String Theory: Difference between revisions

Its the same group of mandarins who predicted LHC SuperSymmetry, Mini-Black holes, SU(5) Grand Unification, String Theory, Q-Gravity would work.  

"Who believe String Theory wouldn't work?"

|content=@arivero Not my read. It took place just before the G-S anomaly cancellation. The Murray keynote is the best summary of the problem that lead to the String Theology. It mentions String Theory but doesn’t focus on it. It is the last gasp before the transition.

|content=@MasterMuskkk @bgreene @Columbia @TOEwithCurt @IAI_TV Brian is one of our best public speakers as well. I’ve seen him improvise on his feet in tough situations and I am blown away by how he manages to be accurate, accessible and funny in real time scientific matters. A lightning-fast mind working simultaneously on multiple levels.

|content=Wonderful to exchange ideas with @RogerPenrose5 @bgreene @tasneemzhusain on String Theory and the underlying source of the unique  controversy that has swirled around it for decades. Thanks to @HTLGIFestival for putting this together! Great panelists and moderation!

I believe this is how String Theorists stopped being scientists.

Ask questions about COVID, [[String Theory]], '''CPI''', etc and you will *not* find this. 🙏

|content=It is time to face up to the disaster of string theory. But we need to be fair about what failed and why. The equations of string theory can’t hurt anyone. It’s 40 years of the anti-scientific destruction of scientific standards and norms of collegiality to promote one failed theory over all other attempts that is behind this destruction of what was previously the worlds most accomplished scientific community.

|content=The good folks at @IAI_TV put together a reel of String Theorist, Prof. @bgreene and I debating [[String Theory]] in Wales in May at @HTLGIFestival.  

|content=To sum it up: when string theorist are no longer in a position to keep changing the goal posts set by the physical world, isn’t it the case that from A-Z maybe string theory is not being honest?

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.

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.

String theorists like Friedan have written harshly of the Failures.

What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: “The 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!”

Waited a few days. I don’t 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.

|content=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

|content=This is not ideal - but while saying ‘go buy my book’ 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

|content=I don’t think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that “String Theory” is the answer to a question you formulated: “Of all the approaches to quantizing  gravity which haven’t worked, which is the best?”

|content=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.  

|content=Thought experiment. Assume the final theory exists, is agreed upon in 2024, and has nothing to do with String Theory.

|content=@TomBilyeu @JosephPConlon My completely crazy claim: I don’t think there is a log jam. String theory is relentlessly jamming the future. It has taught people how to *stop* progress.  

In the midst of a thread with Prof. @JosephPConlon, author of “Why String Theory?” I set out the dangers of allowing string theorists to be the arbiters judges and juries of what is important in physics.

|content=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.  

|content=Sorry. By whom? Do I expect to be taken seriously by the many String Theorists who called their colleagues morons, frauds and “not serious” behind their backs? No. I don’t.  

I expect them to leave the field. Then we can get back to doing physics. The subset of reasonable string theorists who know this problem well and are still doing science? Well….They know ST/QG has a problem and they hate it too. And I do care about them.  

|content=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.

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 wouldn’t be with  the linear algebra!! It’s the claimed strength of the application and it’s motivation that is the problem.

Higher dimensions aren’t all about holography, Calabi-Yau manifolds, String Theory etc. This sounds wrong at a physics level.

|content=My old friend @edfrenkel on coming back from the big String Theory conference in Canada: