)

Right up to the Second prior to the "Proving/Proof" of it ....then it will change, if it needs to ......as it always has.

Later they will be saying: "We knew it! .....all along.."