Dear Dr. Woit, Dr. Smolin, Dr. Greene, Dr. Hossenfelder, & Dr. Dawid et al. Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?

Dear Dr. Woit, Dr. Smolin, Dr. Greene, & Dr. Dawid et al. Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?

Peter Woit writes that Richard Dawid argues that:

we’re supposed to consider accepting (String Theory) as the final, fundamental theory of physics, a “theory” that is not just untestable, but is a “chronically incomplete” framework based on something we can never hope to define or understand.

Brian Greene disagrees with Woit and Dawid, writing in the introduction to Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) 

Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics. The full explanation for how this is accomplished is involved, but here’s a rough way to understand it. By introducing strings as the fundamental ingredients, superstring theory takes the old idea of point-particles and spreads it out—stretches it out—into the new idea of tiny filaments. This spreading of points into filaments also implies that the microscopic structure of space is spread out relative to how it was envisioned (and how it was mathematically modeled in calculations) prior to superstring theory. When strings spread space at the microscopic level, the violent undulations that were the source of the theoretical conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity, get stretched out and hence diluted. And, as detailed calculations attest, this dilution of the violent spacetime fluctuations is just enough to allow quantum mechanics and general relativity to merge into a mathematically consistent quantum theory of gravity. — Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 239-247). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

So who is right?

As a student of physics, I am asking, “Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?”

Senior physicists have a great responsibility to answer this question fully and honestly, as it may affect the careers of thousands, as well as the advancement of physics.

For the past couple decades or so, Peter Woit has been a leading critic of String Theory and the Multiverse.  Perhaps nobody has blogged more about, nor thought more about, String Theory and the Multiverse.  There is likely no greater expert.

Woit explicitly states that string theory as an idea of unification hath failed, writing on his blog, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. ”  Recently Woit wrote:

I don’t think “string theorists” calling themselves whatever they want is scandalous, what’s scandalous is misleading the public about “string theory”, the way Carroll and Johnson are doing.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10600

They’ve (Carroll & Johnson) taken to heart the post-fact environment we now live in, one where if you keep insisting something is true (string theory unification is a great idea) despite all evidence, then for all practical purposes it is true.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10600#comment-232011

Tsetrot,
Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. Those who promote it to the public without acknowledging that “the stuff we told you about all particles and forces being vibrations of strings doesn’t work, now we just mean an untestable idea about gravitational degrees of freedom at unobservable scales which doesn’t really quite work either, but sucks less than the competition”.

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Woit asserts that “String Theory has no equations to solve,” writing:

This is based on the misconception about string theory that the problem with it is that “the calculations are too hard”. The truth of the matter is that there is no actual theory, no known equations to solve, no real calculation to do.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

If Woit is right, that string theory has no equations, then how can string theory merge general relativity and quantum mechanics, without any equations?

I could find no record of Woit criticizing Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity.   Does Woit agree with Greene?  Why does Woit seemingly spend so much time going after the Dawids and Carrolls and Johnsons who are merely bantering on blogs, while giving Greene a free pass in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity?  Does not Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity carry more prestige, cache, and influence than a couple of bloggers?

Perhaps if Woit had focused his energy on correcting Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity, string theory would have been on its way out by now?  But then again, perhaps Woit yet enjoys pondering String Theory after all these decades, and he does not really wish to see the hype fade for another couple decades more?

At any rate, who is right?  Forget the games and politics and teams for a moment, and answer honestly in the way you might speak Truth to a student.  Who is right?

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.” (on his Columbia blog)

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.” (in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity)

If Greene is right, then perhaps Woit could finally find other things to blog about?  And if Woit is right, then perhaps someone could correct the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity before string theory can lead billions of more taxpayer dollars and thousands of more physicists down a dead end, while displacing true physicists and physics from the academy?

Brian Greene continues in The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) :

Moreover, not only does superstring theory merge general relativity with quantum mechanics, but it also has the capacity to embrace—on an equal footing—the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force. Within superstring theory, each of these forces is simply associated with a different vibrational pattern of a string. And so, like a guitar chord composed of four different notes, the four forces of nature are united within the music of superstring theory. What’s more, the same goes for all of matter as well. The electron, the quarks, the neutrinos, and all other particles are also described in superstring theory as strings undergoing different vibrational patterns. Thus, all matter and all forces are brought together under the same rubric of vibrating strings—and that’s about as unified as a unified theory could be. —Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 247-253). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Who is right?  Or is science just an endless game of politics with teams?  If so, what is the best long-term physics career plan for a physics student these days–following dead-end, failed theories or criticizing dead-end, failed theories?  What is the best way to score a book deal and speaking engagements?

Dear Dr. Peter Woit, Dr. Lee Smolin, & Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder. Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?

Dear Dr. Peter Woit, Dr. Lee Smolin, & Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder. Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?

Greetings!  As a student of physics, I am asking, “Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?”

Senior physicists have a great responsibility to answer this question fully and honestly, as it may affect the careers of thousands, as well as the advancement of physics.

For the past couple decades or so, Peter Woit has been a leading critic of String Theory and the Multiverse.  Perhaps nobody has blogged more about, nor thought more about, String Theory and the Multiverse.  There is likely no greater expert.

Woit explicitly states that string theory as an idea of unification hath failed, writing on his blog, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. ”  Recently Woit wrote:

I don’t think “string theorists” calling themselves whatever they want is scandalous, what’s scandalous is misleading the public about “string theory”, the way Carroll and Johnson are doing.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10600

They’ve (Carroll & Johnson) taken to heart the post-fact environment we now live in, one where if you keep insisting something is true (string theory unification is a great idea) despite all evidence, then for all practical purposes it is true.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10600#comment-232011

Peter Woit says:

Tsetrot,
Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. Those who promote it to the public without acknowledging that “the stuff we told you about all particles and forces being vibrations of strings doesn’t work, now we just mean an untestable idea about gravitational degrees of freedom at unobservable scales which doesn’t really quite work either, but sucks less than the competition”.

Brian Greene disagrees with Woit, writing in the introduction to Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) 

Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics. The full explanation for how this is accomplished is involved, but here’s a rough way to understand it. By introducing strings as the fundamental ingredients, superstring theory takes the old idea of point-particles and spreads it out—stretches it out—into the new idea of tiny filaments. This spreading of points into filaments also implies that the microscopic structure of space is spread out relative to how it was envisioned (and how it was mathematically modeled in calculations) prior to superstring theory. When strings spread space at the microscopic level, the violent undulations that were the source of the theoretical conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity, get stretched out and hence diluted. And, as detailed calculations attest, this dilution of the violent spacetime fluctuations is just enough to allow quantum mechanics and general relativity to merge into a mathematically consistent quantum theory of gravity. — Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 239-247). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

So who is right?

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

I could find no record of Woit criticizing Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity.   Does Woit agree with Greene?  Why does Woit seemingly spend so much time going after the Carrolls and Johnsons who are merely bantering on blogs, while giving Greene a free pass in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity?  Does not Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity carry more prestige, cache, and influence than a couple of bloggers?

Perhaps if Woit had focused his energy on correcting Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity, string theory would have been on its way out by now?  But then again, perhaps Woit yet enjoys pondering String Theory after all these decades, and he does not really wish to see the hype fade for another couple decades more?

At any rate, who is right?  Forget the games and politics and teams for a moment, and answer honestly in the way you might speak Truth to a student.  Who is right?

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.” (on his Columbia blog)

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.” (in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity)

If Greene is right, then perhaps Woit could finally find other things to blog about?  And if Woit is right, then perhaps someone could correct the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity before string theory can lead billions of more taxpayer dollars and thousands of more physicists down a dead end, while displacing true physicists and physics from the academy?

Brian Greene continues in The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) :

Moreover, not only does superstring theory merge general relativity with quantum mechanics, but it also has the capacity to embrace—on an equal footing—the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force. Within superstring theory, each of these forces is simply associated with a different vibrational pattern of a string. And so, like a guitar chord composed of four different notes, the four forces of nature are united within the music of superstring theory. What’s more, the same goes for all of matter as well. The electron, the quarks, the neutrinos, and all other particles are also described in superstring theory as strings undergoing different vibrational patterns. Thus, all matter and all forces are brought together under the same rubric of vibrating strings—and that’s about as unified as a unified theory could be. —Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 247-253). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Who is right?  Or is science just an endless game of politics with teams?  If so, what is the best long-term physics career plan for a physics student these days–following dead-end, failed theories or criticizing dead-end, failed theories?  What is the best way to score a book deal and speaking engagements?

 

Which universities are leading the crusade against mathematics and beauty in physics?

Suppose a new student, seeking fame, fortune, and job security, wishes to hop on the “New anti-math, anti-beauty Physics” being pioneered by the likes of Hossenfelder and Woit? Which universities are best leading the crusade against mathematics and beauty in physics?  Woit’s Columbia perhaps?  Hossenfelder’s institution?

Peter Woit gushed about Hossenfelder’s bestselling book, blogging, “Sabine Hossenfelder’s new book Lost in Math should be starting to appear in bookstores around now. It’s very good and you should get a copy.”

The full title is:

Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray

As jobs are scarce in physics, it seems that Woit and Hossenfelder et al. have pioneered a new niche profiting off the popular imagination while ridding physics of the beauty and math which have misguided it.

What are Woit and Hossenfelder planning to replace Math and Beauty with in the realm of their new physics? Well, it seems they wish to replace Math and Beauty in physics with surfer celebrity Garrett Lisi whom they both have spent decades heavily promoting, instead of promoting or publicizing any research of their own:

Sabine Hossenfelder blogs:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exception-of.html

A Theoretically Simple Exception of Everything

Garrett Lisi, who was featured in our inspiration series back in August, has a new paper on the arxiv about his recent work

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

    • arXiv:

0711.0770
I met Garrett at the Loops ’07 in Morelia, and invited him to PI. He gave a talk here in October, which confirmed my theory that the interest in a seminar is inversely proportional to the number of words in the abstract. In his case the abstract read: “All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection,” and during my time at PI it was the best attended Quantum Gravity seminar I’ve been at. –http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exception-of.html

Peter Woit blogs:

Surfing the Universe

This week’s New Yorker has a quite good article by Benjamin Wallace-Wells entitled “Surfing the Universe” about Garrett Lisi and the controversy generated last year by his paper An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything (which I wrote about here). Unfortunately the article is not available on-line as far as I know.

Recently, after railing against Math and Beauty and Naturalness in physics, Sabine Hossenfleder promoted Lisi as the true way forward:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/11/guest-post-garrett-lisi-on-geometric.html

Guest Post: Garrett Lisi on Geometric Naturalness

Thanks to Sabine for inviting me to do a guest post. In her book, “Lost in Math,” I mentioned the criteria of “geometric naturalness” for judging theories of fundamental physics. Here I would like to give a personal definition of this and expand on it a bit.
After tearing down traditional standards of Math and Beauty, it appears Woit and Hossenfelder are erecting the “Math” and “Beauty” of Garret Lisi in their place.  What drives them to do this?  Woit again gushes about Hossenfelder, who, much like him, does not seem to be performing any meaningful research:
Garrett Lisi has a new paper on the arXiv, with the rather over-the-top title of An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. Sabine Hossenfelder has a typically excellent posting about the paper, and Garrett has been discussing his work with people in the comment section there.
What has this anti-beauty, anti-math, decades-long Lisi hype-fest lead to?  Sure they have sold thousands of books and made cool youtube videos, but how have Woit, Lisi, and Hossenfelder advanced physics?
Is there any possibility that maybe, just maybe, Lisi, Woit, and Hossenfelder are not all that good at math, truth, and beauty?
Then, perhaps it is not the fault of math, truth, and beauty that they have been unable to advance physics, but perhaps the problem lies deep within themsevles and their fallen, degraded, ignoble perception of math, truth, and beauty?  That would be a great question to contemplate, had they capacity for self relfection.  But I think we can bet on ten more years of them striving to replace math, physics, and beauty with Garret Lisi, for some ugly, perhaps unspeakable, reason.

Is there a serious lack of moral leadership in physics? Does String Theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and relativity, or not?

The great physicist Einstein stated,  “Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.”  Is it possible that physics hath stopped progressing due to a lack of character amongst the “leadership”?

Regarding String Theory, Peter Woit writes:

This is based on the misconception about string theory that the problem with it is that “the calculations are too hard”. The truth of the matter is that there is no actual theory, no known equations to solve, no real calculation to do.

Brian Greene disagrees with Woit, writing in the introduction to Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) 

Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics. The full explanation for how this is accomplished is involved, but here’s a rough way to understand it. By introducing strings as the fundamental ingredients, superstring theory takes the old idea of point-particles and spreads it out—stretches it out—into the new idea of tiny filaments. This spreading of points into filaments also implies that the microscopic structure of space is spread out relative to how it was envisioned (and how it was mathematically modeled in calculations) prior to superstring theory. When strings spread space at the microscopic level, the violent undulations that were the source of the theoretical conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity, get stretched out and hence diluted. And, as detailed calculations attest, this dilution of the violent spacetime fluctuations is just enough to allow quantum mechanics and general relativity to merge into a mathematically consistent quantum theory of gravity. — Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 239-247). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

And yet, while routinely critizing lesser journalists and physicists, Peter Woit gives Brian Greene a free pass.  Why is this?  It seems Lee Smolin, while scritizing String Theory, also gives Brina Greene a free pass.  Why?  Do they fear speaking Truth to Power?  Did Einstein or Feynman ever fear speaking Truth to Power?

As a student of physics, I am asking, “Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?”

Senior physicists have a great responsibility to answer this question fully and honestly, as it may affect the careers of thousands, as well as the advancement of physics.

For the past couple decades or so, Peter Woit has been a leading critic of String Theory and the Multiverse.  Perhaps nobody has blogged more about, nor thought more about, String Theory and the Multiverse.  There is likely no greater expert.

Woit explicitly states that string theory as an idea of unification hath failed, writing on his blog, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. ”  Recently Woit wrote:

I don’t think “string theorists” calling themselves whatever they want is scandalous, what’s scandalous is misleading the public about “string theory”, the way Carroll and Johnson are doing.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10600

They’ve (Carroll & Johnson) taken to heart the post-fact environment we now live in, one where if you keep insisting something is true (string theory unification is a great idea) despite all evidence, then for all practical purposes it is true.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10600#comment-232011

Peter Woit says:

Tsetrot,
Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. Those who promote it to the public without acknowledging that “the stuff we told you about all particles and forces being vibrations of strings doesn’t work, now we just mean an untestable idea about gravitational degrees of freedom at unobservable scales which doesn’t really quite work either, but sucks less than the competition”.

Brian Greene disagrees with Woit, writing in the introduction to Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) 

Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics. The full explanation for how this is accomplished is involved, but here’s a rough way to understand it. By introducing strings as the fundamental ingredients, superstring theory takes the old idea of point-particles and spreads it out—stretches it out—into the new idea of tiny filaments. This spreading of points into filaments also implies that the microscopic structure of space is spread out relative to how it was envisioned (and how it was mathematically modeled in calculations) prior to superstring theory. When strings spread space at the microscopic level, the violent undulations that were the source of the theoretical conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity, get stretched out and hence diluted. And, as detailed calculations attest, this dilution of the violent spacetime fluctuations is just enough to allow quantum mechanics and general relativity to merge into a mathematically consistent quantum theory of gravity. — Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 239-247). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

So who is right?

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

I could find no record of Woit criticizing Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity.   Does Woit agree with Greene?  Why does Woit seemingly spend so much time going after the Carrolls and Johnsons who are merely bantering on blogs, while giving Greene a free pass in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity?  Does not Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity carry more prestige, cache, and influence than a couple of bloggers?

Perhaps if Woit had focused his energy on correcting Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity, string theory would have been on its way out by now?  But then again, perhaps Woit yet enjoys pondering String Theory after all these decades, and he does not really wish to see the hype fade for another couple decades more?

At any rate, who is right?  Forget the games and politics and teams for a moment, and answer honestly in the way you might speak Truth to a student.  Who is right?

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

If Greene is right, then perhaps Woit could finally find other things to blog about?  And if Woit is right, then perhaps someone could correct the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity before string theory can lead billions of more taxpayer dollars and thousands of more physicists down a dead end, while displacing true physicists and physics from the academy?

Brian Greene continues in The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) :

Moreover, not only does superstring theory merge general relativity with quantum mechanics, but it also has the capacity to embrace—on an equal footing—the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force. Within superstring theory, each of these forces is simply associated with a different vibrational pattern of a string. And so, like a guitar chord composed of four different notes, the four forces of nature are united within the music of superstring theory. What’s more, the same goes for all of matter as well. The electron, the quarks, the neutrinos, and all other particles are also described in superstring theory as strings undergoing different vibrational patterns. Thus, all matter and all forces are brought together under the same rubric of vibrating strings—and that’s about as unified as a unified theory could be. —Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 247-253). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Who is right?  Or is science just an endless game of politics with teams?  If so, what is the best long-term physics career plan for a physics student these days–following dead-end, failed theories or criticizing dead-end, failed theories?  What is the best way to score a book deal and speaking engagements?

 

Will the LIGO team kindly update their PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS paper with the correct diagrams using actual data analysis algorithms that are not “done by eye,” nor “hand-tuned”?

Here is a wonderful 2018 lecture given by Andrew D. Jackson regarding the myriad shortcomings and rather alarming problems with LIGO:

Will the LIGO team kindly update their PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS paper with the correct diagrams using actual data analysis algorithms that are not “done by eye,” nor “hand-tuned”?

The New Scientist reports that the plots published by the LIGO team were “done by eye” and “hand tuned.”  In other words, they were not scientifically real.  Where are the real plots?  Have they been made public?  If not, will they be made public?

Today, November 5th 2018, I screen captured some of the LIGO plots from Physical Review Letters, which I share below.  Which of these plots represent real data?  Which of these plots are not “hand tuned”? Which of these plots are not “done by eye?” Will LIGO’s PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS paper

Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

be updated or rescinded?

The New Scientist reports :

Purely illustrative

And there are legitimate questions about that trust. New Scientist has learned, for instance, that the collaboration decided to publish data plots that were not derived from actual analysis. The paper on the first detection in Physical Review Letters used a data plot that was more “illustrative” than precise, says Cornish. Some of the results presented in that paper were not found using analysis algorithms, but were done “by eye”.

Brown, part of the LIGO collaboration at the time, explains this as an attempt to provide a visual aid. “It was hand-tuned for pedagogical purposes.” He says he regrets that the figure wasn’t labelled to point this out.

What do the plots which are NOT hand tuned, nor done by eye, look like? Have they been made public?

Is not the chief aim of science to exalt the TRUTH of physical OBSERVATION?  Is not a great responsibility of science to be HONEST with the PUBLIC who funds it to the tune of billions?

Today, November 5th 2018, I screen captured some of the LIGO plots from Physical Review Letters review, which I share below.  Which of these plots represent real data?  Which of these plots are not “hand tuned”? Which of these plots are not “done by eye?”

 

Are these plots not true?  If they are not plots of the actual data, or if they are “done by hand,” or “hand-tuned,” or “done by eye,” will Physical Review Letters label them as “Fake Physics?”

What do the plots which are NOT hand tuned, nor done by eye, look like? When will they be made public?

Hopefully today’s leading theoretical physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder will run the data, which is now available to the public, herself, and let us see her analysis.  Indeed, as a leading theoretical physicist with a vast following, it is Dr. Hossenfelder’s duty to analyze the data herself.  We await her expert insight and judgment.

Until then, here is a wonderful 2018 lecture given by Andrew D. Jackson regarding the myriad shortcomings and rather alarming problems with LIGO:

Do you denounce the practice of “hand-tuning” LIGO data in peer-reviewed, scientific journals? 

Dear Jennifer Oullette & Sean “Let’s Retire Falsifiability 2014” Carroll,

Thank you for your recent article Danish physicists claim to cast doubt on detection of gravitational wavesPerhaps I missed it, but it seems that you omitted the part about hand-tuning the LIGO data reported on in The New Scientist article you claimed to summarize.

Do you denounce the practice of “hand-tuning” LIGO data in peer-reviewed, scientific journals?  If the paper has not yet been corrected or rescinded, will you lobby Physical Review Letters to correct and/or rescind the paper?

Regarding the ongoing LIGO kerfuffles, The New Scientist reports:

This presentation of “hand-tuned” data in a peer-reviewed, scientific report like this is certainly unusual. New Scientist asked the editor who handled the paper, Robert Garisto, whether he was aware that the published data plots weren’t derived directly from LIGO’s data, but were “pedagogical” and done “by eye”, and whether the journal generally accepts illustrative figures. Garisto declined to comment.

What?  Hand-tuned data in a physics paper published in Physical Review Letters?  The editor declines to comment?  Have they retracted the paper yet?  Have they placed a warning on the massaged data plots? When undergraduates are taking physics labs at Caltech, are they allowed, or perhaps expected to, “hand-tune” the data?  What class do they learn this in? Does Sean Carroll perhaps teach it?
Purely illustrative

And there are legitimate questions about that trust. New Scientist has learned, for instance, that the collaboration decided to publish data plots that were not derived from actual analysis. The paper on the first detection in Physical Review Letters used a data plot that was more “illustrative” than precise, says Cornish. Some of the results presented in that paper were not found using analysis algorithms, but were done “by eye”.

Brown, part of the LIGO collaboration at the time, explains this as an attempt to provide a visual aid. “It was hand-tuned for pedagogical purposes.” He says he regrets that the figure wasn’t labelled to point this out.

How exactly is massaging data plots “by eye” “pedagogical,” while refraining from telling folks they have been massaged?

Websters states:

Definition of pedagogical
: of, relating to, or befitting a teacher or education

How does hand-massaging data, while presenting it as real data, further education Dr. Brown?  What exactly are you trying to teach students?

So the question remains, Jennifer & Sean & Caltech & LIGO et al., “Do you denounce the practice of “hand-tuning” LIGO data in peer-reviewed, scientific journals?”  Or do you exalt in it and celebrate it?

And for that matter, other than Andrew D. Jackson, do any physics professors anywhere denounce the practice of “hand-tuning” LIGO data in peer-reviewed, scientific journals?”

 

 

Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?

Greetings!  As a student of physics, I am asking, “Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?”

Senior physicists have a great responsibility to answer this question fully and honestly, as it may affect the careers of thousands, as well as the advancement of physics.

For the past couple decades or so, Peter Woit has been a leading critic of String Theory and the Multiverse.  Perhaps nobody has blogged more about, nor thought more about, String Theory and the Multiverse.  There is likely no greater expert.

Woit explicitly states that string theory as an idea of unification hath failed, writing on his blog, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. ”  Recently Woit wrote:

I don’t think “string theorists” calling themselves whatever they want is scandalous, what’s scandalous is misleading the public about “string theory”, the way Carroll and Johnson are doing.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10600

They’ve (Carroll & Johnson) taken to heart the post-fact environment we now live in, one where if you keep insisting something is true (string theory unification is a great idea) despite all evidence, then for all practical purposes it is true.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10600#comment-232011

Peter Woit says:

Tsetrot,
Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. Those who promote it to the public without acknowledging that “the stuff we told you about all particles and forces being vibrations of strings doesn’t work, now we just mean an untestable idea about gravitational degrees of freedom at unobservable scales which doesn’t really quite work either, but sucks less than the competition”.

Brian Greene disagrees with Woit, writing in the introduction to Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) 

Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics. The full explanation for how this is accomplished is involved, but here’s a rough way to understand it. By introducing strings as the fundamental ingredients, superstring theory takes the old idea of point-particles and spreads it out—stretches it out—into the new idea of tiny filaments. This spreading of points into filaments also implies that the microscopic structure of space is spread out relative to how it was envisioned (and how it was mathematically modeled in calculations) prior to superstring theory. When strings spread space at the microscopic level, the violent undulations that were the source of the theoretical conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity, get stretched out and hence diluted. And, as detailed calculations attest, this dilution of the violent spacetime fluctuations is just enough to allow quantum mechanics and general relativity to merge into a mathematically consistent quantum theory of gravity. — Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 239-247). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

So who is right?

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

I could find no record of Woit criticizing Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity.   Does Woit agree with Greene?  Why does Woit seemingly spend so much time going after the Carrolls and Johnsons who are merely bantering on blogs, while giving Greene a free pass in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity?  Does not Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity carry more prestige, cache, and influence than a couple of bloggers?

Perhaps if Woit had focused his energy on correcting Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity, string theory would have been on its way out by now?  But then again, perhaps Woit yet enjoys pondering String Theory after all these decades, and he does not really wish to see the hype fade for another couple decades more?

At any rate, who is right?  Forget the games and politics and teams for a moment, and answer honestly in the way you might speak Truth to a student.  Who is right?

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

If Greene is right, then perhaps Woit could finally find other things to blog about?  And if Woit is right, then perhaps someone could correct the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity before string theory can lead billions of more taxpayer dollars and thousands of more physicists down a dead end, while displacing true physicists and physics from the academy?

Brian Greene continues in The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) :

Moreover, not only does superstring theory merge general relativity with quantum mechanics, but it also has the capacity to embrace—on an equal footing—the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force. Within superstring theory, each of these forces is simply associated with a different vibrational pattern of a string. And so, like a guitar chord composed of four different notes, the four forces of nature are united within the music of superstring theory. What’s more, the same goes for all of matter as well. The electron, the quarks, the neutrinos, and all other particles are also described in superstring theory as strings undergoing different vibrational patterns. Thus, all matter and all forces are brought together under the same rubric of vibrating strings—and that’s about as unified as a unified theory could be. —Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 247-253). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Who is right?  Or is science just an endless game of politics with teams?  If so, what is the best long-term physics career plan for a physics student these days–following dead-end, failed theories or criticizing dead-end, failed theories?  What is the best way to score a book deal and speaking engagements?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started