Once created, the micro-black hole decays quickly and emits over a dozen different kinds of particles such as electrons, neutrinos and photons, which are easy to detect. Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos,

Anyway, what is this “new physics” that might house dimensional perspective?

Multiverses. Really! How would such “funnels” provide for new beginnings? A geometrodynamical view of bubble technologies? Ronald Mallet’s dream of travelling back in time and making way for new things?

hmmmm….

each little time a new “prediction” of string theory is shown to be false.

How is this possible? As a lay person such an example was important to me, that if such predictions are made and falsified, this was being handled properly?

Postdiction? Ah so you are saying any model assumption, or effort to use this model currently, is postdiction?

So lets say on mathematics alone then, is there any consistancy?

A side note? War on SeaGull: Any of you know? Beer and Present Danger, was actually a good one.

During a brief instant (perhaps at Planck scale) your reply resembled the deep vision launched by the classical philosophers that your nick evokes.

Yes, during that brief instant, I was tempted to become a believer.

Unfortunately for the believers, the history of the field is very different of is said in talks focused to young and impressionable minds or in books dealing with laymen. Unfortunately for believers, it is a hard task to try to convince to real scientists that there is some serious below the stringy hype far from three decades arrogant claims of being working with the Final Theory, a theory that could explain everything.

Unfortunately, today string theory continues being so far from any realistic TOE as was 40 years ago. Unfortunately, each little time a new “prediction” of string theory is shown to be false. Last, I remember was the observation some days ago of the so called cosmological strings that were not so string after all…

Unfortunately, even with the infinite malleability of string theory, in which you can say anything and the contrary of anything (each claim founding a new version of string theory) all of us would recognize (even believers!) that after of all Nature does not like beauty

Stringy of course…

About the ICECUBE i prefer to follow “solid” Witten philosphy in gravity and talk of postdictions. Therefore, when you obtain some data contact with me.

–

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

While these models appear abstract, how is it that you could marry such thoughts to “proposed experimental processes” with which to deal with the consequences of such abstract thoughts?

Was it wrong to go down certain avenues, then find that such experimental processes “stupid” after the fact, or was there real science being looked at?

Taking in the current state of affairs, to such analogistics levels of scientific validation, is just one more aspect of model assumption?

The contributors here are providing a service instead of the ole rant(yada yada), yet, we do hear of the 10 or 11 with some clarifications?:) Your contribution is helpful? Thanks. I’m learning a lot from a historical perspective, and after the fact.:)

Your thoughts on ICECUBE, in a weak field and it’s manifestation?

There are more fundamental errors than just typos.

It is good to know that. I believe that the perfect post has been still not invented. It is good and needed to make errors. My criticism ot string theorists is not by making errors, just by ignoring the last near four-decades criticism and by their obvious attempt to distort the history of the field.

I would emphasize “near four-decades” because in your blog you write

String theory has been researched with a lesser or greater intensity for twenty-something years. Initially it was introduced in the context of understanding the strong force, but then QCD came along and worked much better, and thus ousted this idea.

In a pair of years, string theory will be 40 years-old. Somewhat as many people is misinformed about real status of string theory, I believe that many people would be perplexed when know that your “twenty-sometimes” means near the double of years: 40.

Now, let us see if it is true you are claiming. You said

For example, I believe Brian Greene did discuss different string theories (type I, IIA, IIB etc) in “The Elegant Universe”.

I never said the contrary! That i said was that The Elegant Universe presented to the public a distorted version of the history of string theory research. Moreover, by different versions of string theory i was not refering just to the five (2, 10) versions of string theories usually named by the collective name of “superstring theory”. By different versions of string theory i refer to dozens of versions published in literature you apparently have not read the list of different versions i cited in my April work.

However, your appeal to superstring theory is good, because now i can add some i said not in my previous post: that some time ago many physicists claimed that ONE of the five known superstring versions WAS the correct final theory.

In fact, the community of string theorists (”stringers”) thought then that our universe was just described by, and only by, (2, 10) points in the “branescan”. Now, they admit that were wrong in the past which reinforces my thesis history of string theory is the history of sucessive failure. It is more even now it is admited that string is not fundamental…

It is amazing to write at one hand all past claims of stringers and, at the other hand, our current understanding of topics. Allmost all was claimed in the past has been shown to be wrong.

Critical string theory in 26D is a bosonic theory only, and I’m sure no-one has ever suggested that this represented a “theory of everything”.

I never said or even suggested that!

I said that in the past it WAS suggested that universe WAS 26D. Of course this idea was inspired in critical dimension of bosonic theory. Nobody claimed that a theory of 26D lacking fermionic modes could be considered a candidate to TOE. However, stringers believed that a fermionic corrected theory would be also 26D, because in the contrary case they would say: “NO, universe is not 26D; 16D are just an artifact of current formulation of the theory“.

el of classical theory, but on attempting to promote it to a quantum theory, researchers discovered that the total number of spacetime dimensions is fixed uniquely to be 26. So, quantum strings could exist only in a world with 25 (rather than 3) spatial dimensions, plus time. The excitement of finding — for the first time — a mathematical consistency condition that determines the number of spacetime dimensions, rather than treating this number as an experimental input, was somewhat tempered by the absurd value predicted for this number.

Nobody predicted a reduction 26D –> 10D via generalization to fermionic modes of the bosonic somewhat as nobody recently predicted the adittion of a new dimension outside the (2, 10) “traditional” regime.

In fact, i have seen some early work and ideas about compactification 26D –> 4D which now are considered outdated since the number of dimension is assumed to be 10D in superstring (CY) and 11D in M-theory (G2).

And YES, stringers claimed in public that superstring theory was the searched TOE and universe WAS 10D already in the 80s (i.e. 30 years ago). But 10D was not a correct number again.

I repeat the history of dimensions: 4D, 26D, 10D, 11D, 12D?, 4D again…

As for the footnote referenced, since that is not credited to anyone in particular, it does not seem to me to be good evidence that this was ever put forward as a serious argument against LQG.

If i write E= mc^2 in this blog i think that i do not need to reference a 1905 paper for suporting it. We do not usually reference material is well-known for readers we are focusing. Above preprint was focused to people who already know (you apparently do not) the history of the field.

–

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

For example, I believe Brian Greene did discuss different string theories (type I, IIA, IIB etc) in “The Elegant Universe”.

Critical string theory in 26D is a bosonic theory only, and I’m sure no-one has ever suggested that this represented a “theory of everything”.

As for the footnote referenced, since that is not credited to anyone in particular, it does not seem to me to be good evidence that this was ever put forward as a serious argument against LQG.

I did several other errors in the post: “newer” instead of “never”, “have” instead of “has”…

—

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

gr-qc/9710008, footnote on page 2.

Btw, it’s supersymmetry.