Is String Theory Ruining Physics? Is There Anything to Ruin?

[pentch...@gmail.com]

"Don't Let String Theory Ruin The Perfectly Good Science Of Physical Cosmology" https://forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/08/17/dont-let-string-theory-ruin-the-perfectly-good-science-of-physical-cosmology/

Perfectly good?!? In the texts below Joao Magueijo unwittingly suggests that physics, based on Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood, is long dead. So any modern concept, including string theory, is just a putrefaction product:

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/e-and-mc2-equality-it-seems-is-relative.html

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It is the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

[pentch...@gmail.com]

Nowadays the death of physics is so obvious that it has even entered popular culture:

Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If anything, it is undead, like a zombie." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNP9KOEdh0

Peter Woit: "...as seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an endpoint of fundamental physics..." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444

Peter Woit: "There's a very real danger...that we will in our lifetimes see the end of fundamental physics as a human endeavor" http://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8392

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Looks like Chris Anderson was right when he proclaimed the end of theory." https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11961

Peter Woit: "This all of a sudden made things clear: what is going on is "theatrical physics", not "theoretical physics"." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9691

Neil Turok: "The extensions of the standard model, like grand unified theories, they were supposed to simplify it. But in fact they made it more complicated. The number of parameters in the standard model is about 18. The number in grand unified theories is typically 100. In super-symmetric theories, the minimum is 120. And as you may have heard, string theory seems to predict 10 to the power of 1,000 different possible laws of physics. It’s called the multiverse. It’s the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all." https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev