Feynman Says String Theory Sucks

[astro]

http://physicsmathforums.com

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 Paul Ehrenfest

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. –Feynman, Noble Laureate

String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick. –Laughlin, 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.” Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate

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 a n 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? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. 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. –Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

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. Why, you may ask, do the string theorists insist space is none-dimensional? Simply because string theory doesn’t make sense in any other kind of space. --Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental physical reality—the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
Moving Dimensions Theory advances science by showing that curious phenomena in both quantum mechanics and relativity arise from a common space-time structure wherein the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. MDT offers a physical path to the unification of previously disparate phenomena within a common context founded upon a simple physical model of spacetime. MDT addresses the deeper questions that many leading researchers, seeking to further fictional fads instead of science, have chosen to ignore.
Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source, nor entropy, nor time’s arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel’s Block Universe which troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.
Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly disparate phenomena within a simple context.

http://physicsmathforums.com

[Epsilon=One]

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 Paul Ehrenfest

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. –Feynman, Noble LaureateJust image how different theoretical physics would be if Einstein and Feynman were alive today.

[bpj1138]

Hrm, didn't Einstein introduce his own dimension, ie spacetime curvature? I don't mean to defend the practice in any form, introducing or inventing any sort of fundemental force or phenomenon cannot be tolerated. Doing so is equivalent to saying that gravity, for example, is caused by the flying spagetti monster or some other mythical creature, there is nothing different between that and spacetime curvature, both are inventions.

[Epsilon=One]

...didn't Einstein introduce his own dimension, ie spacetime curvature?Yes. It was the best that he could do to explain gravitation effects. There is much wrong with such a concept; however, for the era in which he introduced general relativity it was ingenious and the best theory; and even today, with better tools of observation, academia has not been able to supplant it.

I don't mean to defend the practice in any form, introducing or inventing any sort of fundemental force or phenomenon cannot be tolerated.If this were so, I guess we would never advance very far from a caveman's understanding of our environment.

Doing so is equivalent to saying that gravity, for example, is caused by the flying spagetti monster or some other mythical creature, there is nothing different between that and spacetime curvature, both are inventions.I agree. In fact all standard model forces are little more than anthropoidal contrivances.

[OfficeShredder]

Yeah, and who thought time should be taken into account? Time has no physical bearing, it was just made up and is utter crap. We shouldn't use it for distance formulas, or to calculate velocity. You can't just make up a phenomenon like that

[Epsilon=One]

Yeah, and who thought time should be taken into account? Time has no physical bearing, it was just made up and is utter crap. We shouldn't use it for distance formulas, or to calculate velocity. You can't just make up a phenomenon like thatIn a sense you are correct. Time, or its "clock" is quite different from the orthogonal dimensions; and; spacetime is "utter crap."

More than likely, the confusion arises because the physical source that generates time's "clock" is the same as the physical source that generates the orthogonal dimensions.

Time is simply counting. However, time does exist in that the "clock" that creates time does have a "physical bearing."

Time is not just a "make up" phenomenon; time's definition by theoretical physicists is the "make up" phenomenon.

[bpj1138]

Thanks for that lesson on time, I never thought of it that way, but I agree. What does this say about time dilation?

[Epsilon=One]

Thanks for that lesson on time, I never thought of it that way, but I agree. What does this say about time dilation?See:Time Dilation is a Confused Concept (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/TD)Please continue to ask questions.

It's always nice to find agreement concerning alternative concepts. I don't often encounter such.

[bpj1138]

Yeah, physics seems to be one of those subjects where everybody's got their own opinion and they are religious about it, maybe that's why there is so little progress within the field--if any agreement is found, people will latch on to it and stick with it for a long time. Consequently, mainstream physicists are just good politicians able to convince enough people they are right, or create a theory that's close enough to what other people are thinking in order to win their vote. Obviously this is a flawed paradigm, because reality doesn't conform to people's opinion.

--Bart

[Epsilon=One]

...physics seems to be one of those subjects where everybody's got their own opinion and they are religious about it...I call it secular faith. It is more pervasive than religious faith; and, I believe, more deleterious; because, for the layperson, it is quite difficult to recognize compared to religious faith.

...maybe that's why there is so little progress within the field--if any agreement is found, people will latch on to it and stick with it for a long time. Consequently, mainstream physicists are just good politicians able to convince enough people they are right, or create a theory that's close enough to what other people are thinking in order to win their vote. Obviously this is a flawed paradigm, because reality doesn't conform to people's opinion.You certainly do understand the situation. Currently, and for quite some time, academic physics is entirely driven by grant money.

[bpj1138]

I call it secular faith. It is more pervasive than religious faith; and, I believe, more deleterious; because, for the layperson, it is quite difficult to recognize compared to religious faith.

You might be right. It amazes me how many people think about physics. By his own account, Stephen Hawking's book "A Breif History of Time" was more popular than Madonna's book (I forget which, but hopefully there is only one). So that shows how mind boggling this is.

You certainly do understand the situation. Currently, and for quite some time, academic physics is entirely driven by grant money.

I think we've shown that even Einstein was a crackpot. Going back to the original poster, why bother quoting any of those people as if their opinion matters, it's only playing to the politics and the hurd mentality. Then take into account their alterior motives, and you end up with the fact that these people can't be trusted at all, just like the politicians. In fact, I think it might be up to us to move the field forward.

--Bart

[Epsilon=One]

Going back to the original poster, why bother quoting any of those people as if their opinion matters, it's only playing to the politics and the hurd mentality. Then take into account their alterior motives, and you end up with the fact that these people can't be trusted at all, just like the politicians. In fact, I think it might be up to us to move the field forward.Right on!!! Or, as Elliot would say, "Rock on!!!"

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul.

What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.Max Planck [1858-1947]
The Philosophy of Physics, 1936

A few more quotes that I enjoy (http://www.Brunardot.com/quo.htm). (Also, Click, "More Quotes" at the top of the linked page for a few from the élite that give cause for reflection.)