Comments on: Not Even Wrong

By: The String Theory Backlash | Cosmic Variance

The String Theory Backlash | Cosmic Variance — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:41:36 +0000

[...] In the circumstances, it’s not surprising there would be something of a backlash against string theory. The latest manifestation of anti-stringy sentiment is in two new books aimed at popular audiences: Peter Woit’s Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics, and Lee Smolin’s The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. I haven’t read either book, so I won’t presume to review them, but I think we’ve heard the core arguments expressed on this blog and elsewhere. I’m a firm believer that it’s good to have such books out there; I’m happy to let the public in on our internecine squabbles, just as I’m happy to keep them updated on tentative experimental results and speculative theoretical ideas. It seems unduly patronizing to think that we can’t reveal anything to the wider world until everyone in the community agrees on it. [...]

By: Crackpots, contrarians, and the free market of ideas | Cosmic Variance

Crackpots, contrarians, and the free market of ideas | Cosmic Variance — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:20:53 +0000

[...] Now Peter Woit reports that he has been told that arxiv will not accept trackbacks from his blog. Peter, of course, is most well-known for being a critic of string theory. In this, of course, he is not alone; the set of “critics of string theory” includes, in their various ways, people like Roger Penrose, Richard Feynman, Daniel Friedan, Lee Smolin, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Robert Laughlin, Howard Georgi, and Sheldon Glashow. The difference is that these people were all famous for something else before they became critics of string theory; in substance, however, I’m not sure that their critiques are all that different. [...]

By: David Foster R.G. ie{regular guy}as i have no degree lol

David Foster R.G. ie{regular guy}as i have no degree lol — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:14:34 +0000

P.S> tell Clifford hes an ass. the guy argues fer a whole page and then tries to make up?…..camon cliff you may be surprised when CERN comes on line in 2007…..we may all thank Peter for being the voice of reason….we just dont know yet fer sure …do you cliff?

By: David Foster R.G. ie{regular guy}as i have no degree lol

David Foster R.G. ie{regular guy}as i have no degree lol — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 03:57:13 +0000

thanks Pete its so nice to hear that somebody is still trying to find new ways to find out what we may never know …..but in every different idea the seed of truth may be sowed. i hope n pray that men such as yourself are reading your interview in Discover this month ……and starting to THINK…..thanks fer yer time rock on dude!

By: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Comedy

Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Comedy — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:33:17 +0000

[...] 2. Kuperberg’s attempts to endear himself to Lubos by attacking the evil Peter Woit, announcing that even though he doesn’t understand string theory (something he has shown a perverse interest in demonstrating publicly, besides his comments on Lubos’s blog, see here and here) he believes it because “string theorists seem credible, seem talented, and have appointments at top universities.” [...]

By: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Quantum Gravity Commentary

Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Quantum Gravity Commentary — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:55:18 +0000

[...] Perhaps Jacques meant to write “self-appointed”, since I’d never thought of myself as a “gadfly” until Sean Carroll recently referred to me as such. If I were the sort to self-anoint, I suppose I’d prefer something more serious sounding than “String Theory gadfly”, maybe “String Theorist’s worst nightmare”….. [...]

By: Clifford

Clifford — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:07:24 +0000

Peter,

You have every right to defend yourself, and you’ve done so (and quite well). I don’t think anyone is under any illusions….. so now I think you can safely move on.
Honor is restored on both sides….. let’s call a truce. Then we can all come back and fight the good fight another day.

Cheers,

-cvj

By: Peter Woit

Peter Woit — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:21:04 +0000

Clifford,

Hey, it’s not me who’s coming into your place and launching personal attacks on anyone. I’m getting the impression that the way much of the string theory community intends to deal with my arguments is to not answer them, but to engage in personal, ad hominem attacks on my competence. If that’s not something you want to be part of, you might want to consider telling people who do this they’re out of line. Otherwise, they’ll hear from me….

By: Clifford

Clifford — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:44:36 +0000

Peter, Greg. Chill Dudes! Or take it outside. Not in my house, ok?

-cvj

By: Peter Woit

Peter Woit — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:20:01 +0000

Greg,

You’re just parading a truly massive amount of ignorance and making it crystal clear that you have no idea of what you are talking about here. From statements like

“there really isn’t any more to quantum mechanics than “writing down” an action, or more precisely, solving it”

you make clear that you not only don’t understand string theory, you also don’t understand quantum mechanics.

The idea that “I don’t want to learn string theory” is something you made up for yourself out of arrogance and ignorance. On Dave Bacon’s blog I wrote:

“I have a Ph.D. in particle theory from Princeton, and have devoted much of the last twenty years to learning as much as I can about the subject, including a great deal of string theory. Arguably I’ve spent far too much of these twenty years trying to learn about string theory, instead of spendng my time on something more fruitful.”

Let me repeat this in simpler terms: I have had about the best high-level training in particle theory you can get in this world, and then have spent twenty years professionally working in this area, including spending a sizable fraction of that time learning about string theory. You admit you don’t know much about the subject, and make this clear with everything you write. And yet, you are willing to attack my competence to discuss this subject. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with this subject that its partisans behave like this?