[lit-ideas] Re: Science as Aesthetics?
- From: Paul Stone <pastone@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:03:40 -0400
EY: Superstring theory, to my knowledge, has no testable hypothesis. It is a
> physical theory argued from mathematics alone. Its sole predictive value, to
> my limited knowledge, is that it "predicts" gravity. Again, from mathematics
> alone.
The math doesn't even "work". The evolution of string theory, m-field,
superstring, brane models, calabi-yau space, Higg's Boson, manifolds
etc. is strictly the result of a bunch -- and in many physicists'
views, way too many -- of physicists saying 'hey what if' and then
doing the math and finding it doesn't quite work -- there's an
infinity there, there's an infinity here -- and going "oh, but what
if" and adding another fudge factor, and so on, and so on. 11
dimensions, 26 dimensions, let's invent new math models. "Hey what
about that guy in the '70s who was an autistic savant who developed
that one kind of math, I think that could be applicable here... yeah,
yeah, that's the ticket."
There is no ONE string theory or any theory (of this type) that can
even be mathematically tested, let alone one that has ever predicted
ANYTHING successfully in testable results. It's a gigantic boondoggle.
Yes, Witten is extremely smart and knows more about the whole thing
than I do or perhaps most other people who work in this area, but he
also knows NOTHING for certain and his pithy rejoinder about its
beauty is nothing more than the same blind faith that religious
fanatics hold on to. It's so beautiful that it just has to be true?
So, a bumblebee is proof of God.
p
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
