Is Lubos Motl's Dissertation "Nonperturbative Formulations of
Superstring Theory" a Postmodern Hoax? Does a none-perturtbative
forumlation of ST exist? Is that why Motlattacks Smolin & Woit?
Because they are trained physicts who attended and work at prestigious
institutions who're calling his bluff?

It seems that the major motivation for Lubos Motl's impassioned,
snarky, morally questionable, and rude attacks on Smolin and Woit is
that they have called him out. You can imagine the source of the
panic-driven, impassioned attacks--how can one get tenure in the
Harvard Physics Department if one's dissertation is a postmodern hoax?

But perhaps that is the only way. How much longer will NSF be forced
to fund the hoax and complete failure that is ST with millions upon
millions of tax and tuition dollars?

Does Lubos's tenure depend primarily on his ability to secure Randall's
future funding and summer vacations, as opposed to performing rugged
science, such as that found within Moving Dimensiosn Theory?

From: hep-th/0204131

"The long-standing crisis of string theory"

"String theory has no credibility as a candidate theory of physics.
Recognizing failure is a userful part of the scientific strategy. Only
when failure is recognized can dead ends be abandoned and useable
pieces of failed programs be recycled. Aside from possible utility,
there is a responsibility to recognize failure. Recognizing failure
is an essential part of the scientific ethos. Complete scientific
failure must be recognized eventually."

Like Nietzsche's Death of God (the news of which require time)
apparently string theorists like RX, Lubos, Witten, Randall, Kaku,
Greene, etc., have not yet heard the news.

FROM SLASHDOT:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/29/1735237
"The New Yorker is running a story on whether String Theory is really a
scientific theory or just an abstract exercise in math designed to
churn out papers and Ph.Ds for the established academics. The article
reviews two current books, by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit, laying out the
case against string theory." From the article: "Dozens of string-theory
conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted,
and thousands of papers have been written. Yet... not a single new
testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has
been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far - just a set of
hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And,
even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of
versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing...
String theory has always had a few vocal skeptics... Sheldon Glashow,
who won a Nobel Prize for making one of the last great advances in
physics before the beginning of the string-theory era, has likened
string theory to a 'new version of medieval theology,' and campaigned
to keep string theorists out of his own department at Harvard. (He
failed.)"
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/29/1735237

When will MDT get a penny?
http://physicsmathforums.com

Here is Motl's abstract for his dissertation--note the pomo-hipster
tone and the indecipherable text--no wonder Motl love the Bogdanov
Brothers Hoax.

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/blog/2005/06/bogdanoff-papers.html
Once again, the links between the ideas and formulae do not make sense
to me, but it would be much harder for me to show that (and why) this
paper is nonsense as opposed to many other papers, including some
papers that are also published. (Is Motl talking about his
dissertation?)
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/blog/2005/06/bogdanoff-papers.html

From: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0109149
Nonperturbative Formulations of Superstring Theory
Authors: Lubos Motl
Comments: PhD thesis, 156 pages, 4 figures, LaTeX, ruthesis macro
Report-no: HEP-UK-0012

After a short introduction to Matrix theory, we explain how can one
generalize matrix models to describe toroidal compactifications of
M-theory and the heterotic vacua with 16 supercharges. This allows us,
for the first time in history, to derive the conventional perturbative
type IIA string theory known in the 80s within a complete and
consistent nonperturbative framework, using the language of orbifold
conformal field theory and conformal perturbation methods. A separate
chapter is dedicated to the vacua with Horava-Witten domain walls that
carry E8 gauge supermultiplets. Those reduce the gauge symmetry of the
matrix model from U(N) to O(N). We also explain why these models
contain open membranes. The compactification of M-theory on T4 involves
the so-called (2,0) superconformal field theory in six dimensions,
compactified on T5. A separate chapter describes an interesting
topological contribution to the low energy equations of motion on the
Coulomb branch of the (2,0) theory that admits a skyrmionic solution
that we call ``knitting fivebranes''. Then we return to the orbifolds
of Matrix theory and construct a formal classical matrix model of the
Scherk-Schwarz compactification of M-theory and type IIA string theory
as well as type 0 theories. We show some disastrous consequences of the
broken supersymmetry. Last two chapters describe a hyperbolic structure
of the moduli spaces of one-dimensional M-theory.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0109149

Note that Motl claims: "This allows us, for the first time in history,
to derive the conventional perturbative type IIA string theory known in
the 80s within a complete and consistent nonperturbative framework,
using the language of orbifold conformal field theory and conformal
perturbation methods." This year's Nobel Prize in Physics will go to
the first person who can make head or tail of that sentence.

But five years later, Peter Woit, on his blog, states:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427
Peter Woit Says:
July 6th, 2006 at 10:43 am

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427
Doug,
It's very simple. What is known about string theory is how to
construct a (divergent) series, one that is supposed to be a
perturbation expansion of some still unknown exact theory, and thus an
asymptotic series in the string coupling for the true result. There are
lots of partial, conjectural ideas about what properties this
non-perturbative true theory will have, and some conjectured
constructions in special backgrounds that don't look like physics.
But no one has a good idea about what this exact, underlying theory is.
There has always been a lot of speculation about how it will be
something completely new and different, involving new ideas about space
and time.

WOIT STATES: "no one has a good idea about what this exact, underlying
theory is"
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427

Kasper,

No, I don't think it would be OK for a physics department to set up
an undergraduate course in LQG or twistor theory. This kind of highly
speculative stuff involving advanced mathematics belongs in upper-level
graduate courses, not undergraduate courses where the students still
have yet to learn many of the most basic things about physics and the
most basic mathematical techniques needed. I know of no other example
ever where multiple US physics departments have instituted
undergraduate courses in a subject for which there is no experimental
evidence.

Again, Woit states:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427

The problem with string theory is not that it doesn't have a rigorous
non-peturbative formulation, the problem is that it has no
non-perturbative formulation at all (other than on unphysical
backgrounds). This is especially problematic because the vacuum state
people want to use in string theory can't be the perturbative one.
This is why you can't predict anything in string theory. You don't
have a non-perturbative theory that can tell you what the possible
vacuum states are and allow reliable calculations in these states.

This is completely different than the standard model, which has a
well-defined non-perturbative lattice formulation. This definition is
completely rigorous, the only thing non-rigorous is that you can't
prove that it actually has all the properties you expect. You can do
approximate calculations, either perturbative or semi-classical ones
where appropriate, or fully non-perturbative ones using Monte-Carlo
methods. All the results of these approximate calculations are
consistent with the non-perturbative theory having the properties one
expects.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427
Believe it or not, I've actually heard about the problem of the lack
of asymptotic freedom of the U(1) part of the standard model. It's
discussed on page 98 of my book. There was a limit to the amount of
detail I was willing to go into in my response to "James". I was
oversimplifying for the sake of concision, this point has nothing to do
with the issue at hand. For the U(1) theory perturbation theory is not
valid at high energies, but that is irrelevant to the argument I was
making.

Sorry, but your Lubosian tactic of dealing with my criticisms of string
theory by insulting me and trying to paint me as an incompetent by
sleazy methods isn't going to work. You just make my point even
stronger that there is a real sickness in how string theory is being
pursued. The problem is not just Lubos, but quite a few other people it
seems who are as pathetic characters as him.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427

Woit writes,:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but again: I don't know
whether the full string theory has these vacuum states or not. Maybe
yes, maybe no, most likely it's still an ill-posed question until we
have a real non-perturbative string theory. But it doesn't matter,
the point is that there are two alternatives here, both leaving string
theory in a highly problematic, failed state as an idea about
unification:

1. The landscape exists, and string theory can't predict anything,
it's a useless theory.

2. The landscape doesn't exist, for some unknown reason involving
non-perturbative string theory. Then, despite what Zwiebach and others
say, string theory is currently an empty idea and can't predict
anything, because we don't even know what equations to solve.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=427

Now the main question is, since String Theory is a meaningless
postmodern hoax, why is Lubos an assistant professor at the Harvard
physics department?

And this is from http://physicsforums.com :

Lee Smolin has done a fair amount of string research over the years and
written a bunch of string papers. His most recent contribution is
http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0503140
A quantization of topological M theory
I think this paper could be important and by itself could justify
considering Smolin a string theorist even without his other string
papers. Incidentally it has been cited by two other string theorists
recently. Other Smolin work has also been cited by Dijkgraaf, Gukov,
Neitzke, Vafa. In the 1990s Smolin was one of those who developed the
idea of quantum gravity as a constrained topological field theory, an
idea which (whether or not he is personally acknowledged for it) is now
proving influential.
But Smolin is not a string theory believer. Apparently this has the
curious effect of excluding him from "the string community".

In nonperturbative QG research the situation is somewhat different and
faith seems less of a prerequisite for belonging to the community of
scholars. One can contribute to the development of several QG theories
without being a believer in any particular one.

Anyway Smolin has noticed this distinction. some people do their work,
or at least talk about it, as believers, and others don't. And he has
written this letter on "cosmicvariance".
--------quote smolin------

Lee Smolin on Aug 15th, 2005 at 9:01 am
Dear Clifford,

Thanks for your piece on the landscape, which I agree is in a certain
sense a very sensible view. At the same time, your stance is deeply
puzzling to me. I'd like to take this opportunity to explain why,
because I believe this is the core of the disagreement between those
who consider themselves "string theorists" and those who like
myself, remain outside the "string community", in spite of doing
some technical reserach on string theory.

You seem to reason from an unstated premise, which is that, whatever
happens, string theory will turn out to be relevent for the description
of nature. Even in your closing, when you contemplate different
possibilities, including that string theory is just "The Next
Theory" you don't mention the possibility that string theory will
just be not relevent for nature. This is also evident in the reasoning
in your paragraph: "The idea began to arise that maybe not everything
about our universe is fundamentally computable in string theory... I
would go as far as to say that it is perfectly fine for us to accept
that this might true about string theory while still remaining
extremely enthusiastic about it, given its remarkable properties."
You don't consider the possibility that nothing will be computable in
string theory because it is not the right theory.

There are two logically possible styles of reasoning about string
theory.

Method A: ASSUME 1) that there is a real non-perturbative theory behind
all the approximate caclulations and 2) that it is relevent for nature.
Then interpret various results, having to do with dualities, the
landscape etc given these asumptions.

Method B: Look for evidence that the two assumptions of method A are
true.

One evaluates results very differently, depending on whether one uses
method A or method B. There is nothing wrong with using Method A from
time to time, so long as the assumptions are made explicit, and the
risks that are thereby taken on explicitly acknowledged. One can learn
things that will turn out be true about the theory, if 1) is true, or
about nature, if 2) is true. But one cannot do science only or even
mostly by Method A, no matter how promsing an idea may seem. What I
find disturbing in your essay, and in many conversations with string
theorists is that they reason by Method A but they do not state
expliclty their assumptions. This puts me often in the uncomfortable
situation, when discussing with a string theorist, of having to add,
"but there is one more possibility, the theory might be wrong."

Many of us who seem fated to remain outside the "string community"
are there becase we approach string theory by method B. We may, as I
do, work sometimes on technical problems in string theory, motivated by
our hope that evidence be uncovered that will show us whether
assumptionss 1) and 2) are true or not. This leads to a different
evaluations of results. For example, from the point of view of Method B
work aimed to demonstrate the assumptions, such as attempts to prove
conjectures like finiteness or the different dualities, is more highly
valued than it seems to be by people whose work seems to grounded on
the assumption that those conjectures are true.

I should emphasize that we are not being unfair here. Most of those who
work on other approaches to quantum gravity and particle phsyics
approach our own theories through method B. If you come to the loops05
meeting--and you are very sincerely invited--you will find that we are
at least as hard on our own approaches as we are on string theory.
Observing both communities, what I see is an overemphasis on
self-criticism in the non-string communities, and too much reasoninng
with method A in the string community.

Nowhere is the difference stronger than in the evaluation of the
landscape results. From the point of view of method A, we are just
following the theory to see where it leads. Since we assume beforehand
that the theory is right, this is a worthy project.

But from the point of view of method B, the failure to come up with any
method to make falsifiable predictions, coupled with the failure to
find a fundamental, fully non-perturbative formulation of string
theory, both after many years of work by many smart people, count as
evidence against asssumptions 1) and 2).

I myself am drawn to the ideas of string theory, and I would be happy
if they turn out to be true. But I believe an objective scientist must
appraoch an untested theory by Method B rather than by Method A. The
reason is that reasoning by Method A can lead to a situation where a
large group of people come to irrationally believe in the existence of
a theory they can neither construct nor test.

Another way to say this is that it is more scientific to work on
problems, presented by nature, rather than theories. If we commit
ourselves too strongly to theories before they are confirmed by having
survived many attempts to falsify them, we risk wasting lots of time
and careers on ideas that turn out, beautiful as they are, to be false.

Another consequence of Method A seems to be a lack of interest in other
directions. Someone, perhaps Moshe, said on a blog recently that if
there were good results on quantum gravity people would get excited and
work on them. If by "people" was meant "string theorists" this
is just not the case. There have been a continuous stream of
significant, non-trivial results on several background independent
approaches to quantum gravity over the last 20 years and the community
of people who works on such approaches is growing fast. But we see very
few string theorists taking an active interest in any of these
approaches. If you think I exaggerate the significance of the results,
come to loops05, or look at recent papers by the speakers there. Or
just talk to someone in the field.

The problem is that if you reason from Method A, you are bound to
over-evaluate results in string theory, and under-evaluate results in
alternative approaches, because you are already committed to one view
being right.

Perhaps you think I am being unfair in characterizing your reasoning in
terms of methd A. So let me pose a question, "What would make you
give up string theory? Is there a theoretical result, an experimental
discovery, or the lack of such, that woud make you put your
considerable talents in other directions?"

Lest you think this is unfair, I know the answer for myself, for each
of the several theories I work on, and can happily answer the same
question, if needed.

Thanks,

Lee
---end quote---

http://physicsforums.com

And here's Woit at Cosmic Variance:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/
# Peter Woit on Aug 14th, 2005 at 10:22 am

Hi Clifford,

You give an excellent and very clear description of the landscape
issue, and what I would characterize as the most sensible attitude one
can take towards it while still believing string theory has something
to do with a unified theory. I'm on vacation in Maine, so won't
take much time to comment here, but a couple remarks:

1. You claim that my blog gives the impression that the Landscape
controversy "is the one thing occupying the minds of all string
theorists, and that the fate of the entire field depends on the outcome
of this argument." Perhaps it gives that impression, but for the
record I agree with people on both sides of this controversy: with
Susskind that many string theorists are in denial about the
implications of the infinite variety of conjectural vacuum states of
the theory (e.g. I think it is not occupying their minds enough), with
his opponents that what he is doing is pseudo-science. As for the fate
of the field, I do think that if Susskind's point of view takes over,
it's no longer a science, basically because you'll never
scientifically explain anything that way.

2. One problem with believing that a non-perturbative formulation of
the theory will save the day was pointed out by Steve Shenker at the
Toronto panel discussion. The best non-perturbative formulation you
have is the duality with QFTs a la AdS/CFT, and if this is really a
general phenomenon, there's an infinite variety of string theories,
even non-perturbatively.

http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/

Hence Lubos's review at amazon.com for Woit's Not Even Wrong:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1ZDPQA6FLY8XM?ie=UTF8
Bitter emotions and obsolete understanding of high-energy physics,
August 25, 2006
Peter Woit is the owner of a well-known blog that provides high-energy
theoretical physics with the same service as William Dembski's ID blog
offers to evolutionary biology: it is designed to misinterpret and
obscure virtually every event in physics and transform it into poison -
and to invent his own fantasies to hurt science. This makes Woit's blog
highly popular among the crackpots, for example some of the reviewers
of this book. The book is not identical to the author's blog but it is
not too different either.

Parts of this book are fun to read, although they will be too difficult
for outsiders. But the text is definitely not a trustworthy source of
knowledge about physics. The book can basically be divided into two
parts. The first part of the book describes physics from the early 20th
century to the 1970s or so. This part covers some standard material as
well as some points that have not yet appeared in the popular
literature. The early chapters also honestly explain that the author
has not done any important work in high-energy physics himself and that
he has been isolated from research (and researchers) for the last 20
years. Because of these reasons, I originally rated the book by two
stars.

As the focus of the presentation shifts to modern physics since the
1970s or so, an expert recognizes that the author misunderstands some
very elementary questions.

The book contains a lot of very embarassing errors. Let me mention a
few examples. Woit originally wrote that the center-of-mass energy of
the LHC beams would be 14 GeV, instead of 14 TeV: this error has been
corrected after long debates in which he didn't want to admit any
flaws. He incorrectly argues that the neutrinos with electroweak
energies interact very weakly. He thinks that higher-dimensional
rotations are associated with one-dimensional "axes". He misunderstands
how SU(2) can be embedded to SO(4). In his description of the history
of supersymmetry, he forgets Pierre Ramond. He writes that the
supersymmetric vacua predict a higher vacuum energy than the
non-supersymmetric ones.

Also, Woit seems to misunderstand that all of our knowledge of theories
such as QED comes from perturbative expansions when he attacks the
perturbative method as such. He also misunderstands what "background
independence" means. At one point, the author also claims that the
primary evidence supporting scientific theories is an authority (Edward
Witten in his case). Even more seriously, he builds his case upon
e-mail messages from undetermined sources that supported Woit's
viewpoint. Most of these e-mails were obviously written by cranks.

Authorities play an important role and the author quotes many outsiders
in high-energy physics who have criticized string theory. But he never
mentions names like Weinberg, Gell-Mann, Hawking, Randall, Arkani-Hamed
- famous and active physicists who are not string theorists but who
believe that it is the right direction. Books by Brian Greene, Lisa
Randall, and others were much more balanced in this respect. The book
is a gigantic spin zone.

Woit conjectures the existence of singularities in some integrals that
appear in string theory and that are known to be non-singular. Woit
does not distinguish a family of theories from one theory with a
massless scalar field (a modulus). He does not mention Andrew
Strominger and Cumrun Vafa when the black hole entropy is discussed.
Woit incorrectly believes that the "beauty" of a theory is the same
thing as an experimental verification.

The author repeats poisoned remarks about string theory too many times.
The second part of the book could be reduced by 60 percent or so.
Moreover, most of the statements in the second part of the book are
supported by no technical arguments, neither in the book nor in
scientific literature. The problematic statement that string theory
makes no prediction is repeated hundreds of times, and in many
particular contexts, such a statement becomes not only boring but also
patently false. The author is not aware (or denies) the actual
mechanisms that are considered to be solutions of various puzzles - for
example the doublet-triplet splitting problem.

The book is also full of inconsistencies. In one chapter, he argues
that the alternatives to string theory in the field of quantum gravity
should be supported. In the following chapter, he argues that they
should be suppressed - the work of the Bogdanoff brothers is one of his
examples. Woit's knowledge of the history of the subjects he discusses
is extremely superficial, too. For example, Leonard Susskind is painted
as the discoverer of the large number of vacua in string theory. Quite
obviously, Peter Woit has no idea about the "discretuum" described by
Bousso and Polchinski and many other concepts that have been discussed
for years.

Peter Woit also offers a highly obsolete view on many concepts in
theoretical physics such as the gauge symmetry; he is obsessed with the
old-fashioned idea that all of physics follows from a gauge symmetry
principle. He thinks that the gauge symmetry is uniquely determined by
physics because he is apparently unaware of dualities and all other
phenomena discovered in the last 20 years that show that his
preconceptions are wrong and that gauge symmetries are only associated
with a particular description of physics that does not have to be
unique.

The book is called "Not Even Wrong" but the readers should know that
most of the book is wrong after all. I can only recommend the book to
the people who dislike theoretical physics - or at least theoretical
physics of the last 20 years - and who want their opinion to be
confirmed by a semi-serious source. The readers who want to learn what
physics is all about may want to avoid the book because it could make
them very confused. As far as modern physics goes, the author is a
layman. The topics he raises have nothing to do with the actual
discussions that take place among the scientists.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1ZDPQA6FLY8XM?ie=UTF8

BUT TIME & TRUTH ARE ON WOIT'S SIDE:




http-equiv="content-type">



Reviews and Press Coverage for Not
Even Wrong





UK edition





href="http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a482e470-f264-11da-b78e-0000779e2340,s01=1.html">Nothing
gained in search for 'theory of everything', Robert Matthews,
Financial Times, June 2, 2006.

(also available
href="http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/RM%%20Strings%%20FT.html">here)



href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23114-2214707,00.html">The
dean of debunking, John Cornwell, The Sunday Times, June 11,
2006.



href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20909-2221472,00.html">Just
as you've solved every problem in the Universe, the string breaks,
Anjana Ahuja, The Times, June 12, 2006.




href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125582.100-string-weary.html">String
weary, Amanda Gefter, New Scientist, July 1, 2006.




href="http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7585">Stringing
us along, John Horgan, Prospect, August 2006 (also available
href="http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/index.php?p=notEvenWrong">here).



http://www.physicsweb.org/articles/review/19/8/1/1">String
theory gets knotted, Gordon Fraser, Physics World, August 2006.



Strung Out, Guy Rundle, Australian Financial Review, August 4,
2006.



href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1712652.htm">Discussion
of NEW by Paul Davies,  The Science Show, ABC Radio National
(Australia), August 12, 2006.


http://www.thes.co.uk/search/story.aspx?story_id=2032027">

Loose ends and Gordian knots of the string cult, Philip Anderson,
Times Higher Education Supplement, August 25, 2006.



http://www.thes.co.uk/search/story.aspx?story_id=2032023">Hold
fire! This epic vessel has only just set sail..., Leonard Susskind,
Times Higher Education Supplement, August 25, 2006.




href="http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SJDVNNV">All
Strung Up, The Economist, September 14, 2006.




href="http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/roundupstory/0,,1873553,00.html">Review,
Steven Poole, The Guardian, September 16, 2006.






US edition



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115101671136588095.html">Has
string theory tied up better ideas in physics?  Sharon Begley,
The Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2006.

(available for free on-line
href="http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/jun2006/notevenwrong.php">here)




href="http://reviews.publishersweekly.com/bd.aspx?isbn=0465092756&pub=pw">Review,
Publisher's Weekly, July 24, 2006.





href="http://lfw.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=266399">String
theory is 'not even wrong, Jeffrey Bairstow,  LaserFocusWorld,
August 2006




href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1226142,00.html">The
Unraveling of String Theory, Michael Lemonick, Time Magazine,
August 14, 2006.



No Strings Attached, Jack W. Weigel, Library Journal, August 15,
2006.




href="http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/09/no_strings_attached.php">No
Strings Attached, Charles Seife, Seed Magazine, August/September
2006.

href="http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-06/departments/septreviews/">


Tangled Up In Strings, Tim Folger, Discover Magazine, September
2006.




href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000713DC-8161-14E3-BAEC83414B7F0000">The
Inelegant Universe, George Johnson, Scientific American, September
2006.




href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Siegfried.t.html">A
Great Unraveling, Tom Siegfried, New York Times Sunday Book Review,
September 17, 2006.




href="http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2006/09/17/resisting_the_supremacy_of_st.../">Resisting
the Supremacy of String Theory, Anthony Doerr, Boston Globe,
September 17, 2006.




href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-09-18-string-theory_x.htm">String
Theory: Hanging on by a Thread?, Dan Vergano, USA Today, September
19, 2006.





href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00000749-259B-1514-A59B83414B7F0133">Is
String Theory Unraveling?, JR Minkel, Scientific American,
September 25, 2006.



http://www.nysun.com/article/40425">Six Numbers in Search of a
Theory, Michael Shermer, New York Sun, September 27, 2006.




href="http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/061002crat_atlarge">Unstrung,
Jim Holt, The New Yorker, October 2, 2006.





Blog Coverage




href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-06/000708.html">Review
by John Walker,  Fourmilog, June 8, 2006.




href="http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/06/19/the-string-theory-backlash/">The
String Theory Backlash, Cosmic Variance, June 19, 2006.



href="http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/06/23/2226257.shtml">String
Theory A Disaster for Physics?  Slashdot, June 23, 2006.



href="http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2006/06/string-theory.html">String
Theory,  Quark Soup, June 24, 2006.





href="http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/scientific_curmudgeon/?p=26">Pulling
the Plug on Strings,  The Scientific Curmudgeon, June 29,
2006.



href="http://www.axesandalleys.com/our-official-non-endorsement/">Our
Official Non-Endorsement,  Axes and Alleys, July 1, 2006.



href="http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/books-6-7-06.shtml">Review,
Science a GoGo, July 6, 2006.





href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/07/peter-woits-not-even-wrong.html">Peter
Woit's Not Even Wrong, Backreaction, July 10,2006.



http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000898.html">Review
by Aaron Bergman, The String Coffee Table, August 19, 2006.



href="http://www.popularscience.co.uk/reviews/rev296.htm">Review, 
Popular Science web-site (only book on the site that is "unrated'!)




href="http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2006/09/peter_woit_not_even_wrong.php">Review,
Uncertain Principles, September 12, 2006.





href="http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2006/09/theory-of-nothing.html">A
Theory of Nothing?, Capitalist Imperialist Pig, September 20,
2006.





Radio, Podcasts, etc. style="font-weight: bold;">



href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/zthursday_20060727.shtml">BBC
Radio Today Program, July 27, 2006.



http://www.twis.org/audio/2006/09/19/">This Week in
Science,
September 19, 2006.




http://www.seti.org/radio">Are We Alone? (SETI Radio
Program),
September 20, 2006.








NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS IN PHYSICS ARE ON WOIT'S SIDE!!!!

Randall forgets to quote Einstein, Feynman, and other winners of the
Nobel Prize in Physics.

"String theory is textbook post-modernism fueled by irresponsible
expenditures of money," Nobel Prize-winner Robert Laughlin griped to
the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this year.

It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a
five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one
of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does
not manifest itself. -Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. -Feynman,
Noble Laureate

String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick.
-Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

"It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of
them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They
just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one
person spends 30 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20
years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that
curious." Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate

I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like
that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything
that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation-a
fix-up to say, "Well, it might be true." For example, the theory
requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up
six of the dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but
why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should
decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree
with experiment. In other words, there's no reason whatsoever in
superstring theory that it isn't eight out of the ten dimensions that
get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would
be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it
might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn't produce
anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn't look
right. -Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really works.
They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical outcome
of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their formalism
includes a description of such things as protons and electrons. And
they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental prediction.
Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a logical
consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature. Why, you
may ask, do the string theorists insist space is none-dimensional?
Simply because string theory doesn't make sense in any other kind of
space. --Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental
tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT
is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by
quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius
and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which
shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive
from the same fundamental physical reality.

Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum
entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive
from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG
account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction.
MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality.
Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor
the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source,
nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same
underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop
Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which
troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical
theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly
disparate phenomena within a simple context.

THE GENERAL POSTULATE
OF DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS THEORY
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions.

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
-Albert Einstein

But after thirty years of the absurdity of String Theory, millions of
dollars from the NSF, and billions of complementary dollars from tax
and tuition and endowments spent on killing physics and indie
physicists, perhaps it's time for something that makes sense-for a
physical theory that actually accounts for a deeper reality from which
both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, from which time, entanglement,
gravity, entropy, interference, the constant speed of light,
relativistic time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of
mass and energy emerge. It's time for Moving Dimensions Theory-MDT.
-The Physicist with No Name

I know what you're thinking. Did he say there were thirty-six
dimensions or only thirty-five? Well to tell you the truth in all this
excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .45
Revolver-the most powerful hand gun in the world and would blow your
head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel
lucky? Well, do ya punk!? -Clint Eastwood

I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more
likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood

Go ahead. Make my day. -Clint Eastwood

MDT IN BRIEF
Without further adieu, allow me to present the beauty and elegance of
MDT by showing both its simplicity and far-reaching ability to account
for and answer fundamental questions. All of the below will be
elaborated on throughout the book.

Questions Addressed by MDT:

Why does light have a maximum, constant speed independent of the
source? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. A photon is momenergy that exists orthogonal to the three
spatial dimensions. It is carried along by the expanding fourth
dimension. So no matter how fast the source is moving when the photon
is emitted, the photon travels at the rate with which the fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus c
is always independent of the movement of the source.

Why are light and energy quantized? The fourth dimension is expanding
in a quantized manner relative to the three spatial dimensions. Light
and energy are matter rotated completely into the fourth expanding
dimension, and as it expands in a quantized manner, light and energy
are thus quantized.

Why is the velocity of light constant in all frames? Time is an
emergent phenomena that arises because the fourth dimension is
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The flow of time is
inextricably wed to the emission and propagation of photons. In all
biological, mechanical, and electronic clocks, the emission and
propagation of photons is what determines time. The velocity of light
is always measured with respect to time, which is inextricably linked
to the velocity of light. This tautology ensures that the velocity of
light, measured relative to the velocity of light, will always be the
same.

How can photons display both wave and particle properties? The
fundamental photon propagates as a spherical wave-front, surfing the
fourth expanding dimension. This is because the fourth expanding
dimension appears as a spherical wavefront as it expands through the
three spatial dimensions. The act of measurement localizes the photon's
momenergy, taking it out of the expanding fourth dimension and trapping
it in the three stationary spatial dimensions, and it appears as a
localized particle, trapped by electrons as it blackens a grain on a
photographic plate.

How can matter display both wave and particle properties? The
fundamental electron is abuzz with photons. Photons are continually
being emitted into the fourth expanding dimension and reabsorbed by the
electron. The continual dance with these photons gives the electron its
wave properties. Nothing moves without photons which up the net
probability that the combine momenergy will be in the expanding fourth
dimension. The more photons one adds to an object, the greater the
chance it has of existing in the expanding fourth dimension, and thus
it moves.

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That
means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere
with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire
spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in
time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the
EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½
photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite
directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too, they
are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding dimension.

Why does time stop at the speed of light?
Time depends on the emission and propagation of photons. If no photons
are emitted, time does not occur. This holds true whether the clock is
an unwinding copper spring, a biological system such as a heart, or an
oscillating quartz crystal. No photom emission=no time! As an object
approaches the speed of light, its ability to emit photons without
reabsorbing them diminishes. An object traveling at the speed of light
cannot emit a photon.

How come a photon does not age?
A photon represents momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth
expanding dimension. A photon stays the exact same place in the fourth
dimension, no matter how far it travels. A photon stays the exact same
place in time, no matter how far it travels. Again, time is not the
fourth dimension, but in inherits properties of the fourth dimension.

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?
Movement is always accompanied by a shortening in length. This is
because the only way for a body to move is for it to undergo a rotation
into the forth dimension, which is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions. The more energy an electron has, the more photons
it possesses, and the higher probability it exists in the expanding
fourth dimension. Hence its length appears contracted as perceived from
the three spatial dimensions.

Why are mass and energy equivalent?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. That means that a baseball sitting on a lab table
stationary in our three-dimensional inertial reference frame, is yet
moving at a fantastic velocity relative to the fourth dimension. Hence
every seemingly stationary mass has a vast energy, as given by E=mc2.
In a nuclear reaction matter is rotated into the expanding fourth
dimension, appearing as high-enegry photons (gamma rays) propagating at
the same velocity of the fourth expanding dimension-c.

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? The fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Hence
every photon naturally expands in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence
every electron, or piece of matter that interacts with photons, is
naturally carried outward from a central point in a spherically
symmetric manner. Hence the particles in a drop of dye in a swimming
pool dissipate in a spherically symmetric manner, and are never
reunited. Hence time's arrow and entropy.

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at
a velocity c? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence photons, which are tiny
packets of momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth dimension, appear
as spherically-symmetric wavefronts propagating at the velocity c.

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions at the velocity c. Hence the only way to stay still in the
space-time continuum, and to achieve a 0 interval, is to move with the
velocity of light.

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions at the velocity c. This single postulate assures that the
speed of light is constant for all observers and that the laws of
physics are the same in all inertial frames.

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?
Newton's laws are an approximation of relativity and quantum mechanics,
and as MDT underlies QM & relativity, it underlies Newton's laws.

Why is an increase in velocity always accompanied by a decrease in
length as measured by an external observer? All increases in velocity
are accompanied by rotations into the fourth dimension. All particles
can be represented by momenergy 4-vectors. The greater the momenrgy
component in the expanding fourth dimension, the greater the velocity
and speed of the particle. Rest mass is the invariant here. It never
changes. It prefers the three spatial dimensions. In order for it to
move, one must gain energy in the form of photons. These photons prefer
the fourth expanding dimension. The more photons one adds, the greater
the component of the momenergy 4-vector that appears in the fourth
expanding dimension, the more energy the particle has, the shorter it
appears, and the faster it moves.

How MDT Is Aiding Fellow Physicists

"The conclusions from Bell's theorem are philosophically startling;
either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most
working scientists or dramatically revise our concept of space-time."
-Abner Shimony and John Clauser

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this new concept of space-time. The
vast ambitions of most tenure-track physicists, including string
theorists and LQG hypers, causes them to focus on irrelevant, minute
questions, and thus, though funded by millions for over thirty years,
have not yet been able to string the bow. Deeper, true physicists, such
as Abner Shimony and John Clauser are alert to the fact that physics
need news ideas.
The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be
at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the
new concept of space-time.

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the
apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and
fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and
relativity theories requires not just technical developments but
radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The
expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be
at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the
new concept of space-time.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum
mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the
exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new
concept of space-time.

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the
apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and
fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and
relativity theories requires not just technical developments but
radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The
expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be
at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the
new concept of space-time.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum
mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the
exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new
concept of space-time.

http://physicsmathforums.com