Why String Theory, M-Theory, LQG, Multiverses, and Parallel Universes are NOT Physics, and why Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) IS
Hero's Journey Entrepreneurship: Austrian Economics: Great Books & Classics
Feynman beyond the String Theory Multiverse Landscape, and on towards
the Holy Grail of Physics—the Physical Truth of Moving Dimensions’
Theory’s dx4/dt=ic.
by Dr. Elliot McGucken
To begin with, let us examine a simple, irrefutable proof of moving
dimensions theory, that anyone who has witnessed the double-slit
experiment, cannot deny. The proof comes from my earlier paper:
Time as an Emergent Phenomenon & Deriving Einstein’s Relativity from
Moving Dimensions Theory’s dx4/dt=ic: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age
of Physics
In Memory of John Archibald Wheeler
by Dr. Elliot McGucken
MDT’s postulate: The fourth dimensions is expanding relative to the
three spatial dimensions at c. MDT’s equation: dx4/dt=ic.
Simple, logical proofs of MDT:
MDT PROOF#1: Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon
remains in one place in the fourth dimension. Quantum mechanics tells
us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding
wavefront at the velocity of c. Ergo, the fourth dimension must be
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c,
in a spherically-symmetric manner. The expansion of the fourth
dimension is the source of nonlocality, entanglement, time and all its
arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all
motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made
without change. For the first time in the history of relativity,
change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.
MDT PROOF#2: Einstein (1912 Man. on Rel.) and Minkowski wrote
x4=ict. Ergo dx4/dt=ic.
MDT PROOF#3: The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial
dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way
to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the
three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c
relative to the three spatial dimensions.
MDT twitter proof (limited to 140 characters): SR: photon is
stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding
@ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic –from
http://twitter.com/45surf
While Moving Dimensions Theory honors the greats' traditional
definitions of science, String Theory, M-Theory, and Multiverse Mania
all deny the wisdom of the Greats, as well as physics and physical
reality.
MDT Honors the Greats’ Definition of Science
Einstein and Galileo embodied and exalted the heroic spirit in which
Moving Dimensions Theory was conceived:
"But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the
whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only
became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler
and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of
the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience
and ends in it. (Yes! Moving dimensions theory begins in experience--
the double slit experiment, entropy, relativity, nonlocality, time and
all it arrows and asymmetries, and it ends in experience, by providing
a physical model predicting all these entities!) Propositions arrived
at by purely logical means (String theory, loop quantum gravity (which
might not even use logic)) are completely empty as regards reality.
Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into
the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics—indeed, of
modern science altogether. -Einstein[i], Ideas and Opinions
Einstein's above quote is quite prominent in its complete absence from
today's leading "physics" books and blogs, as are many of the Greats'
quotes below, wherein the Greats define what science is and ought to
be. Einstein states that, "all knowledge of reality starts from
experience and ends in it," and a glaring problem with string theory
is that nobody has ever seen a tiny little string (and thus ST does
not begin in experience), nor measured one, nor conceived of an
experiment that would allow us to see strings (and thus ST does not,
and cannot end in experience either). Nor has anyone ever seen a
multiverse, nor come up with a way of measuring or detecting
multiverses. Nor has anyone ever come across any of the tiny, little
loops of loop quantum gravity, nor any way to detect nor measure tiny
little loops. So it is that all these non-theories begin in the
imagination, and end in it. One will hear their proponents singing of
the great beauty of their theories, but then, when one asks them for
the fundamental equation, they are unable to produce any. Indeed, it
turns out there are millions of equivalent non-theories with various
amounts of dimensions, with ever-changing math which never adds up to
predict anything we see in physical reality. In that sense, the
theories are actually quite ugly. Especially when compared to the
simple beauty of Moving Dimensions Theory's simple, fundamental, far-
ranging equation, dx4/dt=ic, which predicts nonlocality, entanglement
(the fundamental characteristic of QM according to Schrodenger),
entropy, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, and from which all
of relativity is derived. dx4/dt=ic is more fundamental than
relativity's two physical postualtes, as both of relativity's
postulates arise from it.
Karl Popper: Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess
again.
Karl Popper: Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of
myths.
Karl Popper: In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality,
it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it
does not speak about reality.
If we are to write a scientific book, we must first of all define what
science is and ought be. In order to do this, I turn towards the
greatest scientists and philosophers of all time—those Founding
Fathers who are never quoted, nor mentioned, nor exalted in the myriad
of books devoted to string theory, multiverses, loop quantum gravity,
and other mathematical farses, failures, and frauds perpetuated for
fleeting fortune and fame, of funded by the very same fiat-debt
regimes which fail on moral and spiritual levels by privatizing
profits and socializing risks. Below are the scientsists I boldly
ride forth with—many were persecuted in their own day and age by the
cruelty and ignorance of their peers, as I am today by the proud
imposters gaining tenure for treatises on space aliens, multiverses,
parallel universes, strings, loops, and countless other imaginary
conjectures with absolutely no physical reality, but only fiat
realties. But just as S=klogw is engraved on Ludwig von Boltzman’s
tombstone, after his theory of entropy was derided, castigated,
ignored, and impugned by his peers, contributing to his suicide, so
too shall dx4/dt=ic be engraved on my tombstone, as sure ax xp-px=ih
is engraved on Max Born’s tombstone. Here is how the Greats define
science:
When the solution is simple, God is answering.[ii] –Einstein
A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are
composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is
ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical
thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as
probability.[iii] –Einstein
Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have
been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models
which for them were not products of the imagination but
representations of real things."
Albert Einstein: Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a
foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will
first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which
it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point
of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical
facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation
to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory
itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the
"naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic
concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a
basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with
great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and
evaluation of theories since time immemorial.
Isaac Newton: No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.
Sir Isaac Newton: “If I have seen farther than others, it is because I
was standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Isaac Newton: I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting
myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than
ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before
me.
Isaac Newton: If I have seen further than others, it is by standing
upon the shoulders of giants.
Isaac Newton: We build too many walls and not enough bridges.
Richard Feynman: Learn from science that you must doubt the
experts. . . . Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Isaac Newton: As the ocean is never full of water, so is the heart
never full of love.”
Sir Isaac Newton: This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only
proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
Einstein: Play Is The Highest Form Of Research.
Albert Einstein: Once it was recognised that the earth was not the
center of the world, but only one of the smaller planets, the illusion
of the central significance of man himself became untenable. Hence,
Nicolaus Copernicus, through his work and the greatness of his
personality, taught man to be honest. (Albert Einstein, Message on the
410th Anniversary of the Death of Copernicus, 1953)
To me there has never been a higher source of earthly honor or
distinction than that connected with advances in science.[iv] –Newton
The only real valuable thing is intuition. –Einstein
A person starts to live when he can live outside himself. –Einstein
The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. –
Einstein
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by
understanding. –Einstein
No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.[v] –Newton
For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.[vi]
– Einstein
If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the
shoulders of giants.[vii] –Newton
In questions of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the
humble reasoning of one individual.[viii] –Galileo
Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But
thought and ideas (the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the
three spatial dimensions at c), not formulae (dx4/dt=ic), are the
beginning of every physical theory.[ix] —Einstein/Infeld, The
Evolution of Physics
But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the
whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only
became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler
and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of
the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience
and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are
completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and
particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is
the father of modern physics—indeed, of modern science altogether. -
Einstein[x], Ideas and Opinions
Epur si muove – (And yet it does move.)[xi] –Galileo
.. my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of
this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations,
they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at
the planets or Moon or my telescope.[xii] –Galileo
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up with it.[xiii] –Planck
Planck: Let us get down to bedrock facts. The beginning of every act
of knowing, and therefore the starting-point of every science, must be
our own personal experience.[xiv] (All physicists have personally
experienced the double-slit experiment, and as relativity tells us
that photons remain stationary in x4, x4 must thus be propagating at c
with both a wavelike and quantum nature!)
Einstein: Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us
around by the nose.[xv]
Einstein: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The
second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the
material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself,
with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the
“naturalness” or “logical simplicity” of the premises of the basic
concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a
basis. [xvi]
Planck: That we do not construct the external world to suit our own
ends in the pursuit of science, but that vice versa the external world
forces itself upon our recognition with its own elemental power, is a
point which ought to be categorically asserted again and again . . .
From the fact that in studying the happenings of nature . . . it is
clear that we always look for the basic thing behind the dependent
thing, for what is absolute behind what is relative, for the reality
behind the appearance and for what abides behind what is transitory. .
this is characteristic not only of physical science but of all science.
[xvii] (dx4/dt=ic is the “basic, abiding thing” behind all relativity,
entropy, and QM!)
Einstein: Truth is what stands the test of experience.[xviii]
Heisenberg: Science. . . is based on personal experience, or on the
experience of others, reliably reported. . . Even today we can still
learn from Goethe . . . trusting that this reality will then also
reflect the essence of things, the ‘one, the good, and the true.[xix]
Since we experience both particles and waves, and since the Greats
agree that physics begins and ends in experience, MDT follows the
Greats in providing a foundational model underlying the physical,
experiential reality of waves and particles—of the analog and digital—
of relativity, QM, and entropy, as well as time and all its arrows and
asymmetries. MDT agrees with the Greats:
Schrodinger: The world is given but once. . . The world extended in
space and time is but our representation. Experience does not give us
the slightest clue of its being anything besides that. [xx]
Bohr: The classical concepts, i.e., “wave” and “corpuscle” do not
fully describe the real world and are, moreover, complementary in
part, and hence contradictory. . . . Nor can we avoid occasional
contradictions; nevertheless, the images help us to draw nearer to the
real facts. Their existence no one should deny. “Truth dwells in the
deeps.” [xxi]
Schrodinger: Everything—anything at all—is at the same time particle
and field.[xxii] (This is because MDT’s expanding x4 is continually
spreading and distributing locality.)
Einstein: Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the
illusion that man is able to comprehend the objective world rationally
by pure thought without any empirical foundations—in short, by
metaphysics.[xxiii] (MDT begins and ends with empirical foundations!)
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in
the opposite direction.[xxiv] –Einstein
Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas
which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make
the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid
of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under
a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find
themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be
doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite
found their way out of the equations into their minds.[xxv] –Maxwell
I don't believe in mathematics.[xxvi] –Einstein
Sir Francis Bacon: And all depends on keeping the eye steadily fixed
upon the facts of nature and so receiving their images simply as they
are. For God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own
imagination for a pattern of the world; rather may he graciously grant
to us to write an apocalypse or true vision of the footsteps of the
Creator imprinted on his creatures.
Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that
mine are greater.[xxvii] –Einstein
Geometry is not true, it is advantageous.[xxviii] –Poincare
John Wilkins: I shall most insist on the observation of Galilæus, the
inventor of that famous perspective, whereby we may discern the
heavens har by us; whereby those things others have formerly guessed
at, are manifested to the eye, and plainly discovered beyond exception
of a doubt. –1638
Science’s heroic spirit comes from the scientists, philosophers, and
poets of yore. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote, “Science arose from
poetry—when times change the two can meet again on a higher level as
friends,” and Socrates who mentored Plato who mentored Aristotle who
inspired Copernicus, Newton, and Galileo, cited the heroic acts of
Achilles as his epic inspiration.
In Einstein's Mistakes, Dr. Hans Ohanian reports on how physics
advances via the emphasis not on math, but on physical reality, “(Max)
Born described the weak point in Einstein's work in those final years:
“. . . now he tried to do without any empirical facts, by pure
thinking. He believed in the power of reason to guess the laws
according to which God built the world.””[xxix] MDT exalts nature and
the physical reality of a timeless, ageless photon, providing a
simple, unifying physical model for entropy, statistical mechanics,
relativity, and quantum mechanics.
A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.[xxx] –Plato
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can
be counted counts.[xxxi] –Einstein
Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by
the nose.[xxxii] –Einstein
In Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson writes, “Dick [Feynman]
fought back against my skepticism, arguing that Einstein had failed
because he stopped thinking in concrete physical images (as MDT does!)
and became a manipulator of equations. I had to admit that was true.
The great discoveries of Einstein's earlier years were all based on
direct physical intuition. Einstein's later unified theories failed
because they were only sets of equations without physical meaning.
Dick's sum-over-histories theory was in the spirit of the young
Einstein, not of the old Einstein. It was solidly rooted in physical
reality.”[xxxiii] In The Trouble With Physics, Lee Smolin writes that
Bohr was not a Feynman “shut up and calculate” physicist, and from the
above Dyson quote, it appears that Feynman wasn't either. Lee writes,
“Mara Beller, a historian who has studied his [Bohr's] work in detail,
points out that there was not a single calculation in his research
notebooks, which were all verbal arguments and pictures.”[xxxiv]
Please see MDT’s Fig. 1, presenting a physical model, at the end of
this document. (Many more to come!)
In Dark Matters, Dr. Percy Seymour writes, “Albert Einstein was a
great admirer of Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell. In his office he had
framed copies of portraits of these scientists. He had this to say
about Faraday and Maxwell: “The greatest change in the axiomatic basis
of physics—in other words, of our conception of the structure—since
Newton laid the foundation of theoretical physics was brought about by
Faraday's and Maxwell's work on electromagnetic phenomena.”[xxxv]
In his book Einstein, Banesh Hoffman and the great Michael Faraday
exalt physical reality over mere math:
Meanwhile, however, the English experimenter Michael Farady was making
outstanding experimental discoveries in electricity and magnetism.
Being largely self-taught and lacking mathematical facility, he could
not interpret his results in the manner of Ampere. And this was
fortunate, since it led to a revolution in science. . . most
physicists adept at mathematics thought his concepts mathematically
naïve.[xxxvi]
Bohr and Einstein debating the nature of quantum mechanics.
Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe.
Neils Bohr: Einstein, stop telling God what to.
Had Einstein wholeheartedly accepted the physical reality of quantum
mechanics and the natural nonlocality and entanglement of photons it
implied, perhaps he would have seen that not only were light and time
connected in relativity, but that relativity and quantum mechanics
were connected by a deeper physical reality of a fourth dimension
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. After all,
Einstein did write x1=x, x2=y, x3=z, and x4 = ict (implying dx4/dt=ic
to those bold enough to see it), only he arrived at this years after
he set forth the principle of relativity and its two postulates. MDT
starts with a more fundamental physical principle of a fourth
expanding dimension and its equation—dx4/dt=ic—and it derives all of
relativity while also providing a physical model for quantum
entanglement and nonlocality, and thus its probabilistic nature. MDT
exalts the beauty of wonderment, asking: “Why Relativity,
Entanglement, Entropy, Nonlocality & Time?”
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is
the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is
a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe,
is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. –Einstein
The important thing is not to stop questioning.[xxxvii] –Einstein
(Why Relativity, Entanglement, Entropy, Nonlocality & Time? because
dx4/dt=ic!)
And now that the Greats have defined what science is and ought to be,
we might also let them define what science isn’t. And in doing so, we
can contrast MDT’s elegant, unifying successes with String Theory's
“not even wrongishness” and now entrenched religion of failure. The
first page of String Theory in a Nutshell states in a footnoted
sentence:
String Theory has been the leading candidate … for a theory that
consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including
gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV
finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: “Although there is no
rigorous proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite...”[xxxviii]
–STRING THEORY IN A NUTSHELL
So you see, string theory is not a finite theory, but this is
generally kept to the footnotes, when mentioned at all. Many
esteemed, famous, and Nobel Laureate physicists harbor reservations
regarding strings:
We don’t know what we are talking about[xxxix]. --Nobel Laureate David
Gross on string theory
It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-
dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of
those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does
not manifest itself. -Einstein to Ehrenfest (Imagine doing this for
10-30+ dimensions!)
String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses[xl]. –
Feynman, Nobel Laureate
String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick.
[xli] -Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate
Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a
“theory” rather a “model” or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a
theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it
to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the
elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able
to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these
particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I
give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing,
and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon;
whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair?[xlii] –‘t Hooft,
Nobel Laureate
It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of
them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They
just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when
one person spends 30 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20
years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that
curious.[xliii] –Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate
Richard Feynman, an heroic physicists who married commonsense to his
mathematical genius, stated in 1987, a year before his death:
…I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and it is in the wrong
direction. … I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I
don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for
anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation
—a fix-up to say “Well, it still might be true.”
"Feynman was careful to hedge his remark as being that of an elder
statesman of science, who collectively have a history of foolishly
considering the speculations of younger researchers to be nonsense,
and he would have almost certainly have opposed any effort to cut off
funding for superstring research, as it might be right, after all, and
should be pursued in parallel with other promising avenues until they
make predictions which can be tested by experiment, falsifying and
leading to the exclusion of those candidate theories whose predictions
are incorrect. . . One wonders, however, what Feynman's reaction would
have been had he lived to contemplate the contemporary scene in high
energy theoretical physics almost twenty years later. String theory
and its progeny still have yet to make a single, falsifiable
prediction which can be tested by a physically plausible experiment.
This isn't surprising, because after decades of work and tens of
thousands of scientific publications, nobody really knows, precisely,
what superstring (or M, or whatever) theory really is; there is no
equation, or set of equations from which one can draw physical
predictions. Leonard Susskind, a co-founder of string theory, observes
ironically in his book The Cosmic Landscape (March 2006), “On this
score, one might facetiously say that String Theory is the ultimate
epitome of elegance. With all the years that String Theory has been
studied, no one has ever found a single defining equation! The number
at present count is zero. We know neither what the fundamental
equations of the theory are or even if it has any.” (p. 204). String
theory might best be described as the belief that a physically correct
theory exists and may eventually be discovered by the research
programme conducted under that name. –
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_502.html
reviewing Peter Woit’s Not Even Wrong
The problem, to state it in a manner more inflammatory than the
measured tone of the author, and in a word of my choosing which I do
not believe appears at all in his book, is that contemporary academic
research in high energy particle theory is corrupt. As is usually the
case with such corruption, the root cause is socialism, although the
look-only-left blinders almost universally worn in academia today
hides this from most observers there. Dwight D. Eisenhower, however,
twigged to it quite early. In his farewell address of January 17th,
1961, which academic collectivists endlessly cite for its (prescient)
warning about the “military-industrial complex”, he went on to say,
although this is rarely quoted,
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more
formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is
conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over
shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing
fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the
fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a
revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge
costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute
for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now
hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
present and is gravely to be regarded.
And there, of course, is precisely the source of the corruption. This
enterprise of theoretical elaboration is funded by taxpayers, who have
no say in how their money, taken under threat of coercion, is spent.
Which researchers receive funds for what work is largely decided by
the researchers themselves, acting as peer review panels. While peer
review may work to vet scientific publications, as soon as money
becomes involved, the disposition of which can make or break careers,
all the venality and naked self- and group-interest which has undone
every well-intentioned experiment in collectivism since Robert Owen
comes into play, with the completely predictable and tediously
repeated results. What began as an altruistic quest driven by
intellectual curiosity to discover answers to the deepest questions
posed by nature ends up, after a generation of grey collectivism, as a
jobs program. In a sense, string theory can be thought of like that
other taxpayer-funded and highly hyped program, the space shuttle,
which is hideously expensive, dangerous to the careers of those
involved with it (albeit in a more direct manner), supported by a
standing army composed of some exceptional people and a mass of the
mediocre, difficult to close down because it has carefully cultivated
a constituency whose own self-interest is invested in continuation of
the program, and almost completely unproductive of genuine science.
-- http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_502.html
I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like that
they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that
disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation-a fix-up to
say, “Well, it might be true.” For example, the theory requires ten
dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the
dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not
seven? . . . So the fact that it might disagree with experience is
very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most
of the time. It doesn't look right.[xliv] –Nobel Lareate R.P. Feynman
But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really
works. They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical
outcome of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their
formalism includes a description of such things as protons and
electrons. And they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental
prediction. Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a
logical consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature.
[xlv] —Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow
"... There have always been kookie fanatics following strange visions.
One of the most kookie, and of course most brilliant, was Einstein
himself. It has often been said by my string theory friends that
superstrings are going to dominate physics for the next half of a
century. Ed Witten has said that. I would like to modify that remark.
I would say that string theory will dominate the next fifty years of
physics in the same way that Kaluza-Klein theory, another kookie
theory upon which string theory is based, has dominated particle
physics in the past fifty years. Which is to say, not at all." –
Sheldon Glashow
Burton Richter: The anthropic principle, I think, is one of the most
stupid ideas ever to infect the scientific community. Look, the
anthropic principle is an observation not an explanation. It is
perfectly true that if the electromagnetic force had a significantly
different strength, then atoms as we know them and molecules as we
know them couldn't exist and we couldn't exist. This is an
observation, it doesn't tell you anything about how the
electromagnetic force got to be that way. Sure we're here, we're
having an interview, that means the electromagnetic force is
constrained to be within a certain narrow boundary but the physics is;
why is it in that narrow boundary? Now, you can beg that and you can
go back to the scholastics in the Middle Ages and their answer would
be 'God made it so'. That may turn out to be the only thing...we may
never find an explanation. If we don't find an explanation then it's
just an arbitrary constant. –Former Director of Stanford Linear
Accelerator, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1861083.htm
(Burton Richter, Director Emeritus, SLAC)
Robyn Williams: So the new accelerators could well change our view of
the universe, but what Burton Richter isn't so keen on is what he
calls the theology that so many theoreticians like Stephen Hawking and
Paul Davies goes in for. He wants his physics hard.
Burton Richter: I called it theological speculation. They seem to have
forgotten they have to be connected to physical reality.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1861083.htm (Burton
Richter, Director Emeritus, SLAC)
To me, some of what passes for the most advanced theory in particle
physics these days is not really science. When I found myself on a
panel recently with three distinguished theorists, I could not resist
the opportunity to discuss what I see as major problems in the
philosophy behind theory, which seems to have gone off into a kind of
metaphysical wonderland. Simply put, much of what currently passes as
the most advanced theory looks to be more theological speculation, the
development of models with no testable consequences, than it is the
development of practical knowledge, the development of models with
testable and falsifiable consequences (Karl Popper’s definition of
science)…
The anthropic principle is an observation, not an explanation… I have
a very hard time accepting the fact that some of our distinguished
theorists do not understand the difference between observation and
explanation, but it seems to be so… --http://www.physicstoday.org/
vol-59/iss-10/p8.html, Burton Richter, Director Emeritus, SLAC
String theory has no credibility as a candidate theory of physics.
Recognizing failure is a userful part of the scientific strategy. Only
when failure is recognized can dead ends be abandoned and useable
pieces of failed programs be recycled. Aside from possible utility,
there is a responsibility to recognize failure. Recognizing failure is
an essential part of the scientific ethos. Complete scientific failure
must be recognized eventually." –Dan Friedan, early Rutgers String
Theorist
“Likewise, the fact that certain beautiful mathematical forms were
used in the period 1905-1974 to make the presently successful theory
of physics does not imply that any particular standard of mathematical
beauty is fundamental to nature. The evidence is for certain specific
mathematical forms, of group theory, differential geometry and
operator theory. The evidence comes from a limited range of spacetime
distances. That range of distances grew so large by historical
standards, and the successes of certain specific mathematical forms
were so impressive, that there has been an understandable
psychological impulse in physicists responsible for the triumph, and
in their successors, to believe in a certain standard of mathematical
beauty. But history suggests that it is unwise to extrapolate to
fundamental principles of nature from the mathematical forms used by
theoretical physics in any particular epoch of its history, no matter
how impressive their success. Mathematical beauty in physics cannot
be separated from usefulness in the real world. The historical
exemplars of mathematical beauty in physics, the theory of general
relativity and the Dirac equation, obtained their credibility first by
explaining prior knowledge. . . General relativity explained Newtonian
gravity and special relativity. The Dirac equation explained the non-
relativistic, quantum mechanical spinning electron. Both theories then
made definite predictions that could be checked. Mathematical beauty
in physics cannot be appreciated until after it has proved useful.
Past programs in theoretical physics that have attempted to follow a
particular standard of mathematical beauty, detached from the
requirement of correspondence with existing knowledge, have failed.
The evidence for beautiful mathematical forms in nature requires only
that a candidate theory of physics explain those specifc mathematical
forms that have actually been found, within the range of distances
where they have been seen, to an approximation consistent with the
accuracy of their observation.” --{ 11 {JHEP10(2003)063, Dan Friedan
This book is about physics, and this implies that theoretical ideas
must be supported by experimental facts. Neither supersymmtry nor
string theory satisfy this crieterion. They are figments of the
theoretical mind. --Dan Friedan
The great irony of string theory, however, is that the theory itself
is not unified. . . For a theory that makes the claim of providing a
unifying framework for all physical laws, it is the supreme irony that
the theory itself appears so disunited!![xlvi] Introduction to
Superstrings & M-Theory –Kaku
"Is string theory a futile exercise as physics, as I believe it to be?
It is an interesting mathematical specialty and has produced and will
produce mathematics useful in other contexts, but it seems no more
vital as mathematics than other areas of very abstract or specialized
math, and doesn't on that basis justify the incredible amount of
effort expended on it.
My belief is based on the fact that string theory is the first science
in hundreds of years to be pursued in pre-Baconian fashion, without
any adequate experimental guidance. It proposes that Nature is the way
we would like it to be rather than the way we see it to be; and it is
improbable that Nature thinks the same way we do.
The sad thing is that, as several young would-be theorists have
explained to me, it is so highly developed that it is a full-time job
just to keep up with it. That means that other avenues are not being
explored by the bright, imaginative young people, and that alternative
career paths are blocked." —Philip W. Anderson Physicist and Nobel
laureate, Princeton
If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of
affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to
develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his
beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of
logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but
above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be
summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment,
demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated
beliefs. The unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more
precisely the naïve version of ether that preceded relativity. The
unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would be
perfectly in character for him to reexamine the facts, toss them over
in his mind, and conclude that his beloved principle of relativity was
not fundamental at all but emergent (emergent from MDT!) . . . It
would mean that the fabric of space-time was not simply the stage on
which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there
might be something beyond.[xlvii] (MDT!) -A Different Universe,
Laughlin, Nobel Laureate
[String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to
sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental
evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special
mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be
calculated or predicted more easily. . . String theory is, in fact, a
textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will
always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful
technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic
consequence of an obsolete belief system-in which emergence plays no
role and dark law does not exist.[xlviii] —A Different Universe,
Laughlin
MDT and Socrates’ & Feynman’s Honorable Pursuit of Truth
MDT delivers an ultimate theory underlying Huygens’ Principle which
Feynman’s many-paths formulation of QM also exalts, whereas Loop
Quantum Gravity and String Theory only sustain a myth of an ultimate
theory and thus perpetual funding. Nobel Laureates have referred to
this present era as the dark ages of physics, where progress in
physics is frozen in a block universe tied together with tiny,
vibrating strings and little loops which nobody has ever physically
seen, violating the fundamental maxim of science put forth by Galileo,
Einstein, et. al. Feynman echoes the words of the heroic Achilles
(whom Socrates referenced while defending philosophy as a virtuous
pursuit in the Apology[xlix]) in defining science as an honest,
honorable pursuit: “As I detest the doorways of death, so too do I
detest that man who speaks forth one thing while hiding in his heart
another.” (Achilles in Homer’s Iliad[l])
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the
easiest person to fool. … You just have to be honest in a conventional
way after that. . . I would like to add something that's not essential
to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you
should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. . . I'm
talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying,
but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you
ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our
responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I
think to laymen. . . If you're representing yourself as a scientist,
then you should explain to the layman what you're doing—and if they
don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their
decision. [li] –Feynman, Cargo Cult Science
Errors are not in the art but in the artificers.[lii] –Newton
[i] A. Einstein, Ideas And Opinions (Paperback), Three Rivers Press
(June 6, 1995)
[ii] J. Brockman (editor), My Einstein: Essays by Twenty-four of the
world’s leading Thinkers on the Man, his Work ,and his Legacy
(Vintage; 1 Reprint edition August 14, 2007, Paperback), p. 45
[iii] Einstein in a letter to Arnold Sommerfield on January 14th,
1908. CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 73
[iv] M. Ballou, Treasury of Thought (Forming an Encyclopedia of
Quotations fr. Ancient & Modern Authors) (Houghton Osgood, 1879). P.
459,
[v] W.I.B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation, Blackburn
Press (November 15, 2004), p. 145
[vi] A. Calaprice, Dyson, The New Quotable Einstein, Princeton
University Press; (February 22, 2005), p. 294
[vii] Newton’s Letter to Robert Hooke 2/15/1676, The Oxford dict. of
quot., Ox. U. Press, USA; 5th ed. (1999), p. 543
[viii] D. Stillman, Discoveries and opinions of Galileo by Galileo
Galilei, (Doubleday, 1957), p.134-35. Also @IntraText
[ix] A. Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, (Touchstone),
October 30, 1967, p. 277
[x] A. Einstein, Ideas And Opinions (Paperback), Three Rivers Press
(June 6, 1995)
[xi] Galileo Galilei, Apocryphal quote: rumored to have been said
after making his abjuration of heliocentricity. (Wikipedia)
[xii] Galileo Galilei, Works, cited in J. John Daintith, Biographical
Encyclopedia of Scientists, 3rd ed., Taylor & Francis, (2008) p. 273
[xiii] M. Planck, F. Gaynor (trans.), Scientific Autobiography and
Other Papers, (Philosophical Library, New York, 1949), pp.33-34
[xiv] M. Planck, Where is science going?, W.W. Norton & Company, inc.,
1932
[xv] C. Seelig, Einstein: a documentary biography, Staples Press,
1956 - Biography & Autobiography - 240 pages
[xvi] A. Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, Publisher: Open Court,
January 6, 1999, p. 77
[xvii] M. Planck, Where Is Science Going? From Relative to Absolute
(pp. 198–9), Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A,
Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character © 1934
[xviii] A. Einstein, A. Calaprice, F. Dyson, The Ultimate Quotable
Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 452
[xix] W. Heisenberg, Across the frontiers, Ox Bow Press, 1990 –
Science.
[xx] E. Schrodinger, What is life?, Cambridge University Press
(January 31, 1992), P. 136
[xxi] Niels Bohr quoted in Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, G. Allen &
Unwin, 1971, p. 210
[xxii] Schrödinger, What is life?: and other scientific essays,
Doubleday, 1956 - Science - 263 pages
[xxiii] A. Einstein, C. Seelig, Ideas And Opinions (Paperback), Three
Rivers Press/Random House (June 6, 1995)
[xxiv] D. Fripp, Speaking of science: notable quotes on science,
engineering, and the environment, (Newnes, 2000), p. 79
[xxv] M. Halpern, Language and Human Nature, Transaction Publishers;
Reprint edition (August 31, 2008), p. 166
[xxvi] H. Rawson, M. Miner, The New International Dictionary of
Quotations, Einstein as quoted by Carl Seelig, (Dutton) 1986
[xxvii] A. Einstein, Letter to Barbara Lee Wilson (7 January 1943),
Einstein Archives 42-606
[xxviii] R. Pirsig, Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance,
(Bantam Books; First Thus edition 1975), Page 257
[xxix] H. C. Ohanian, Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of
Genius, (W.W. Norton & Co.) 2008
[xxx] Plato, B. Jowett, The dialogues of Plato, Volume 1, (Random
House, 1937), p. 60
[xxxi] Sign in Einstein's office, beside a picture of Faraday,
rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html
[xxxii] V. P. Vizgin, J. Barbour, Unified field theorTies in the first
third of the 20th century, Einstein to Weyl, (Birkhauser 1994), p. 192
[xxxiii] F. Dyson, Disturbing The Universe (Sloan Foundation Science
Series) Basic Books (May 8, 2001) (Paperback), p. 62
[xxxiv] L. Smolin: The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String
Theory, The Fall of Science and What Comes Next, Mariner 2007, p. 309
[xxxv] P. Seymour, Dark Matters: Unifying Matter, Dark Matter, Dark
Energy, and the Universal Grid, New Page Books (July), p. 33
[xxxvi] B. Hoffman, H. Dukas, Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel
(Plume 1973), p. 193
[xxxvii] Statement to William Miller, as quoted in LIFE Magazine (2
May 1955)
[xxxviii] E. Kiritsis, String Theory in a Nutshell, Princeton
University Press (March 19, 2007), p. 1
[xxxix] Editorial, Nobel laureate admits string theory is in trouble,--
www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825293.700
[xl] P. Woit, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the
Search for Unity in Physical Law, Basic Books 2006 p. 175
[xli] Keay Davidson, 'Theory of everything' tying researchers up in
knots, sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/14/
MNGRMBOURE1.DTL
[xlii] L. Smolin: The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory,
The Fall of Science and What Comes Next, Mariner 2007, p. xv
[xliii] The Thin Line of Theory, http://www.dailyfreepress.com/2.5503/the-thin-line-of-theory-1.929606,
1/25/2005
[xliv] P. Woit, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the
Search for Unity in Physical Law, Basic Books 2006 p. 174
[xlv] Superstring Unraveling?
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-10/opinion/op-9363_1_superstrings-theory-physicist
[xlvi] M. Kaku, Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory, Springer;
2nd edition (July 30, 1999) , p. 5.
[xlvii] R. Laughlin, A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From
The Bottom Down, Basic Books (February 27, 2006), p. 125
[xlviii] R. Laughlin, A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From
The Bottom Down, Basic Books (February 27, 2006), p. 149
[xlix] Socrates’ Apology, Plato’s Dilaogues, c. 400 BC
[l] Homer’s Iliad, Book I, c. 800 BC
[li] R. Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, 1974 Caltech Commencement Speech,
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf
[lii] Newton, Motte, Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy, Kessinger Pub, (2003), p. xvii
Hero's Journey Entrepreneurship: Austrian Economics: Great Books & Classics
Physics:
hero's journey physics & moving dimensions theory
The fourth dimension is expanding at c relative to the three spatial
dimensions: dx4/dt=ic
http://herosjourneyphysics.wordpress.com
Three Foundational Papers on Moving Dimensions Theory: Time as an
Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by
Dr. Elliot McGucken
Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of
Physics In Memory of John Archibald Wheeler by Dr. Elliot McGucken
What is Ultimately Possible in Physics? Physics! A Hero’s Journey with
Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger,
Bohr, and the Greats towards Moving Dimensions Theory. E pur si muove!
On the Emergence of QM, Relativity, Entropy, Time, iħ, and ic from the
Foundational, Physical Reality of a Fourth Dimension x4 Expanding with
a Discrete (Digital) Wavelength lp at c Relative to Three Continuous
(Analog) Spatial Dimensions
On Jul 11, 9:46 am, "Hero's Journey Entrepreneurship: Austrian
Economics: Great Books & Classics" <surferphotograp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> @ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic –fromhttp://twitter.com/45surf
> --http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_502.html
> Accelerator,http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1861083.htm
> [xliii] The Thin Line of Theory,http://www.dailyfreepress.com/2.5503/the-thin-line-of-theory-1.929606,
> 1/25/2005
>
> [xliv] P. Woit, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the
> Search for Unity in Physical Law, Basic Books 2006 p. 174
>
> [xlv] Superstring Unraveling?http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-10/opinion/op-9363_1_superstrings...
>
> [xlvi] M. Kaku, Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory, Springer;
> 2nd edition (July 30, 1999) , p. 5.
>
> [xlvii] R. Laughlin, A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From
> The Bottom Down, Basic Books (February 27, 2006), p. 125
>
> [xlviii] R. Laughlin, A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From
> The Bottom Down, Basic Books (February 27, 2006), p. 149
>
> [xlix] Socrates’ Apology, Plato’s Dilaogues, c. 400 BC
>
> [l] Homer’s Iliad, Book I, c. 800 BC
>
> [li] R. Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, 1974 Caltech Commencement Speech,http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf