Quantum Field Theory: Difference between revisions
| Line 789: | Line 789: | ||
|content=Thank you for asking for the Steel-manned version of the issue with [[String Theory]] from a critic. | |content=Thank you for asking for the Steel-manned version of the issue with [[String Theory]] from a critic. | ||
[[String Theory|String theory]] is basically a fairly self consistent mathematical constellation of geometric ideas related to Quantum Field Theory developed by brilliant minds. If Gravity is to be quantized in the form that physicists naively expected, it would be likely that it would be our first or at worst second best guess as to how that works. I am willing to say this clearly. But there is no one telling us that gravity must be naively quantized. | [[String Theory|String theory]] is basically a fairly self consistent mathematical constellation of geometric ideas related to [[Quantum Field Theory]] developed by brilliant minds. If Gravity is to be quantized in the form that physicists naively expected, it would be likely that it would be our first or at worst second best guess as to how that works. I am willing to say this clearly. But there is no one telling us that gravity must be naively quantized. | ||
[[String Theory|ST]] has taught us many things (e.g. dualities in [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]], to means of avoiding super luminal Rarita Schwinger fields, coupled to internal symmetry, etc.) that are now part of our knowledge base. | [[String Theory|ST]] has taught us many things (e.g. dualities in [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]], to means of avoiding super luminal Rarita Schwinger fields, coupled to internal symmetry, etc.) that are now part of our knowledge base. | ||
Revision as of 03:50, 8 January 2026
On X
2019
Ok. This is a weird take. The reluctance to engage foundations of quantum mechanics stemmed from the fact that it was far less generative than research in quantum field thy for decades. When Standard Model QFT stagnated & Quantum Gravity stumbled, the opportunity cost decreased.
Shots fired! "Even Physicists Donât Understand Quantum Mechanics. Worse, they donât seem to want to understand it." -- me, in the New York Times @nytopinion #SomethingDeeply
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html
There was an underlying political economy to the issue masked by âshut up & calculateâ. I agree that the quantum field theorists were often, and words fail me, dicks about quantum foundations. But it was really an overlay on a rational calculation of expected return from 1928-74.
2020
This is at the heart of my disagreement with @skdh. I am doubly contrarian with respect to QFT. I believe that many of the things they tried say were abstractly reasonable but clearly misinstanciated. To make their mere calculations beautiful, they were creating a hideous world.
2021
In strong GU:
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) (Standard Model)
Is contained in U(3)xU(2) inside
Spin(6)xSpin(4) =SU(4)xSU(2)xSU(2)
(Before the more difficult non compact Spin(6,4).)
Iâd look first to the extra 1D reductive U(1) if the experiments hold up. Then to Spin(6) x Spin(4):
@EricRWeinstein What are your thoughts on this and how does it fit with Geometric Unity? https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677
As far as Fermion quantum number predictions that could open up new channels, Strong GU makes clear predictions. Explicitly, here would be the next Spin-1/2 particles internal symmetries we should find:
Additionally, Strong GU predicts that there will be 16 Spin-3/2 particles with Standard model symmetries conjugate to the Spin-1/2 generations and gives their âinternalâ quantum numbers as:
Now, why if GU makes predictions do I appear to some to shy away from them?
A: I donât.
But string theorists hide the fact that they disconnected themselves from normal science by trying to force everyone else *except* String Theorists into answering hyperspecific challenges.
Thus while I can tell you what GU predicts is next, they push for a QFT calculation of energy scale to make others sound vague.
So letâs talk vague: Look at the above containments and SM quantum numbers. Thatâs not vague. Now ask String Theorists the SAME question...and compare.
Lastly: I would caution about getting too far ahead of our experimentalist friends. Let them sort out their confidence and not push them to be too definite prematurely.
But my advice is to watch *relative* predictive responses of those w/ âBeyond the Standard Modelâ theories. đ
P.P.S. Remember that GU rejects three generations. In GU itâs 2 True generations plus 1 imposter. A priori, this could also be an effect of the imposter not being a true generation.
Again I would need QFT colleagues trying to help me see if that is a possible effect.
@robnormal Thatâs the beginning. Then that the listeners be *highly* motivated. Also intelligent. Also, that no listeners are trying not to understand. Etc
Pretty soon itâs stone soup. Youâre no longer explaining things quickly at a party but youâre now teaching QFT courses at university.
Things got hard. They didnât get hopeless.
Yes we spent almost 40 years lying about string theory. But we could stop today. We could have the leaders in the field admit they made a *colossal* bad bet & ask âWhat did we dispose of while we were wildly over-hyping string theory?â
Its increasingly apparent to me that the next physics breakthrough is gonna be from #ai . Its humanly not possible anymore for theoretical physicists ..i was feeling it even around 2010
They can't stop, Eric. They're making a living from writing papers about things no one will ever see. It's a systemic problem that requires a systemic response. And the first step would be to admit they have a problem (which they don't).
Seems likely a lot of the math they developed will wind up handy, but it's a long time to wait for dessert.
Most of what physicists call math is totally uninteresting even for mathematicians. It's just advanced calculus. Look here is my qft and when I crunch it cross-sections fall out.
We may disagree intellectually more than I thought. This is Jackiwâs point: the era of physics thinking of mathematics as advanced calculus (analysis) wasnât fruitful.
That changed around 1975 when the quantum began to discover geometry.
Iâm honestly confused. What do you mean?
We are talking past each other. I am referring to particle physicists/astrophysicists/cosmologists who crunch out shallow and useless papers in the thousands. There's no interesting math in those. You're talking about something else entirely.
There are a lot of string theorists who have done things that really matter to geometry, topology, analysis on manifolds, representation theory. And I donât want to misunderstand your point.
Said differently Iâve been bullish on positive externalities of mathematical physics. But a lot of great math that got done isnât string theory. Itâs claimed to be stringy but it is really mostly mathematical physics or geometric field theory that is claimed by string theorists.
2022
Physics in 1980: âIâm trying to grasp why nature has 3 generations of chiral fermions with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) internal symmetry.â
Physics Today: âRemind me again what the internal quantum numbers are? I do quantum gravity so itâs not something Iâve worked with since my QFT class.â
What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasnât even failed.
A) High energy physics of real particles became the no-energy physics of toy models.
B) Quantizing Gravity was substituted for unification or extension of the Standard model.
C) Other research programs were obliterated because ST claimed it had it all rapped up.
D) Hype won.
E) Focus shifted to mathematical structure of abstract field/String/M theory. Not our particular worldâs choice of thy.
F) Standards of scientific progress were rewritten to disguise failure.
G) Differential application of standards became the norm.
It ended physics culture
String Theory isnât the problem. String culture is poisonous to science.
String theory, like love, means never having to say your sorry. Or mistaken.
Itâs the January 6 problemâŚbut in science. But where the physics versions of Mike Pence often got fired for not going along. đ
*youâre
P.S. âIt hasnât even failedâ because it canât fail. So far as I can see, it can never fail. In the minds of the faithful, Itâs unable to fail because it *has* to be the way forward. Itâs hard to explain whatâs wrong with that to the enlightened who see its infinite power & glory.
What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasnât even failed.
@MadsOlesenDK Nah. I would study basic GR. Itâs a bit steep, but not as bad as QFT to learn by a long shot.
2023
In studio Episode of @Into_Impossible with Dan coming soon where we discussed his epic đ§ľ. And Martin and Eric and Turok and Sabine get shoutouts! Stay tunedâŚ
Hard to tell whether this is good faith, honestly. Some grains of truth buried here, but you have to ignore many developements to end up w this view.
I'll leave this here https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528
But Martin, with Eric in my experience, itâs always good faith⌠lâShem Shamayim as we say!
Iâm much more concerned by brilliant theorists whoâŚand I am not kidding at allâŚrefer to the Standard Model as âOh, I vaguely remember this from graduate school QFT class.â That is an unbelievable development. People who have literally forgotten the field content of reality.
And I donât want to get rid of them. I want us to go back to real physics. I want us to stop pretending we live in anti-de Sitter Space or that space time SUSY is just out of reach.
Itâs basic to the culture of science. Which unfortunately is not QG culture.
@nu_phases @martinmbauer And as per the Renormalization Revolution, a non fundamental result can unlock further fundamental ones as we saw after the late 40s. YM QFT wasnât built in a day after all.
But my point stands along side your point. We donât seem to be able to push the fundamental physics. đ
âString Theory is absolutelyâŚthe most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the Standard Model and quantum gravity.â
I can confirm this indeed blows up ones notifications.
But, in case of doubt or misunderstanding, string theory is absolutely the deepest, most consequential and most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the Standard Model and quantum gravity.
Yes, that is precisely what I think.
If you said âelectrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the standard modelâ I wouldnât disagree with that statement. It isnât at all about what you think. It is a true statement.
Here you are assuring lay people about what is absolute about String Theory within physics.
My responsibility is to make accurate statements (and yes, everything is my (professional) opinion).
As the book quote indicates, I try not to overclaim. But: that string theory and the complex of ideas are around it are more serious than any competitors, IMO objectively true.
âIMO objectively trueâ
As with so many of these String Theoretic claims I have no idea what that means.
So for example if I make an argument that this is NOT objectively true, do you fall back on the idea that it was opinion?
âObjectively, Electrons are field theoretic at observed energy scales.â My opinion doesnât enter into it. The claim that it is objectively true eliminates the role of opinion.
Does that mean that all who disagree with you and your String community are ânot seriousâ as per the above?
The arguments become more convincing/objective, the more one can use graduate-level theoretical physics in them.
But in 280 characters and no equations, itâs hard to develop these
In a book, easier to do so.
I donât think thatâs the issue Joseph. At all.
Feynman, Glashow, Wilczek never found them objectively or absolutely compelling.
String theorists like Friedan have written harshly of the Failures.
And what you are saying about subjective opinion and absolute objective fact doesnât make sense. I mean you can just see that, no? Not trying to be mean here. But I donât see what you are claiming is absolute and objective beyond your opinion.
What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: âThe more you understand about the difficulty of quantizing a spin 2 gravitational field the more you appreciate how string theory has taught us so much about how it is to be done eventually, and that there is no remotely comparable framework for doing so!â
Again. Not trying to be combative. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.
It is not objective or absolutely true that String Theory is our best theory. In fact, it has become, 40 years after the anomaly cancelation, our most thoroughly explored idea. No other path has been picked over like this one.
Waited a few days. I donât think you are making sense about your *opinion* that it is *objectively* and *absolutely* dominant. And that is the problem. String theorist deliberately leave others with the impression that they are following something scientific, objective and absolute. But it is really just a shared subjective hunch. And this does science and physics a terrible disservice.
The question about where string theory stands in comparison to other approaches to quantum gravity. I think it objectively true that string theory has given lots of stuff that is useful/foundational to cognate areas (eg QFT) than any other approach to quantum gravity. 1/n
Holography and AdS/CFT is the clearest example but there are others.
I think this is objectively, uncontroversially true â once people have the background in theoretical physics that they understand topics like QFT on a technical level and have some real sense of the subject.
But most people (reasonably) donât have this background. So I preface this with âmy opinionâ in recognition that the core and guts of the argument, and the real reasons behind it, are not accessible to most people who read these tweets.
This is not ideal - but while saying âgo buy my bookâ is a slight cop out, the book is my full argument at a level as non-technical as possible of why string theory has the position it does DESPITE the lack of direct experimental evidence for it
Joseph. Imagine I were to temporarily stipulate to the idea that of all the known approaches to quantizing the metric field that leads to gravitation, String Theory is by far the most advanced. I donât think that is unreasonable whether or not it is true. Itâs a solid argument.
I donât think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that âString Theoryâ is the answer to a question you formulated: âOf all the approaches to quantizing gravity which havenât worked, which is the best?â
My argument is with that framing.
The problem I have is with string theorists framing of the field and its issues and questions. I think String Theory is dangerous for this reason.
Try these instead:
A) Which approach is most likely to successfully alter or explain the Standard model?
B) Same as A) but for General Relativity?
C) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why there are 3 generations of observed fermions?
D) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why the generations are chiral?
E) Which large community most regularly makes sweeping claims that it later must privately invalidate while publicly claiming a new revolution?
F) Which large community is most likely to ignore other ideas?
G) Which is the most aggressive large community despite no proven connection to observed reality?
H) Which community is most likely to spend all their careers working on toy models with the wrong dimensions, signatures or field content claiming that we are building up the toolkit?
I) Which community is least likely to own up to the disaster of past public declarations about accessible energy SUSY?
J) Which approach has been the most investigated and thus thoroughly picked over for low hanging fruit?
K) Which approach best explains the odd nature of a seemingly fundamental Higgs sector?
L) Which approach is most dogmatic that âQuantum Gravityâ rather than âUnificationâ or âGravitational Harmonyâ or âIncremental understandingâ etc. *Is* the path forward when we donât even know if gravity is quantized as we expect it at all in models beyond relativitistic QFT?
M) Which approach comes closest to explaining the origin of the internal symmetry structure group of the Standard model?
N) Which approach comes closest to explaining why there appear to be 16 particles in a generation with their observed internal quantum numbers?
O) Which approach is most at risk of invoking âThe Landscapeâ of impossibly many theories to test after saying that the power of the approach was that there were only 5 possible theories?
P) Which community brags about âpostdictionâ the most because it has failed at predictions?
Q) Which community is least collegial and most insulting to colleagues outside the approach?
R) Which HEP theory community consumed the most in resources over the last 40 years?
S) Same for brains?
T) Same for producing PR and puff pieces?
U) Which community has broken the most trust with lay people in HEP theory?
V) Which community substitutes mathematics results for results about the actual physical world we live in when talking to the public?
W) Which community is most likely to restore the culture of successful physics research to HEP theory?
X) Which not yet successful approach has been most self-critical?
Y) Which community is most respectful in absorbing the results by others with proper credit?
Z) Which community relentless makes its argument by mis framing the question as if the question were simply âWhat is our deepest collection of ideas of how to quantize a massless spin 2 gravitational field?â when the previous 25 framings are all arguably more important after 39 years without contact with physics?
That is why this conversation doesnât work. It is what magicians call âMagicians Choiceâ: the lay person is lead into thinking they are free to disagree. But the question you keep asking is DESiGNED to make it look like String Theory is our top community.
Joseph: it failed in the terms it gave for taking over. It chose the terms. It said what it was and what it was going to do. And it flat out failed in EXACTLY those terms it chose when it said âHold my beer!â back in 1984.
To sum it up: when string theorist are no longer in a position to keep changing the goal posts set by the physical world, isnât it the case that from A-Z maybe string theory is not being honest?
Again. Not personal to you. At all. But it is not a fair move to say âItâs the best yet-to-succeed approach to quantum gravity.â in front of the public. No?
đ
Thank you for asking for the Steel-manned version of the issue with String Theory from a critic.
String theory is basically a fairly self consistent mathematical constellation of geometric ideas related to Quantum Field Theory developed by brilliant minds. If Gravity is to be quantized in the form that physicists naively expected, it would be likely that it would be our first or at worst second best guess as to how that works. I am willing to say this clearly. But there is no one telling us that gravity must be naively quantized.
ST has taught us many things (e.g. dualities in QFT, to means of avoiding super luminal Rarita Schwinger fields, coupled to internal symmetry, etc.) that are now part of our knowledge base.
The quantum gravity fanaticism is the problem. There is no reason that gravity has to be *naively* quantized as claimed. A giant 70 year mistake that actually predates theory by over a decade. Simply put, we are *not* being called to quantize gravity as the overarching organizing principal for modern particle theory research.
Think of String Theorists as akin to a fanatical absolutist monastic order discovering and developing Linear Algebra as a proof of the literal story of Jesus. The problem wouldnât be with the linear algebra!! Itâs the claimed strength of the application and its motivation that is the problem.
ST is at least mathematics. But it just doesnât work as a leading program for physics because of its fanatical behavior patterns. That screwed up fundamental physics.
After 70, 50 or 39 years of stagnation (depending on how you count), this is clear to all but the fanatics. But the damage to scientific norms has been catastrophic. They failed in the application as measured by all reasonable metrics including (most importantly) those they originally set for themselves. And that is it in a nutshell.
Again, Thanks for asking. đ
Related Pages
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.