Possibly a good time to revive this thread. My artistic Nephew Nick phoned me up today.
Nobody better to wander round London's free Art Galleries with than Nick. Vincent Van Gogh's "Sunflowers", Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper" an' all that. William Turner moves me too. But, TBH, I thought William Blake at the Tate was rubbish on close inspection!
Anyhow, Nick phoned me up today to say he thinks String Theory is rubbish.... I don't know why he has a Bee in his Bonnet about Physics right now. But I am quite a good person to phone up on Physics matters.
I have done more of this stuff than most people. Sensible answer is it's no worse than the Standard Model: Standard Model - Wikipedia
The Standard Model falls flat on its backside with Gravity.
I started talking about how I have difficulty with Branes in String Theory. I think Nick misunderstood me there. Thought I was talking about Brains.
You are either an Artist or a Scientist according to me old School Teachers. Me I prefer to sit on the fence.
Nobody better to wander round London's free Art Galleries with than Nick. Vincent Van Gogh's "Sunflowers", Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper" an' all that. William Turner moves me too. But, TBH, I thought William Blake at the Tate was rubbish on close inspection!
Anyhow, Nick phoned me up today to say he thinks String Theory is rubbish.... I don't know why he has a Bee in his Bonnet about Physics right now. But I am quite a good person to phone up on Physics matters.
I have done more of this stuff than most people. Sensible answer is it's no worse than the Standard Model: Standard Model - Wikipedia
The Standard Model falls flat on its backside with Gravity.
I started talking about how I have difficulty with Branes in String Theory. I think Nick misunderstood me there. Thought I was talking about Brains.
You are either an Artist or a Scientist according to me old School Teachers. Me I prefer to sit on the fence.
You may be more knowledgeable than me - in my younger decades I read a good bit about physics, but not so much recently. I think I posted here before, that knowing (for example) quarks from leptons won't get me a career as a physicist, it'll just fill my mind with what is effectively trivia that I'll never put to any good use. I already have enough hobbies like that.
On the other hand, I've read off and on about String Theory/Superstring Theory/whatever else these things with lots of dimensions, some of them wrapped up tight, are called. The common criticism is they're all "very" theoretical and mathematical, and there's no way of testing any such hypothesis. I've read a book that made this and similar criticisms of modern science, "The End of Science."
A lot of professional physicists are disillusioned with ST. The fact that there is no foreseeable way to test ST means its going to be pretty difficult to move forward.
Perhaps we need another Einstein to sort it out - a reductionist thinker who can cut through the complexity and confusion.
BTW, the next collider that is being proposed is expected to cost upwards of 40 billion Euros.
Perhaps we need another Einstein to sort it out - a reductionist thinker who can cut through the complexity and confusion.
BTW, the next collider that is being proposed is expected to cost upwards of 40 billion Euros.
It's really hard to keep track of string theory when the names keep changing!
I love the way they have given names to particle superpartners in supersymmetric string theory.
Sounds like the physicists were unable to come up with the new names until they'd consumed a few bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon and 'slept on' it!
- Bosonic string theory
- Superstring theory (or supersymmetric string theory)
- M-theory
- Brane world scenarios
- F-theory
I love the way they have given names to particle superpartners in supersymmetric string theory.
- The superpartner of a fermion begins with an “s”
- The superpartner of a boson ends in “ino”
Sounds like the physicists were unable to come up with the new names until they'd consumed a few bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon and 'slept on' it!
12 dimensional F-theory is not the worst idea have ever heard.
At least it is an even symmetry. People who know me, know that I prefer even symmetries in Physics and Mathematics than Ed Witten's 11 dimensional M-Theory.
12 is a good number in fundamental and elegant stuff. 9^3 plus 10^3 = 12^3 plus 1^3.
Or 729 + 1000 = 1728 plus 1 ^3. (1729).
I used to hang around a Forum where folks asked me to explain String Theory. How hard can it be? I did my usual due diligence with Lenny Susskind at Stanford:
TBH, I had no idea what was going on in String Theory.
But I decided that Cone Tweeters worked far better than Dome Tweeters:
My big takeaway was that the Torus or Doughnut is far more fundamental than the Sphere:
.
Here a Black Hole. I have to admit that Lenny Susskind is a bit weak on Information Theory. One of my better subjects.
At least it is an even symmetry. People who know me, know that I prefer even symmetries in Physics and Mathematics than Ed Witten's 11 dimensional M-Theory.
12 is a good number in fundamental and elegant stuff. 9^3 plus 10^3 = 12^3 plus 1^3.
Or 729 + 1000 = 1728 plus 1 ^3. (1729).
I used to hang around a Forum where folks asked me to explain String Theory. How hard can it be? I did my usual due diligence with Lenny Susskind at Stanford:
TBH, I had no idea what was going on in String Theory.
But I decided that Cone Tweeters worked far better than Dome Tweeters:
My big takeaway was that the Torus or Doughnut is far more fundamental than the Sphere:
Here a Black Hole. I have to admit that Lenny Susskind is a bit weak on Information Theory. One of my better subjects.
Last edited:
Like I said, Lenny Susskind is a bit weak on Information Theory. Otherwise he is as sound as any Physicist of this or the last century.
To say that Information cannot be destroyed on the surface of a Black Hole just raises my eyebrows! Which is to say if you throw a book into the bath, it's not going to be readable about an hour later is it? A soggy indecipherable mess!
He and Gerard Van'Tooft may have bamboozled Stephen Hawking. But Time will tell, IMO.
I am not sure I am terribly worried about Quantum Gravity. Maybe we don't even need it. But certain theories say that if the Graviton has mass it could fall off at a distance to make Dark Matter and Dark Energy unnecessarry.
But still have difficulties understanding rotation in multi-dimensions:
String Theory might be entirely wrong in suggesting extra dimensions of Space-Time. But the Maths says that even Einstein's General Relativity needs a 10D metric tensor.
And Hilbert Space has endless dimensions. In which symmetry operates. The 8 dimensional E8 lattice and the 24 dimensional Leech Lattice, for instance. TBH, I think John Conway got it about as right as anybody recently.
Quanta Magazine
It'll all come down to the Monster Group IMO.
To say that Information cannot be destroyed on the surface of a Black Hole just raises my eyebrows! Which is to say if you throw a book into the bath, it's not going to be readable about an hour later is it? A soggy indecipherable mess!
He and Gerard Van'Tooft may have bamboozled Stephen Hawking. But Time will tell, IMO.
I am not sure I am terribly worried about Quantum Gravity. Maybe we don't even need it. But certain theories say that if the Graviton has mass it could fall off at a distance to make Dark Matter and Dark Energy unnecessarry.
But still have difficulties understanding rotation in multi-dimensions:
String Theory might be entirely wrong in suggesting extra dimensions of Space-Time. But the Maths says that even Einstein's General Relativity needs a 10D metric tensor.
And Hilbert Space has endless dimensions. In which symmetry operates. The 8 dimensional E8 lattice and the 24 dimensional Leech Lattice, for instance. TBH, I think John Conway got it about as right as anybody recently.
Quanta Magazine
It'll all come down to the Monster Group IMO.
Last edited:
It is my opinion that Professor Leonardo Susskind is absolutely the best Physicist of of the C21!
Lecture 9 | String Theory and M-Theory - YouTube
It was he who taught me
(around 34 minutes) that waves on a sphere aka dome tweeters just don't work. Hence why I just go for cone tweeters.
TBH, everything else is rubbish.
Lecture 9 | String Theory and M-Theory - YouTube
It was he who taught me
(around 34 minutes) that waves on a sphere aka dome tweeters just don't work. Hence why I just go for cone tweeters.
TBH, everything else is rubbish.
And here they are, as demonstrated on the International Space Station! Waves in a Large Free Sphere of Water - YouTube
I have certainly got a few numbing blows on my head in this lifetime, Galu. Certaiinly not an ideal situation!
But maybe we should ponder Electron Spin:
Lenny is better than most: Lecture 3 | String Theory and M-Theory - YouTube
Tell me what you think about it.
But maybe we should ponder Electron Spin:
Lenny is better than most: Lecture 3 | String Theory and M-Theory - YouTube
Tell me what you think about it.
Not many people know this, but I defied the miserable 3 Million unemployment of the UK in the 1980's to rock up at Imperial College, London.
I had no idea how I was going to hold it together with no money. But I sought after the best people on the Physics subject. Working 24 Hrs. on the weekend for some Money.
I got on very well with Dr. Clarke. An expert on the 3D Fourier Transform. He told me that Hitachi used to phone him up on Microwave Cookers. He had to explain that he actually didn't do Microwave Cookers.
Anyway, Dr. Clarke told me I was working too hard. Probably right. Invited me to an Open Rehearsal in the Albert Hall with the frarnkly useless Imperial College Orchestra.
My God. Sir Georg Solti knocked this Orchestra into shape:
Sir Georg Solti (1912 - 1997) | Great Conductors In Rehearsal - YouTube.
Let them do Vivaldi first time. Tried to improve them. By the Third Time, they were knockout good. As he said "You didn't know you could play so well!".
I have a similar view of Leonard Susskind:
Lecture 3 | String Theory and M-Theory - YouTube.
How does he do it?
I had no idea how I was going to hold it together with no money. But I sought after the best people on the Physics subject. Working 24 Hrs. on the weekend for some Money.
I got on very well with Dr. Clarke. An expert on the 3D Fourier Transform. He told me that Hitachi used to phone him up on Microwave Cookers. He had to explain that he actually didn't do Microwave Cookers.
Anyway, Dr. Clarke told me I was working too hard. Probably right. Invited me to an Open Rehearsal in the Albert Hall with the frarnkly useless Imperial College Orchestra.
My God. Sir Georg Solti knocked this Orchestra into shape:
Sir Georg Solti (1912 - 1997) | Great Conductors In Rehearsal - YouTube.
Let them do Vivaldi first time. Tried to improve them. By the Third Time, they were knockout good. As he said "You didn't know you could play so well!".
I have a similar view of Leonard Susskind:
Lecture 3 | String Theory and M-Theory - YouTube.
How does he do it?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.