String Theory: Death of Physics

Home

String Theory: Death of Physics...

At the recent 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics held in Brussels, Belgium, Nobel prize winner David Gross stated: "We don't know what we are talking about!" He then went on to say, "Many of us believed that string theory was a very dramatic break with our previous notions of quantum theory. But now we learn that string theory, well, is not that much of a break." And that physics is in "a period of utter confusion."

This gloom-and-doom quote comes from one of the truly great minds and long-time proponents of string theory! His statement is especially disconcerting in view of the fact that string theory is thought to be at the very heart of the Theory of Everything. The failure of string theory to produce any verifiable results has shattered the hopes and dreams of thousands of scientists. For decades these string theorists have myopically acted in lock-step with each other as though they were entrusted with the Holy Grail containing a newly born universe -- God's chosen research program.

The basic problem with string theory is that it is thought-based -- not reality-based. For the past 35 years string theory has brought about an infinite variety of universes, multiverses, parallel universes, membrane universes, wormholes, singularities, and a whole plethora of fantasy-math concepts that no one understands including their creator and the Creator. No successful theory of anything has ever been this complex. The great geniuses of our time have misspent their lives on this mathematical version of alchemy.

The myriad of string theory equations tell us nothing about the properties and origin of space and time. They tell us what might happen -- not what does happen. With their labyrinthine thought constructions, they demonstrate nothing that can either be proven or recognized. String theory is merely an elaborate mathematical Rubik's Cube with an infinite number of sub-cubes and an infinite number of solutions. The basic theory cannot be tested in any meaningful way and therefore cannot qualify as a science. These theorists describe a limitless number of strange nether-world hypothetical universes -- but they cannot describe anything about the universe in which we all reside. Since these multiverses exist well beyond our reach and realm, we will never be able to see them in order to verify their existence.

Theory Failure #1: In order to make string theory work on paper our four dimensional real world had to be increased to eleven dimensions. Since these extra dimensions can never be verified, they must be believed with religious-like faith -- not science.

Theory Failure #2: Since there are an incalculable number of variations of the extra seven dimensions in string theory there are an infinite number of probable outcomes.

Theory Failure #3: The only prediction ever made by string theory -- the strength of the cosmological constant -- was off by a factor of 55, which is the difference in magnitude of a baseball and our sun.

Theory Failure #4: While many proponents have called string theory "elegant," this is the furthest thing from the truth. No theory has ever proven as cumbrous and unyielding as string theory. With all of its countless permutations it has established itself to be endless not elegant.

Theory Failure #5: The final nail in the coffin of string theory is that it can never be tested.

Physics and string theory, like the natural world and the metaphysical world, are in constant conflict. String theory is on the same plane as the spiritual forces, mystical concepts and theological incarnations that man has enshrouded himself with since primeval times, in an attempt to explain a world beyond his control in which he lived and feared. String theory with its undetectable extra dimensions; its unprovable-predictions on how these dimensions behave; its hopeful implications that there will be observable phenomena in the unseen future; its incessant invocations for Einstein's belated approval; and its promise of a unified theory of everything, invokes the same basic elements of faith of every other earthly religion. But religion is not science. Experimentation is the yardstick of science. String theory has been continually eroded at its core by its key inability to make predictions that are testable. It has become a false god: A god of the gaps.

The theorists try to excuse their embarrassing string of failures by saying that our universe just happens to be unique, which is the reason why it is the only universe that they don't understand.

Yes, as David Gross stated, they just don't know what they are talking about. But, until such a time as they begin to know what they are talking about, string theory should be relegated to the confines of the math department -- not the physics department. Such a shame; so many brilliant minds squandered on a wistful bubble universe, while physics, an experimental science gathering dust, comes to a grinding halt...

"Equations that begin brilliantly and end in wishful thinking" -- 'Hannibal' by Thomas Harris

Comments (6)

The problem is and always has been the refusal by scientists to consider an alternate possibility to the one second per second concept of time. It all fits very elegantly together in six dimensions "IF" time is flexible. Six dimensions for the whole lot is even simpler than three on one inflating space dimension.

The string nature is the proton which is the only stable interact able matter in existence. Even the neutron decays to a proton in about ten minutes and the rest are just energy registers. The proton as a stable energy structure connected in time from beginning of the universe to the end from the inflationary epoch where whirlpools formed in the initial fireball and reconnected in a twin Klein toroid structure. Light is massless and follows the curvature of space but mass is distorted in time and so a gravity well like for Mercury actually allows more pull time for the sun to advance the orbit. Simple enough and because it does not change what matter does it is good and because it accounts for galaxy rotation it is better and because the neutrino is the proton structure just out of the time of our dimension the neutrino is accounted for.

Michael

Posted By Michael Noonan, www.MisunderstoodUniverse.com | 7/30/08 3:49 PM

Comments (5)

I have a couple of reservations about your 'Theory Failure' list:

1. Theory Failure #1 and Theory Failure #5 appear to be redundant. They also may be false, as I can think of (and have read about) several, experimental approaches to testing the veracity of multiple dimensions empirically. Just because you can't measure something directly does not place outside the scrutiny of physcial science.

FOR EXAMPLE: It occurs to me that if physicists can produce convincing evidence of quantized space-time, that in itself may be an empirical suggestion of a God/Prime Mover/Uber-programmer. I won't boggle you with my argument on that - it still boggles me. I do not, however, think that we puny mortals should sell ourselves short on what can be verified vs. what is a matter of faith.

2. Theory Failure #2: I've seen this argument posited against a number of non-related situations. I am not a theoretical mathematician nor would I try to pass myself off as one, but the basic math training which I have had in public school and college leads me to understand that (anything that is finite) WILL NOT EQUAL OR PRODUCE (anything that is infinite). Unless there is some weird, esoteric, transcendental math discipline in which 5 + 3 = 1,4948 (in base 10: gotcha!) In other words no conceivable, finite amount of elements produce and infinite number of anything.

FOR EXAMPLE: There are trillions of stars in the known universe. They are made up of (roughly) about 102-105 atomic elements. Both 'trillions' and '105' are finite concepts. Big, but finite. They can never produce an 'infinite' possible number of life-form permutations. It is the only thing on which I disagreed with the late Dr. Carl Sagan.

Hope that made some sense.
Respectfully,
B. Fischer, Dogpatch, MN.

Posted By Bill Fischer, www.MisunderstoodUniverse.com | 5/23/08 7:10 AM

Comments (3)

Hello Folks, sorry for disturbing this warm discussion in this 21st century of yours but, after reading this blog, I would like to give my testimony as from being part of a more advanced rational energy constituted race living now in the year 6023.

I will not jeopardize my own future existence by telling you what is wrong in this string theory (certainly many things are wrong and yet to be enlightened at the right time). However, we here name your science as a “brainstorming exercise” and this exercise is necessary.

I should inform you that science must start with something, hence, the need to keep up the work. Just for the records : in materials brainstorming, the crystallographic defect you name dislocation was originally developed by a mathematician AND A PHYSICIST called Vito Voltera in 1905.

Note that the word physicist is in capital letters because our fellow creator of this blog, Mr Gerald M Steiner, said “string theory should be relegated to the confines of the math department -- not the physics department” Are you sure? Hmmmm…. Oops.

Well, Vito Voltera could mathematically predict tiny crystal defects that would only be effectively seen by the human eyes 33 years later, using the Transmission Electron Microscope built by Albert Prebus and James Hillier at the University of Toronto in 1938. I guarantee you that our universe is plural and we intertwine in a bunch more than 12 dimensions. Cheers,

Maleck

Posted By Maleck, www.MisunderstoodUniverse.com | 12/2/07 5:14 AM

Comments (4)

You say that religion is not science...

Religion is a term created by humans to simplify the understanding of our existance. Eventually, science and religion have to inter-twine. Yes, you have your fool-proof numbers and text and your mathematics. But ultimately, these are terms that humans created.

I agree that the majority of the string theory is going a little bit too overboard. It is obvious that these people have given too much thought to the intricate details of every movement and mass in the universe. But I feel it wrong of you to say that the basic problem with the string theory is that it is 'thought-based, not reality based'. Facts are nice, yes. But how do you find out something is a fact without theorizing it first?!

I highly doubt that humans are the epitome of knowledge in the universe. Thus, I highly doubt humans were meant to know everything.

Posted By Tori., www.MisunderstoodUniverse.com | 10/18/07 1:30 AM

Comments (5)

It is ironic how these so called "scientists" are reverting to the ways of the inquisition that did the same to them when they sought to see things differently. We have no idea how or why we came about, no control over our genetics or environment, and are around for a time so insignificant that it should go without saying that we can nor will ever have the ability to truly explain anything. Science is a great thing and I applaud the scientific method for all it has done, but it is not good enough anymore. Why is the scientific way now the only way? As with religion, what once opened doors for us will blind us because of pride. Once again we must go beyound the limits of "proof", and experimentation. But as always, we are slow to change.

Posted By Jim Smith, www.MisunderstoodUniverse.com | 9/5/07 5:41 PM

Comments (4)

The increasing Expansion (E/) that Hubble noted is part of a Larger Pattern, S/T\E/P\ where (S/) is rising Speed, (T\) is Declining Temperature or Cooling Down, (E/) already dealt with and (P\) is Declining Pressure. This pattern belongs to any falling object, e.g. a ball. Once more...S/T\E/PA LANDING BALL Slows to a Stop (S\) Warms (T/) Compacts (E\) and Compresses against the floor (P/). That's S\T/E\P/. See the difference?

Everything in the Cosmos is doing one or the other of these patterns.

The Cosmos is going S/T\E/P\. It's falling into the Black Hole at the center of the Universe.

Posted By peter lamont, www.MisunderstoodUniverse.com | 4/28/07 10:25 AM

Comments (3)

Although the predictions of String Theory may sound fantastical to those who study physics, the theory itself does expose a flaw in that discipline. The flaw of physical thinking is that it is based on what we as humans can interpret and predict about our world. Although the great physical minds have brought us much understanding about the world, it's potential comes to a grinding halt at a wall called "biology". No other species has a the mental capability to comprehend the universe in its entirety based solely on that which it can interpret in its daily life. It is foolish to think that humans have somehow crossed over the limitations of understanding simply because we have evolved to the extent of deductive reasoning. We can not assume that we are at the epitome of awareness and thought in the universe, and can therefore not base our assumptions of the world around us merely on what we observe. It is at least an attempt to side-step the shortcomings of our intellectual and preceptive limitations by turning to creative thought and analytical logic. Perhaps we have reached a point where the world we hope to understand exists beyond our ability to experience it. This does not mean we should give up any predictions about it when the analytical proof exists beyond our grasp.

Interesting argument though,

Sam

Posted By Sam, www.MisunderstoodUniverse.com | 2/14/07 8:11 AM

Comments (2)

Excellent summary. After reading The Elegant Universe, I felt privileged to have a respectable undestanding of the theory's components. After reading The Fabric of the Cosmos, though, the seeds of doubt we firmly planted. I have believed for some time now that the next great discovery will not come from physicists or esteemed fellows; it will come from artists who do not suffer from the tunnel vision and blind faith of today's physicists. Of course, the establishment will giggle and giffaw at the lack of pedigree, but they will slink away long before the revolutionary new ideas make their mysticism obsolete.

Paul D Rotter

Posted By Paul D Rotter, www.MisunderstoodUniverse.com | 1/13/07 11:36 AM

Comments (1)

Dear Gerald M. Steiner, once again I have to applaud you for your website. Science is indebted to you for your clear and most importantly public references that you have produced on this website. Previously you have stated to me that you in fact have a theory that a square is a circle. I find this very intriguing. I am a philosopher (amateur/academic) and concepts of shape are very important. As with shape of squares (string theory) we see that it is flawed. A square has four points and therefore requires four different points of logic- this is neither infinite nor plausible IN our universe- since we only possess one logic "+, 0, and -."

Keep up the good work.

A fan,

Jordan

Posted By Jordan Levesque, www.MisunderstoodUniverse.com | 12/8/06 1:29 PM

Post Your Comments

Name:

E-Mail: