Aether Wave theory therefore explains strings as a foamy density fluctuations of hypothetical dense gas, which is forming vacuum. While electrons in superconductors are heavily compressed near holes by Coulomb forces, they behave in similar way, like particles on event horizon of black holes and they forms "stringy" fluctuations of density - so we can use some of ST concepts for description of this system.
If such model is still relevant for string theorists, it would simply mean, particle strings are formed by highly compressed fermion field as well - which is essentially AWT model. Such result excludes model of particles formed by isolated strings and branes, as presented in naive drawings from Brian Greene's popular books and TV shows. Instead of this, every particle is formed by compact cluster of foamy density fluctuations, formed by another particles.
But string theory wasn't designed for such purpose - it was supposed to describe fermion itself, not the compact systems of fermions. While ST failed this target apparently from obvious reasons, the endeavor to model superconductivity by AdS/CFT correspondence is just an attempt to make the best of a bad job. We should realize, how string theorists are frustrated after forty years of ST development, while still having no real physical system to describe. Now they're modeling dense system of fermions instead of individual particles - and they're still happy.... Even worse - it seems, they even didn't spot the difference!
The true is, HT superconductivity is conceptually quite simple phenomenon and no working knowledge of string theory is required for its intuitive understanding at all. String theorists shouldn't forget it, when pretending boldly, they can provide the very first / only description of this phenomena, explanation the less. From AWT follows, every dense cloud of compressed electrons should exhibit a superconductivity and we can model it by computer simulations of repulsing particle field, or by numerical solution of Schrödinger equation on field of charged particles, i.e. via standard means of quantum mechanics without introduction of concepts borrowed from ad hoced theories.
Posts
3 comments:
“The true is, HT superconductivity is conceptually quite simple phenomenon and no working knowledge of string theory is required for its intuitive understanding at all.“
What words so wise, Zephir. I love read your posts, because, you perfectly know how to put the strings theorists in the place that they deserve. One and again, they are trying to trick us, i.e., they're simply lying to the poor laymen, like me, that are ignoramus about how nature works. I will say it another time. The string theory doesn't make new predictions, so it's not a scientific theory to The Philosophy of Science. So, in the best scenario, string theory is only speculation (non rigorous) about math, and this theory has nothing to do with the real world. String theory is full of sophisticated math, but sophisticated math and the beauty are never enough for the true science. String theory seems scientific because, it deals with an important and difficult problem, namely, accounting for the gravity in the framework of quantum mechanics. But the theory postulated that the space has got hidden dimensions. As the hidden dimensions are not observable in a foreseeable future, string theory is suspect of pseudoscience. Like many of the string theorists I love the conjectures, too. And I'm going to say, that indeed, string theory is pseudoscience. For me, it's science fiction instead of science. And, as science fiction's theory, string theory can explain whatever thing that you want, even, high temperature conductivity, and it also explains why some men will start to go bald. String theory, also proposes some weird entities, that don't interact with the ordinary matter at all. For me, it's clearly pseudoscience, despite of its 40 years old, and the tons of papers published in the most prestigious scientific journals.
/*..sophisticated math and the beauty are never enough..*/
I don't know, what's so pretty with scrambled mixture of dozens various theories and ad-hoced concepts. In my opinion the beauty and elegance is the weakest point of fuzzy cluster of string theories, instead.
Anyway, the fact, string theory is using inconsistent postulates doesn't mean, some combinations of them cannot have a close connection to reality. Concepts like strings, branes, hidden dimensions, supersymmetry, dualities like AdS/CFT correspondence or even holographic principle have their counterparts and analogies in AWT concepts as well (apart from the fact that many of these concepts were developed independently to string theory originally, string theorists just adopted it).
Concerning hidden dimensions the whole trick is, we have observed them already - just the formal understanding of string theory caused, string theorists just didn't realize it. This illustrates weakness (and cost) of pure abstract approach to physics.
But the purpose of AWT isn't to replace formal theories - but to understand them at intuitive level. People should decide itself, whether string theory approach is cost effective with respect to reality understanding.
The problem with making predictions is that people test them. This is a relatively unfamiliar problem for string theorists...
Post a Comment