String theory is what?

[Nautilidae]

Alright, buddy. Since you can't address anyone's points in any way other than ignoring them, I'm going to do what you have done to hackenslash and I; ignore you.

Goodbye.

[The Dagda]

Alright, buddy. Since you can't address anyone's points in any way other than ignoring them, I'm going to do what you have done to hackenslash and I; ignore you.

Goodbye.

Did you read that post it addresses them all.FFS, yeah bye you got nothing.

Read the wiki. Blue shift is not currently testable nor does it distinguish string theory. Red shift maybe testable at least overall red shift, we know such effects occur. Done, done and done.

Pound–Rebka experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Jefferson laboratory at Harvard University. The experiment occurred in the left "tower". The attic was later extended in 2004.

The Pound–Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by Robert Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1] and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity.

The test is based on the following principle: When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. When the same atom in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon's frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory). When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift. As a result the receiving atom can no longer absorb it. But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift will cancel out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom will be able to absorb the photon. The "right" relative speed of the atoms is therefore a measure of the gravitational shift. The frequency of the photon "falling" towards the bottom of the tower is blueshifted. Pound and Rebka countered the gravitional blueshift by moving the emittor away from the receiver, thus generating a relativistic Doppler redshift:

Special Relativity predicts a Doppler redshift of :

f_r=\frac{1-v/c}{1+v/c}f_e.

On the other hand, General Relativity predicts a gravitational blueshift of:

f_r=\frac{1-\dfrac{2GM}{(R+h)c^2}}{1-\dfrac{2GM}{Rc^2}}f_e.

The detector at the bottom sees a superposition of the two effects. The emitter dish was placed in an elevator and the speed was varied until the two effects cancelled each other, a phenomenon detected by reaching resonance. Mathematically:

\frac{1-v/c}{1+v/c}\cdot\frac{1-\dfrac{2GM}{(R+h)c^2}}{1-\dfrac{2GM}{Rc^2}}=1.

In the case of the Pound–Rebka experiment h\ll R. Therefore:

v \approx \frac {gh}{c} = 7.5×10−7 m/s

In the more general case when h ≈ R the above is no longer true. The energy associated with gravitational redshift over a distance of 22.5 meters is very small. The fractional change in energy is given by δE/E, is equal to gh/c2 = 2.5×10−15. Therefore short wavelength high energy photons are required to detect such minute differences. The 14 keV gamma rays emitted by iron-57 when it transitions to its base state proved to be sufficient for this experiment.

Normally, when an atom emits or absorbs a photon, it also moves (recoils) a little, which takes away some energy from the photon due to the principle of conservation of momentum.

The Doppler shift required to compensate for this recoil effect would be much larger (about 5 orders of magnitude) than the Doppler shift required to offset the gravitational redshift. But in 1958 Mossbauer reported that all atoms in a solid lattice absorb the recoil energy when a single atom in the lattice emits a gamma ray. Therefore the emitting atom will move very little (just like a cannon doesn't recoil much when you put a lot of sandbags behind it).

This allowed Pound and Rebka to set up their experiment as a variation of Mössbauer spectroscopy.

The test was carried out at Harvard University's Jefferson laboratory. A solid sample containing iron (57Fe) emitting gamma rays was placed in the center of a loudspeaker cone which was placed near the roof of the building. Another sample containing 57Fe was placed in the basement. The distance between this source and absorber was 22.5 meters (73.8 ft). The gamma rays traveled through a Mylar bag filled with helium to minimize scattering of the gamma rays. A scintillation counter was placed below the receiving 57Fe sample to detect the gamma rays that were not absorbed by the receiving sample. By vibrating the speaker cone the gamma ray source moved with varying speed, thus creating varying Doppler shifts. When the Doppler shift canceled out the gravitational blueshift, the receiving sample absorbed gamma rays and the number of gamma rays detected by the scintillation counter dropped accordingly. The variation in absorption could be correlated with the phase of the speaker vibration, hence with the speed of the emitting sample and therefore the doppler shift. To compensate for possible systematic errors, Pound and Rebka varied the speaker frequency between 10 Hz and 50 Hz, interchanged the source and absorber-detector, and used different speakers (ferroelectric and moving coil magnetic transducer).[2]. The reason for exchanging the positions of the absorber and the detector is doubling the effect. Pound subtracted two experimental results:

(1) the frequency shift with the source at the top of the tower

(2) the frequency shift with the source at the bottom of the tower

The frequency shift for the two cases has the same magnitude but opposing signs. When subtracting the results, Pound and Rebka obtained a result twice as big as for the one-way experiment.

The result confirmed that the predictions of general relativity were borne out at the 10% level.[3] This was later improved to better than the 1% level by Pound and Snider.[4]

Another test involving a space-borne hydrogen maser increased the accuracy of the measurement to about 10−4.[5]

So how is it discreetly measured and how does it differ from more standard models?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%8 ... experiment

[hackenslash]

Way to miss the fucking point by light-years. The experiment you have described deals with the red shift of light travelling in a gravitational field, and has nothing to do with the shift of gravitational waves toward the blue end of the spectrum. You do understand, do you not, that gravity is not light? The predictions of the brane-worlds hypothesis are that the gravity itself will be shifted toward the blue end of the energy spectrum, not the fucking light travelling through it.

Now, you were saying?

[Nautilidae]

Way to miss the fucking point by light-years. The experiment you have described deals with the red shift of light travelling in a gravitational field, and has nothing to do with the shift of gravitational waves toward the blue end of the spectrum. You do understand, do you not, that gravity is not light? The predictions of the brane-worlds hypothesis are that the gravity itself will be shifted toward the blue end of the energy spectrum, not the fucking light travelling through it.

Now, you were saying?

Do not even attempt to present acceptable arguments, Hack. He will simply pretend as of they aren't there. He has failed to address 90% of the points raised, yet he claims that we have nothing. Do not waste your effort.

[The Dagda]

Way to miss the fucking point by light-years. The experiment you have described deals with the red shift of light travelling in a gravitational field, and has nothing to do with the shift of gravitational waves toward the blue end of the spectrum. You do understand, do you not, that gravity is not light? The predictions of the brane-worlds hypothesis are that the gravity itself will be shifted toward the blue end of the energy spectrum, not the fucking light travelling through it.

Now, you were saying?

I was saying that gravitational shift is predicted by many models and observing it will not distinguish it from many. You guys are labouring under the delusion that those who have the most to lose by defending string theory are the most likely to be correct about their fanciful ideas. I was trying to show you an experimental set up, I know scary isn't it evidence, experiments woooo boogey men! Now where is blue shift being tested for and how do they propose to do so. This is not a hard question, I think you may even be able to answer it. Give it a whurl, hell there's a first time for everything.

"Don't worry faceless fanatic of a failing theory they will not explain x."

Ad hominem.

Basically I already have explained everything and its all tied up in those posts. If you don't like it then tell me what experiment shows blue shift, or can test for it and where is it based? And is it distinguishable from other shift theories?

So why is Feynman, Rovelli, Woight, Smolin etc's points ignored by you then.

Remove the beam from thy brothers eye before you seek to remove the mote from mine own.

I'm going to guess that nautilidae has a GCSE at best and the other guy is a graduate, what makes your opinion any better than scientific peer review by real professionals and those educated to the standard of Professor in string theory such as Smolin? Who died and made you two chancers kings of science?

[Nautilidae]

Way to miss the fucking point by light-years. The experiment you have described deals with the red shift of light travelling in a gravitational field, and has nothing to do with the shift of gravitational waves toward the blue end of the spectrum. You do understand, do you not, that gravity is not light? The predictions of the brane-worlds hypothesis are that the gravity itself will be shifted toward the blue end of the energy spectrum, not the fucking light travelling through it.

Now, you were saying?

I was saying that gravitational shift is predicted by many models and observing it will not distinguish it from many. You guys are labouring under the delusion that those who have the most to lose by defending string theory are the most likely to be correct about their fanciful ideas. I was trying to show you an experimental set up, I know scary isn't it evidence, experiments woooo boogey men! Now where is blue shift being tested for and how do they propose to do so. This is not a hard question, I think you may even be able to answer it. Give it a whurl, hell there's a first time for everything.

"Don't worry faceless fanatic of a failing theory they will not explain x."

Ad hominem.

Basically I already have explained everything and its all tied up in those posts. If you don't like it then tell me what experiment shows blue shift, or can test for it and where is it based? And is it distinguishable from other shift theories?

So why is Feynman, Rovelli, Woight, Smolin etc's points ignored by you then.

Remove the beam from thy brothers eye before you seek to remove the mote from mine own.

I'm going to guess that nautilidae has a GCSE at best and the other guy is a graduate, what makes your opinion any better than scientific peer review by real professionals and those educated to the standard of Professor in string theory such as Smolin? Who died and made you two chancers kings of science?

I have ignored no one's points. I have addressed almost ever argument that you have made. You have addressed almost none of them. I have already stayed that I have read the arguments made by Smolin(they are typical anti- string arguemenrs like the ones that you make). I don't know what you are talking abot when you mention "the points raised by Feynman"; he hasn't made any. As for your ad hominem statement, the example you gave is not even close to an ad hominem.

You have not addressed the blue shift brought up by hackenslash. You are talking about gravitational red/blue shift; that isn't what hackenslash is discussing.

Like he says, you have missed the point by light years. You have addressed almost no points that have been raised. All you have done is attempt to discredit us in order to discredit the arguments we make; THAT'S an ad hominem.

[hackenslash]

I was saying that gravitational shift is predicted by many models and observing it will not distinguish it from many.

You have asserted this, but you haven't demonstrated it. In fact. all you have demonstrated is that your understanding of what is meant by blue-shifted gravitational waves is completely wide of the mark.

You guys are labouring under the delusion that those who have the most to lose by defending string theory are the most likely to be correct about their fanciful ideas.

I'm not labouring under any delusion. Which part of 'I am not a supported of string theory' constitutes a delusion in any logically consistent universe?

I was trying to show you an experimental set up, I know scary isn't it evidence, experiments woooo boogey men! Now where is blue shift being tested for and how do they propose to do so. This is not a hard question, I think you may even be able to answer it. Give it a whurl, hell there's a first time for everything.

The blus-shift is expected to be manifest at the LHC during collision experiments, and will be detected by gravitaional wave detectors, as outline in a previous post. Of course, that post was completely overlooked in your zeal to debunk that which you clearly know nothing about.

"Don't worry faceless fanatic of a failing theory they will not explain x."

What?

Ad hominem.

What is this referring to? I saw no ad hominem.

Basically I already have explained everything and its all tied up in those posts. If you don't like it then tell me what experiment shows blue shift, or can test for it and where is it based? And is it distinguishable from other shift theories?

See above, and you haven't actually elucidated what other theories predict blue-shifted gravitational waves.

So why is Feynman, Rovelli, Woight, Smolin etc's points ignored by you then.

Counter: Which points have I ignored? Again, I have clearly stated, on several occasions, that I am not a supporter of string theory, and I have taken objections on board. They do not address the testable predictions made, and their opinions are not based on observation of empirical evidence. The principles of string theory have not been falsified.

Remove the beam from thy brothers eye before you seek to remove the mote from mine own.

I see no beam.

I'm going to guess that nautilidae has a GCSE at best and the other guy is a graduate, what makes your opinion any better than scientific peer review by real professionals and those educated to the standard of Professor in string theory such as Smolin? Who died and made you two chancers kings of science?

WHich just goes to show where guessing gets you. You've missed my qualification by light-years.

[Nautilidae]

I'm not labouring under any delusion. Which part of 'I am not a supported of string theory' constitutes a delusion in any logically consistent universe?

Hackenslash, he is not approaching this logically. If he were, he would not dismiss any examples of testable predictions made by string theory, such as AdS/CFT correspondence, and then claim that string theory makes no testable predictions. Hell, if he were approaching this logically, he wouldn't ignore any of the ignored points of which we have informed him.

There are several experiments that may test string theory, including:

• ATLAS
• CMS
• ALICE
• GEO 600 (gravitational wave detector)

Most of these experiments are located at CERN, the place where Dadga claims "everyone doesn't expect the LHC to test string theory", regardless of the fact that some of their top physicists (such as John Ellis) are looking forward to the LHC's implications for string theory.

[The Dagda]

Way to miss the fucking point by light-years. The experiment you have described deals with the red shift of light travelling in a gravitational field, and has nothing to do with the shift of gravitational waves toward the blue end of the spectrum. You do understand, do you not, that gravity is not light? The predictions of the brane-worlds hypothesis are that the gravity itself will be shifted toward the blue end of the energy spectrum, not the fucking light travelling through it.

Now, you were saying?

I was saying that gravitational shift is predicted by many models and observing it will not distinguish it from many. You guys are labouring under the delusion that those who have the most to lose by defending string theory are the most likely to be correct about their fanciful ideas. I was trying to show you an experimental set up, I know scary isn't it evidence, experiments woooo boogey men! Now where is blue shift being tested for and how do they propose to do so. This is not a hard question, I think you may even be able to answer it. Give it a whurl, hell there's a first time for everything.

"Don't worry faceless fanatic of a failing theory they will not explain x."

Ad hominem.

Basically I already have explained everything and its all tied up in those posts. If you don't like it then tell me what experiment shows blue shift, or can test for it and where is it based? And is it distinguishable from other shift theories?

So why is Feynman, Rovelli, Woight, Smolin etc's points ignored by you then.

Remove the beam from thy brothers eye before you seek to remove the mote from mine own.

I'm going to guess that nautilidae has a GCSE at best and the other guy is a graduate, what makes your opinion any better than scientific peer review by real professionals and those educated to the standard of Professor in string theory such as Smolin? Who died and made you two chancers kings of science?

I have ignored no one's points. I have addressed almost ever argument that you have made. You have addressed almost none of them. I have already stayed that I have read the arguments made by Smolin(they are typical anti- string arguemenrs like the ones that you make). I don't know what you are talking abot when you mention "the points raised by Feynman"; he hasn't made any. As for your ad hominem statement, the example you gave is not even close to an ad hominem.

You have not addressed the blue shift brought up by hackenslash. You are talking about gravitational red/blue shift; that isn't what hackenslash is discussing.

Like he says, you have missed the point by light years. You have addressed almost no points that have been raised. All you have done is attempt to discredit us in order to discredit the arguments we make; THAT'S an ad hominem.

No you haven't show me one single experiment that currently is being done that distinguishes string theory? It's a simple question?

I'm not labouring under any delusion. Which part of 'I am not a supported of string theory' constitutes a delusion in any logically consistent universe?

Hackenslash, he is not approaching this logically. If he were, he would not dismiss any examples of testable predictions made by string theory, such as AdS/CFT correspondence, and then claim that string theory makes no testable predictions. Hell, if he were approaching this logically, he wouldn't ignore any of the ignored points of which we have informed him.

There are several experiments that may test string theory, including:

• ATLAS
• CMS
• ALICE
• GEO 600 (gravitational wave detector)

Most of these experiments are located at CERN, the place where Dadga claims "everyone doesn't expect the LHC to test string theory", regardless of the fact that some of their top physicists (such as John Ellis) are looking forward to the LHC's implications for string theory.

Are you actually reading the links I post or just waiting for a break in the convo to speak?

None of these distinguish string theory, they just don't.

We're at an impasse, I am wrong and you are right wont play for much longer. String Theorists believe they can distinguish their theory now, mainstream scientists don't. You can't fight dogma, but mainstream scientists have theories, so you lose by default, and not lose as in anyone cares what some nobody on the internet thinks about pwning your ass for lulz, but, lose to the scientific method that realistically anyone whether 15 or 89 should care about, it's pretty clear you don't and just keep avoiding the subject of actual experiment. Again what experiment where and how is it distinguished from other theories that suggest the same results? You can say it does, but the fact is it doesn't, yet.

String theory gets knotted

Aug 2, 2006

Not Even Wrong – The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics
Peter Woit
2006 Jonathan Cape
290pp £18.99/$26.95 hb

"Not even wrong" was Wolfgang Pauli's ultimate put-down for any theory he considered wide of the mark. Here it is adopted by Peter Woit - a mathematician at Columbia University - and aimed at the rampant industry of string theory that has mushroomed in the past 20 years, covering elementary particle physics, cosmology and even consciousness. While it is easy to imagine the irascible Pauli's reaction to string theory, one wonders what he would have made of this book. Not Even Wrong emerged from Woit's popular blog of the same name (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress), and has already sparked arguments. Woit relates how his manuscript was rejected as too controversial by Cambridge University Press, before finding a high-powered publisher with the help of Roger Penrose.
A tale of two W's
A tale of two W's

Woit's central claim is that not only is string theory wrong, but that it has also tainted the intellectual atmosphere and grabbed far more than its fair share of media coverage. With so many string theorists out there, trying to redress the balance is like spitting in the wind. The problem with the book is that it is really two books. "Woit I" - a brief history of particle physics - takes up the first 146 pages. Strings first appear on, wait for it, page 152, when we embark on the Great String Massacre of "Woit II". Here the book finally gets into its stride, and becomes quite entertaining. But to get that point means traversing the long, rambling and inaccurate Woit I, and many readers will jump off before getting to the destination. This reviewer nearly did.

In Woit I, concepts and personalities zoom across the page at a baffling speed, with a level of detail that is unpredictable. Sometimes this is insufficient - on page 23 we are hit with the "strong interaction" and "synchrotron radiation" without being told what they are. Elsewhere we encounter, "Early work on current algebra during the 1960s had turned up a rather confusing problem which was dubbed an 'anomaly'. The source of the difficulty was something that had been studied by Schwinger in 1951… [This] Schwinger term was causing the Hilbert space of the current algebra to not quite be a representation of the symmetry group of the model." Got it? There is a lot more like that in Woit I.

This mayhem is not helped by errors and deficiencies: Ernest Rutherford discovered the nucleus at Manchester, not Cambridge, and using alpha particles (as stated correctly on page 19) not electrons (page 87). The ISABELLE experiment (by then called something else) at Brookhaven was cancelled while plans for the US Superconducting Supercollider were taking shape, not before, and it had no "competing collider" at CERN. Without further explanation, readers will be bemused to learn that neutrinos pass straight through the Earth but still pose a radiation problem when generated in new muon colliders. The picture of the global particle-physics scene painted in Woit I is also slanted towards the US: there is plenty about neutrino experiments based at Fermilab, but no mention of major projects elsewhere. I could go on.

Emerging from the fog of Woit I is the saintly figure of Hermann Weyl, who single-handedly did much to improve the mathematical footing of physics in the early 20th century. Indeed, aside from damning string theory, Woit's major theme is how physics and mathematics are intertwined disciplines, dancing closely together but not always in step.

Finally arriving at Woit II, any remaining readers are rewarded, though ironically Woit himself says just the opposite: "Readers who like their science always to be inspirational are advised that now may be the time to stop reading this book." The author relates vividly how the theoretical-physics community appears mesmerized by the brilliance of Edward Witten. While himself being impressed by Witten's intellect, Woit depicts him as a Pied Piper of Princeton, luring gullible theorists off to dark destinations. Witten is the counterpart for the latter half of the 20th century to Weyl in the first half, but in Woit's eyes he does not achieve the intellectual honesty of Weyl - even if Weyl was having an affair with Frau Schrödinger!

The ultimate judge of any physical theory should be comparison with experiment, and Woit duly underlines string theory's miserable score on this count: "Not a single experimental prediction has been made, nor are there any prospects for this to change soon." He adds a pithy remark by Feynman: "String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses." ]While most string theorists are honest, Woit uncovers cases of dishonesty and outright fraud, such as the episode in 2002 involving the brothers Bogdanov, a string-theory version of the infamous Sokal hoax.

While in previous epochs theoretical physicists had to scamper to keep pace with mathematicians like Weyl or David Hilbert, the situation is now reversed. Problems related to field theory appear high on the mathematical agenda, with heavyweights such as Roger Penrose, Michael Atiyah and Alain Connes contributing. Long may the subtle interplay of mathematics and physics continue, Woit argues, provided it is done outside "the now-ossified ideology" of supersymmetry and string theory. On the jacket, Penrose calls Not Even Wrong "compulsive reading". Penrose is not like other people - he is extremely bright and can churn out industrial-strength mathematics. Maybe his assessment is correct for Woit II, but not when it is prefaced by the disappointing Woit I.

Feynman was no great fan of the "theory".

It's beside the point string theory will die without an actual experiment all your excuses mean nothing. I hope they succeed I'm not too proud to admit my doubts were unfounded, but then I acknowledge that philosophy is a grey area.

If I don't lose the to quote a famous actor "It belongs in a Museum!"

[The Dagda]

I was saying that gravitational shift is predicted by many models and observing it will not distinguish it from many.

You have asserted this, but you haven't demonstrated it. In fact. all you have demonstrated is that your understanding of what is meant by blue-shifted gravitational waves is completely wide of the mark.

You guys are labouring under the delusion that those who have the most to lose by defending string theory are the most likely to be correct about their fanciful ideas.

I'm not labouring under any delusion. Which part of 'I am not a supported of string theory' constitutes a delusion in any logically consistent universe?

I was trying to show you an experimental set up, I know scary isn't it evidence, experiments woooo boogey men! Now where is blue shift being tested for and how do they propose to do so. This is not a hard question, I think you may even be able to answer it. Give it a whurl, hell there's a first time for everything.

The blus-shift is expected to be manifest at the LHC during collision experiments, and will be detected by gravitaional wave detectors, as outline in a previous post. Of course, that post was completely overlooked in your zeal to debunk that which you clearly know nothing about.

"Don't worry faceless fanatic of a failing theory they will not explain x."

What?

Ad hominem.

What is this referring to? I saw no ad hominem.

Basically I already have explained everything and its all tied up in those posts. If you don't like it then tell me what experiment shows blue shift, or can test for it and where is it based? And is it distinguishable from other shift theories?

See above, and you haven't actually elucidated what other theories predict blue-shifted gravitational waves.

So why is Feynman, Rovelli, Woight, Smolin etc's points ignored by you then.

Counter: Which points have I ignored? Again, I have clearly stated, on several occasions, that I am not a supporter of string theory, and I have taken objections on board. They do not address the testable predictions made, and their opinions are not based on observation of empirical evidence. The principles of string theory have not been falsified.

Remove the beam from thy brothers eye before you seek to remove the mote from mine own.

I see no beam.

I'm going to guess that nautilidae has a GCSE at best and the other guy is a graduate, what makes your opinion any better than scientific peer review by real professionals and those educated to the standard of Professor in string theory such as Smolin? Who died and made you two chancers kings of science?

WHich just goes to show where guessing gets you. You've missed my qualification by light-years.

The only thing I've missed is the fact that you have answered none of Smolins, Woits or anyone elses points. I miss that a lot, the rest of this ad hom fest I can do without. Come on answer the question what experiment when and where?

I so love this subject all the fanatics come out of the woodwork, and claim they aren't. But "methinks though dost protest too much?!"

If you are so impartial why do you dismiss the views if greater men than you. And whatever your qualification is who cares, you aint an authority yet, that would take a prize or two on a subject. Like the emminent physicists I quote, my opinion means shit, not even shit.

I see no beam.

Probably because you have a beam in your eyes.

The blus-shift is expected to be manifest at the LHC during collision experiments, and will be detected by gravitaional wave detectors, as outline in a previous post. Of course, that post was completely overlooked in your zeal to debunk that which you clearly know nothing about.

God I hate people who overfragment with qoutes in order to try and diverge the subject.

It does not distinguish it can prove blue shift all it wants but if it is the same as any other theory of blue shift it is merely one of a crowd. Is that really so hard to understand?

[Nautilidae]

No you haven't show me one single experiment that currently is being done that distinguishes string theory? It's a simple question?

I've given you several. Deal with those or don't talk.

Are you actually reading the links I post or just waiting for a break in the convo to speak?

None of these distinguish string theory, they just don't.

How the hell do you know? CERN hasn't even gotten the results yet.

"They just don't" isn't an argument; it's a circular response. Many mainstream scientists believe that the LHC will reveal aspects of string theory. You have shown nothing that contradicts this other than opinions. Hackenslash has shown you an example of a phenomenon predicted by string theory that can be tested at the LHC, as have I. However, you cherry-pick the examples and address one or two out of the many that have been presented.

We're at an impasse, I am wrong and you are right wont play for much longer. String Theorists believe they can distinguish their theory now, mainstream scientists don't. You can't fight dogma, but mainstream scientists have theories, so you lose by default, and not lose as in anyone cares what some nobody on the internet thinks about pwning your ass for lulz, but, lose to the scientific method that realistically anyone whether 15 or 89 should care about, it's pretty clear you don't and just keep avoiding the subject of actual experiment. Again what experiment where and how is it distinguished from other theories that suggest the same results? You can say it does, but the fact is it doesn't, yet.

What the hell is this drivel? I've already shown several experiments, predictions, and mainstream scientists that support string theory. Here is a short list:

Steven Weinberg
Leonard Susskind
Stephen Hawking
John Ellis

All of these men are mainstream scientists and supporters of string theory. The last man on the list works at CERN, and he believes that the LHC may reveal aspects of string theory. Why do you continually play "I'm wrong and your right"? It won't get you anywhere without evidence to back up your arguments. We have arguments backed up . You have opinionated anecdotes from bloggers and physicists.

Feynman was no great fan of the "theory".

It's beside the point string theory will die without an actual experiment all your excuses mean nothing.

They aren't excuses. They are testable predictions. Experiments ARE able to test these phenomenon. You have yet to present an argument that properly refutes this.

The only thing I've missed is the fact that you have answered none of Smolins, Woits or anyone elses points. I miss that a lot, the rest of this ad hom fest I can do without. Come on answer the question what experiment when and where?

Smolins points are identical to yours; string theory doesn't offer predictions, it's pure maths, it's unfalsifiable. I have read his writings.

ATLAS, CERN
ALICE, CERN
CMS, CERN

Where on Earth are the ad hominems? Do you even understand what that means?

If you are so impartial why do you dismiss the views if greater men than you.

I could ask the same of you, considering that you dismiss some of the greatest prize winning physicists as "outside of the mainstream" and "following a religion".

And whatever your qualification is who cares, you aint an authority yet, that would take a prize or two on a subject. Like the emminent physicists I quote, my opinion means shit, not even shit.

Oh really? Why does your opinion matter? It's backed up by opinionated statements, anecdotes, and arm-waving. Our arguments give examples of experiments and predictions. Your don't

God I hate people who overfragment with qoutes in order to try and diverge the subject.

How has he diverged from the subject? He is showing yet another test for string theory that you misunderstand and arm-wave.

It does not distinguish it can prove blue shift all it wants but if it is the same as any other theory of blue shift it is merely one of a crowd. Is that really so hard to understand?

Apparently it's hard for you to understand. If the blue-shift experiments shows values of blue-shift that others don't it doesn't matter that other theories predict blue-shift; the theory gives different predictions.

[lpetrich]

The LHC won't be able to test stringiness directly; one would need an accelerator with over a trillion times the LHC's particle energy for that. However, it will be able to test:

The Higgs Particle

This is the missing piece of the Standard Model. Its field has a potential with a hump in the middle, forcing it to have a nonzero ground-state value. This continually interacts with various other SM particles, giving them their masses.

The SM has a one-doublet Higgs sector, with two neutral and one +/-1 charged when unbroken. But as they acquire masses, the W and the Z "eat" the charged and one neutral particles, leaving behind the other neutral particle.

Fancier versions have two doublets, which produce three neutral and one charged Higgs.

Supersymmetry

This symmetry relates particles with integer and half-odd spins, and has some theoretically nice properties. Particles have have supersymmetry partners with spins differing by 1/2 but otherwise with the same quantum numbers and more-or-less the same interactions.

The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Mode (MSSM) features:

Spin-0 partners of spin-1/2 particles: left-handed and right-handed sfermions (scalar fermions): squarks (scalar quarks), sleptons (scalar leptons), ...
Spin-1/2 partners of spin-0 particles: Higgsinos
Spin-1/2 partners of spin-1 particles: gauginos: gluino (of gluon), wino (of W), zino (of Z), photino (of photon)

In addition, supergravity (supersymmetric gravity) theories feature:
Spin-3/2 partner (gravitino) of spin-2 particle (graviton)
The gravitino interacts with gravitational strength, so the LHC will not be able to produce it in any significant quantity.

These particles mix in these groups:

• Up-like squarks: 6
• Down-like squarks: 6
• Sneutrinos: 3 or 6
• Charged sleptons: 6
• Charginos: 2 -- charged higgsino and wino
• Neutralinos: 4 -- the 2 neutral higgsinos, the zino, and the photino
• Gluino: 1 -- no mixing with other particles

A problem with expected masses is that the MSSM has several free parameters, over 100 in the most general case. But from typical parameter values: (Higgses, neutralinos, charginos, sleptons) < (squarks, gluino)

Dark Matter

The MSSM and other supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model usually predict that there will be a stable Lightest Supersymmetric Particle. At low energies, LSP's can only be destroyed by one LSP meeting another one and annihilating. Furthermore, LSP's are estimated to have masses of a few hundred GeV. In many cases, the lightest LSP is a neutralino, which will interact only very weakly with familiar matter. These features make LSP's good candidates for Dark Matter, and their calculated density is around what one finds observationally.

Grand Unified Theories

The MSSM has the nice property that when one does renormalization of the gauge coupling constants, they become very close at a few times 1016 GeV, about a trillion times the LHC's particle energies. It's hard to get close with the plain Standard Model or with most other SM extensions. Furthermore, the MSSM gets closest when supersymmetry is broken at energies of a few hundred GeV to a few TeV, about in the LHC's range.

Not only gauge unification may happen, but mass unification may also happen. The gauginos may have the same masses at GUT scales, the sfermions close to the same masses, and bottom quarks and tau leptons may also have close masses.

The simplest simple symmetry that includes the Standard Model's SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1) symmetry is SU(5), in the Georgi-Glashow model. It has one gauge multiplet, and each generation has two multiplets, or three if one counts right-handed neutrinos.

The next one is SO(10), and all the MSSM low-energy Higgs multiplets fall into one multiplet, and each generation of elementary fermions has one all-inclusive multiplet.

String-Theory Tests?

The LHC's particles have less than a trillionth of the necessary energy for directly observing "stringy" features. So one has to test string-based models with low-energy limits, even sort-of low-energy limits like at GUT energy scales.

But all these features are broadly consistent with various string-based models:

• Supersymmetry
• GUT gauge unification
• GUT mass unification
• GUT gauge group at least SU(5) or SO(10)
• GUT multiplet structure, especially for SO(10)

However, the details are another story, and improving experimental constraints on GUT-scale physics will help make string models more testable.

[The Dagda]

No you haven't show me one single experiment that currently is being done that distinguishes string theory? It's a simple question?

I've given you several. Deal with those or don't talk.

The Dagda wrote:
The only thing I've missed is the fact that you have answered none of Smolins, Woits or anyone elses points. I miss that a lot, the rest of this ad hom fest I can do without. Come on answer the question what experiment when and where?



Smolins points are identical to yours; string theory doesn't offer predictions, it's pure maths, it's unfalsifiable. I have read his writings.

ATLAS, CERN
ALICE, CERN
CMS, CERN

Where on Earth are the ad hominems? Do you even understand what that means?

Arrogant child. Don't tell me what to say, you haven't dealt with the objections of Smolin and you don't have the education to do so. So kindly sit down unless you explain in detail why it is falsifiable and in what experiment thanks.

That is an ad hominem, I assume your opinion is worthless because of a quality you exhibit that of being a whipper snapper who's still at school.

The attack on me claiming I don't know what an ad hominem is is not really as such it deals with my argument not my personal qualities at leasst its not a fallacious ad hominem. Now can we move on.

Are you actually reading the links I post or just waiting for a break in the convo to speak?

None of these distinguish string theory, they just don't.

How the hell do you know? CERN hasn't even gotten the results yet.

"They just don't" isn't an argument; it's a circular response. Many mainstream scientists believe that the LHC will reveal aspects of string theory. You have shown nothing that contradicts this other than opinions. Hackenslash has shown you an example of a phenomenon predicted by string theory that can be tested at the LHC, as have I. However, you cherry-pick the examples and address one or two out of the many that have been presented.

We're at an impasse, I am wrong and you are right wont play for much longer. String Theorists believe they can distinguish their theory now, mainstream scientists don't. You can't fight dogma, but mainstream scientists have theories, so you lose by default, and not lose as in anyone cares what some nobody on the internet thinks about pwning your ass for lulz, but, lose to the scientific method that realistically anyone whether 15 or 89 should care about, it's pretty clear you don't and just keep avoiding the subject of actual experiment. Again what experiment where and how is it distinguished from other theories that suggest the same results? You can say it does, but the fact is it doesn't, yet.

What the hell is this drivel? I've already shown several experiments, predictions, and mainstream scientists that support string theory. Here is a short list:

Steven Weinberg
Leonard Susskind
Stephen Hawking
John Ellis

If you are so impartial why do you dismiss the views if greater men than you.

And whatever your qualification is who cares, you aint an authority yet, that would take a prize or two on a subject. Like the emminent physicists I quote, my opinion means shit, not even shit.

Oh really? Why does your opinion matter? It's backed up by opinionated statements, anecdotes, and arm-waving. Our arguments give examples of experiments and predictions. Your don't

God I hate people who overfragment with qoutes in order to try and diverge the subject.

How has he diverged from the subject? He is showing yet another test for string theory that you misunderstand and arm-wave.

It does not distinguish it can prove blue shift all it wants but if it is the same as any other theory of blue shift it is merely one of a crowd. Is that really so hard to understand?

.

So your argument basically is I am right and you are wrong. Laughable. Delusional.

You said he wont answer your questions, as he never does that is an ad hominem, amongst others.

I suspect you really have little or no knowledge of this subject if you think that their points are in any way invalid. Saying x distinguishes y when clearly the mainstream says it doesn't is ignorant. So why are all the mainstream theorists wrong and the String Theorists right. Let's examine the routes of their self delusion?

String theory is not mainstream it's not a theory it can't be, mainstream indicates a hypothesis at least based on already theoretical concerns ie Higgs. it is the prevailing thoughts on science not the hypothetical thoughts of science based on arm waving, excuses, downright fraud, and self delusional arm waving.

Apparently it's hard for you to understand. If the blue-shift experiments shows values of blue-shift that others don't it doesn't matter that other theories predict blue-shift; the theory gives different predictions

What blue shift experiments? Here's a clue for you you can say it tests differently for this but if you don't even have a means to test for it what the fuck does that even mean? I can claim to test for fairies at least I can actually set up an experiment to find if they exist at the bottom of my garden, what do you have?

Answer the question ffs. Links? Who said what, who's done what in what experiment, which journal, who peer reviewed it, was it discrete from say LQG which makes the same sorts of predictions as strings.

And yes Ipetrich it can't even distinguish itself indirectly ATM that is my argument simply, as soon as it becomes falsifiable String Theorists who may or may not be scientists start doing real science, not just talking the talk.

String theory merely plagiarises other theories predictions and makes them their own. It has very little to do with science and more to do with a dying non theorem grasping onto the organism of physics and sucking the blood out of it. What we need is to send this parasite back to the maths departments where it belongs unless it is working in real science that involves real empiricism.

All of these men are mainstream scientists and supporters of string theory. The last man on the list works at CERN, and he believes that the LHC may reveal aspects of string theory. Why do you continually play "I'm wrong and your right"? It won't get you anywhere without evidence to back up your arguments. We have arguments backed up . You have opinionated anecdotes from bloggers and physicists.

Links. I'd like to see him go head to head with Smolin but String groupies don't do peer review. They just as Feynman eloquently said make excuses.

I could ask the same of you, considering that you dismiss some of the greatest prize winning physicists as "outside of the mainstream" and "following a religion".

How many Nobel prizes does string propaganda have? Aren't its prizes in fields mathematical mainly?

Winning 10 fields medals does not make you a physicist. That is an example of a resort to authority fallacy. What is in argument here is not how many awards people have won but what for and was it science or scientifically methodical.

THE ARENA FOR ACCOUNTABLE PREDICTIONS
A LONG BET


“By 2020, no one will have won a Nobel Prize for work on superstring theory, membrane theory, or some other unified theory describing all the forces of nature.”

Predictor
John Horgan

Challenger
Michio Kaku

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Horgan’s Argument

In purely intellectual terms, a unified theory of physics would be the greatest of all scientific achievements. It would culminate the ancient human quest for knowledge, which began when the first of our ancestors asked, "Why?" It would yield the basic rules governing the entire universe, from the smallest to the largest scales. It would tell us how the universe came into being and why it took this particular form, which permitted our existence. It might even reveal our ultimate cosmic fate. At least, that's what seekers of a unified theory hope, and what I used to believe. In the early 1990s, I came to suspect that the quest for a unified theory is religious rather than scientific. Physicists want to show that all things came from one thing: a force, or essence, or membrane wriggling in eleven dimensions, or something that manifests perfect mathematical symmetry. In their search for this primordial symmetry, however, physicists have gone off the deep end, postulating particles and energies and dimensions whose existence can never be experimentally verified. The Superconducting Supercollider, the monstrous particle accelerator that Congress canceled in 1993, would have been 54-miles in circumference. Gaining access to the infinitesimal microscales where superstrings supposedly wriggle would require an accelerator 1,000 light years around. (The entire solar system is only one light day around.) It is this problem that makes me confident I will win this bet. The Nobel prize judges have always been sticklers for experimental proof. The dream of a unified theory, which some evangelists call a "theory of everything," will never be entirely abandoned. But I predict that over the next twenty years, fewer smart young physicists will be attracted to an endeavor that has vanishingly little hope of an empirical payoff. Most physicists will come to accept that nature might not share our passion for unity. Physicists have already produced theories-Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, general relativity, nonlinear dynamics--that work extraordinarily well in certain domains, and there is no reason why there should be a single theory that accounts for all the forces of nature. The quest for a unified theory will come to be seen not as a branch of science, which tells us about the real world, but as a kind of mathematical theology. By the way, I would be delighted to lose this bet.


So would I!


Kaku’s Argument

It is often forgotten that physics is mainly done indirectly. Thus, we know that the sun is made of hydrogen gas, yet no one has ever visited the sun. We know that black holes exist in space, yet they are invisible by definition. We know that the Big Bang took place approximately 15 billion years ago, yet no one was there to witness it. We know these things, because we have indirect evidence or "echoes", such as sunlight and characteristic radiation from black holes and Creation. Likewise, you do not need to build an atom smasher the size of the galaxy to prove string theory or M-theory (the leading and, in fact, only candidate for a "theory of everything). Instead, we need to look for echoes from the 10th and 11th dimensions as follows: a) Within a few years, the Large Hadron Collider, the largest atom smasher on earth, will be turned on outside Geneva, Switzerland. It might be able to find "sparticles" or super particles, i.e. higher vibrations or octaves of the superstring. b) Invisible dark matter, which makes up 90% of the matter in the universe, might be shown to consist of sparticles like the photino. This might also verify string theory. c) In this decade, gravity wave detectors should be able to record shock waves from colliding black holes, which might reveal the first quantum corrrection to Einstein's original theory of 1915. These quantum corrections can be compared to those predicted by string theory. d) Within 20 years, NASA plans to send three gravity wave detectors into outer space. They should be sensitive enough to pick up the shock waves from the Big Bang itself created a fraction of a second after the instant of creation. This should be able to prove or disprove string theory. Personally, I feel no need to prove the theory experimentally, since I believe it can be proven using pure mathematics. A theory of everything is also a theory of everyday energies, where we find familar electrons, protons, and atoms. If we can solve the theory mathematically, then we should be able to calculate the properties of electrons, protons, and atoms from pure mathematics. If the results disagree with known data, then string theory will be shown to be a "theory of nothing." However, if the numbers agree, then it will be heralded as the greatest achievement of the human mind. We will have "read the mind of God." So what prevents us from simply solving the theory and comparing the results with nature? The problem is that the theory is smarter than we are. No one on this planet is smart enough to solve this theory. The smartest people on earth are working on this problem, and have so far failed. (This is because the theory was discovered purely by accident in 1968. We were never supposed to see this theory in the 20th century. The mathematics necessary to solve the theory have not yet been discovered.) Because string theory has near-miraculous breakthroughs every 8 to 10 years, we can expect 2 more breakthroughs in the theory before 2020, and hence might be able to solve this theory by then. Perhaps someone reading this bet will be inspired to mathematically solve this theory completely. Maybe that person will then receive a telephone call from Sweden.

Large bold type by me.

Now this is more science than string theories excuses its called debate. Nice to see some people indulge in it.

http://www.longbets.org/12

What's in dispute is whether string theory will be discretely disproven by this. I think not, many others agree. Hence I would place £100 on this long bet, confident that no Nobel prize for physics will be forthcoming. As I said a bet I would be more than happy to lose.

"mathematical theology" meh I prefer string Voodoo or Voodoo science.

[Tigger]

No you haven't show me one single experiment that currently is being done that distinguishes string theory? It's a simple question?

I've given you several. Deal with those or don't talk.

Arrogant child. Don't tell me what to say, you haven't dealt with the objections of Smolin and you don't have the education to do so. So kindly sit down unless you explain in detail why it is falsifiable and in what experiment thanks.

That is an ad hominem, I assume your opinion is worthless because of a quality you exhibit that of being a whipper snapper who's still at school.

The attack on me claiming I don't know what an ad hominem is is not really as such it deals with my argument not my personal qualities. Now can we move on.

Are you actually reading the links I post or just waiting for a break in the convo to speak?

None of these distinguish string theory, they just don't.

How the hell do you know? CERN hasn't even gotten the results yet.

"They just don't" isn't an argument; it's a circular response. Many mainstream scientists believe that the LHC will reveal aspects of string theory. You have shown nothing that contradicts this other than opinions. Hackenslash has shown you an example of a phenomenon predicted by string theory that can be tested at the LHC, as have I. However, you cherry-pick the examples and address one or two out of the many that have been presented.

We're at an impasse, I am wrong and you are right wont play for much longer. String Theorists believe they can distinguish their theory now, mainstream scientists don't. You can't fight dogma, but mainstream scientists have theories, so you lose by default, and not lose as in anyone cares what some nobody on the internet thinks about pwning your ass for lulz, but, lose to the scientific method that realistically anyone whether 15 or 89 should care about, it's pretty clear you don't and just keep avoiding the subject of actual experiment. Again what experiment where and how is it distinguished from other theories that suggest the same results? You can say it does, but the fact is it doesn't, yet.

What the hell is this drivel? I've already shown several experiments, predictions, and mainstream scientists that support string theory. Here is a short list:

Steven Weinberg
Leonard Susskind
Stephen Hawking
John Ellis

Feynman was no great fan of the "theory".

It's beside the point string theory will die without an actual experiment all your excuses mean nothing.

They aren't excuses. They are testable predictions. Experiments ARE able to test these phenomenon. You have yet to present an argument that properly refutes this.

The only thing I've missed is the fact that you have answered none of Smolins, Woits or anyone elses points. I miss that a lot, the rest of this ad hom fest I can do without. Come on answer the question what experiment when and where?

Smolins points are identical to yours; string theory doesn't offer predictions, it's pure maths, it's unfalsifiable. I have read his writings.

ATLAS, CERN
ALICE, CERN
CMS, CERN

Where on Earth are the ad hominems? Do you even understand what that means?

If you are so impartial why do you dismiss the views if greater men than you.

And whatever your qualification is who cares, you aint an authority yet, that would take a prize or two on a subject. Like the emminent physicists I quote, my opinion means shit, not even shit.

Oh really? Why does your opinion matter? It's backed up by opinionated statements, anecdotes, and arm-waving. Our arguments give examples of experiments and predictions. Your don't

God I hate people who overfragment with qoutes in order to try and diverge the subject.

How has he diverged from the subject? He is showing yet another test for string theory that you misunderstand and arm-wave.

It does not distinguish it can prove blue shift all it wants but if it is the same as any other theory of blue shift it is merely one of a crowd. Is that really so hard to understand?

.

So your argument basically is I am right and you are wrong. Laughable. Delusional.

You said he wont answer your questions, as he never does that is an ad hominem, amongst others.

I suspect you really have little or no knowledge of this subject if you think that their points are in any way invalid. Saying x distinguishes y when clearly the mainstream says it doesn't is ignorant. So why are all the mainstream theorists wrong and the String Theorists right. Let's examine the routes of their self delusion?

String theory is not mainstream it's not a theory it can't be, mainstream indicates a hypothesis at least based on already theoretical concerns ie Higgs. it is the prevailing thoughts on science not the hypothetical thoughts of science based on arm waving, excuses, downright fraud, and self delusional arm waving.

Apparently it's hard for you to understand. If the blue-shift experiments shows values of blue-shift that others don't it doesn't matter that other theories predict blue-shift; the theory gives different predictions

What blue shift experiments? Here's a clue for you you can say it tests differently for this but if you don't even have a means to test for it what the fuck does that even mean? I can claim to test for fairies at least I can actually set up an experiment to find if they exist at the bottom of my garden, what do you have?

Answer the question ffs. Links? Who said what, who's done what in what experiment, which journal, who peer reviewed it, was it discrete from say LQG which makes the same sorts of predictions as strings.

And yes Ipetrich it can't even distinguish itself indirectly ATM that is my argument simply, as soon as it becomes falsifiable String Theorists who may or may not be scientists start doing real science, not just talking the talk.

String theory merely plagiarises other theories predictions and makes them their own. It has very little to do with science and more to do with a dying non theorem grasping onto the organism of physics and sucking the blood out of it. What we need is to send this parasite back to the maths departments where it belongs unless it is working in real science that involves real empiricism.

All of these men are mainstream scientists and supporters of string theory. The last man on the list works at CERN, and he believes that the LHC may reveal aspects of string theory. Why do you continually play "I'm wrong and your right"? It won't get you anywhere without evidence to back up your arguments. We have arguments backed up . You have opinionated anecdotes from bloggers and physicists.

Links. I'd like to see him go head to head with Smolin but String groupies don't do peer review. They just as Feynman eloquently said make excuses.

I could ask the same of you, considering that you dismiss some of the greatest prize winning physicists as "outside of the mainstream" and "following a religion".

How many Nobel prizes does string propaganda have? Aren't its prizes in fields mathematical mainly?

Winning 10 fields medals does not make you a physicist. That is an example of a resort to authority fallacy. What is in argument here is not how many awards people have won but what for and was it science or scientifically methodical.

THE ARENA FOR ACCOUNTABLE PREDICTIONS
A LONG BET


“By 2020, no one will have won a Nobel Prize for work on superstring theory, membrane theory, or some other unified theory describing all the forces of nature.”

Predictor
John Horgan

Challenger
Michio Kaku

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Horgan’s Argument

In purely intellectual terms, a unified theory of physics would be the greatest of all scientific achievements. It would culminate the ancient human quest for knowledge, which began when the first of our ancestors asked, "Why?" It would yield the basic rules governing the entire universe, from the smallest to the largest scales. It would tell us how the universe came into being and why it took this particular form, which permitted our existence. It might even reveal our ultimate cosmic fate. At least, that's what seekers of a unified theory hope, and what I used to believe. In the early 1990s, I came to suspect that the quest for a unified theory is religious rather than scientific. Physicists want to show that all things came from one thing: a force, or essence, or membrane wriggling in eleven dimensions, or something that manifests perfect mathematical symmetry. In their search for this primordial symmetry, however, physicists have gone off the deep end, postulating particles and energies and dimensions whose existence can never be experimentally verified. The Superconducting Supercollider, the monstrous particle accelerator that Congress canceled in 1993, would have been 54-miles in circumference. Gaining access to the infinitesimal microscales where superstrings supposedly wriggle would require an accelerator 1,000 light years around. (The entire solar system is only one light day around.) It is this problem that makes me confident I will win this bet. The Nobel prize judges have always been sticklers for experimental proof. The dream of a unified theory, which some evangelists call a "theory of everything," will never be entirely abandoned. But I predict that over the next twenty years, fewer smart young physicists will be attracted to an endeavor that has vanishingly little hope of an empirical payoff. Most physicists will come to accept that nature might not share our passion for unity. Physicists have already produced theories-Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, general relativity, nonlinear dynamics--that work extraordinarily well in certain domains, and there is no reason why there should be a single theory that accounts for all the forces of nature. The quest for a unified theory will come to be seen not as a branch of science, which tells us about the real world, but as a kind of mathematical theology. By the way, I would be delighted to lose this bet.


So would I!


Kaku’s Argument

It is often forgotten that physics is mainly done indirectly. Thus, we know that the sun is made of hydrogen gas, yet no one has ever visited the sun. We know that black holes exist in space, yet they are invisible by definition. We know that the Big Bang took place approximately 15 billion years ago, yet no one was there to witness it. We know these things, because we have indirect evidence or "echoes", such as sunlight and characteristic radiation from black holes and Creation. Likewise, you do not need to build an atom smasher the size of the galaxy to prove string theory or M-theory (the leading and, in fact, only candidate for a "theory of everything). Instead, we need to look for echoes from the 10th and 11th dimensions as follows: a) Within a few years, the Large Hadron Collider, the largest atom smasher on earth, will be turned on outside Geneva, Switzerland. It might be able to find "sparticles" or super particles, i.e. higher vibrations or octaves of the superstring. b) Invisible dark matter, which makes up 90% of the matter in the universe, might be shown to consist of sparticles like the photino. This might also verify string theory. c) In this decade, gravity wave detectors should be able to record shock waves from colliding black holes, which might reveal the first quantum corrrection to Einstein's original theory of 1915. These quantum corrections can be compared to those predicted by string theory. d) Within 20 years, NASA plans to send three gravity wave detectors into outer space. They should be sensitive enough to pick up the shock waves from the Big Bang itself created a fraction of a second after the instant of creation. This should be able to prove or disprove string theory. Personally, I feel no need to prove the theory experimentally, since I believe it can be proven using pure mathematics. A theory of everything is also a theory of everyday energies, where we find familar electrons, protons, and atoms. If we can solve the theory mathematically, then we should be able to calculate the properties of electrons, protons, and atoms from pure mathematics. If the results disagree with known data, then string theory will be shown to be a "theory of nothing." However, if the numbers agree, then it will be heralded as the greatest achievement of the human mind. We will have "read the mind of God." So what prevents us from simply solving the theory and comparing the results with nature? The problem is that the theory is smarter than we are. No one on this planet is smart enough to solve this theory. The smartest people on earth are working on this problem, and have so far failed. (This is because the theory was discovered purely by accident in 1968. We were never supposed to see this theory in the 20th century. The mathematics necessary to solve the theory have not yet been discovered.) Because string theory has near-miraculous breakthroughs every 8 to 10 years, we can expect 2 more breakthroughs in the theory before 2020, and hence might be able to solve this theory by then. Perhaps someone reading this bet will be inspired to mathematically solve this theory completely. Maybe that person will then receive a telephone call from Sweden.

Large bold type by me.

Now this is more science than string theories excuses its called debate. Nice to see some people indulge in it.

http://www.longbets.org/12

What's in dispute is whether string theory will be discretely disproven by this. I think not, many others agree. Hence I would place £100 on this long bet, confident that no Nobel prize for physics will be forthcoming. As I said a bet I would be more than happy to lose.

"mathematical theology" meh I prefer string Voodoo or Voodoo science.

Moving on from whether something is or is not an ad hom would be great. IHMO, the red underline is ad hom, but I could be wrong, so how about everyone not doing it even if unsure whether it qualifies, and talking about string instead. It's scientific and educational not woo-ridden religion, despite the differing views. At least you're arguing about things that aren't totally impossible, like deities. That would be stupid indeed.

[The Dagda]

No you haven't show me one single experiment that currently is being done that distinguishes string theory? It's a simple question?

I've given you several. Deal with those or don't talk.

Arrogant child. Don't tell me what to say, you haven't dealt with the objections of Smolin and you don't have the education to do so. So kindly sit down unless you explain in detail why it is falsifiable and in what experiment thanks.

That is an ad hominem, I assume your opinion is worthless because of a quality you exhibit that of being a whipper snapper who's still at school.

The attack on me claiming I don't know what an ad hominem is is not really as such it deals with my argument not my personal qualities. Now can we move on.

Are you actually reading the links I post or just waiting for a break in the convo to speak?

None of these distinguish string theory, they just don't.

How the hell do you know? CERN hasn't even gotten the results yet.

"They just don't" isn't an argument; it's a circular response. Many mainstream scientists believe that the LHC will reveal aspects of string theory. You have shown nothing that contradicts this other than opinions. Hackenslash has shown you an example of a phenomenon predicted by string theory that can be tested at the LHC, as have I. However, you cherry-pick the examples and address one or two out of the many that have been presented.

We're at an impasse, I am wrong and you are right wont play for much longer. String Theorists believe they can distinguish their theory now, mainstream scientists don't. You can't fight dogma, but mainstream scientists have theories, so you lose by default, and not lose as in anyone cares what some nobody on the internet thinks about pwning your ass for lulz, but, lose to the scientific method that realistically anyone whether 15 or 89 should care about, it's pretty clear you don't and just keep avoiding the subject of actual experiment. Again what experiment where and how is it distinguished from other theories that suggest the same results? You can say it does, but the fact is it doesn't, yet.

What the hell is this drivel? I've already shown several experiments, predictions, and mainstream scientists that support string theory. Here is a short list:

Steven Weinberg
Leonard Susskind
Stephen Hawking
John Ellis

Feynman was no great fan of the "theory".

It's beside the point string theory will die without an actual experiment all your excuses mean nothing.

They aren't excuses. They are testable predictions. Experiments ARE able to test these phenomenon. You have yet to present an argument that properly refutes this.

The only thing I've missed is the fact that you have answered none of Smolins, Woits or anyone elses points. I miss that a lot, the rest of this ad hom fest I can do without. Come on answer the question what experiment when and where?

Smolins points are identical to yours; string theory doesn't offer predictions, it's pure maths, it's unfalsifiable. I have read his writings.

ATLAS, CERN
ALICE, CERN
CMS, CERN

Where on Earth are the ad hominems? Do you even understand what that means?

If you are so impartial why do you dismiss the views if greater men than you.

And whatever your qualification is who cares, you aint an authority yet, that would take a prize or two on a subject. Like the emminent physicists I quote, my opinion means shit, not even shit.

Oh really? Why does your opinion matter? It's backed up by opinionated statements, anecdotes, and arm-waving. Our arguments give examples of experiments and predictions. Your don't

God I hate people who overfragment with qoutes in order to try and diverge the subject.

How has he diverged from the subject? He is showing yet another test for string theory that you misunderstand and arm-wave.

It does not distinguish it can prove blue shift all it wants but if it is the same as any other theory of blue shift it is merely one of a crowd. Is that really so hard to understand?

.

So your argument basically is I am right and you are wrong. Laughable. Delusional.

You said he wont answer your questions, as he never does that is an ad hominem, amongst others.

I suspect you really have little or no knowledge of this subject if you think that their points are in any way invalid. Saying x distinguishes y when clearly the mainstream says it doesn't is ignorant. So why are all the mainstream theorists wrong and the String Theorists right. Let's examine the routes of their self delusion?

String theory is not mainstream it's not a theory it can't be, mainstream indicates a hypothesis at least based on already theoretical concerns ie Higgs. it is the prevailing thoughts on science not the hypothetical thoughts of science based on arm waving, excuses, downright fraud, and self delusional arm waving.

Apparently it's hard for you to understand. If the blue-shift experiments shows values of blue-shift that others don't it doesn't matter that other theories predict blue-shift; the theory gives different predictions

What blue shift experiments? Here's a clue for you you can say it tests differently for this but if you don't even have a means to test for it what the fuck does that even mean? I can claim to test for fairies at least I can actually set up an experiment to find if they exist at the bottom of my garden, what do you have?

Answer the question ffs. Links? Who said what, who's done what in what experiment, which journal, who peer reviewed it, was it discrete from say LQG which makes the same sorts of predictions as strings.

And yes Ipetrich it can't even distinguish itself indirectly ATM that is my argument simply, as soon as it becomes falsifiable String Theorists who may or may not be scientists start doing real science, not just talking the talk.

String theory merely plagiarises other theories predictions and makes them their own. It has very little to do with science and more to do with a dying non theorem grasping onto the organism of physics and sucking the blood out of it. What we need is to send this parasite back to the maths departments where it belongs unless it is working in real science that involves real empiricism.

All of these men are mainstream scientists and supporters of string theory. The last man on the list works at CERN, and he believes that the LHC may reveal aspects of string theory. Why do you continually play "I'm wrong and your right"? It won't get you anywhere without evidence to back up your arguments. We have arguments backed up . You have opinionated anecdotes from bloggers and physicists.

Links. I'd like to see him go head to head with Smolin but String groupies don't do peer review. They just as Feynman eloquently said make excuses.

I could ask the same of you, considering that you dismiss some of the greatest prize winning physicists as "outside of the mainstream" and "following a religion".

How many Nobel prizes does string propaganda have? Aren't its prizes in fields mathematical mainly?

Winning 10 fields medals does not make you a physicist. That is an example of a resort to authority fallacy. What is in argument here is not how many awards people have won but what for and was it science or scientifically methodical.

THE ARENA FOR ACCOUNTABLE PREDICTIONS
A LONG BET


“By 2020, no one will have won a Nobel Prize for work on superstring theory, membrane theory, or some other unified theory describing all the forces of nature.”

Predictor
John Horgan

Challenger
Michio Kaku

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Horgan’s Argument

In purely intellectual terms, a unified theory of physics would be the greatest of all scientific achievements. It would culminate the ancient human quest for knowledge, which began when the first of our ancestors asked, "Why?" It would yield the basic rules governing the entire universe, from the smallest to the largest scales. It would tell us how the universe came into being and why it took this particular form, which permitted our existence. It might even reveal our ultimate cosmic fate. At least, that's what seekers of a unified theory hope, and what I used to believe. In the early 1990s, I came to suspect that the quest for a unified theory is religious rather than scientific. Physicists want to show that all things came from one thing: a force, or essence, or membrane wriggling in eleven dimensions, or something that manifests perfect mathematical symmetry. In their search for this primordial symmetry, however, physicists have gone off the deep end, postulating particles and energies and dimensions whose existence can never be experimentally verified. The Superconducting Supercollider, the monstrous particle accelerator that Congress canceled in 1993, would have been 54-miles in circumference. Gaining access to the infinitesimal microscales where superstrings supposedly wriggle would require an accelerator 1,000 light years around. (The entire solar system is only one light day around.) It is this problem that makes me confident I will win this bet. The Nobel prize judges have always been sticklers for experimental proof. The dream of a unified theory, which some evangelists call a "theory of everything," will never be entirely abandoned. But I predict that over the next twenty years, fewer smart young physicists will be attracted to an endeavor that has vanishingly little hope of an empirical payoff. Most physicists will come to accept that nature might not share our passion for unity. Physicists have already produced theories-Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, general relativity, nonlinear dynamics--that work extraordinarily well in certain domains, and there is no reason why there should be a single theory that accounts for all the forces of nature. The quest for a unified theory will come to be seen not as a branch of science, which tells us about the real world, but as a kind of mathematical theology. By the way, I would be delighted to lose this bet.


So would I!


Kaku’s Argument

It is often forgotten that physics is mainly done indirectly. Thus, we know that the sun is made of hydrogen gas, yet no one has ever visited the sun. We know that black holes exist in space, yet they are invisible by definition. We know that the Big Bang took place approximately 15 billion years ago, yet no one was there to witness it. We know these things, because we have indirect evidence or "echoes", such as sunlight and characteristic radiation from black holes and Creation. Likewise, you do not need to build an atom smasher the size of the galaxy to prove string theory or M-theory (the leading and, in fact, only candidate for a "theory of everything). Instead, we need to look for echoes from the 10th and 11th dimensions as follows: a) Within a few years, the Large Hadron Collider, the largest atom smasher on earth, will be turned on outside Geneva, Switzerland. It might be able to find "sparticles" or super particles, i.e. higher vibrations or octaves of the superstring. b) Invisible dark matter, which makes up 90% of the matter in the universe, might be shown to consist of sparticles like the photino. This might also verify string theory. c) In this decade, gravity wave detectors should be able to record shock waves from colliding black holes, which might reveal the first quantum corrrection to Einstein's original theory of 1915. These quantum corrections can be compared to those predicted by string theory. d) Within 20 years, NASA plans to send three gravity wave detectors into outer space. They should be sensitive enough to pick up the shock waves from the Big Bang itself created a fraction of a second after the instant of creation. This should be able to prove or disprove string theory. Personally, I feel no need to prove the theory experimentally, since I believe it can be proven using pure mathematics. A theory of everything is also a theory of everyday energies, where we find familar electrons, protons, and atoms. If we can solve the theory mathematically, then we should be able to calculate the properties of electrons, protons, and atoms from pure mathematics. If the results disagree with known data, then string theory will be shown to be a "theory of nothing." However, if the numbers agree, then it will be heralded as the greatest achievement of the human mind. We will have "read the mind of God." So what prevents us from simply solving the theory and comparing the results with nature? The problem is that the theory is smarter than we are. No one on this planet is smart enough to solve this theory. The smartest people on earth are working on this problem, and have so far failed. (This is because the theory was discovered purely by accident in 1968. We were never supposed to see this theory in the 20th century. The mathematics necessary to solve the theory have not yet been discovered.) Because string theory has near-miraculous breakthroughs every 8 to 10 years, we can expect 2 more breakthroughs in the theory before 2020, and hence might be able to solve this theory by then. Perhaps someone reading this bet will be inspired to mathematically solve this theory completely. Maybe that person will then receive a telephone call from Sweden.

Large bold type by me.

Now this is more science than string theories excuses its called debate. Nice to see some people indulge in it.

http://www.longbets.org/12

What's in dispute is whether string theory will be discretely disproven by this. I think not, many others agree. Hence I would place £100 on this long bet, confident that no Nobel prize for physics will be forthcoming. As I said a bet I would be more than happy to lose.

"mathematical theology" meh I prefer string Voodoo or Voodoo science.

Moving on from whether something is or is not an ad hom would be great. IHMO, the red underline is ad hom, but I could be wrong, so how about everyone not doing it even if unsure whether it qualifies, and talking about string instead. It's scientific and educational not woo-ridden religion, despite the differing views. At least you're arguing about things that aren't totally impossible, like deities. That would be stupid indeed.

It's educational and scientific only if it is a theory, Scientists may indulge in speculation but that is not science per se, that is where science is before it becomes a theory. I argue that string theory has yet to get beyond the planning stage and so its Scientists have yet to do any practical science as regards a ToE not anything.

Talk is cheap science has always demanded more than just words. Show us the money or at least show us a statement with the money on it!

My arse is not a space station and I predict Nautilidae has got little in the way of argument to debunk Smolin, Woit, Roveli, Feynman et al.

BTW John Horgan used to be a Senior Writer for Scientific American, which makes him qualified to comment at least on the problems with physics.

I specifically link more credible people because I am not this argument science is. It is not about me or Nautiladae it is a war in the science departments for what gets funding, at one time it was only String Theory virtually, that is changing thank the holy underpants of Einstein!

Pop science does little to challenge this doppleganger in science, so it is left to peer review to do so, whether they agree with reviews by their peers is beside the point it wont become mainstream without passing that hurdle.