String Theory is Doomed - offshoot from Null Physics thread

[MainframeX]

Because it was suggested to start a new thread from the following:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4296847&posted=1#post4296847

Don't worry, you're not capable of making me look bad.

First of all, "currently unverifiable" is completely different from "untestable and thus unverifiable and concludes with no predictable results", which is what you said. That's called shifting the goal posts.

Second, the wiki is wrong for several reasons.

1. every new theory is not verified when it is proposed - how could it be, if it's a new theory? So when it's first proposed it's always "currently unverifiable".
2. string theory is not really one theory - it's a collection of theories - and some of those are verifiable as soon as the LHC starts up, which will be soon, and some others are verifiable using cosmological data right now.
3. the Popperian definition of scientific theory, which is probably the best one, is not that at theory be verifiable, it's that a theory be falsifiable. All versions of string theory could be falsified tomorrow, in quite a few different ways.
4. no theory can every be truly "verified" - one can have very high confidence in it, but it can never be proven. In fact if any theory was every truly proven it would no longer be falsifiable, and hence not science.

Anyway, this discussion is completely off topic in this thread. If you want to continue it, start a new thread and quote these posts. Otherwise it should stop, as it violates the rules of this board.

In order for string theory or any scientific theory to be "falsifiable" or "verifiable" it must be "testable" and for it to be testable it must conclude with "predictions" either mathematically or experimentally (both relating to physical context) so that the predictions can be proven false or positive. It isn't that hard.

What?! The LHC is testing predictions in the Standard Model (one specifically is the Higgs boson) not string theory predictions of which none exist. There is only one test, if they decide to run it or observe (or can observe it) that can possibly disprove string theory based on some imaginary, poor, choppy string theory mathematics and interpretations of this math. If the LHC detects short-lived "mini black holes" then maybe it will hold some merit, but honestly I think its doomed on this claim. I think its an publicity effort in order to be involved somehow with the multi-million dollar LHC project. My opinion string theory is dead and I for one have gone elsewhere in search for my answers to existence. I hold much more promise in my own theories than string theory (www[dot]gpofr[dot]com) because you can at least test them and the math is more compelling...no it's not a theory of everything but in my opinion it unites charge with mass essentially quantum physics with Newtonian, Einsteinian physics at a very fundamental level (at least the math shows this very simplistically that a 12 year old can easily understand it) which string theory has never done with any mathematics to prove it, but you don't have to take my word for it and it is just a "theory". I research physics for the shear pleasure of it and I do get very passionate about it. I do respect the string theories mathematical contributions and work of doctors Smolin and Kaku and even that of Mr. Witt (once I get to reading it). I actually don't think anyone is wrong in the approach to deciphering physics and strongly advocate different perspectives, but what I am strongly against are institutions favoring one theory over another especially if the "favoured" theory has run 40 years untested. Statistically perhaps I'm not as well informed as you, or perhaps I'm putting to much emphasis in relation to my own personal experiences with string theory and my own knowledge of the scientific market.

 

[MainframeX]

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not trying to make you look bad by countering your opinion but I am entitled to mine opinion.

I did lookup some other sources to support my claims to string theories "unverifiableness". Wikipedia under the classification of "theory" states the following:

en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Theory

"Currently unverifiable theories
The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future."

Though I'd take Wikipedia with a grain of salt as well so consider the following:

www[dot]google[dot]ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMI_enCA306CA306&q="string+th eory"+unverifiable&btnG=Search&meta=

And the only reason I said "I know" is because I've worked with string theory.

 

[MainframeX]

con't the thread transfer

I dont know where you're getting your information, but string theory, under the scientific method, is untestable and thus unverifiable and concludes with no predictable results...I know. String theory has not predicted a single thing that can be verified over the last 40 years so no there has been no "viable" applications arising from it. Under all intents and purposes it shouldn't be considered a scientific "theory" at all. You got one thing right, it was popular and has been championed by individuals like Dr. Michio Kaku who walks a fine line on fringe science with books such as "Physics of the Impossible", which I found fascinating though highly "imaginary" and yes I know it was an exploratory work. If you're going to talk about Dr. Lee Smolin might as well bring Dr. Kaku up. Both research what they want and perhaps both conclude with "imaginary mathematics" but I seriously doubt that Dr. Kaku is more respected than Dr. Smolin and I for one respect both of them.

You know imaginary mathematics I can guarantee this (you're a smart individual) though you might not be obviously aware of it. I was fortunate that one of my physics professors instilled this in me many years ago. "Imaginary" mathematics has to do with the context of the math. A very simple example that describes imaginary mathematics is the following: "Johnny has (or dreams of) 3 pink flying elephants." The math is correct (there are 3) but the context is completely imaginary. To make this a bit more complex, physics is not a direct representation of math. Math is a direct representation of physics. If it doesn't exist in the physical, mathematics cannot readily define it and runs the risk of becoming imaginary contextually. And this is where string theory has fallen in regards to its coupling of individual verifiable physics theories. Without any verifiable experimentation, string theory's context has become imaginary. No mainstream physics theory, even theoretical should be unverifiable and much less run for 40 years under this same premise. Einstein's theory of relativity ran many years without verification but it wasn't 40 years and besides that Einstein never lost touch with the physically "real" of his physics context. I'll be the first to say string theory had a good start. The idea of string theory was highly promising before everyone and their uncle decided to add their own interpretation. It has become very ugly and highly imaginary.

And in regards to mathematical awards. Good for them. The mathematics in string theory is complex and the fact it has "sparked a revolution in a major field of mathematics - algebraic geometry" is good for mathematics but not for physics. You can't lose touch with the physical context in physics otherwise it's just math...most likely imaginary.

 

[MainframeX]

If you're apt enough to understand the complexity of string theory then it is a definite nice to have on any resume demonstrating a level of intelligence in abstract thinking and mathematics, but the unfortunate aspect is that those who study string theory are taught to think that string theory will result in a grand unification theory for all of physics but has so far only resulted in a very ugly disjointed ensemble of imaginary mathematics with no practical possibility for application.

That's a very bold claim you're making! String theory is "imaginary mathematics" - whatever in the world that means - with "no practical possibility for application". And precisely how are you in a position to know that? Is that what Smolin told you to think?

Quote:
Perhaps Dr. Smolin is overzealous in his string theory claims but you can't absolutely disprove his claims especial in regards to preference of one candidate over another unless you work for a national job board catering to physicists.

Smolin has made claims as extreme as that no one but a string theorist had been hired in years - I'd have to dig up the precise quote, but it was blatantly false. Most of the time he's talking to people that have no other immediate source of information and believe him based on his credentials, so he can get away with it.

Quote:
I will stick to the fact that string theory has been promoted by mainstream physics as an acceptable field of theoretical research while alternative venues are frowned upon such as Dr Smolin's quantum gravity theory.

That's a far cry from your original claim. Now tell me - who, precisely, would you like to have making such decisions if not physicists? Would you put Smolin in charge, to decide who to hire and what people should work on? Or a committee of non-experts? What will they tell young Ph.D. students that decide on their own that they want to study string theory - no, it's forbidden? You seem to find physicists and their professional opinions - the people whose careers depend on this, who are the experts, spend their days and nights working on the topic, struggling for jobs and publications, who have the most at stake - to be misguided fools in need of some advice. It's really weird.

Quote:
You can't content the masses from thinking outside the box of mainstream opinion especially in regards to theoretical research. My main point here is that string theory has failed to produce anything predictable or application worthy over the course of almost 40 years but an ugly mishmash of imaginary mathematics.

Again, "imaginary mathematics". FYI string theory has produced several Fields medalists - that's the highest award in math, analogous to the Nobel prize (there isn't one for math), except awarded only once every four years rather than every year. Two string theorists got it, and at least one other mathematician working on string theory. The truth is that ST sparked a revolution in a major field of mathematics - algebraic geometry - and has lead directly to some of the most exciting developments in the entire field in the last two decades.

Moreover it's had broad and far-reaching applications to many areas of physics, from QCD (which was its original purpose) to gravity to nuclear physics to superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect. It's an extremely powerful and versatile theoretical tool - whether it is the correct theory of everything is another question entirely, but without doubt it has had a major impact and made major contributions to theoretical physics and mathematics.

None of that is true for loop quantum gravity. It has produced no mathematical insights, and it has no application to other fields. It is an obscure and small subfield that has gone nowhere.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

*headache*

 

[shadron]

Perhaps this is a derail of your derail, but you brought up your theory as "hugely significant" and in better shape than string theory, so here goes:

Oh, my. I went out and watched the video. You decided, for no particular reason that is stated, that the solar system is equivalent to an atom of beryllium, and using that as a basis to rationalize Newtonian and quantum mechanics, comparing the inner planets and the sun together as the nucleus and the four gas giants with electrons. You essentially did a numerologist's exercise and derived a magical constant S from that. No units mentioned - you seem to think of it as an absolute basic constant, not needing units. However, then we get to the part where you derive understanding equating Jupiter's mass with charge on an electron (in your own, slightly paraphrased words):

(4:36 in the video) I made another discovery, which was hugely significant and validated the initial premise that Jupiter and gas giants are electrons at the celestial scale. I grabbed Jupiter's mass and divided it by S squared and got 1.56e-19 kg. That value is very close, numerically to 1.6e-19 coulombs - an electron's charge. So, the mass equation, basically stated, is that mass at the celestial scale is charge at the quantum scale.

This is just wonderful. Above and beyond the glaring inanity of this way of conducting physics, it would appear that S has the units of the square root of (mass divided by (current x time))? How does that work? In our mass equations you say it has no dimension, as you are using it to proportionalize mass to mass. Dimensionality is always preserved in physics; for example, e = mc^2 can be analyzed dimensionally as

Dimensionality of energy is mass x length^2 / time^2

velocity ("speed of light") is (length/time)
so mc^2 dimensionally is mass * length^2 / time^2. QED

How come you are exempt from such analysis?

Second question: have you tried it out on any other planetary systems? I admit a bit of a beg-the-question there, but I only point out that grand theories derived from a single case (when there are billions of potential cases remaining to be tested) are not very convincing. What are you going to say when the next planetary system turns out to have gas giants up close and comets on the outer orbits? Who becomes an electron then?

The truth of the matter is, you don't know what you are doing. The first chapter in the first college physics course addresses units and measurement, and at least tangentially, dimensional analysis. You failed that. And it goes on and on from there - your apparent disbelief that we know the orbit of Jupiter to greater accuracy than +/- 10%, even though we have satellites in orbit around it and have used its gravity to slingshot to Saturn and Uranus. Just amazing.

 

[sol invictus]

The truth of the matter is, you don't know what you are doing. The first chapter in the first college physics course addresses units and measurement, and at least tangentially, dimensional analysis. You failed that. And it goes on and on from there - your apparent disbelief that we know the orbit of Jupiter to greater accuracy than +/- 10%, even though we have satellites in orbit around it and have used its gravity to slingshot to Saturn and Uranus. Just amazing.

No no no - you have it all wrong. MainframeX has discovered the profound connection between the mass of Jupiter and the charge of an electron that all those dumb string theorists (and the one or two other physicists there are) have been missing, with their "units" and "dimensional analysis". Their blind insistence on basic logical consistency has hampered us for too long!

If only s/he were in charge, none of those idiots would have been allowed to do their research - everyone would be working together on relating the mass of Saturn to the charge of the up quark!

 

[shadron]

No no no - you have it all wrong.

Grumble - I still want to know what the square root of mass is. I suppose it'll wind up drafted into the SI, with honorary units named DeMelos.

 

[fuelair]

Grumble - I still want to know what the square root of mass is. I suppose it'll wind up drafted into the SI, with honorary units named DeMelos.

That one's easy - the square root of mass is the mass that when multiplied by itself gives you mass.

 

[Damien Evans]

Grumble - I still want to know what the square root of mass is. I suppose it'll wind up drafted into the SI, with honorary units named DeMelos.

That's easy.

The square root of mass is the pope.

 

[Reality Check]

Personally I would like to know which elemental particle the International Space Station is "equivalent" to (or any of the many other man-made things that are in space).
Or what about the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud?
Why does his theory ignore Pluto? What about the larger moons such as Titan and Ganymede which are both heavier than Mercury?

This atom of beryllium is sure getting crowded!

 

[MainframeX]

Perhaps this is a derail of your derail, but you brought up your theory as "hugely significant" and in better shape than string theory, so here goes:

Oh, my. I went out and watched the video. You decided, for no particular reason that is stated, that the solar system is equivalent to an atom of beryllium, and using that as a basis to rationalize Newtonian and quantum mechanics, comparing the inner planets and the sun together as the nucleus and the four gas giants with electrons. You essentially did a numerologist's exercise and derived a magical constant S from that. No units mentioned - you seem to think of it as an absolute basic constant, not needing units. However, then we get to the part where you derive understanding equating Jupiter's mass with charge on an electron (in your own, slightly paraphrased words):

This is just wonderful. Above and beyond the glaring inanity of this way of conducting physics, it would appear that S has the units of the square root of (mass divided by (current x time))? How does that work? In our mass equations you say it has no dimension, as you are using it to proportionalize mass to mass. Dimensionality is always preserved in physics; for example, e = mc^2 can be analyzed dimensionally as

Dimensionality of energy is mass x length^2 / time^2

velocity ("speed of light") is (length/time)
so mc^2 dimensionally is mass * length^2 / time^2. QED

How come you are exempt from such analysis?

Second question: have you tried it out on any other planetary systems? I admit a bit of a beg-the-question there, but I only point out that grand theories derived from a single case (when there are billions of potential cases remaining to be tested) are not very convincing. What are you going to say when the next planetary system turns out to have gas giants up close and comets on the outer orbits? Who becomes an electron then?

The truth of the matter is, you don't know what you are doing. The first chapter in the first college physics course addresses units and measurement, and at least tangentially, dimensional analysis. You failed that. And it goes on and on from there - your apparent disbelief that we know the orbit of Jupiter to greater accuracy than +/- 10%, even though we have satellites in orbit around it and have used its gravity to slingshot to Saturn and Uranus. Just amazing.

S is a scale value and scale doesn't have units. It's the scale difference between a Beryllium atom and the solar system...there's no magic it's that simple or perhaps it's too complicated for you. The math involved is soo elementary that you'd have to be pretty simple minded not to understand it.

By finding a relation between Jupiter and an electron, even if it sounds crazy, is a direct link between mass and charge...the holy grail of physics.

 

[MainframeX]

No no no - you have it all wrong. MainframeX has discovered the profound connection between the mass of Jupiter and the charge of an electron that all those dumb string theorists (and the one or two other physicists there are) have been missing, with their "units" and "dimensional analysis". Their blind insistence on basic logical consistency has hampered us for too long!

If only s/he were in charge, none of those idiots would have been allowed to do their research - everyone would be working together on relating the mass of Saturn to the charge of the up quark!

Beats the hell out of me why this relation wasn't discovered before...I mean it is really simple. And I am a string theorist...correction I was.

 

[MainframeX]

Jesus Christ! Scale values don't have units! If you watched the video...and hear it...you'd know I said "scale".

 

[MainframeX]

This so far is hilarious. We're digressing away from string theory viability and 40s years of untested existence to nitpick my theories. That's ok. You can nit pick at my theories it doesn't matter to me...and really it doesn't especially if you missed the fact that S is a scale value and far more importantly that you don't realize scale has no units. I have several Canadian institutions looking at them right now with a bit of interest. Will this little discovery lead to something...I don't know. Perhaps. I for one find it fascinating at how interesting our universe might be in this regard.

Accounting for Pluto and other smaller celestial masses (dwarf planets), rock planets and the asteroid belts (dwarf planets are part of the asteroid belts including pluto) it's all in the theory. Only gas giants are relative electrons. It sounds all crazy, but it's a hypothesis that was validated with the simplest of mathematics. The two outer gas giants are relative valance electrons and do have a significant size difference from Jupiter and Saturn. Beryllium has 2 valence electrons.

 

[Lonewulf]

Er, if you don't want your theories to be nitpicked, or specifically, viewed to see if they're reliable or not, then what chance in hell do you think they have?

 

[MainframeX]

Personally I would like to know which elemental particle the International Space Station is "equivalent" to (or any of the many other man-made things that are in space).
Or what about the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud?
Why does his theory ignore Pluto? What about the larger moons such as Titan and Ganymede which are both heavier than Mercury?

This atom of beryllium is sure getting crowded!

You're poking fun, but actually those are good questions and I am wrestling with them. So, based on a lot of research, I believe that satellites orbiting any planet forms a collective system and thus contribute to the collective perception of the planet's mass just as the inner solar system is relative to the nucleus of an atom. Basically orbital systems are perceived as unitary objects much like an atom (with all of it's orbiting electrons) is a fundamental unitary element.

Honestly I do believe I stumbled on something and I am looking for legitimate assistance to further develop this theory (one of many in my ebook).

 

[MainframeX]

Er, if you don't want your theories to be nitpicked, or specifically, viewed to see if they're reliable or not, then what chance in hell do you think they have?

No you got me wrong. I do expect criticism and and it ultimately it is constructive but I do expect it to be somewhat intelligible by individuals who understand scale has no units. Physicists tend to be though on each other so perhaps my defense can be a bit rash.

 

[MainframeX]

So are we going to discuss string theory and 40 years of untestable existence? And the claims, which I share somewhat, from Dr. Lee Smolin that string theory has stagnated a generation of physicists by pursing an idea which has lead to no predictable results and that preference if given to physicists that know string theory in regards to theoretical research jobs over the course of this claimed generation. Sol (forum member) has put up some interesting counter arguments which I don't exactly share does anyone else have anything to say?

 

[Reality Check]

So are we going to discuss string theory and 40 years of untestable existence? And the claims, which I share somewhat, from Dr. Lee Smolin that string theory has stagnated a generation of physicists by pursing an idea which has lead to no predictable results and that preference if given to physicists that know string theory in regards to theoretical research jobs over the course of this claimed generation. Sol (forum member) has put up some interesting counter arguments which I don't exactly share does anyone else have anything to say?

Yes we are (now that we have poked fun at the crackpot physics site that you pointed us to).

It is more exact to say that string theory is nice mathematical framework for what may be the next step in physics. It has produced a large body of interesting mathematics. Its problem is that is has not (yet) produced testable and falsifiable predictions. It may or may not produce results in the future. The fact that the many theories in the "string theory" umbrella has have produced results in the last 40 years does not mean anything.

If you have a figure for the length of time that a theory should be developed without predictable results before being discarded then perhaps you should enlighten us.

Dr. Lee Smolin's opinion is just that - an opinion. "stagnated a generation of physicists" is definitely wrong and possibly a misquote since the number of string theorists is a small faction of the number pf physicists working in the last 40 years.