Comedy courtesy of Farsight

Not true. You may be thinking of the claim that string theory can produce no testable predictions which, for the moment, is true. String theory has offered a plethora of frankly quite incredible predictions including a multiplicity of extra dimensions and the existence of higher dimensional branes. The trouble is that we don't have the capacity to test them, not that there are no predictions.

Do you think string theorists produced some waffley explanation for why string theory predicts there are 10 dimensions? Of course thats not what happened - they did a calculation of the mass of the graviton and found it depended on the dimensionality of the target space. For it to be massless then there have to be 10 dimensions. No theory has ever given is an a priori prediction for the number of dimensions before.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As Prom has explained, you've clearly failed to understand. String theory makes predictions and the predictions it makes can be derived by anyone through a serious of clear logical steps. Prom gives the example of the graviton. Its unambiguous how to work out the effective fields a closed string will produce, which each have a beta function (as in any quantum field theory), which is only going to satisfy a particular constraint if the dimensionality of space-time is something specific. Furthermore it requires the graviton to be massless and it to obey the Einstein field equations! That is a clear, logical and quantitative derivation of the string theory claim "At large scales gravity behaves like general relativity.". Without that derivation such a claim is simply "I know what experiments say so I'll say 'My idea matches experiments' but I have no justification in that". You have no justification in your claims.

The fact that despite me asking you for years you don't even grasp the reason why you should be able to provide an answer speaks volumes about your grasp of the scientific method. How does it feel to have work which is less physically applicable than string theory

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Excuses, excuses. Would you care to be specific about these 'specious allegations'? My typical 'allegations' at people is that they are dishonest, liars and not interested in informed discussion. Given that not a single crank has EVER been able to provide an answer to the question I'm asking you yet makes claims otherwise I'd say that my accusation of dishonesty is generally pretty close. Speaking of which, your comments about having an article in the IoP magazine demonstrate you're at least playing it fast and loose with the truth. If you'd passed peer review by a reputable journal none of this would be necessary.

Do you think its unreasonable for anyone to ask you to provide what I asked, a clear quantitative derivation and justification for even one claim you make or model one phenomenon? If not then why haven't you already got one prepared which you can just copy and paste into a post to shut people like me up? You want to play 'scientist' but you're unwilling (and likely unable) to meet even the most basic criteria and when people ask you to meet those criteria you make excuses. Whether or not I'm an obnoxious ass the fact remains that you'll not get into the mainstream if you can't provide an answer to my question because its a question any reasonable scientist will ask you. If you can't manage it now then I suggest you start working on it else you'll just be burning more of your own time and money trying to fruitlessly satisfy your ego.

Out of interest what's the rough order of magnitude of money you've spent on this, ie vanity publishing, paying for advertising etc? The IoP website says to call for a quote but if their admin fee for cancellation is £250 I'm imagining the advert cost into the thousands. And vanity publishing for a few hundred books is into the thousands too. Such a waste....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I asked for testable predictions, Farsight.

String Theory uses math, your book uses neurosis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If string theory was something fresh and clean and new, we could cut it some slack. The trouble is that it's been going for thirty years. We still have no testable predictions after all this time, and thus string theory has been rightfully condemned as pseudoscience. Keep tabs on Woit's blog for a running commentary on its inevitable demise. By the way, the irony of Alphanumeric demanding quantative testable predictions does rather raise a smile. See below, and watch for the smoke and mirrors and the huff puff and bluster.

What graviton? That's a hypothetical particle. And mass is merely a measure of a system's energy content. So those string theorists are doing speculative calculations based on unfounded hypotheses, and after thirty years it's way past its sell-by date. Physics has seen through it, and physics is moving on.

We should talk about mass. Have a read of this photon-in-a-mirror-box paper by van der Mark and 't hooft: Light is Heavy. The massless photon adds mass to the system. Open the box and the photon escapes, so the system radiates as per Einstein's 1905 paper Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content?

Oh yawn. Does anybody even listen to you any more? What are you doing these days by the way? Apart from playing thought-police troll on discussion forums in order to turn them into a physics-free zone? Got a job yet? And is it in physics? Oh, and please list the predictions of string theory. Let's have some comedy courtesy of (member name deleted).

 

Wow dude that's the first time I've ever seen AlphaNumeric get the "AlphaNumeric treatment". And does anyone else feel like they're watching professional wrestlers getting their masks ripped off when member's real names are exposed? If it doesn't violate a forum rule it at least violates some sort of unspoken etiquette...not that I'm at risk (I use my real name).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The development of a theory of physics to the point where it can be tested takes time, and especially for something like string theory which is incredibly complicated. Even a "simple" theory like GR took quite a while from proposal to finding experimental evidence.

It's not been condemned by those who understand it, and Peter Woit certainly does not understand it. The fact that Woit has been banging on about string theory instead of doing proper research himself (he hasn't had a proper scientific publication since 1988) tells me that he's a man with a distinct lack of imagination.

My research isn't really in string theory so I'm not familiar with the technical bleeding edge developments in it, but I have done graduate courses. Even if in the future string theory is proven to be wrong then it will still be a useful tool in physics for understanding QFT's via the AdS/CFT correspondence. I understand that you have an axe to grind and that you have been a failure at physics etc, but there really is no point in lying through your teeth.

What do you think the research in string theory is trying to accomplish? It's all about making a prediction that can be tested in today's experiments. What you are doing is pontificating about what you think. I don't care what you think. I do want to understand nature. When you understand nature then we can talk, but it's clear from a cursory reading of your "work" that you don't.

I will admit, you're very good at the empty rhetoric, but not very good at maintaining an accurate view of the direction of the physics community. The first step to observing gravitons is the detection of gravitational waves and there is a lot of money being spent on doing just that. After that it's only a matter of time before gravitons are discovered, unless of course there is some reason why gravity is fundamentally different from the other 3 forces of nature that we know about. Perhaps you could explain to the board why gravity should be a purely classical phenomenon while the rest of the forces are fundamentally quantum. While you're at it you can explain what to do with objects that are very massive and very small.

For a start, that Einstein paper is over 100 years old, and has been superseded. The other "paper" isn't on the arxiv or spires and I can't find it in a journal, and that's before I've even read it. If you want to talk about mass start another thread.

 

That's the spirit, when someone asks you to provide justification for your claims you call them 'the thought police'. I'm sorry you have such issue with following the basics of the scientific method, the fact some of us ask for justifications doesn't mean we're part of the thought police.

Yes, I got it before I even graduated. Within 2 weeks of starting to look at jobs I got an interview with them and I got offered the job within a week.

Yes, though the world of 'real jobs' doesn't have such labels so easily applied to them. My work thus far has had me looking at a slew of different areas of physics and mathematics. I'm no longer doing string theory but I'm not unhappy about that, I'm broadening my physics horizons considerably.

And as it happens the fact I had done a PhD in string theory was a big plus in terms of the application. As I have previously commented to you when you're tried to insult me for doing a string theory PhD such a thing opens more doors than just researching it in academia. Most people get jobs quite unrelated to their degrees because often its about demonstrating you have a particular mindset and drive to work rather than the explicit knowledge gained doing a specific course. Other people who did a PhD along side me (in various bits of QFT) now work for computer companies, the civil service and banking (BenTheMan is doing finance now and he's got a PhD in string theory too).

I guess you're going to have to try another avenue of attempted insults about me having done string theory, seeing as it wasn't as useless as you'd been predicting.

I'm wondering whether you're being deliberately obtuse or you just have a terrible memory. I've been through such things with you before, so either you're 'accidentally' forgetting that in order to try and change the subject away from your work (which I thought you wanted to talk about?) or you really do have a terrible memory.

As Prom has said to you, there's a difference between having no predictions and having no predictions which can currently be tested. String theory predicts the existence and behaviour of gravity over non-quantum scales, the existence of extra dimensions, supersymmetry etc. Its the only example of a model predicting the existence of gravity, ie not having it put in by hand. To get GR you have to assume the existence of a location dependent metric in space, while in SR you only assume a particular constant metric. String theory derives the former from the latter, along with the existence of a quantum of gravity, the graviton, which it also stipulates is massless. If it predicted it to have a mass like that of an electron string theory would be falsified. If it said that the graviton equations of motion weren't the Einstein field equations then string theory would be falsified. Those falsifications would be due to string theory's predictions not aligning with observation. So it is falsifiable on many grounds.

What about your work? Where's your version of such clear and concrete quantitative predictions? Nowhere. And the fact you don't understand the mistake your making in your whining about string theory shows your poor grasp of how physics is done. Besides, even if string theory was killed tomorrow that doesn't elevate your work, you would still have to address the points I've made and provide something quantitative rather than just flailing your arms.

Nice attempt at trying to intimidate me by saying my full real name. Shame its such a transparent attempt to shift the focus away from your complete lack of any justification or rigorous methodology in your 'work', away from my questions.

Farsight isn't giving me the 'AlphaNumeric treatment' because he's failed to provide any actual justification for his position or claims. When I disagreed with you on fluid mechanics I provided explanations, examples, mentioned books and demonstrated a working understanding of the relevant material. Farsight hasn't and pretty much can't, as if he could he'd be able to answer my question/request (since those are precisely what I ask him to provide!) so instead he's just trying attempts at intimidation. Farsight, Terry Giblin and Green Destiny (aka Reiku) have all recently informed me, in various unsubtle ways, they know my real name. I wouldn't be surprised if various cranks I tick off informed one another by PM when one of them worked it out (ie paid attention to certain URLs I've used in the past). Heck, I think Farsight found out years ago.

Clearly he's scrapping the barrel of retorts, attempting to go down the "Ha, you're unemployed, so much for that PhD being of any use!" route, which backfired nicely in his face, and posting my full name.

Come on Farsight, I thought you wanted to talk about the physics? That was your excuse for not replying to the majority of a previous post. I asked you to provide some justification for the claims you make about things of a physical nature and rather than replying to that you can only attempt to intimidate and change the subject. If you're going to want people to play by your rules then you're going to have to play by them yourself, either stick to physics and answer my questions or admit your hypocrisy and keep trying to dodge my questions with attempts to change the subject.

 

But, AlphaNumeric, Farsight has already remarked he "hasn't developed one." He admits his work has all been metaphysical bunk or a hope that somehow, someway, someone will find a shred of insight and run with it. Making it into something significant, somewaht.

And yes, I had some fun in typing the above.

When Farsight says things like "It's more a case of every little bit helps... " and "makes a contribution to understanding" he's not saying anything definite at all. He has nothing but a fantasy that he hopes will come true.

I'm actually feeling a bit sorry for Farsight after typing that. Somebody smack me.

 

Mod note:

I have banned Farsight for 2 weeks for using a member's real name without his permission.

I have also requested a permanent ban for Farsight.

 

I wonder if Mr. Duffield's permission was sought.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or does it suffice to find something, somewhere (book, email, paper, etc), that makes the connection between a full name and an online persona that makes it full public knowledge and fair game? So if Mr. Duffield could come up with something like that then his use of AN's name is OK?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, my comment had nothing to do with the merits of your discussion, it had to do with the extremely personal nature of Farsight's attack on you; it reminded me of your posts which many times degrade quickly into ad hominems peppered with regurgitations of your physics knowledge. I try hard to address the issue at hand, or address comments made about the issue, without name calling. I'm not always successful at it but you, AN, are one of the bigger offenders.

 

I was curious about how Farsight would go about defending his book. Discussions can get rather animated above simple name calling. I think he's been permanently banned from at least two other notable science forums. But not rpenner's favorite I don't think. (I don't know if its permitted post links to other forums or name names.) If he's banned from this forum the "what is a crank" curiousity of other forum goers might not be satisfied.

 

I don't know Farsight, I have no idea what his crank-o-meter score is. I'm not defending him for using AlphaNumeric's name as should be evidenced by my earlier comments. However, Ben, editing all of the posts in this thread, banning Farsight, requesting that he be PERMA-banned, and throwing this entire thread into the cesspool is absurd. WTF, Alpha, are you concerned that your posts might affect your personal career?

A [post on another forum] by AlphaNumeric revealing his true name, and [another paper] authored by AlphaNumeric indicate that he has, at least in the past, not demanded anonymity.

Do I think this gives me the right to use AlphaNumeric's real name? Not if he doesn't want me to. However, AN and others did the same exact thing to this guy that is now under review for a permanent ban? It simply doesn't sit well with me. If you want to ban Farsight because you think he's a goofball that's bad for the forum, fine, but don't act like he's committed such a grave offense while being selective about the enforcement.