tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post7024565965347523513..comments2023-12-27T00:49:31.972-08:00Comments on Aether Wave Theory: Consistence problem of string theoryZephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-45233281978727558592014-12-21T04:33:39.628-08:002014-12-21T04:33:39.628-08:00Absence of Unruh effect in polymer quantization LQ...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1935" rel="nofollow">Absence of Unruh effect in polymer quantization</a> LQG deals with diffeomorphism invariant states, both spatial and timelike. So, an LQG state would be in a superposition over all possible coordinate systems, including Cartesian and Rindler plus a whole lot of other coordinate systems. You just can't fix the coordinate system in LQG.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-85480275395947406452014-01-13T04:05:18.850-08:002014-01-13T04:05:18.850-08:00Lubos Motl (http://motls.blogspot.cz/2006/10/falsi...Lubos Motl (http://motls.blogspot.cz/2006/10/falsifiability-in-physics.html) writes: "If string theory is correct, the superposition principle of quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance, unitarity, crossing symmetry, equivalence principle etc. are valid to much higher accuracy than the accuracy with which they have been tested as of 2006." Matt Strassler (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/23/quantum-field-theory-string-theory-and-predictions/): "string theory does *not* predict practically-measurable violations of the equivalence principle, and yet string theory does not forbid measurable violations of the equivalence principle ... So if we saw such violations in data, we’d have no idea what they meant, and we’d have a lot of work to do".Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-12838138122158320312014-01-07T04:27:50.062-08:002014-01-07T04:27:50.062-08:00Three Star Test of string theory, basing their cla...<a href="http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5544/20140106/three-star-system-challenge-einsteins-theory-relativity.htm" rel="nofollow">Three Star Test</a> of string theory, basing their claims on <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1202" rel="nofollow">this paper</a>, published <a href="http://m.iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/31/1/015001" rel="nofollow">here</a> Another source for the press release is <a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=42205" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.6311.pdf" rel="nofollow">By Thibault Damour’s recent article</a> “<i>the current string landscape prediction is no equivalence principle violation, but if equivalence principle violation is found, that just means string theorists need to look at other currently less popular string theory models</i>”.<br />Violation of equivalence principle implies the violation of Lorentz symmetry, on which string theory is based <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269399012587" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269399012587</a>. So, usual story for string theory “predictions”.<br />Motl article <a href="http://i.imgur.com/XQHxzNj.gif" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/XQHxzNj.gif</a> <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/stringtheory/motl_equivalence.gif" rel="nofollow">http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/stringtheory/motl_equivalence.gif</a><br />Overduin article <a href="http://i.imgur.com/wbonRxJ.gif" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/wbonRxJ.gif</a> <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/stringtheory/Overduin_equivalence.gif" rel="nofollow">http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/stringtheory/Overduin_equivalence.gif</a> <br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-60885503926179196722013-11-24T19:35:53.323-08:002013-11-24T19:35:53.323-08:00Here is a paper which explains how Lorentz symmetr...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0506056" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is a paper which explains how Lorentz symmetry is only violated by 5d space or higher. Actually the Lorentz symmetry is <br />violated even at the three dimensions with four dimension of space-time. The common gravitational lensing is the evidence of space-time curved and it allows to spread the light <br />along multiple paths with different speed. It's nice example of multiverse/many worlds of quantum mechanics too.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-22170553424110101782013-11-21T11:22:43.770-08:002013-11-21T11:22:43.770-08:00Smolin, Woit, the failure of string theory, and ho...<a href="http://nige.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/smolin-woit-the-failure-of-string-theory-and-how-string-theory-responds/" rel="nofollow">Smolin, Woit, the failure of string theory, and how string theory responds</a>. <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/" rel="nofollow">Dr Peter Woit</a> has a nice set of notes summarising some problems with string theory <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/testable.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. These are far more sketchy than his book and don’t explain the Standard Model and its history like his book, but the notes do summarise a few of the many problems in string theory. String theorists, if they even acknowledge the existence of critics at all (Witten has written a <a href="http://quantumfieldtheory.org/About.htm" rel="nofollow">letter to Nature saying that he doesn’t</a>, instead he suggests that <a href="http://quantumfieldtheory.org/About.htm" rel="nofollow">string theorists should ignore objections while continuing to make or to stand by misleading claims that string theory ‘predicts’ gravity, such as Witten’s own claim of that in the April 1996 issue of <i>Physics Today</i></a>), dismiss any problem with string theory as a <a href="http://asymptotia.com/2007/03/13/more-scenes-from-the-storm-in-a-teacup-vii/" rel="nofollow">‘storm in a teacup’</a>, refuse to read the books of critics, misrepresent what the critics are saying, so the arguments don’t address the deep problems.<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-77509949586978842332013-09-02T14:42:49.264-07:002013-09-02T14:42:49.264-07:00Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum...<a href="http://phys.org/news157203574.html" rel="nofollow">Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale</a>, <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/uoo-fot100608.php" rel="nofollow">Fuzziness on the road to physics' grand unification theory</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-42601369257987478892013-08-21T15:00:19.180-07:002013-08-21T15:00:19.180-07:00Shortly before his death, Feynman criticized strin...Shortly before his death, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman" rel="nofollow">Feynman criticized</a> string theory in an interview: "<i>I don't like that they're not calculating anything,</i>" he said. "<i>I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, ‘Well, it still might be true.</i>'" These words have since been much-quoted by opponents of the string-theoretic direction for particle physics<br />What some (gentile) Nobel laureates think about string theory: <br />Sheldon Glashow: "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html">String theory has failed in its primary goal</a>" <br />Martinus Veltman: "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/981238149X/701-5527495-9406712">String theory is a figment of the theoretical mind</a>" <br />Phillip Anderson: "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_10.html#andersonp">String theory a futile exercise as physics</a>" <br />Robert Laughlin: "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/03/14/MNGRMBOURE1.DTL">String theory a 50-year-old woman wearing way <br />too much lipstick</a>" <br />Richard Feynman: "<a href="http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/why-the-string-theory-is-pseudoscience/" rel="nofollow">String theorists do not make predictions, they make excuses</a>". <br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-67237804837336981142013-08-21T14:51:33.874-07:002013-08-21T14:51:33.874-07:00Try to focus to the fact, that all ways, which Mot...Try to focus to the fact, that all ways, which <a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/3177/27212" rel="nofollow">Motl proposes</a> for falsification of string theory are related to string theory postulates (extradimensions, Lorentz symmetry) - not the predictions, because string theory has no testable predictions, because it actually cannot have none. For example, Motl writes, that the violation of Lorentz symmetry could disprove the string theory, because the Lorentz symmetry is one of main postulates of string theory. But the extradimensions are often searched with search of nonzero photon mass (it would make the EM finite scope interaction) - but just this nonzero photon mass would violate the Lorentz symmetry too. In another words, you cannot prove one postulate of string theory without violation of another one. Which indicates, whole this theory is deeply inconsistent by its very definition: the poor string theorists did choose a mutually inconsistent postulate set by accident.<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-56846059604892624222013-06-18T04:33:06.701-07:002013-06-18T04:33:06.701-07:00A Gravitational Explanation for Quantum Mechanics:...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609021" rel="nofollow">A Gravitational Explanation for Quantum Mechanics</a>: There is no quantum theory of gravity. There is no graviton. Gravitational waves cannot exhibit quantum phenomena such as wave particle duality. Gravitational waves <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9706018" rel="nofollow">are not quantized</a>. String theory <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.cz/2009/02/consistence-problem-of-string-theory.html" rel="nofollow">is known to be inherently fuzzy</a> already, i.e. leading to vast landscape of false vacui solutions. But string theory is quantum gravity theory and it can be proven, the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/uoo-fot100608.php">same fuzziness</a> is inherent obstacle for any other quantum gravity theory due the insintric inconsistency of postulated of both theories. <br />Of course these insights were and will be ignored, because physical theorists are looking for ways, how to <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/physicists/wilson-memo.gif" rel="nofollow">prolonge their research</a> and how get as much grants for it as possible - not how to get their work nonsensical and ending prematurely. Quantum gravity theorists aren't an exception. We are living in era of physics driven with occupation criterions.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-19551852999258172192013-05-16T19:39:14.136-07:002013-05-16T19:39:14.136-07:00By experimentally proving that the world doesn'...<br />By experimentally proving that the world doesn't contain gravity, fermions, or isn't described by quantum field theories at low energies; or that the general postulates of quantum mechanics don't work; string theory predicts that these approximations work and the postulates of quantum mechanics are exactly valid while the alternatives of string theory predict that nothing like the Standard Model etc. is possible<br />By experimentally showing that the real world contradicts some of the general features predicted by all string vacua which are not satisfied by the "Swampland" QFTs as explained by Cumrun Vafa; if we lived in the swampland, our world couldn't be described by anything inside the landscape of string theory; the generic predictions of string theory probably include the fact that gravity is the weakest force, moduli spaces have finite volume, and similar predictions that seem to be satisfied so far<br />By mapping the whole landscape, calculating the accurate predictions of each vacuum for the particle physics (masses, couplings, mixings), and by showing that none of them is compatible with the experimentally measured parameters of particle physics within the known error margins; this route to disprove string theory is hard but possible in principle, too (although the full mathematical machinery to calculate the properties of any vacuum at any accuracy isn't quite available today, even in principle)<br />By analyzing physics experimentally up to the Planck scale and showing that our world contains neither supersymmetry nor extra dimensions at any scale. If you check that there is no SUSY up to a certain higher scale, you will increase the probability that string theory is not relevant for our Universe but it won't be a full proof<br />A convincing observation of varying fundamental constants such as the fine-structure constant would disprove string theory unless some other unlikely predictions of some string models that allow such a variability would be observed at the same timeZephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-43237817046759257922013-05-16T19:39:07.439-07:002013-05-16T19:39:07.439-07:00What experiment would disprove string theory?
By d...<a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory/3177#3177" rel="nofollow">What experiment would disprove string theory</a>?<br />By detecting Lorentz violation at high energies: string theory predicts that the Lorentz symmetry is exact at any energy scale; recent experiments by the Fermi satellite and others have showed that the Lorentz symmetry works even at the Planck scale with a precision much better than 100% and the accuracy may improve in the near future; for example, if an experiment ever claimed that a particle is moving faster than light, string theory predicts that an error will be found in that experiment<br />By detecting a violation of the equivalence principle; it's been tested with the relative accuracy of and it's unlikely that a violation will occur; string theory predicts that the law is exact<br />By detecting a mathematical inconsistency in our world, for example that can be equal both to as well as ; such an observation would make the existing alternatives of string theory conceivable alternatives because all of them are mathematically inconsistent as theories of gravity; clearly, nothing of the sort will occur; also, one could find out a previously unknown mathematical inconsistency of string theory - even this seems extremely unlikely after the neverending successful tests<br />By experimentally proving that the information is lost in the black holes, or anything else that contradicts general properties of quantum gravity as predicted by string theory, e.g. that the high center-of-mass-energy regime is dominated by black hole production and/or that the black holes have the right entropy; string theory implies that the information is preserved in any processes in the asymptotical Minkowski space, including the Hawking radiation, and confirms the Hawking-Bekenstein claims as the right semiclassical approximation; obviously, you also disprove string theory by proving that gravitons don't exist; if you could prove that gravity is an entropic force, it would therefore rule out string theory as wellZephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-37706781462046536772012-11-12T12:34:56.293-08:002012-11-12T12:34:56.293-08:00Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider have dete...Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider have detected one of the rarest particle decays seen in Nature. The finding deals a<br /><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100" rel="nofollow">significant blow</a> to the theory of physics known as supersymmetryZephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-39035911369687678012012-11-10T06:30:26.608-08:002012-11-10T06:30:26.608-08:00Lee Smolin on string theory (full version)Lee Smolin on string theory (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_FG8kRVWkQ&feature=related" rel="nofollow">full version</a>)Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-53680133262094802212012-11-07T15:21:16.853-08:002012-11-07T15:21:16.853-08:00Conflict Between the Uncertainty Principle and Gen...<a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/string.html" rel="nofollow">Conflict Between the Uncertainty Principle and General Relativity</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-2290146531188444022012-08-29T16:40:36.436-07:002012-08-29T16:40:36.436-07:00String theory can never lead into testable predict...String theory can never lead into testable prediction, because it considers extradimensions and Lorentz symmetry, whereas the extradimensions will <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.cz/2009/02/consistence-problem-of-string-theory.html" rel="nofollow">manifest itself</a> just with Lorentz symmetry violation.<br />Most string theorists insist that string theory does not violate equivalence principle. However in papers by Thibault Damour and Cliff Will they point out string theory contains dilaton fields which violate equivalence principle. This is another contradition.<br />In Verlinde’s colloquium on entropic gravity at Caltech last semester, he claimed entropic gravity follows from string theory and it explains MOND. OTOH almost all string theorists believe that “particle” dark matter exists and follows from string theory.<br />In Petr Horava’s colloquium at Berkeley on Horava-Lifshitz gravity (which is archived on video), he mentioned that this is a consequence of string theory. But Witten and many other string theorists thinks that this theory is wrong. So again another contradition.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-54160691103513068282012-08-17T07:47:44.294-07:002012-08-17T07:47:44.294-07:00Lorentz Violation in Extra Dimensions "In the...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0506056" rel="nofollow">Lorentz Violation in Extra Dimensions</a> "<i>In theories with extra dimensions it is well known that the Lorentz invariance of the $D=4+n$-dimensional spacetime is lost due to the compactified nature of the $n$ dimensions leaving invariance only in 4d</i>".<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-43264761202363693002012-04-27T13:32:43.142-07:002012-04-27T13:32:43.142-07:00scientificamerican.com: Is Supersymmetry Dead? The...<a href="http://www.reddit.com/domain/scientificamerican.com/" rel="nofollow">scientificamerican.com</a>: <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-supersymmetry-dead" rel="nofollow">Is Supersymmetry Dead?</a> The grand scheme, a stepping-stone to string theory, is still high on physicists' wish lists. But if no solid evidence surfaces soon, it could begin to have a serious PR problemZephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-18302970219645448932012-03-29T18:03:21.151-07:002012-03-29T18:03:21.151-07:00The superluminal neutrinos would actually support ...The superluminal neutrinos would actually support <a rel="nofollow" href="http://io9.com/5844795/faster+than+light-neutrinos-could-be-proof-of-extra-dimensions">some versions</a> of string theory (while violating <a rel="nofollow" href="http://tinyurl.com/dm4vjs">other postulates of it</a>, indeed)Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-65227578889907920912012-03-25T03:41:08.614-07:002012-03-25T03:41:08.614-07:00What some (gentile) Nobel laureates have said abou...What some (gentile) Nobel laureates have said about string theory:Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate: "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/7cv27lq" rel="nofollow">String theory has failed in its primary goal</a>. It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one person spends 30 years, it’s a waste, but when thousands waste 20 years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that curious.”<br />Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate: "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/7o2ep5t" rel="nofollow">String theory is a figment of the theoretical mind</a>"<br />Phillip Anderson, Nobel Laureate: "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/7rt8ycm" rel="nofollow">String theory a futile exercise as physics</a>"<br />Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate: "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/4u8tk" rel="nofollow">String theory a 50-year-old woman wearing way too much lipstick</a>"<br />Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate: "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/6wvx9p3" rel="nofollow">String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses.</a>"<br />Even Richard Feynman was skeptical regarding String theory, which is the more striking, if we realize, in his time the ST was still very young and progressive theory.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-10893826243520120282012-03-25T03:24:30.830-07:002012-03-25T03:24:30.830-07:00In The Trouble With Physics, Lee Smolin takes us o...In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Trouble-With-Physics-Science/dp/B004Z4LYU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332624203&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">The Trouble With Physics</a>, Lee Smolin takes us on a journey through the history and science of physics and identifies this sociological division as the heart of the eponymous trouble: string theory is a theoretical field being explored by scientists with a particle mindset. 25 years and 11 dimensions later, no such luck. Smolin gives string theory full marks for addressing problem three, an incomplete on problem one and a failing grade on the other three.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-67584721620355844632012-03-25T03:22:04.817-07:002012-03-25T03:22:04.817-07:00The string theory inconsistency did manifest recen...The <a href="http://tinyurl.com/dm4vjs" rel="nofollow">string theory inconsistency</a> did manifest recently during superluminal neutrino observation at the OPERA experiment, which <a rel="nofollow" href="http://tinyurl.com/3labq97">could be explained</a> with extradimensions of string theory, but it would violate another postulates, on which string theory is based, i.e. the invariance of speed of light.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-91848263290501590222012-03-17T02:47:42.745-07:002012-03-17T02:47:42.745-07:00String Theory is Losing the Public Debate<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/" rel="nofollow">String Theory is Losing the Public Debate</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-50315811623895197692012-02-05T03:43:49.337-08:002012-02-05T03:43:49.337-08:00Luis J. Boya Arguments for F-theory (Nov. 2005)<a href="http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/hep-th/1/au:+Boya_L/0/1/0/all/0/1" rel="nofollow">Luis J. Boya</a> <a href="http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0512047" rel="nofollow">Arguments for F-theory</a> (Nov. 2005)Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-22577508545543813472011-02-05T06:40:36.596-08:002011-02-05T06:40:36.596-08:00Paul Davies, in his Op-Ed piece Taking Science on ...Paul Davies, in his Op-Ed piece <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html" rel="nofollow">Taking Science on Faith</a>, uses recent untestable speculation about multiple universes motivated by string theory to claim that “the mood has now shifted considerably” among physicists. He characterizes physics as being, just like religion, “founded on faith”, faith in the existence of intelligible laws describing nature and in a “huge ensemble of unseen universes”, the so-called “multiverse”.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-6208583455870052892011-02-01T13:50:43.694-08:002011-02-01T13:50:43.694-08:00Gravitons as a spacetime fabric, string theory is ...<a href="http://nige.wordpress.com/gravitons-as-a-spacetime-fabric-string-theory-is-just-a-failed-aether-theory-lubos-motl-and-peter-woit/" rel="nofollow">Gravitons as a spacetime fabric, string theory is just a failed aether theory..</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com