<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Particle Physicist&#8217;s Perspective</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:31:31 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Plato</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7180</link>
		<dc:creator>Plato</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:06:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7180</guid>
		<description>Oh what a &quot;creative thinker&quot; you are on parodies, Warren. As a layman I was fooled?

&lt;a href=&quot;http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/parodies/next.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;We propose here a different alternative: &lt;b&gt;Apply string theory to energies beyond the Planck scale&lt;/b&gt;, which are not observable even in principle. Then one avoids the objection of the untimeliness of string theory, since it never will be relevant, and thus one may as well work on it now as later.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Was there clues then by others to have understood such a thing inside the blackhole eh? That we now understand where these limitations are on &lt;a href=&quot;http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/parodies/spaghetti_meatballs.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mother&#039;s cooking with Paste&lt;/a&gt;? Always bring things to a slow boil?

 So what else is out there other then &quot;theoretics cooking&quot; in the kitchen? :) What is &lt;b&gt;C&lt;/b&gt;ooking &lt;b&gt;F&lt;/b&gt;ast &lt;b&gt;T&lt;/b&gt;heory contrived by the bakers, doing now?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh what a &#8220;creative thinker&#8221; you are on parodies, Warren. As a layman I was fooled?</p>
<p><a href="http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/parodies/next.html" rel="nofollow"><br />
<blockquote>We propose here a different alternative: <b>Apply string theory to energies beyond the Planck scale</b>, which are not observable even in principle. Then one avoids the objection of the untimeliness of string theory, since it never will be relevant, and thus one may as well work on it now as later.</p></blockquote>
<p></a></p>
<p>Was there clues then by others to have understood such a thing inside the blackhole eh? That we now understand where these limitations are on <a href="http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/parodies/spaghetti_meatballs.jpg" rel="nofollow">Mother&#8217;s cooking with Paste</a>? Always bring things to a slow boil?</p>
<p> So what else is out there other then &#8220;theoretics cooking&#8221; in the kitchen? <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  What is <b>C</b>ooking <b>F</b>ast <b>T</b>heory contrived by the bakers, doing now?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Juan R.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7179</link>
		<dc:creator>Juan R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:08:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7179</guid>
		<description>A multidisciplinar scientists&#039; Perspective

1) It is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; true that string theory is currently our best idea about how to quantize gravity. In fact string theory does &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; quantize gravity we observe in real experiments. M-theory (M for Magic, Metaphysics, Mad, &#039;Mierda&#039;, Money, etc.) does not better.

2) It would be interesting to know exactly &lt;em&gt;where and when&lt;/em&gt; pure string theory ideas/techniques have benefited other fields such as mathematics, cosmology, and particle physics. For example in math, the contribution of string theory is of the order of 1/100 aprox. if one use number of Field Medals as &#039;thermometer&#039;...

Personally, i believe that &lt;strong&gt;none&lt;/strong&gt; Field was awarded to string theory work and therefore the contribution to math on Field Medals is 0 but...

3) Regarding QCD, would be interesting to know exactly what benefited to what: QCD to string theory or string theory to QCD? Perhaps the history looks more as QCD --&gt; ST --&gt; QCD.

4) About branes. Really someone still think that a vibrating multidimensional membrane can modell particles? I am atonished! Has anyone obtained non supersimmetric 4D particle realistic modes from brane theory? Then what is the interest in testing &#039;new physics&#039;? First obtain the current Standard Model from brane theory and after, only after, predict any thing new to be observed...

5) About the arrogance of string theorists that has a simple explanation. It is an &lt;strong&gt;outcome&lt;/strong&gt; of basic postulates of string theory. See Woit blog

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=293

for some of those laws. Some examples of string theory postulates are

- &lt;em&gt;God is a string theorist. If God is not one then he is not so smart.&lt;/em&gt;

- &lt;em&gt;String theorists are smartest people of this universe. Landscape corolary: and of the rest of infinite others.&lt;/em&gt;

- &lt;em&gt;String theory is not defined, therefore you can define string theory as you want&lt;/em&gt;

- &lt;em&gt;Remember if you are a string theorist, you are smart. Corolary: this also apply if your contribution to science was zero&lt;/em&gt;

- &lt;em&gt;Any rival theory, if good, is part of string theory if not, then it is another example of how smart you are&lt;/em&gt;

- &lt;em&gt;Publish papers claiming contrary things. For example, in a paper string theory is unitary in other it is not and in other paper it is a mixture of two last ones. Then string theory always win. Corolary: you are more smart still&lt;/em&gt;

- &lt;em&gt;If string theory is incompatible with experiments, the problem is with the experiment. It was incorrect, or done to a very low energy. Corollary: by each time that energy level to observe effects is sited to more higgher level, smart level is also.&lt;/em&gt;


6) String theory is a completely &lt;strong&gt;outdated&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;simplistic&lt;/strong&gt; framework that, in the best of cases, can explain nothing. Even if some day string theory is substituted by any other &lt;strong&gt;NEW&lt;/strong&gt; theory (probably will be called &#039;string theory&#039;), that theory will be not a theory of everything, just a theory of some basic properties of simple matter.

&lt;blockquote&gt;More is different&lt;/blockquote&gt;

[P.W. Anderson]


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL &#124;SCIENCE)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A multidisciplinar scientists&#8217; Perspective</p>
<p>1) It is <strong>not</strong> true that string theory is currently our best idea about how to quantize gravity. In fact string theory does <strong>NOT</strong> quantize gravity we observe in real experiments. M-theory (M for Magic, Metaphysics, Mad, &#8216;Mierda&#8217;, Money, etc.) does not better.</p>
<p>2) It would be interesting to know exactly <em>where and when</em> pure string theory ideas/techniques have benefited other fields such as mathematics, cosmology, and particle physics. For example in math, the contribution of string theory is of the order of 1/100 aprox. if one use number of Field Medals as &#8216;thermometer&#8217;&#8230;</p>
<p>Personally, i believe that <strong>none</strong> Field was awarded to string theory work and therefore the contribution to math on Field Medals is 0 but&#8230;</p>
<p>3) Regarding QCD, would be interesting to know exactly what benefited to what: QCD to string theory or string theory to QCD? Perhaps the history looks more as QCD &#8211;&gt; ST &#8211;&gt; QCD.</p>
<p>4) About branes. Really someone still think that a vibrating multidimensional membrane can modell particles? I am atonished! Has anyone obtained non supersimmetric 4D particle realistic modes from brane theory? Then what is the interest in testing &#8216;new physics&#8217;? First obtain the current Standard Model from brane theory and after, only after, predict any thing new to be observed&#8230;</p>
<p>5) About the arrogance of string theorists that has a simple explanation. It is an <strong>outcome</strong> of basic postulates of string theory. See Woit blog</p>
<p><a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=293" rel="nofollow">http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=293</a></p>
<p>for some of those laws. Some examples of string theory postulates are</p>
<p>- <em>God is a string theorist. If God is not one then he is not so smart.</em></p>
<p>- <em>String theorists are smartest people of this universe. Landscape corolary: and of the rest of infinite others.</em></p>
<p>- <em>String theory is not defined, therefore you can define string theory as you want</em></p>
<p>- <em>Remember if you are a string theorist, you are smart. Corolary: this also apply if your contribution to science was zero</em></p>
<p>- <em>Any rival theory, if good, is part of string theory if not, then it is another example of how smart you are</em></p>
<p>- <em>Publish papers claiming contrary things. For example, in a paper string theory is unitary in other it is not and in other paper it is a mixture of two last ones. Then string theory always win. Corolary: you are more smart still</em></p>
<p>- <em>If string theory is incompatible with experiments, the problem is with the experiment. It was incorrect, or done to a very low energy. Corollary: by each time that energy level to observe effects is sited to more higgher level, smart level is also.</em></p>
<p>6) String theory is a completely <strong>outdated</strong> and <strong>simplistic</strong> framework that, in the best of cases, can explain nothing. Even if some day string theory is substituted by any other <strong>NEW</strong> theory (probably will be called &#8217;string theory&#8217;), that theory will be not a theory of everything, just a theory of some basic properties of simple matter.</p>
<blockquote><p>More is different</p></blockquote>
<p>[P.W. Anderson]</p>
<p>Juan R.</p>
<p>Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thingumbobesquire</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7178</link>
		<dc:creator>Thingumbobesquire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7178</guid>
		<description>Since this site seems rather bibulous to me, I don&#039;t mind if I do. Now E.A. Poe, my progenitor, wrote the most glorious theory of everything to date called Eureka. But it is a tad polemical against witchcraft and the like. Now, Leibniz warned against the labyrinth of the continuum; alas, it made no impression &#039;pon poor Cantor&#039;s pate. But why did Franklin say that vortices can&#039;t be studied if your stomach is in the whirlwinds. And that stuff from Plato &#039;bout a baker&#039;s fart. Lan sakes. Much ado. Now, when even a virus (we don&#039;t even have any sympathy for them) has an infinite variability, how comes it sirrah that you have the inimitable effrontery to bottle up this universe with your brand of cork?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since this site seems rather bibulous to me, I don&#8217;t mind if I do. Now E.A. Poe, my progenitor, wrote the most glorious theory of everything to date called Eureka. But it is a tad polemical against witchcraft and the like. Now, Leibniz warned against the labyrinth of the continuum; alas, it made no impression &#8216;pon poor Cantor&#8217;s pate. But why did Franklin say that vortices can&#8217;t be studied if your stomach is in the whirlwinds. And that stuff from Plato &#8217;bout a baker&#8217;s fart. Lan sakes. Much ado. Now, when even a virus (we don&#8217;t even have any sympathy for them) has an infinite variability, how comes it sirrah that you have the inimitable effrontery to bottle up this universe with your brand of cork?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andreas</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7177</link>
		<dc:creator>Andreas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7177</guid>
		<description>Picasso said that every theory is a lie that helps to see the truth. This said, a ToE would be the ultimate lie bringing truth to those who still can comprehend dialectically, while leaving the others in despair who are immersed in lies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Picasso said that every theory is a lie that helps to see the truth. This said, a ToE would be the ultimate lie bringing truth to those who still can comprehend dialectically, while leaving the others in despair who are immersed in lies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonah</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7176</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7176</guid>
		<description>Joanne you make some excellent points but I think the &quot;currently our best idea&quot; statement is actually controversial and needs qualification. You say

&lt;blockquote&gt;So, people have asked, is string theory worth studying? I would answer yes, for two reasons. One has already been given, namely, that string theory is currently our best idea about how to quantize gravity.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Quite a few people evidently think of string theory as one reasonable hope but possibly not the BEST hope for quantizing gravity.  They apparently see other approaches as more promising, or currently making more rapid progress, or  for some other reason more worth working on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joanne you make some excellent points but I think the &#8220;currently our best idea&#8221; statement is actually controversial and needs qualification. You say</p>
<blockquote><p>So, people have asked, is string theory worth studying? I would answer yes, for two reasons. One has already been given, namely, that string theory is currently our best idea about how to quantize gravity.</p></blockquote>
<p>Quite a few people evidently think of string theory as one reasonable hope but possibly not the BEST hope for quantizing gravity.  They apparently see other approaches as more promising, or currently making more rapid progress, or  for some other reason more worth working on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Count Iblis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7175</link>
		<dc:creator>Count Iblis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:55:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7175</guid>
		<description>B.t.w., I just saw that Siegel has written two more parodies this year. See here:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/plan.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>B.t.w., I just saw that Siegel has written two more parodies this year. See here:</p>
<p><a href="http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/plan.html" rel="nofollow">http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/plan.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JoAnne</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7174</link>
		<dc:creator>JoAnne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:38:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7174</guid>
		<description>Ann,

That made my day!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ann,</p>
<p>That made my day!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Not Even Wrong &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A Particle Theorist&#8217;s Perspective on String Theory</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7173</link>
		<dc:creator>Not Even Wrong &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A Particle Theorist&#8217;s Perspective on String Theory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:21:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7173</guid>
		<description>[...] There&#8217;s a new posting over at Cosmic Variance by JoAnne Hewett of SLAC about string theory, entitled A Particle Physicist&#8217;s Perspective. It gives a good idea of what I believe most non-string-theorist particle physicists think about string theory. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] There&#8217;s a new posting over at Cosmic Variance by JoAnne Hewett of SLAC about string theory, entitled A Particle Physicist&#8217;s Perspective. It gives a good idea of what I believe most non-string-theorist particle physicists think about string theory. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7172</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7172</guid>
		<description>Believe me erc - if I know Sean, the investigation is going on while he&#039;s typing these comments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Believe me erc &#8211; if I know Sean, the investigation is going on while he&#8217;s typing these comments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: erc</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-7171</link>
		<dc:creator>erc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/11/18/a-particle-physicists-perspective/#comment-7171</guid>
		<description>Sean: Fantastic idea - just tell me when and where! (And make it soon) :) Has the investigation for the post yet begun?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean: Fantastic idea &#8211; just tell me when and where! (And make it soon) <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  Has the investigation for the post yet begun?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.262 seconds -->
<!-- Cached page served by WP-Cache -->
