Telling posts from woit's blog

[astro]

Check out:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=496#comments

1. Alejandro Rivero Says:
   
   November 29th, 2006 at 7:11 pm The comparision with the Soviet Union is interesting. Acording Lenin, or more properly according a reported talk of Lenin with one of the leaders of Spanish anarchist union CNT, the system was foreseen to allow “about 50 years” (this was 1927 or so), after which it would fall, expectedly towards anarcho-socialism. This bit or the prediction was a sort of failure, but except on this detail Lenin mechanism worked as a clockwork: not having internal renovation of leaderships, the system burnt out itself.
   
   Now, the hope with physics, or with string theory, is that science self-implemented destruction mechanisms, rooting a theory without experimental input, will work.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=496#comments

1. King Ray Says:
   
   November 30th, 2006 at 6:16 pm I don’t think string theory will die until the funding is cut. I knew a guy in grad school who got several postdocs doing string theory who told me he didn’t even believe in it but he was getting all these great jobs doing it. I think it is wrong to work on something in science you don’t even believe in just to make money and get a job. Science is supposed to be a higher calling.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=496#comments

Check out ma main man peter woit's blog!!

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by astro

Now, the hope with physics, or with string theory, is that science self-implemented destruction mechanisms, rooting a theory without experimental input, will work.

Changing academic, theoretical physics, for all the reasons that you are familiar with, is similar to trying to stop a long freight train going downhill or turning a battleship on a dime.

However, when the inevitable change does occur, it will be similar to, and as traumatic, as the collapse of the U.S.S.R.

Keep up the fight with your Renaissance spirit!

[NB Cook]

Please don't put 100% of the blame on the evil dictators like Stalin. They didn't personally torture and massacre millions. Their sycophantic supporters were to blame!

Similarly in science, censorship may follow the lead from the top, but it isn't just the big guys who implement every instance of it. If all the blame was down to a dictator or two at the top, they would easily be ignored. The problem is the opposite: the structure is such that the dictators get their power from a wide popularity. Stalin was popular. People weren't forced to pay their respects when he died. People volunteered to queue up in the freezing cold. Many people learn and accept status quo, and worship it.

See 9 Dec 2006 New Scientist p53 for how these problems still occur widely in science: Barry Marshall showed that bacteria cause duodenal ulcers and most gastric ulcers in 1984, but he just met with the same kind of unhelpful response until widely accepted in 1997 (he won a Nobel Prize in 2005):

We published our results ... and waited for the sparks to fly. ... gastroenterologists thought they already knew the cause of ulcers, and there were very effective treatments which acted by reducing stomach acid - though they weren't a cure ...

Many people built careers on researching ulcers, but they were barking up the wrong tree. ... If people don't have an investment in the existing paradigm, they are free to invent a new one. There is a lot of inertia in research. People running major research projects can't suddenly change tack and move the whole lab into another area. ... If you know nothing about a subject, and someone comes up with an idea, you can't tell whether the person is crazy or not. ... It was very easy for them to stick with the old treatments. I was annoyed about the level of opposition to our theory, and that people were not testing it ...

What about the people who suffered and perhaps some extreme cases who died needlessly from ulcers from 1984-1997? When they could have been saved? Who is to blame for "cautious" (actually dangerous) inertia, preventing the rapid introduction of effective cures?

Similarly, consider Boltzmann's suicide after Mach's anti-atom, anti-mechanism philosophising led his work to be sneered at. Who was to blame? Mach? No, the journal editors, the "peers" of Boltzmann who sneered. Science isn't a religion of worshipping "leaders". Feynman said science is a religion of denying divine or human authority in preference to empirical evidence:

‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of [the speculative consensus of] experts.’ - R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, 1999, p187.

‘Science n. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.’ - http://www.answers.com/topic/science

The mainstream needn't worry about being scientific and considering revolutionary ideas contrary to M-theory's beautiful "fact" that the 10-d superstring universe is a brane on 11-d supergravity. Since the people in string theory are not the kind of people who demand non-ad hoc evidence before investing years in speculations, evidence can't ever swing them:

They weren't swung in favour of string theory by empirical evidence in the first place, so why should they suddenly now take an interest in empirical evidence which doesn't support string theory? (like the empirically confirmed Standard Model dimension facts, cosmological facts, etc.). Francis Bacon insisted that a theory be both built on foundations with evidence, and also tested:

A fruitful natural philosophy has a double scale or ladder ascendant and descendant; ascending from experiments to axioms and descending from axioms to the invention of new experiments. - Novum Organum.

This would allow LQG to be built as a bridge between path integrals and general relativity. I wish Smolin or Woit would pursue this.

Light ... "smells" the neighboring paths around it, and uses a small core of nearby space. (In the same way, a mirror has to have enough size to reflect normally: if the mirror is too small for the core of nearby paths, the light scatters in many directions, no matter where you put the mirror.)

- Feynman, QED, Penguin, 1990, page 54.

That's wave particle duality explained. The path integrals don't mean that the photon goes on all possible paths but as Feynman says, only a "small core of nearby space".

The double-slit interference experiment is very simple: the photon has a transverse spatal extent. If that overlaps two slits, then the photon gets diffracted by both slits, displaying interference. This is obfuscated by people claiming that the photon goes everywhere, which is not what Feynman says. It doesn't take every path: most of the energy is transferred along the classical path, and is near that.

Similarly, you find people saying that QFT says that the vacuum is full of loops of annihilation-creation. When you check what QFT says, it actually says that those loops are limited to the region between the IR and UV cutoff. If loops existed everywhere in spacetime, ie below the IR cutoff or beyond 1 fm, then the whole vacuum would be polarized enough to cancel out all real charges. If loops existed beyond the UV cutoff, ie to zero distance from a particle, then the loops would have infinite energy and momenta and the effects of those loops on the field would be infinite, again causing problems.

So the vacuum simply isn't full of loops (they only extend out to 1 fm around particles). Hence no dark energy mechanism.

Maybe the crisis will end naturally with some stringy theorist becoming U.S. president (and later the first world dictator) and having all string critics sent to Guantanamo Bay for mental correction. It is just what you should expect from human nature, people simply aren't reasonable. I've known this since childhood. People just pretend that mainstream physics is about facts, it isn't really. It's just about egotism. Similarly, medicine is not completely devoid of ignorant elitism and is not devoid of a disregard for factual evidence. People put themselves first, and the facts come second (if they ever come at all).

Just a bit about ad hominem arguments: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

There is a related sub-ad hominem argument which takes a valid point, deliberately mis-quotes it or distorts it, and claims it is wrong and the person is guilty. This is identical to the fabrication of evidence by corrupt fascist dictatorships against state enemies. It relies on preventing the victim from being allowed to answer back effectively.

‘... the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly...’ - http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm

‘Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by. ...’ – Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 7 Oct. 05, p. 11.

[astro]

Welcome aboard! Great to have you!

Dr. E

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by NB Cook

Please don't put 100% of the blame on the evil dictators like Stalin. They didn't personally torture and massacre millions. Their sycophantic supporters were to blame!

You are absolutely correct. And such continues with the present political and economic situations throughout the world . . . as well as within science.

I cannot remember reading, anywhere, a more informative and enjoyable forum post.

Your effort, knowledge, and logic are tremendously appreciated. Thank you!

I look forward to your continued forum interest.

[NB Cook]

Astro and Epsilon=One, thanks. The first instance of censorship using string ‘theory' I had was when I wrote a letter to Professor Russell Stannard, then Chair of the physics department, Open University (now emeritus professor), in 1996 about problems in the course materials provided, whose correction suggested a way to make progress in quantum gravity. He didn't respond but told Dr Bob Lambourne to respond to me, who wrote (ignoring my arguments) that I need to study mainstream (failed) string theory if I am interested in quantum gravity.

Contrast this unhelpful response to the Open University physics faculty assertion on its website:

‘An important part of the Open University's mission, as a major provider of supported open learning, is to be to open as to people, open as to places, open as to methods and open as to ideas.’

Professor Russell Stannard also appeared on an Open University physics video saying how amazed Maxwell was when he discovered that his equations predict light; which is false because he fiddled the theory to fit the facts, initially getting and publishing a result wrong by the square root of 2, and then had to entirely change his aether model to get the ‘right’ result for speed of light, all the time in ignorance that electricity goes at the same speed so his model could simply be a model for alternating current energy flow, rather than the vacuum mechanism for light; see math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=499#comment-19808.

Professor Stannard, it seemed, was just prejudiced in favour of religious stringy ‘explanation’ for gravity, etc. He was author of Science and the Renewal of Belief which is marketed at ebookmall.com/ebook/205702-ebook.htm as:

‘... a critically acclaimed work by a renowned theologian-scientist. ... He is also praised for offering fresh insight into original sin, the trials experienced by Galileo, the problem of pain, the possibility of miracles, the evidence for the resurrection, the credibility of incarnation, and the power of steadfast prayer. By introducing simple analogies, Stannard clears up misunderstandings that have muddied the connections between science and religion, and suggests contributions that the pursuit of physical science can make to theology. ...

‘Russell Stannard, emeritus professor of physics at the Open University, the United Kingdom’s largest university, has made numerous contributions to the science and religion dialogue. He has written numerous best-selling books, and he is a well-known television and radio broadcaster in Great Britain. His books, God for the 21st Century, www . Here-I-Am, and Curious History of God are also published by Templeton Foundation Press.’

I'm Catholic, but I don't try to confuse empirical facts with religious faith. I really don’t know precisely how much blame for the destruction of British physics is down to people like Stannard, and how much is down to Hawking and New Scientist crackpotism:

‘Since 1982 [British] A-level physics entries have halved. Only just over 3.8 per cent of 16-year-olds took A-level physics in 2004 compared with about 6 per cent in 1990.

‘More than a quarter (from 57 to 42) of universities with significant numbers of physics undergraduates have stopped teaching the subject since 1994, while the number of home students on first-degree physics courses has decreased by more than 28 per cent. Even in the 26 elite universities with the highest ratings for research the trend in student numbers has been downwards.’

- buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html

I wrote an opinion page headed ‘Throwing Stones in Glass Houses’ in the October 2003 issue of Electronics World, pointing out how the mainstream abuses like string theory correlate with instances of university physics departments closing, so that string theory religion and parallel universes without evidence (while good at making a few people rich, like Hawking) have actually in all probability been extremely destructive to the status of science in the UK where led by forceful proponents who don’t have any experimental evidence for their claims, like Hawking and others. As a result the editor received only abusive responses (the editor published some of them, eventually reversing my piece title into the amusing title heading for letters with ad hominem arguments: ‘Throwing Glasses at Stone Houses’; if you have solid facts, they aren't fragile and so they are safe).

Some people claimed that most students were choosing not to do physics A-level (which is required for undergraduate physics entry) because they were doing other things instead, but that doesn't explain anything. Of course they are choosing other things instead! The question I addressed is why.

That was well before Peter Woit’s blog started in March 2004, although I saw a comment (see math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=464#comment-16704 for example) attacking Woit for putting people off physics and closing physics departments in the UK. Talk about shooting the messenger!

Jeremy Webb, New Scientist’s editor, in an interview published by The Hindu here where he gets his picture published, is quoted as saying:

‘Scientists have a duty to tell the public what they are doing... ’

However, by ‘scientists’ we find that he admits to really meaning ‘magicians’ as he candidly reveals in an amazing Daily Telegraph article, which quotes his cynicism:

‘Prof Heinz Wolff complained that cosmology [dark energy belief systems, etc.] is "religion, not science." Jeremy Webb of New Scientist responded that it is not religion but magic. ... "If I want to sell more copies of New Scientist, I put cosmology on the cover," said Jeremy.’

On 30 August 2004, Jeremy emailed me:

‘Paul Davies writes for us between zero and three times a year, writing as much about biology these days as he does about physics. He is invited to write.’

Helene Guldberg in an article for Spiked Science on 26 April 2001 reported that Jeremy Webb's behaviour had been sarcastic and rude towards her and others who disagreed with the New Scientist during ‘the horrendous event that was the New Scientist's UK Global Environment Roadshow’:

‘Webb asked - after the presentations - whether there was anybody who still was not worried about the future. In a room full of several hundred people, only three of us put our hands up. We were all asked to justify ourselves (which is fair enough). But one woman, who believed that even if some of the scenarios are likely, we should be able to find solutions to cope with them, was asked by Webb whether she was related to George Bush!

‘When I pointed out that none of the speakers had presented any of the scientific evidence that challenged their doomsday scenarios, Webb just threw back at me, ‘But why take the risk?’ What did he mean: ‘Why take the risk of living?’ You could equally say ‘Why take the risk of not experimenting? Why take the risk of not allowing optimum economic development?’ But had I been able to ask these questions, I suppose I would have been accused of being in bed with Dubya.’

New Scientist recently had an online link with a podcast of Jeremy Webb very politely interviewing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, where Jeremy Webb explained New Scientist's standpoint:

‘In certain areas, we seem to be moving further away from rational thought, whether it’s the rise of fundamentalist religious beliefs or the use of unproven alternative therapies.’

At least he is honest about New Scientist’s move away from rational thought, investment (via cosmology) in ‘fundamentalist religious beliefs’, and ‘unproven alternative therapies’ (string to tie up quantum field theory for eternity with non-falsifiable speculations, dark energy to obfuscate cosmology with Ptolemy-type ad hoc speculation). I'm hoping to build a lucid analysis of the facts at my domain quantumfieldtheory.org as and when time permits.

Human nature means that instead of using scientific objectivity, any ideas outside the current paradigm should be attacked either indirectly (by ad hominem attacks on the messenger), or by religious-type (unsubstantiated) bigotry, irrelevant and condescending patronising abuse, and sheer self-delusion:

‘(1). The idea is nonsense.

‘(2). Somebody thought of it before you did.

‘(3). We believed it all the time.’

- Professor R.A. Lyttleton’s summary of inexcusable censorship (quoted by Sir Fred Hoyle, Home is Where the Wind Blows Oxford University Press, 1997, p154).

‘If you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want to propagate it rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner - even though he sat at the feet of Faraday... beetles could do that... he is very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of rope, and when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!’

- Oliver Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory Vol. 1, p337, 1893.

Heaviside is referring to his dismissal by Sir William Preece. Heaviside discovered experimentally (while working with the Newcastle-Denmark undersea communications cable in 1875) and theoretically (while writing Maxwell’s long-hand equations in vector calculus for the first time and applying them to this problem) that in long telegraph wires, there is frequency-dependent distortion caused by the increase in resistance. Hence, the way to get rid of the distortion is to increase the inductance, by adding loading coils. Sir William Preece ignored Heaviside’s ideas of adding coils, and continued his own mainstream programme of pursuing 'better' cable design to prevent distortion, which ironically made the problem far worse because it simply reduced inductance (instead of increasing it!).

If you read the official accounts, even today Preece is worshipped because he let Marconi use his site for radio experiments, see http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/bio...iamhenrypreece

However, see http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/preece...liam/index.htm for a very telling quotation exposing his true bigotry against technical progress:

‘The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.’ - Sir William Preece, chief engineer, British Post Office 1876.

The string ‘theorist’ is in a very similar situation to Preece, ie defending speculations and ignoring factual evidence which shows them vacuous:

‘The alternative theories have need of predictions, but we do not. We all have plenty of faith that our non-falsifiable theory will never be falsified.’

[Peter_Dorinzon]

Perfect work. Great site. Add more pictures. It'll make your site more attractive.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by NB Cook

The first instance of censorship using string ‘theory' I had was when I wrote a letter to Professor Russell Stannard, then Chair of the physics department, Open University (now emeritus professor), in 1996 about problems in the course materials provided, whose correction suggested a way to make progress in quantum gravity. He didn't respond but told Dr Bob Lambourne to respond to me, who wrote (ignoring my arguments) that I need to study mainstream (failed) string theory if I am interested in quantum gravity.

I can empathize. I had similar problems, with much more severe reactions, after a conversation in the spring of 1955 with J. Robert Oppenheimer concerning the forerunner of String Theory. The conversation grew from support given by Philip Morrison.

My only concern was to advance the logic of relativity theories; at that time, little did I realize that intellectual inquiry could be a feared threat to the status quo of an insider's, protected, biased system . . . theoretical physics.

Today, the problem is not with oscillating "strings"; it is with the application of revisionist string theory to the irreconcilable Standard Models.

I suspect that there are many that have shared your frustrations and experiences with those that "hold power" within academe.

It is time to realize that the "emperor has no clothes."

[mouaxri]

I accept with information:The comparision with the Soviet Union is interesting. Acording Lenin, or more properly according a reported talk of Lenin with one of the leaders of Spanish anarchist union CNT, the system was foreseen to allow “about 50 years” (this was 1927 or so), after which it would fall, expectedly towards anarcho-socialism. This bit or the prediction was a sort of failure.

[hadpetdir]

I accept with information:
Heaviside is referring to his dismissal by Sir William Preece. Heaviside discovered experimentally (while working with the Newcastle-Denmark undersea communications cable in 1875) and theoretically (while writing Maxwell’s long-hand equations in vector calculus for the first time and applying them to this problem) that in long telegraph wires, there is frequency-dependent distortion caused by the increase in resistance. Hence, the way to get rid of the distortion is to increase the inductance, by adding loading coils. Sir William Preece ignored Heaviside’s ideas of adding coils, and continued his own mainstream programme of pursuing 'better' cable design to prevent distortion, which ironically made the problem far worse because it simply reduced inductance (instead of increasing it!).