Reddit reviews Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law

I have a book you might be interested in: Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law. In physics, there are many scientists who have lost the ability to distinguish metaphysics from science.

Truth is that more and more physicists are starting to dispute the validity of string theory.

http://xkcd.com/171/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092756

Even though, I wouldn't kind define it as "bullshit", is simply well-founded theory a theory which strives for finding some kind of verification.

Edit: spelling.

Three Roads to Quantum Gravity is a book on this subject for the layperson, by Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute. Smolin has written further on the subject, and is considered a strong critic of string theory particularly after the publication of The Trouble With Physics, and in turn has come in for considerable criticism himself. Many string theorists seem to consider his views unworthy or ill-founded, but then, they would.

Another critique of string theory is Not Even Wrong by Peter Woit

I found all of the above interesting, but then I find practically all well-written scientist-authored physics books interesting (not that large a sample size really). All a layperson can hope to do in a situation where experts disagree is to consider as many educated opinions as possible and keep an open mind. So I do recommend the above as interesting but can't speak to their merit as an expert would.

>Ignorance isn't a crime, willful ignorance is

Are you not willfully refusing to investigate a philosophy you're criticizing?
>Richard Dawkins can explain the basic premise of atheism without sending someone to read a book

...and convince precisely no one, and arm those he does or doesn't convince with absolutely no ammunition to deal with the issue in the future.

I read books like that precisely because it clarifies where the problems of such systems are. And there are problems, but they are subtle and must be couched in the proper context to actually have a discussion. You hear something about String Theory implying that there's giant infinitely dense fibers spanning the universe, and you say "That's absurd." Do you really think you would be equipped at this point to argue with a top-grade physicist, even if some other top-grade physicists think the theory is wrong?

It's funny because "reality" is another word like that.

Next, you'll claim "reality" for the progressives because they have "science", which is incidentally another one of those words.

Almost everybody is in agreement in almost all cases: For example, I think we'd agree that abstaining from PCP is "rational", that "reality" contains more conscious beings than just you and your cat, and that physics is a "science" (but even there, the jury isn't 100% in re: string theory).

Physics seem to make pretty decent predictions. If you doubt physics, you're free to go stand inside a fusion reactor as it powers up to become the hottest place in the solar system.

Compared to physics, do you think keynesian economics, gender studies and cultural anthropology has an equal claim to the word "science", thus defining "reality", which in turn defines "rationality"? Do they require the same amount of faith?

There was a time when String Theory was viewed as promising, but I think that era has past. These days, a large percentage of Physicists view ST as failed and a cautionary tale about what happens when science becomes decoupled from experiment. There are lots, and lots, and lots of books about this topic.

​

I like to think about things as follows... As far as we know, ST is the only consistent way to unify the 4 fundamental forces while quantizing gravity. This unification requires multiple dimensions, super symmetric particles, and a negative cosmological constant. Unfortunately, Dark Energy is in direct conflict with a negative cosmological constant, super symmetry is looking less likely, and LIGO has found no evidence of extra dimensions. So if anything, ST is strong evidence that a Grand Unification Theory does not exist, and perhaps a new approach is needed. I know many Physicists realize this (perhaps not publicly but at least privately). This is why at the bleeding edge of research we are seeing forays into new areas, e.g. emergent gravity from quantum information, space-time from entanglement, etc.

You said….

>It makes no sense to demand causation outside of spacetime.

And then….

> I guess someone should tell all those physicists to stop wasting their time.

The second statement appears to follow from the first.


>In what conceivable way has quantum gravity been disqualified?


Can you explain (like I’m a 4-yr-old) what you mean by quantum gravity in regards to the origin of the universe? Is this the theory where the origin of the universe is a freak quantum fluctuation?


>String theory isn't even testable yet, and somehow one of the most active areas of research in theoretical physics is just ruled out?!


I don’t know much about this theory, but it’s not falsifiable which means it takes faith to believe it. Plus this doesn’t answer the questions on where the branes came from. You still end up with an infinite regress of causes, which is impossible. If you can accept a non-falsifiable claim, then you may want to re-examine your motives for not believing in God since string theory is merely replacement theology.


>Oh yeah, and eternal inflation hasn't been "debunked" either, but whatever.


Yeah, it has. BGV did this.


>Not only do BGV leave room for an eternal universe (which is a common view among cosmologists)


Not for our universe or any other expanding universe. Vilenkin subscribes to the multi-verse theory where we are a freak quantum fluctuation. The irony is that the laws of physics that describe our universe have to pre-exist the formation of the universe in order for the universe to form at all. How do you have laws of physics in place before the origin of the universe? How do you have gravity with no mass?


Let’s say the multi-verse is full of quantum foam for creating other universes. Then it becomes a literal Hilbert’s Hotel since in an infinite amount time a universe will form in an infinite number of locations and still have room for more universes. The multi-verse concept when carried out to its logical conclusion becomes absurd.


>Vilenkin's own work describes the universe beginning by way of uncaused quantum tunnelling... how's that for inconvenient?


Are you sure it’s uncaused or is it indeterminate? A source would help, because I don’t think anyone is pursuing a causeless origin. If there was no cause, then how can there be an explanation? Only those who believe the anthropic principle is adequate say “we’re here, so why ask?”.

> Not really. For every religion's claim about objective reality you can find a dozen about morality.

First of all, bullshit. I've read the Bible and Qur'an (and parts of the Vedas, et al). They make a handful of moral claims (however often they are repeated), but these are overwhelmed by chapter after chapter of claims about people, places, events, origins/causes, the nature of the Universe, etc.

Second of all, most religions claim that morality is objective, coming from the same source as the Universe itself, which is a claim about objective reality.

> a lot of people don't think stuff like "existence of God" is about objective reality, that can be investigated scientifically.

First of all (again), bullshit. Show me the theist who thinks the existence of god is a matter of opinion, a matter of taste, something that exists only in your head.

Second, that something cannot be investigated scientifically does not mean it's not a claim about objective reality. For instance, string theory or interpretations of quantum mechanics are often held to be non scientific because they cannot be tested. That doesn't mean they aren't claims about objective reality. There are finite limits to what is testable about the objective world, which place finite limits on science. That doesn't make them subjective.

We don't know what happened before the big bang, or what lies beyond the event horizon of the Universe, and as far as we can tell, we will never know, we have no way of knowing. That doesn't mean science has subjective answers to these questions, it means it has no answers to these questions.

> For example Sam's opponent in that debate holds that position.

No he doesn't.

> The debate was about morality and values, the words before and after this fragment were about values

Right. So if the fragment was about the speed of light, that would make the speed of light a matter of subjective opinion. After all, the words before and after it were.

Jesus.

> How about "Sound is the universe making love to my ears"? I say it's an answer and a subjective one. You can't really say if it's right or wrong.

That's what I just said. You're talking about how sound makes you feel, which is totally subjective.

Unless you meant this literally, an objective claim that the Universe is a sentient animal which is in romantic love with you and is having physical intercourse with your ear canal using it's Universe Sex Organs, in which case: WTF?