Peter Woit Calls Out Jun Xian : More String Theory Hype

[astro]

Jun Writes this:

http://thetartan.org/2007/2/5/scitech/string

"This paper is the first attempt to develop an experiment that may disprove string theory. Researchers are mostly expecting to see the bounds set by string theory satisfied by this experiment. Distler said that a successful outcome in the experiment, however, should not be seen as anything more than a weak support for string theory. The results of the experiment can effectively rule out certain quantum field theories but not serve as verification."
http://thetartan.org/2007/2/5/scitech/string

The lying and contortions in the above passage are hilarious.

Woit calls it out here:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...p=517#comments
Update: The Distler et. al. media juggernaut rolls on, informing the world that : The LHC, due to be finished by and running by the end of the year, may rule out the string theory, as well as the work by Distler and his colleagues offers something profound - a way to actually test string theory, and that if Distler’s bounds are satisfied, it would provide a weak support for string theory. The last article quotes Distler to the effect that string theory is just an “effective theory”, which I’m sure will clarify this for the public.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...p=517#comments


Jun Xian says,

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...p=517#comments

"I am the writer of one of the last articles quoted and I have a few issues that I would like to see clarified.

Firstly, Distler’s meaning is not correctly interpreted in this quotation. I quote from the article directly:
- “Distler said that a successful outcome in the experiment, however, should not be seen as anything more than a weak support for string theory. The results of the experiment can effectively rule out certain quantum field theories but not serve as verification.”
The full quote speaks for itself.

Secondly, an “Effective Field Theory” is not simply a field theory that is ‘effective’. The reason why the article specifically placed these words in quotations is because it is a specific term referring to an approximate theory describing physical phenomena. I would hope the authors do their research adequately before quoting in a manner meant to misconstrue others’ opinion.

Thank you."

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...p=517#comments




And Woit wisely replies:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...p=517#comments

"Jun Xian,

Seeing WW scattering that satisfies unitarity, Lorentz invariance and analyticity would not in any sense provide weak support for string theory. It would say nothing at all about string theory one way or another, and Distler’s claim otherwise is just dishonest and intentionally misleading.

I know what an “effective field theory” is. Your text contains several inaccuracies about the relation between string theory and quantum field theory. It is not true that “String theory is the most successful of various quantum field theories..”, string theory is not a quantum field theory. It is also not an “effective field theory”. It’s not surprising that you’re confused about the relation between QFT and string theory, given that Distler et. al. have been on a campaign to try and confuse the issues in this case (their results apply to QFT, have nothing to do with string theory).

Instead of repeating unskeptically misleading claims about the significance of his work by a scientist, it would have been a good idea in your reporting to consult some other particle theorists than the authors of this paper, in order to see see if the author’s claims are supported by their colleagues in this field."

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...p=517#comments


String theory gets millions upon millions in hype, but it cannot stop MDT--it can only temporarily obscure reality to pay the groupthink hypesters:

MDT's POSTULATE:
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in units of the planck length at the rate of c.



ST hath failed. Utterly and completely. It could not have failed more
with twice as much NSF fundining.


String Theory was the only game in town, and now there are two--ST &
deconstructing ST.


But there is another that actually unifies QM & SR & GR with a physical
model: MDT--it's physics!


Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental
tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT
is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by
quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius
and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which
shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive
from the same fundamental physical reality.


Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum
entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive
from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG
account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction.
MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality.
Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor
the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source,
nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same
underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop
Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which
troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.


Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical
theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly
disparate phenomena within a simple context.

[astro]

Here's a little update from Woit's blog:

<LI class="" id=comment-21941>Jun Xian Says at woit's blog: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...p=517#comments
February 6th, 2007 at 10:40 am

"Well, if you understood what an effective field theory is, perhaps you should not have stated “The last article quotes Distler to the effect that string theory is just an “effective theory”, which I’m sure will clarify this for the public.”, which is a rather overt attempt of yours to mislead the public, in my opinion.

Not to mention that I clearly stated in my article that Distler’s words were to the effect that it could ONLY serve as a refutation if the WW scattering did NOT satisfy the bounds. Looked at from a different angle, failure to disprove can be taken as an extremely weak support.

I admit to making some technical mistakes in the article, which have since been corrected. However, I do not appreciate the exploitation of my personal failure at understanding as a method to attack Distler’s work.

I have nothing for or against either side of the issue. As such I have no quarrel with you concerning the truth of his theory or otherwise. I simply would not like my article to be misquoted and hence cause undue misrepresentation of Distler’s work, no matter it’s value.

Thank you."--http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=517#comments

<LI class=alt id=comment-21944>woit Says:
February 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am "Jun Xian,--http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=517#comments

My quotes from your article were accurate, and included a link to the actual article so that anyone who wanted to could see them in context.

Now you’ve turned the “weak support” from your article into “very weak support’. Again, the accurate statement is that if these bounds are satisfied, this has nothing to do with string theory. It would not provide “weak support” or “very weak support”, it would have nothing to say at all about the subject.

I don’t blame you for technical mistakes. This is a difficult subject and non-experts are going to have trouble understanding it. The inaccurate statements in your article seem to me to be the direct result of Distler’s misleading you about the significance of his work."
<LI class=alt>
<LI class=alt>--http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=517#comments

As physics has become so competitive, the best way to raise funds and get tenure is hype and "misleading" the public.

MDT costs the public nothing, it speaks the Truth, and thus it has everything going against it as a physical theory.