Is “Strings” a Dud Theory?

Inquirer:

The title of the paper ended with a question mark. Therefore it was not a definitive statement regarding the theory of strings being a `dud` theory.

I presented the views of the physicists who are optimistic about its potential and possibility of succeeding and also the views of those who are skeptical. I am following the progress with interest to see if it ever produces the so-called Theory of Everything and for that reason post some articles now and then.

Thanks for your interest and support. Many of the Chowk readers seem to be in a rut and fail to distinguish an article of scientific content from the `run of the mill,` and they indulge in irrelevant comments. That is how life is.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 29, freethinker:

Thanks for your response. Thre IS a tendency among Chowkies to not make any effort to see the viewpoint of an author. All writers are the bearers of this cross at Chowk. Let me state unequivocally that your critics do not provide a third of substance you do. I would like to register my support for your mode of thinking. There is a dire shortage of the interpretter of developing subjects among the South Asians. Please keep on!!

Freethinker, you have mistitled your article. Even within your article there is evidence that String Theory is not NECESSARILY a dud. I am no fan of the String Theory but one has to to await the results of Large hadron Collider (LHC) before passing any definitive judgement. Even though you have not reached any conclusion, your presentation of the material implies that the theory may have failed.

Even though the quality of your article is marginal but since: 1. most of the Chowkies are incapable of understanding it so they have downgraded you. 2. there is need for preserving the space in Chowk for thoughts as expressed by you, I will high rate your article.

My views of Physics are Einteinian but I am open minded enough to give the String Theory its due. Furthermore, if supersymmetry is confirmed by the LHC it indeed will be a great achievement!

zarrar2:
Another article of mine you may find of interest is ``Cosmological Fantansies`` which was published at Chowk on November 17, 2004. Be well,
Mohammad Gill

It is. That is why Sufism is little more than lying wholesale with clear intent to deceive. Anyways, it will be a pleasure to address this issue at a place of its own.

kalihawa, a lie in black and white is bad enough. But to present a lie in psychedelic hues in order to deceive and defraud the gullible is worse than despicable. In any legal system, on earth and in heaven, it would be criminal.

Nanga ji #18 was being a typical sufi doing his typical sufism, so he had to be reminded. To discuss the ``honesty`` behind sufism, we can gladly find another forum.

Re: # 24

You have changed the term. Not being honest does not mean lying. In all such exchange essential thing is intention.

zarrar2:
This issue is being investigated with several new approaches. As a starter, please read my article ``What Was There Before the Big Bang?`` which was published at Chowk on January 29, 2004.
Thanks for your interest in my article.
Mohammad Gill

Re: # 6

Dear A`null,

Thanks for the link to Karl Popper`s theory.

Dr. Sahib

The Elegant Universe is available in DVD and is absolutely phenomenal. But it still fails to highlight the importance of the string theory. Its a little watered down version for the masses. I always struggled to understand the multiple big bang possibility. could you explain?

Strings or strings, at least don`t string words ``sufism`` and ``honesty`` together in the same sentence, nanga ji, unless you also live in a dimension that doesn`t exist. :)

Re: # 19

Beats me!

Your pathological dislike for Sufism is incomprehensible. Honesty is not 0 –1 state there are hues to it.

Though Marx and Engel took classes to learn calculus so they could define the rate of change in their communist economic theory, Lenin refused to accept the uncertainty of quantum mechanics and termed it as bourgeois conspiracy. Well it showed that communism lost that probability and despite all its `scientific approaches` it broke under its own burden and fell on its hinder part. People want some changing stuff. So they need poverty and do not dream to make them equal. Maitnain differential for dynamics or flow. Let them struggle. String theory is one such thing. Is it practical? - can one prove it aprat from equation? It is like measuring the diameter of pubic hair with a ruler scaling planet earth. So it is good in philosophical domain as long as NO measurement is concerned. Does matter exist at that level? That is other story. May be. Unlike Lenin, Mao predicted division of proton and even electron that we still wait. He did that because he beleived matter is infinite - Materialism. So, after twin photon paradox and superluminar communication there is wide huge universe beyond electron that we cannot measure. It is like midevel Europe where the digit zero was banned as it did not mean anything or even it was symbol of doomsday. Guess what people in Indus valley (wrongly associated with India that came from Indus name anyway) were using for long time. And guess again, it will make some people mad who do not want truth - as Iranian wrongly associate themselves with Aryan - no link. Or Khan is associated with pathans. No link. These are wrong concepts our poor neurons are connected and we debate around them forgeting that without accpeting zero my this message would not be possible. And as sufi/mystic claims God and Satan are two aspects of same thing, like duality of particle, string and cosmos are the two faces of same coin. Just do not reject it becuase it does not fit your own scale of knowledge. Let there be honest debate.

Nanga Pir

Beej is Beej! :)

#12 bjkumar
Your post made it worth visiting this board. You have a way with words.

Peter Woit: Is String Theory even Wrong?


.. and a review of Woit’s book: The dean of debunking

which contains this amusing paragraph:

‘Finally, and most devastatingly, he follows the lead of the science writer John Horgan, who suggested in his controversial book, The End of Science (1996), that, having reached their limit, some areas of science are in danger of becoming what he terms “ironic science”. In a passage of ultimate insult, Woit unpacks this notion further, suggesting that theoretical physics has become like the deconstructionist realms of literary criticism in the 1970s, which disappeared up its own fundament, “incapable of ever converging on the truth”.’