Holy moly…way too much has been posted in the last few hours to go over all of this in any detail, but I’m seeing a lot of problems that need to be addressed, so I’ll have to be quick about it. Let’s try to slow things down here Shadowprophet, maybe stick to one or two points at a time if possible.
Supersymmetry is a 4D theory – higher dimensions aren’t required. So even if supersymmetry is confirmed someday (no evidence exists for it today, but it is well motivated on theoretical rgrounds so it’s worth investigating), that won’t be proof of any higher dimensions.
QFT is amazingly powerful and extremely well-verified experimentally. But it’s incomplete because it doesn’t include gravitation. Likewise, GR is incomplete because it doesn’t include QFT.
So no theory that we have today is complete: we don’t have a unified field theory. Many brilliant theorists are trying to figure it out.
Have you started a thread about your work? I have no idea what you’ve found with your experiments, but I’d like to hear about them in some detail, so we can all see what you’re talking about.
Michio Kaku is not insane. Superstring theorists are not insane – most of them are brilliant mathematicians – you have to be in order to work on something that complex. But that doesn’t make superstring theory correct.
I wish people would read the papers I cite in these discussions. This one is particularly germane to that idea:
“Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time,” Julian Barbour, Tim Koslowski, and Flavio Mercati, Physical Review Letters, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0917.pdf
That’s right – an untestable theory that doesn’t shed any useful light on existing problems in physics, is basically worthless until it can do one or both of those things.
But that doesn’t mean that it’s incorrect. It only means that it is, for the time being anyway, useless.
No. There’s no distinction between “real physics” and “theoretical physics” – all physics is theoretical to some extent or another.
I just find that any theory that isn’t useful in some way, or which isn’t testable, is pointless and worthless. That’s a personal philosophical perspective, but I feel that it’s also the most scientific perspective.
Thanks for jumping in Gambeir; the black triangles are fascinating. I chatted with a man from Canada over at The Paracast forums who saw a weird ball of plasma hovering above the treeline by the road one night, and as he watched, it turned into a sleek black triangle with rounded edges, which then darted out of sight. Alternativively, it may have simply emerged from some kind of portal that simply looked like a ball of electrified plasma, he wasn't sure. He sounded very sincere to me. If his account is true, then there’s zero chance that what he saw was human technology. And yes, the fact that we humans are powerless to defend against such technology is pretty frightening. Thankfully, they don’t seem to be terribly hostile. But if they’re associated with the abduction phenomenon, then I’d say that’s a pretty hostile scenario: not lethal, apparently, but it’s still kidnapping, and nonconsensual medical and/or psychological experimentation.
The scientific community doesn’t have a single position; it’s not one unified entity. Some people like superstring theory, some don’t.
On the other hand, the LHC is the greatest experimental machine in history – nobody questions its value.
So by trying to conflate one with the other, you’re misrepresenting both. The validity of CERN and their work is an entirely independent issue from the validity or usefulness of superstring theory.
The research at CERN involves investigations into all kinds of theories via experimental findings. Supersymmetry is one of those avenues of investigation, but that has nothing to do with superstring theory or higher dimensions. Just because they both start with the prefix "super" doesn't make the two ideas related.
The only connection between superstring theory, and supersymmetry, is that superstring theorists glom onto every theoretical construct of interest, and proclaim: “our theory can predict that!” Sure, that’s true; with billions upon billions of possible variations in the superstring theories, some of them can be manipulated to predict anything. Is that meaningful? I don’t think so. But others disagree.
It makes me angry when you misrepresent things this badly, and apparently, intentionally.
Michio Kaku is a brilliant man. I just think that superstring theory is a waste of time, because it’s useless. If it ever makes a successful prediction, then I’ll take it seriously. Until then, no.
And like I said, CERN’s work is magnificent, and they have some of the best minds on the planet. And they should be looking for evidence of new physics – that’s their whole mission. So far, they’ve found no evidence in favor of superstring theory. But it’s a good thing that they’re trying. It’s a good thing that they’re looking into all kind of other ideas too.
I’ve already stated that I don’t want anyone to take my word as fact. I have my views, and I openly share my reasoning so others can take what’s useful, and leave the rest. I think I’ve made a good case for why superstring theory is basically unscientific, and worthless. This is not my view alone – there’s a large and growing faction within the physics community who sees this subject the same way that I do. You’re free to agree or disagree.
It would be helpful if you put the periods at the ends of your sentences, instead of in the middle. It’s confusing to decode.
I’m not trying to rewrite anything: I’m only pointing out the facts: superstring theory hasn’t yielded a single useful thing over the span of many decades….and yet the pop science literature portrays it as gospel. That’s absurd. It’s just wild speculation. Nothing should be taken this seriously without offering any meaningful scientific progress whatsoever.
Huh? What “works” in string theory? Where’s the “scientific merit?” It’s an interesting idea, but so far (and it’s been a long road so far) it hasn’t contributed a single damned thing to the field of physics. That’s a fact.
That’s exactly what I’m doing – asking for proof of the value, validity, or merit of superstring theory. I’ve been asking for that for decades, and I still have yet to receive a single compelling answer. So I prefer to look elsewhere. But I'm glad that some people aare still trying t find something useful in it - perhaps one day they'll succeed. But it;'s been eating up nearly all of the funding for theoretical research for decades, and has nothing to show for that investment. So it should be scaled back, to let other and more promising theoretical avenues of investigation have a shot for a change. Stochastic electrodynamics, for example.
This default assumption that may people make – even many brilliant physicists, is that superstring theory is some kind of answer. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But it hasn’t made a single verified prediction, and it’s not falsifiable. So until that changes, it remains worthless, and immortal – that’s a bad combo.
You don’t have to prove yourself. Just use your head and we’ll get along just fine ;
Someday. I and Thomas Will be Friends. But I have to show him the depths of my mind first. I'm proving myself. It's little more than that.
