> 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 string theory/">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