PRACTICAL fusion device by Princeton physicist suppressed

[metamars]

I'm not a string theorist, but I know several and I'm very familiar with the state of modern theoretical physics. I'm also acquainted with the authors of both of those books. Woit is a failed physicist that seems to have been embittered by that experience. He criticizes what he is incapable of contributing to.

This is an ad hominem attack. It was in his book where we find out that only 1 out of 8 physics Ph.D.'s who go into particle physics theory end up with tenured jobs, at an average age > 60 years old. Are the 7 who didn't make it failed physicists? If so, isn't Woit in good company? The "embittered" remark sounds like nothing more than a smear. Smolin I have even less regard for - he has his own peculiar brand of quantum gravity, more or less indistinguishable from string theory to the layman, but which has not succeeded in attracting much attention or many students (largely because, unlike string theory, it has failed to make any contributions to anything). I believe that this is blatantly false. Do I really need to go to arxiv.org to pull up a list of his publications? His agenda is to attack string theory so as to gain more resources for his sub-field. Ad hominem. Slanderous, really. What exactly is his sub-field, these days, anyway? I'm pretty sure that he's stated that LQG has deep problems, like string theory. He is trying various approaches, and encouraging others to do so, also. Thus, I don't think your claim as to "sub-field" makes any sense. I don't think he has a consistent sub-field. E.g., he's spoken highly of Garret Lisi's paper. That's certainly not a paper in LQG, correct? Both of these authors badly misrepresent the state of the field. For example they pretend that string theorists dominate the establishment. I recall Smolin making some ridiculous claim about the percentage of jobs that go to string theorists. All you have to do is look here to see the truth - there is not a single string theory candidate on any shortlist for any faculty job anywhere in the United States this year. The situation was similar last year, and in previous years there were at most a few. You got me, here. What was the situation at the time they wrote their books, and in the few years preceeding? Isn't it indisputable that the field is considered at a low ebb, if not declining, because of disillusionment? Furthermore both make the absurd claim that students are pressured to study string theory. Nothing could be further from the truth - on the contrary, string theory students have more trouble getting into Ph.D. programs, generally struggle to find funding and advisors, difficulty finding postdocs, and cannot get faculty positions (because there aren't any). If the overwhelming majority of particle theorists at your university are string theorists, and you are interested in particle theory, you won't have many options, now, will you? In order for me to make sense of your criticism, you'd have to make a more specific comparison. Grad students are generally quite tuned in and know all of that, and are explicitly discouraged by their departments from going into theory - and yet many make the choice to study it anyway. Why? Ha! I read a book, probably 30 years ago, about the making of physicists. IIRC, it said something like this: "When they first get here (which was Harvard), everbody wants to be a theorist". At the risk of offending some people, the impression I got is that you generally needed to be brighter to make it as a theorist, so the less-bright ones got encouraged to go into experiment. Also, departments will naturally try and match students to professors in sub-fields that can actually support them. If string theory, or anything else, is unusually popular amongst students, of course departments will try and get some of them to choose other sub-fields. Because they think it's the most interesting subject to work on. These are people who could easily go work in finance and earn 5-10 times the salary they make as Ph.D. students and postdocs. Straw man. Smolin and Woit never said that string theory is un-interesting, though Woit (at least) has argued that it's not particularly beautiful. Are you really going to second guess them? Isn't it a bit condescending of Smolin and Woit to think they know what's best for the field - better than the people actually doing the work? Both Smolin and Woit went to a lot of trouble to write their books, both of which seem rational and fair. The fact that string theorists as a whole duck their arguments doesn't impress me. Woit is still open to finding a string theorist for a serious debate, and not having luck. And since they both consider string theory a failed idea, don't they have a duty to open their mouths and say so? It's not just them, either. See, e.g., http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0603/0603112v4.pdf edited mostly to correct figure of no. of particle theorists who get tenured jobs, from 1/15 to 1/8

 

[sol invictus]

This is an ad hominem attack.

Yes - much like the arguments throughout those two books. Don't believe me? See the quote from Smolin I gave above. Now that's REAL ad hominem - no messing around. String theorists are sexist, racists, pimpled geeks that couldn't get any in high school. It's unbelievable.

In order to understand why those two wrote such political and vitriolic books, it's necessary to know something about them. Sorry about that.

It was in his book where we find out that only 1 out of 8 physics Ph.D.'s who go into particle physics theory end up with tenured jobs, at an average age > 60 years old. Are the 7 who didn't make it failed physicists? If so, isn't Woit in good company? The "embittered" remark sounds like nothing more than a smear.

Take it as you will. I know him (slightly) personally, I know his writings, and my judgment is that he is bitter about the way he was treated, and that is the source of much of his motivation.

I believe that this is blatantly false. Do I really need to go to arxiv.org to pull up a list of his publications?

Which part do you think is false?

Ad hominem. Slanderous, really. What exactly is his sub-field, these days, anyway? I'm pretty sure that he's stated that LQG has deep problems, like string theory. He is trying various approaches, and encouraging others to do so, also. Thus, I don't think your claim as to "sub-field" makes any sense. I don't think he has a consistent sub-field.

He does. Take a look at the citations to and from his papers and those he cites, and to and from string theory papers. You will find two very well-defined clusters, with his much smaller.

E.g., he's spoken highly of Garret Lisi's paper. That's certainly not a paper in LQG, correct?

It's total garbage. The part of it that has something to do with gravity uses (wrongly) techniques from Smolin's camp.

You got me, here. What was the situation at the time they wrote their books, and in the few years preceeding? Isn't it indisputable that the field is considered at a low ebb, if not declining, because of disillusionment?

No, it's at a low ebb because the LHC is about to start, and most departments want to hire more particle-oriented theorists.

If the overwhelming majority of particle theorists at your university are string theorists, and you are interested in particle theory, you won't have many options, now, will you?

There are no such universities.

Ha! I read a book, probably 30 years ago, about the making of physicists. IIRC, it said something like this: "When they first get here (which was Harvard), everbody wants to be a theorist". At the risk of offending some people, the impression I got is that you generally needed to be brighter to make it as a theorist, so the less-bright ones got encouraged to go into experiment.
Also, departments will naturally try and match students to professors in sub-fields that can actually support them. If string theory, or anything else, is unusually popular amongst students, of course departments will try and get some of them to choose other sub-fields.

Yes, that's more or less correct. Although a big part of the discouragement is due to the difficulty in getting jobs.

Straw man. Smolin and Woit never said that string theory is un-interesting, though Woit (at least) has argued that it's not particularly beautiful.

How is it a straw man that the people with the most to lose (or gain), and with the most knowledge, choose to study something?

Both Smolin and Woit went to a lot of trouble to write their books, both of which seem rational and fair. The fact that string theorists as a whole duck their arguments doesn't impress me. Woit is still open to finding a string theorist for a serious debate, and not having luck.

Sure.

And since they both consider string theory a failed idea, don't they have a duty to open their mouths and say so?

They can say what they like about the theory - it's what they say about the people and the institutions that angers people.

 

[BenBurch]

Cuddles,

I've working in the field of superconducting magnets for physics machines; You are right; NOT cheap at all. And there is almost a magic recipe for really high field strength magnets; Two groups can attempt the same design and one can produce it with good yield and the other cannot, and it is not immediately obvious why. Or, at least, that was the state of things 20 years ago when I left the field.

-Ben

 

[BeAChooser]

No, it's at a low ebb because the LHC is about to start

I'm curious what you will do when the LHC finds no evidence to substantiate the existence of strings or dark matter?

 

[Cuddles]

Ha! I read a book, probably 30 years ago, about the making of physicists. IIRC, it said something like this: "When they first get here (which was Harvard), everbody wants to be a theorist". At the risk of offending some people, the impression I got is that you generally needed to be brighter to make it as a theorist, so the less-bright ones got encouraged to go into experiment.

In my year at university there were about 200 physicists. I think there were about 10 theoretical physicists. Almost no-one wants to be a theorist. Even most of the theoretical physicists didn't want to be theorists once they graduated.

The fact that string theorists as a whole duck their arguments doesn't impress me.

The arguments are in published articles. I'm sure people who don't have jobs as physicists would love to have public debates and exchanges in books, but that is not where the real science takes place. I haven't read Smolin or Woit, but the way you present them, even when you're trying to support them, makes them sound more like creationists than anything else.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm curious what you will do when the LHC finds no evidence to substantiate the existence of strings or dark matter?

Since the LHC isn't looking for evidence of either strings or dark matter, I doubt anyone will do anything different when it doesn't find any.

 

[ben m]

Really? Can you name a product we use in our daily lives that has resulted from string theory? Just one product.

Can you name one product that has resulted from:

a) studying the Earth's core/mantle interface?
b) discovering fossils of the Australopithecines?
c) landing a space probe on the surface of Titan?
d) proving Fermat's Last Theorem?
e) measuring the electron g-factor to one part in 10^15?
f) translating the Oxyrhyncus Manuscripts?
g) understanding intercellular signalling in slime molds?
h) photographing the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field?
i) reconstructing proto-Indo-European?
j) discovering the coelocanth?
etc ...

None of these things will make your XBox run faster. Calling them useless will make you look like a moron, but it will also get people to reply to your posts on discussion boards! Keep it up.

(also: an insult to string theory's lack of an engineering application is pretty funny, coming, as it does, from someone with a monomaniacal devotion to arcane models of comets, galaxies, and cosmology.)

 

[BeAChooser]

Since the LHC isn't looking for evidence of either strings or dark matter, I doubt anyone will do anything different when it doesn't find any.

Really? That's going to come as a surprise to those who put together the LHC's official website (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/WhyLHC-en.html ) ... where they state the 5 primary reasons for building the LHC.

One of the questions they seek to answer is "What is 96% of the universe made of?" They are talking about dark matter and dark energy, Cuddles. They state that "The ATLAS and CMS experiments will look for supersymmetric particles to test a likely hypothesis for the make-up of dark matter."

Another question they seek to answer is "Do extra dimensions of space really exist?" They are talking about strings, Cuddles. They state that "string theory implies that there are additional spatial dimensions yet to be observed. These may become detectable at very high energies, so data from all the detectors will be carefully analysed to look for signs of extra dimensions."

So I'll ask again, what will you do if they find no evidence for either?

 

[sol invictus]

None of these things will make your XBox run faster. Calling them useless will make you look like a moron, but it will also get people to reply to your posts on discussion boards! Keep it up.

It's worth pointing out that string theory was first considered in the mid-70's, and wasn't taken seriously by any significant group of physicists until the anomaly cancellation paper in 1984. So we're talking about 25-35 years, depending on how you count, and perhaps 1,000 people across the world at its peak. The total financial resources expended on it in its entire history are the salaries of those people (mostly supported by teaching at universities anyway), and a fair amount of paper, ink, and lots of chalk.

The best date for the birth of quantum mechanics is probably 1900 with Planck. It wasn't until around 25 years later that the theory was fully formulated (which hasn't happened yet with string theory, although it may be getting closer). The question of the first practical applications is kind of an interesting one. Atomic bombs (1945) are an obvious candidate, but perhaps there were some inventions in the 30's. In any case, there was a lag of at least 35 years, and probably longer, before there was any tangible payoff.

And yet essentially none of the technology we have in 2008 would be possible without the understanding of quantum mechanics. No modern physical or organic chemistry, no molecular biology, no transistors and hence no modern electronics or computers or electronic storage, no modern materials, etc.

All I can say is, thank god the woos on this forum are not in charge of anything.

 

[BeAChooser]

Can you name one product that has resulted from:

Ignoring the fact that I was talking about fundamental physical principles and none of the examples you've listed is one of those, let's look at a few in your list:

a) studying the Earth's core/mantle interface?

Perhaps better prediction of earthquakes.

d) proving Fermat's Last Theorem?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fermat's_last_theorem/Cover "the theorem has profound implications for many branches of mathematics". And those branches of math affect products we use in many different ways.

e) measuring the electron g-factor to one part in 10^15?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor#Measured_g-factor_Values "As of November 2006, the experimentally measured value is 2.0023318416 with an uncertainy of 0.0000000013, compared to the theoretical prediction of 2.0023318361 with an uncertainty of 0.0000000010[4]. This is a difference of 3.4 standard deviations, suggesting beyond-the-Standard-Model physics may be having an effect." Oooo ... something new?

g) understanding intercellular signalling in slime molds?

Cancer research. See link at this website: http://www.biology.missouri.edu/research/genetic.lasso ... "Cellular slime molds may seem small targets for big science, but the potential benefits are enormous. by Alan Bavley"

But I think you missed the point anyway.

 

[Dilb]

Really? Can you name a product we use in our daily lives that has resulted from string theory? Just one product. Can you name one prediction that string theory has successfully made? Has it even made a falsifiable prediction? Can you name any data proving string theory is real? Or is this just another one of your gnomes, sol?

String theory has been around since the 80's, and is concerned with making unique predictions in high energy physics. Why would you expect it to have applications? Before GPS, I don't think general relativity had any daily applications either, and that's been around for nearly a century, in addition to being common enough that real predictions could be made fairly easily.

And yes, I can give you some actual predictions, which were shown to be true in experiments.

 

[BenBurch]

As I understand it, string theory does not even seem to be a proper theory. At best it is a conjecture. Almost nothing testable about it, and some people argue over whether the recently-proposed tests are that at all.

Wolfgang Pauli's possibly apocryphal quote "That's not right. It's not even wrong." has been applied in the past to String Theory, and likely still applies to it.

 

[sol invictus]

As I understand it, string theory does not even seem to be a proper theory. At best it is a conjecture. Almost nothing testable about it, and some people argue over whether the recently-proposed tests are that at all.

Wolfgang Pauli's possibly apocryphal quote "That's not right. It's not even wrong." has been applied in the past to String Theory, and likely still applies to it.

I don't agree with that at all. It sounds like you've been reading Woit, who is just about the least reliable guide on this topic you could imagine. A lot of the backlash against string theory comes from a period when certain arrogant individuals declared it was the theory of everything, and they were about to decode the universe with it. That was overoptimistic to put it mildly, but human conceits don't alter the underlying consistency or validity of the theory itself.

String theory is pretty much the only candidate for a theory of quantum gravity. But because it's a theory of quantum gravity it's extremely hard to test directly (gravity is very weak as it is, so tiny quantum corrections to it are very hard to measure). That just comes with the territory.

The hope is that something unexpected will come out that makes it possible to test, and that's quite possible (there are a number of very interesting possibilities along those lines, especially using cosmology). But until it's tested it's certainly speculative, and might be completely wrong.

You should realize that what got people interested in it in the first place is that it really is an honest quantum gravity theory, and it's the only one we have. If there was another one people would jump on it - two is much better than one. But unfortunately there isn't. Furthermore it's got an incredibly tight and rigid mathematical structure that makes it rather unique and very difficult to modify, and yields really spectacular computational results (like the anomaly cancellation which essentially kicked it off as a serious theory).

Research in string theory has lead to major advances across an entire area of mathematics, leading to multiple Fields medals (the equivalent of the Nobel prize but for math, and given only once every four years) including one to Edward Witten, a leading string theorist. It has also profoundly influenced just about every other area of theoretical physics, from condensed matter to nuclear physics to cosmology to particle physics.

So even if it turns out to be a siren song that lead theorists astray, its side benefits have been enormous. I have little doubt that some major advance will emerge from all of that, so at worst it was a detour. And ultimately, the people best suited to judge what theory to study are those that know the most about them - from the outside, it's rather arrogant to think you can tell a Ph.D. student what topic to pick. Let them sort it out for themselves - if it fails as a theory, people will stop working on it.

It may not be apparent to most laypeople that in order to be successful in theoretical physics these days, you have to have a very broad base of knowledge. Far from being narrowly specialized, a good theorist knows five different techniques to solve a given problem, and that means the top people all know some string theory, particle physics, cosmology, some condensed matter. There aren't many researchers these days you can really call string theorists and leave it at that - most people work on a variety of topics, and string theory is one tool among many.

 

[BeAChooser]

It has also profoundly influenced just about every other area of theoretical physics, from condensed matter to nuclear physics to cosmology to particle physics.

Perhaps detrimentally, if Smolin is correct. For all that you said ... it is still nothing but a unproven theory. Perhaps it is even untestable ... in fact, I remember a very recent NOVA program on string theory were the expert on string theory being interviewed admitted that might be the case. That's seems to me the true state of string theory.

So even if it turns out to be a siren song that lead theorists astray, its side benefits have been enormous.

Or perhaps the overwhelming focus on it (like the focus on dark matter, dark energy, black holes and magnetic reconnection in astrophysics) has kept science from advancing far farther than it would have done by going down some other road to reality.

I have little doubt that some major advance will emerge from all of that, so at worst it was a detour.

Perhaps we'd already have matter transporters were it not for the detour of string theory? If it was a detour, it will have turned out to be an expensive one. And perhaps we don't have all the time and resources in the world to try again?

There aren't many researchers these days you can really call string theorists and leave it at that - most people work on a variety of topics, and string theory is one tool among many.

Another way to look at that is string theory has perhaps corrupted many areas of research. Who knows what damage it may have done if it turns out to be nothing but wishful thinking ... which it looks like even you might be admitting is a distinct possibility.

 

[sol invictus]

OK, this is an almost reasonable post for once, and worthy of a response.

Perhaps detrimentally, if Smolin is correct. For all that you said ... it is still nothing but a unproven theory. Perhaps it is even untestable ...

String theory is a set of mathematical techniques, essentially. Together those techniques might or might not be a good way to model the world, but regardless of that, they are valid and consistent in and of themselves. That's why string theory has stimulated such tremendous progress in mathematics. I find it difficult to see how having such techniques available could possibly be detrimental, and recent history has certainly not born that out as a possibility. Just have a look at the sudden resurgence of interest and excitement in the nuclear physics community, which had been moribund for decades, because of AdS/QCD and the recent RHIC results.

Or perhaps the overwhelming focus on it <nonsense pruned> has kept science from advancing far farther than it would have done by going down some other road to reality.

That's an undecidable question. Science, like life, rarely follows a linear path.

Perhaps we'd already have matter transporters were it not for the detour of string theory? If it was a detour, it will have turned out to be an expensive one. And perhaps we don't have all the time and resources in the world to try again?

Expensive? Resources?

As I pointed out above, the total financial investment in string theory throughout its history has been tiny. Most of its practitioners are either graduate students or professors, both of whom typically support their own salaries by teaching. There are no other costs, no labs, no equipment necessary aside from chalk, pens, and paper. And these are people who could easily double their academic salaries working in finance or industry, but remain because of their love for the subject.

Stop and think for a moment, please - do you, from your position of admitted ignorance, really want to judge these people and their life's work based on the word of a biased and hateful academic rival?

Another way to look at that is string theory has perhaps corrupted many areas of research. Who knows what damage it may have done if it turns out to be nothing but wishful thinking ... which it looks like even you might be admitting is a distinct possibility.

Corrupted? Damage? What do you think it is, immoral? A disease? Is it contagious?

You've obviously been reading Smolin, who I can't resist quoting again here, just to show how vicious and petty he is:

Smolin adds a moral dimension to his plaint, linking string theory to the physics profession’s “blatant prejudice” against women and blacks. Pondering the cult of empty mathematical virtuosity, he asks, “How many leading theoretical physicists were once insecure, small, pimply boys who got their revenge besting the jocks (who got the girls) in the one place they could—math class?”

 

[BeAChooser]

String theory is a set of mathematical techniques, essentially.

Oh ... is that what it's been reduced to? And to think it once was going to be a Theory Of Everything.

Together those techniques might or might not be a good way to model the world

You could say that of just about anything.

but regardless of that, they are valid and consistent in and of themselves.

But then why are there so many different kinds of string theory ... and physics possibilities within those string theories?

I find it difficult to see how having such techniques available could possibly be detrimental

Did epicycles help or hinder?

Expensive? Resources? What are you talking about?

Here we go again. Weren't you the poster who recently said the search for dark matter has been "cheap"?

As I pointed out above, the total financial investment in string theory throughout its history has been tiny. Most of its practitioners are either graduate students or professors, both of whom support their own salaries primarily by teaching.

But they could be researching something else ... perhaps more productively. And who do you think pays for those salaries? And don't forget the conferences. Lot's of conferences.

There are no other costs, no labs, no equipment necessary aside from chalk, pens, and paper.

A mind is too precious to waste. And some of our very best minds have devoted themselves to this to the exclusion of something else.

And there are experiments being done to find evidence of strings. Look at the LHC at about 8 billion dollars. One of it's five stated goals is to look for evidence of strings.

Stop and think for a moment, please - do you, from your position of admitted ignorance, really want to judge these people and their life's work based on the word of a biased and hateful academic rival?

After some of the things said about Alfven, Peratt and Lerner? Hmmmm...

just to show how vicious and petty he is

Is this guy vicious and petty too?

http://www.slate.com/id/2131014/ "Theory of Anything? Physicist Lawrence Krauss turns on his own. By Paul Boutin Posted Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2005 Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, has a reputation for shooting down pseudoscience. ... snip ... in his latest book, Hiding in the Mirror, Krauss turns on his own—by taking on string theory, the leading edge of theoretical physics. Krauss is probably right that string theory is a threat to science, but his book proves he's too late to stop it."

How about this guy?

"A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down", 2005, by Robert B. Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics. “[String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be calculated or predicted more easily. ... snip ... String theory is, in fact, a textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system—in which emergence plays no role and dark law does not exist.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/14/MNGRMBOURE1.DTL ""The physics department at Stanford effectively fissioned over this issue," said Laughlin, now on sabbatical in South Korea. "I think string theory is textbook 'post-modernism' (and) fueled by irresponsible expenditures of money."

And from the same above source

"Superstringers have now created a culture in physics departments that is openly disdainful of experiments. ... There is an intellectual struggle going on for the very soul of theoretical physics, and for the hearts and minds of young scientists entering our field," says physicist Zlatko Tesanovic of Johns Hopkins University."


"I agree entirely with Larry Krauss," says Nobel Prize-winning physicist Philip Anderson of Princeton University. In academia, "we from outside the (string) field are disturbed by our colleagues' insistence that every new semi-adolescent who has done something in string theory is the greatest genius since Einstein and therefore must occupy yet another tenure track. ... Our sciences are becoming increasingly infected with quasi-theology, a tendency which needs to be openly debated."

 

[sol invictus]

Oh ... is that what it's been reduced to? And to think it once was going to be a Theory Of Everything.

Re-read what I wrote. Apparently you didn't understand it.

But then why are there so many different kinds of string theory ... and physics possibilities within those string theories?

There is only one consistent theory known. One can take different limits of its parameters, and those limits are sometimes referred to as different theories.

Did epicycles help or hinder?

They helped. They provided a decent theory, which eventually was replaced when it became clear there was a more accurate and simple one available. That's how science works.

Here we go again. Weren't you the poster who recently said the search for dark matter has been "cheap"?

String theory has been far cheaper even than that.

But they could be researching something else ... perhaps more productively. And who do you think pays for those salaries? And don't forget the conferences. Lot's of conferences.

They teach, and students pay tuition, and that pays their salaries. Is that so hard to understand? As for conferences, how would you know?

A mind is too precious to waste. And some of our very best minds have devoted themselves to this to the exclusion of something else.

And they should be listening to you instead?

And there are experiments being done to find evidence of strings. Look at the LHC at about 8 billion dollars. One of it's five stated goals is to look for evidence of strings.

So the LHC is string theory too? There's not much left of physics - you think all of astrophysics is wrong, now it's string theory and all of particle physics too?

Is this guy vicious and petty too?

No, just another media whore.

How about this guy?

Laughlin is actually insane. Notice how it says he was on "sabbatical" in South Korea? He was actually serving as the president of KAIST, the best technical university there. Go read up on what happened with that (if you can find an account of it), then decide how much attention to pay what he says.

I suppose you realize that I know all these people? Quoting them at me is not particularly fruitful, if you're trying to convince me of something. I already know what they think.

Anyway, what's your point? There are many people that dislike string theory, that's true. And there are also many people that dislike evolution, and climate change research, and that don't believe HIV causes AIDS, and that believe in idiotic nonsense like the electric universe. The one thing I've noticed is that you have a true genius for digging up quotes from them all...

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
Did epicycles help or hinder?

They helped.

I suppose you could claim they helped the local priests keep track of the movement of the planets for astrology purposes (to foretell the fortunes of rulers and paupers). And string theory? Who is it helping?

They teach, and students pay tuition, and that pays their salaries.

So the burden of supporting string theory has fallen on the poor students?

As for conferences, how would you know?

Here's about 150 that have taken place in the last 2 years and will take place this year: http://www.stringwiki.org/wiki/Conferences

So the LHC is string theory too?

It says so right on their website. One of the 5 reasons given for building the thing in the first place.

Is this guy vicious and petty too?

No, just another media whore.

What a vicious and petty thing to say ... or are you just jealous that your relegated to this little obscure forum.

Laughlin is actually insane.

What a vicious and petty thing to say ...

He was actually serving as the president of KAIST, the best technical university there. Go read up on what happened with that (if you can find an account of it), then decide how much attention to pay what he says.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...lin+KAIST+fired+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Looks like he's just upset some folks because he wanted to see some changes needed to fix KAIST's future financial viability and technical standing. He tried to modernize the school and make it more like MIT. As he noted in his proposal "The current model is to contract with the government to supply highly intelligent, well-trained workers to industry at low cost. The new model is to contract with parents and students to create an excellent, general-purpose educational environment weighted toward science and engineering." He ruffled some feathers. Maybe one reason they didn't agree is that he proposed students pay tuition instead of tuition being fully subsidized by the government. And it looks like he wanted to axe some of the school's deadwood (probably a bunch of string theorists ). I don't see any of that as being suggestive he's wrong about string physics or insane. I guess time will tell whether KAIST needed an overhaul or not.

And there are also many people that dislike evolution, and climate change research, and that don't believe HIV causes AIDS, and that believe in idiotic nonsense like the electric universe.

Nice try, but unlike strings and your zoo of gnomes ... evolution and AIDS are all phenomena that can be easily studied here on earth with a vast amount of supporting data. So those who challenge are by and large kooks. And no one denies climage change is real ... there's just a legitimate dispute about the cause. Not so with strings and your zoo of astrophysical gnomes. They apparently can't be studied in the lab. And there is no real proof that they are real. And questions about them are indeed legitimate and coming from scientists and engineers with good credentials.

 

[sol invictus]

I suppose you could claim they helped the local priests keep track of the movement of the planets for astrology purposes (to foretell the fortunes of rulers and paupers). And string theory? Who is it helping?

Internet trolls, apparently.

So the burden of supporting string theory has fallen on the poor students?

Yes, students in the United States pay tuition (using money, which can be exchanged for goods and services). Funds from the tuition go (in part) to pay the salaries of the university's faculty.

Here's about 150 that have taken place in the last 2 years and will take place this year: http://www.stringwiki.org/wiki/Conferences

Most of those are small workshops, typically involving 15-20 participants, mostly from nearby institutions. As far as I know there is only one big conference per year (which is just called "Strings", as in Strings 2008).

It says so right on their website. One of the 5 reasons given for building the thing in the first place.

OK, so LHC is string theory. My particle physicist friends will be surprised to hear about that.

I guess time will tell whether KAIST needed an overhaul or not.

I'm almost going to miss you when you're back on ignore... it's amazing how you manage to be completely wrong about absolutely everything. It's kind of useful, actually - kind of like a film critic you always disagree with.

Anyway, back to the ignore list you go.

 

[robinson]

At least nobody brought up dark matter.