The End Of String Theory

[astro]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092756/

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And the Search for Unity in Physical Law (Hardcover)

From Publishers Weekly
String theory is the only game in town in physics departments these days. But echoing Lee Smolin's forthcoming The Trouble with Physics (Reviews, July 24), Woit, a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn't predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they're willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors. The first half of Woit's book is a tightly argued, beautifully written account of the development of the standard model and includes a history of particle accelerators that will interest science buffs. When he gets into the history of string theory, however, his pace accelerates alarmingly, with highly sketchy chapters. Reading this in conjunction with Smolin's more comprehensive critique of string theory, readers will be able to make up their own minds about whether string theory lives up to the hype. (Sept.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Book Description
Has physics gone off in the wrong direction? Peter Woit presents the other side of the growing debate on string theory--arguing that it's not even science


At what point does theory depart the realm of testable hypothesis and come to resemble something like aesthetic speculation, or even theology? The legendary physicist Wolfgang Pauli had a phrase for such ideas: He would describe them as "not even wrong," meaning that they were so incomplete that they could not even be used to make predictions to compare with observations to see whether they were wrong or not.

In Peter Woit's view, superstring theory is just such an idea. In Not Even Wrong, he shows that what many physicists call superstring "theory" is not a theory at all. It makes no predictions, even wrong ones, and this very lack of falsifiability is what has allowed the subject to survive and flourish.

Not Even Wrong explains why the mathematical conditions for progress in physics are entirely absent from superstring theory today and shows that judgments about scientific statements, which should be based on the logical consistency of argument and experimental evidence, are instead based on the eminence of those claiming to know the truth. In the face of many books from enthusiasts for string theory, this book presents the other side of the story.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618551050/
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next (Hardcover)
From Publishers Weekly
String theory—the hot topic in physics for the past 20 years—is a dead-end, says Smolin, one of the founders of Canada's Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and himself a lapsed string theorist. In fact, he (and others) argue convincingly, string theory isn't even a fully formed theory—it's just a "conjecture." As Smolin reminds his readers, string theorists haven't been able to prove any of their exotic ideas, and he says there isn't much chance that they will in the foreseeable future. The discovery of "dark energy," which seems to be pushing the universe apart faster and faster, isn't explained by string theory and is proving troublesome for that theory's advocates. Smolin (The Life of the Cosmos) believes that physicists are making the mistake of searching for a theory that is "beautiful" and "elegant" instead of one that's actually backed up by experiments. He encourages physicists to investigate new alternatives and highlights several young physicists whose work he finds promising. This isn't easy reading, but it will appeal to dedicated science buffs interested in where physics may be headed in the next decade. 30 b&w illus. (Sept. 19)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
"Lee Smolin provides a much needed, enlightening and engagingly written antidote to string-theory hype." --David Deutsch, Oxford University, author of The Fabric of Reality
"If you want to think in new ways about the interconnected universe around you, read Lee Smolin's provocative, inspiring book." --Margaret Geller, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Harvard University
"Bold, provocative, and, best of all, a joy to read." --Evelyn Fox Keller, Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science, MIT
"Smolin tells the somber tale of contemporary physics with virtuosity, passion, and courage." --Joy Christian, Oxford University
"An uncommonly clear and confident account of the great obstacles—and opportunities—facing physics today. . . .engrossing and illuminating." --Tim Ferris, author of Coming of Age in the Milky Way and The Big Shebang
"[Smolin] exudes a love of science and imagination, and a faith in the next generation of young physicists." --Jaron Lanier, computer scientist and columnist for Discover
"Lee Smolin is keeping his eyes open, asks sharp questions, and offers his delightful insights as a critical insider." --Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate, University of Utrecht
"[Smolin's] knowledge of [string theory] enables him to tell the story, and survey the road ahead, with clarity and grace." --Neal Stephenson, author of Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, and Quicksilver
"Lee Smolin's understanding of theoretical physics is unusually broad and deep, and his critical judgments are exceptionally penetrating." --Roger Penrose, author of The Road to Reality and The Emperor's New Mind
"Lee Smolin has written an epic story with great energy and characteristic passion. . . .Thrilling." --Janna Levin, Barnard College of Columbia University, author of How the Universe Got Its Spots
"Clear, lively, and continuously interesting. . .Reading it is a very exciting experience and just what is needed at this time." --Kim Stanley Robinson, best-selling author of The Mars Trilogy
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618551050/


MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY WILL TRIUMPH!!!

MDT's postulate: THE FOURTH DIMENSION IS EXPANDING AT A RATE OF C RELATIVE TO THE THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN QUANTIZED UNITS OF THE PLANCK LENGTH, GIVING RISE TO TIME AND ALL CLASSICAL, QUANTUM MECHANICAL, AND RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA.

[Cerveny]

I think that string theory has failed because it was based on a wrong presumption. Gravity property of antimatter differs from gravity properties of common mass. I believe that antimatter repulses each other.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Cerveny

I think that string theory has failed because it was based on a wrong presumption. Gravity property of antimatter differs from gravity properties of common mass. I believe that antimatter repulses each other.

I agree that ST is based on false presumptions concerning its attempt to reconcile standard model metaphysical forces.

However, I cannot understand what ST failure has to do with antimatter and common mass gravity. What relationships are you considering?

What is antimatter? What is common mass? What is gravity?

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by astro

postulate: THE FOURTH DIMENSION IS EXPANDING AT A RATE OF C RELATIVE TO THE THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN QUANTIZED UNITS OF THE PLANCK LENGTH, GIVING RISE TO TIME AND ALL CLASSICAL, QUANTUM MECHANICAL, AND RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA.

Interesting . . . your concept of time vs. my concept of motion.

I consider that the speed of light is decreasing (light is expanding per Inverse Square Law) "IN QUANTIZED UNITS" that are somewhat analogous to "THE PLANCK LENGTH." Said decrease is too small to be noticeable at anthropoidal speeds.

I can't understand how time can be other than constant as it would seem to be the "count" of "QUANTIZED UNITS"; each "unit" being the unchanging standard (common denominator) from which all fundamental harmony arises that evolves to every phenomena of existence.

If said fundamental unit that is "counted" were to vary it would seem that chaos rather than synchronization would reign among all subatomic phenomena.

[Cerveny]

Originally Posted by Epsilon=One

What is antimatter? What is common mass? What is gravity?

It is well known that for each common fermion exists a similar anti-particle. The couple of particle/anti-particle can annihilate each other into pure space/vacuum and energy (space vibration -manifested is called “photon”). One of most natural concept such effect is creating complementary defects in the vacuum - for example a vacation and an interstitial of some element. It is one of the reasons that bring me up to feeling that anti-matter has got another gravity property.

The gravity I feel as local tension in vacuum/space/ether rising from deformed its structure (f.e. from absence of its regular elements). Such tense/stress would be compensate by some swing of vacuum/ether lattice (in special case) ...

[Cerveny]

Originally Posted by Epsilon=One

However, I cannot understand what ST failure has to do with antimatter and common mass gravity. What relationships are you considering?

I think that main problem of quantifying gravity is that a creation of a virtual pair raise non zero gravity field. Please consider that electric field is compensated in this case. As ST keeps mentioned concept blindly, so it have to blur point object into obscure string...

[Cerveny]

Originally Posted by astro

THE FOURTH DIMENSION IS EXPANDING AT A RATE OF C RELATIVE TO THE THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN QUANTIZED UNITS OF THE PLANCK LENGTH, GIVING RISE TO TIME AND ALL CLASSICAL, QUANTUM MECHANICAL, AND RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA.

If you consider mentioned velocity as v=c*sqrt(2) you can get E=mc^2=1/2mv^2 (kinetic energy of such motion).

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Cerveny

I think that main problem of quantifying gravity is that a creation of a virtual pair raise non zero gravity field. Please consider that electric field is compensated in this case.

There should be no difficulty to quantify gravity when gravity is properly defined.

The difficulty arises because gravity's effects are several different manifestations that cannot be reconciled as a simple, fundamental force.

"Virtual pairs" are just that: "virtual." You cannot have a serious theory if it relies upon anything that is "virtual." "Virtual" is a contrivance, a term that is used when some process is not well understood. As an example, peruse the intradiscipline dialogue of QCDers.

"Compensating" an "electric field" is an attempt to use words to explain empirical data that is not fundamentally understood.

Originally Posted by Cerveny

As ST keeps mentioned concept blindly, so it have to blur point object into obscure string...

"To blur" such is completely understandable considering the ludicrous extensions of a good idea.

ST has a strong, logical, basic concept of complex oscillations of "something"; however, it applies this concept to erroneous Standard Model concepts; then, extends to fantasy without reducing to fundamental definitions and advancing/evolving from there.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Cerveny

It is well known that for each common fermion exists a similar anti-particle.

I find it difficult to accept the existence of anti-matter. I don't doubt that "colliders" exhibit annihilation. I don't agree that the data indicates an anti-particle. Other theory and all observation elsewhere would indicate another interpretation.

Originally Posted by Cerveny

The couple of particle/anti-particle can annihilate each other into pure space/vacuum and energy (space vibration -manifested is called “photon”).

I agree that there is an ether (seminal quanta) that is probably what you are referring to as "pure space/vacuum and energy." Subatomic physicists firmly accept the concept of some form of ether.

Your "space vibration -manifested is called “photon”" is a colorful description that I do not dislike. However, I don't feel it is entirely accurate; though, it is a more than an adequate visualization for the layman.

Originally Posted by Cerveny

The gravity I feel as local tension in vacuum/space/ether rising from deformed its structure (f.e. from absence of its regular elements). Such tense/stress would be compensate by some swing of vacuum/ether lattice (in special case) ...

I agree that an effect of "gravity" is the "local tension" that you intuit. Gravity is several manifestations; "local tension" is most concerned with Confluent Congruence, which is observable with phenomena as diverse as the strong interaction and the Ocean tides.

[Cerveny]

Originally Posted by Epsilon=One

I find it difficult to accept the existence of anti-matter. I don't doubt that "colliders" exhibit annihilation. I don't agree that the data indicates an anti-particle.

I thing It is only formal problem how these two classes of particles are called. First class of particles is common, it seems that these particle are attracted each other (by gravity) and second class of particles contains rare particles that are living short time until they are annulled by particle from first class. We know about gravity properties particles from second class nothing, but ST build on such uncertainly preposition great monster...