• [deleted]

the article reports, "String theory has been formulated as a candidate theory of quantum gravity, which can be applied in realms where both quantum mechanics and general relativity are important. But, unfortunately, it doesn't offer any easy answers to mystery of dark energy; string theory's intractable mathematics has made applying it to the problems of cosmology near impossible."

yes, but there is no physical evidence for quantum gravity, and there is no successful mathematical system which predicts quantum gravity.

and too, string theory has no meaningful mathematical equations.

"Holography right now

is the most powerful

tool to understand

precise formulations of

quantum gravity."

- Alex Maloney

yes, but there is no such thing as quantum gravity, nor are there any equations predicting it. there is no physical evidence for quantum gravity, and both string theory and lqg fail to make any successful mathematical predictions regarding quantum gravity.

as physicists we must let physics guide the way.

:)

  • [deleted]

Ever heard that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Every explanation is theoretical, and nothing but.

Tom

  • [deleted]

Well, that's quite a red-herring Tom. And snarky too with that "Ever heard...? lozlz"

Tom, you must acknowledge that science is defined by theory BACKED BY EVIDENCE.

Otherwise I could theorize that invisible monkeys which fly out of your ears are responsible for gravity, and get funding for my foundational theory, or perhaps I could theorize that gravity is caused by tiny, vibrating strings that nobody has ever seen, or by tiny, little loops that nobody has ever found evidence for.

And if anyone ever critcized my monkey gravity theory, I could hire Tom to viciously snark them with, "Ever heard that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Every explanation is theoretical, and nothing but."

lolz!

Best,

Jeff

    • [deleted]

    HAHAHA IF the string theory is the candidate...me I am the future president of USA .HIHIHHI

    Once upon a time.....

    Steve

      • [deleted]

      In the 1970s, Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein showed that the information stored in a black hole is proportional to its surface area rather than its volume.

      That it's relevant....but normally the two are proportionals .....3D TOWARDS 2D I can understand but if the rotations aroundf the universal center is not inserted, that will be not possible to see the real hologram of evolution.

      The cause of mass is the rotating spheres.....the hologram are just a human invention.Don't forget that.

      On the other side, if these holograms are well synchronized on the line time with the rotations of these said spheres.All cn be perceived with a good sorting and a good synchronization...it's interesting to know where we are in our UNIVERSAL SPHERE.

      PS a BH is a sphere and has a rule of balance for smallest spheres as stars, planets and moons...after theses bh are taken in a rotation by more important spheres(volumes)

      Regards

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      No, I don't acknowledge that theory backed by evidence defines science, even when it's written in all caps. I do acknowledge that theory is the only scientific means of interpreting evidence. In that regard, string theory is already supported in the low energy limit of classical physics and by principles of quantum field theory in the high energy domain. That string theory has to make novel predictions will probably fall to thought experiment and indirect evidence, IMO.

      Best to you too, Elliott.

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      Hello Tom,

      You write, "No, I don't acknowledge that theory backed by evidence defines science, even when it's written in all caps. I do acknowledge that theory is the only scientific means of interpreting evidence. In that regard, string theory is already supported in the low energy limit of classical physics and by principles of quantum field theory in the high energy domain. That string theory has to make novel predictions will probably fall to thought experiment and indirect evidence, IMO."

      No. String Theory is not "already supported in the low energy limit of classical physics and by principles of quantum field theory in the high energy domain."

      String Theory has no meaningful, consistent equations and cannot be tested, so your statement is entirely 100% false. The problem with string theory is not that it doesn't make any novel predictions, but that it makes NO predictions whatsoever, as it has no equations.

      Unlike physics, string theory proposes an entirely fictional construct--tiny, vibrating strings--and then after beginning by failing physical reality, it also epic fails on a mathematical level, as there are no equations for string theory.

      "Holography right now

      is the most powerful

      tool to understand

      precise formulations of

      quantum gravity.

      - Alex Maloney"

      Well, since there is absolutely no phsyical evidence for quantum gravity, nor accepted mathematical equations predicting it, it sounds as if Holography is as useless as ST & LQG in the realm of physics, but only useful in projecting holograms of Princess Leah from R2D2.

      :)

        • [deleted]

        Dear Steve,

        Were you born in Belgium or Hawaii? It makes a difference if you want to run for President of the USA.

        Just as Holograms make no sense without BOTH PARTICLES (spheres/ data film) AND WAVES (strings - membranes/ em radiation), a TOE likewise makes no sense without BOTH PARTICLES AND WAVES. Scale Invariance solves this problem by introducing both on an equal footing, and holograms are consistent with this fundamental dual nature of reality. But which is more fundamental? Scale Invariance or the Hologram?

        Did FQXi recycle this article and post? It sounds very familiar...

        Have Fun!

        • [deleted]

        Okay, so your knowledge of string theory is zero. Sorry that I wasted my time.

        Tom

        • [deleted]

        Thanks Tom,

        Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to String Theory's equations?

        Perhaps you could link to the page with its equations which predict gravitons or quantum gravity? Or anything else for that matter?

        Rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks and placing String Theory's epic failures on anyone who asks to please see the equations, perhaps you could share String Theory's equations?

        Thanks Tom. As String Theory master you have a vast opportunity here to enlighten and exalt us all with ST's beauty.

        Please do not keep it a secret. Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, Schwinger, Glasshow, Planck, Maxwell, and Newton never kept their equations a secret from the world, so it is strange that you do.

        Instead of ad hominem atacks and namecalling, please share ST's equations, if there are any.

        Thanks & Best,

        Jeff :)

        • [deleted]

        I was sure I had pulled a twenty out of my pocket and put it on the dresser, but in the morning it was nowhere to be found.

        Three weeks later, it turns up in the dryer! Only thing I can think of is that it folded in on itself in the 11th dimension until the heat of the drier straightened it back out into classical reality.

        That's evidence enough for me! :)

          • [deleted]

          ahahaha Interesting Dr Cosùmic Ray....but if strings are inserted thus I lost my time....because the strings are for pseudo scientists that's all .

          It's just a job and a business for the pseudo scientists simply.

          It exists any proof for strings....on the other side the sSPHERES AND THE SPHERICAL WAVES......are a reality, objective, rational,pragmatic, logic and evident.....where are the strings ....even for oscillations and vibrations it's a joke because the only oscillatioin is the rotations of these spheres, spinals and orbitals.

          The strings as M theory are just copy of the real model.

          Ray I consider you as a real searcher thus don't loose your time with these stupidities of business and vanity of these systems.

          The sciences aren't a play but a real quest of truth....

          The spheres and their rotations EXPLAIN BOTH PARTICLES AND WAVES it's evident.

          Regards

          Steve

          • [deleted]

          Wow! That's odd. Three weeks ago, I found a blue sock on my dresser. It isn't one of mine. I was wondering how it got there!

          • [deleted]

          I had a similar problem with my front-load washer. It was taking too long to wash. I checked the pin trap and there was a rolled-up $10 bill (my wife likes to roll bills up tightly), a quarter and 4 pennies - but no pins!

          Of course, my string theory isn't 11-dimensional - it is at least a 28-dimensional F-theoretic super-computer. What is the origin of information? How does every electron 'know' that it has an intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar, an electric charge of -1e, and a rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2.

          Have Fun!

          • [deleted]

          No Steve,

          I'm not wasting time - I think I gained 3 extra (4 total) kinds of time...

          IMHO, your model fails in the limits of spherical radius -> zero, infinity

          AND in the limit of rotation -> infinity. Scale Invariance solves these problems, but effectively introduces twice the degrees-of-freedom by introducing the equivalent of a Brilloin Zone (and/or Supersymmetry - depending on your perspective). You admit four degrees-of-freedom: 3-D space plus 'spin'. If you add Scale Invariance, then you are up to 8 degrees-of-freedom. You are up to the equivalent of 8-dimensions, but you haven't even introduced interactions yet!

          Have Fun!

          • [deleted]

          hello all!

          i am glad that all of your washing machine experiences are going well!

          but i, and the nobel laureate physicists & galilean giants, must tell you that it is probably not string theory that is responsible as string theory lacks physcial models, postulates, and meaningful equations. also, string theory, unlike physics, as pointed out above, begins with completely non-physical entities such as lotsa dimensions like 11 or 27, as well as tiny, vibrating strings--spurious entities for which there is absolutely no proof for whatsoever. and then the math even fails to come up with any consistent equations. so ST fails both physically and mathematically, while succeeding financially for those who exalt in failure for politized $$$$$.

          all of this grates on the nerves of nobel laureate physicists, while sycophaantic, snarky groupthinkers make off with hundreds of millions of dollars for an epic fail non-theory and their politics, as well as their personal destruction of those who ask basic questions. the ruling elders seem to enjoy their moneys more than physics, as they are quite happy to see their loyal fanboys snarking and fighting and attacking and belittling those who question the groupthink regimes on the front lines of their exile and destruction of physics.

          but nonetheless, as their fiat theories fade alongside the fiat dollar, i am going to have to side with the nobel laureates and epic heroic physicists.

          how about you?

          do you want to waddle in snarky politics and mean-spirited, cruel, and malicious handwaving, or man up and exalt some epic physics like the Greats such as Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and Feynman?

          Perhaps if we focus on the common philosophy of the great physicists as to what physics is and ought be, expressed in their simple words reflecting infinite wisdom, we will be better prepared to advance physics beyond the standard model.

          Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the

          present, but an equation is something for eternity. -Albert Einstein

          It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the

          greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And

          therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must

          endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must

          it be in seeking to understand these visions. Truth is ever to be

          found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of

          things. . . -Sir Isaac Newton

          When the solution is simple, God is answering. -Einstein

          The only real valuable thing is intuition. -Einstein

          A person starts to live when he can live outside himself. -Einstein

          The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. -Einstein

          Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by

          understanding. -Einstein

          No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. -Newton

          For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope. - Einstein

          If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the

          shoulders of giants. -Newton

          In questions of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the

          humble reasoning of one individual. -Galileo

          Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But

          thought and ideas (the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the

          three spatial dimensions at c), not formulae, are the beginning of

          every physical theory. --Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics

          But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the

          whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only

          became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler

          and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of

          the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience

          and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are

          completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and

          particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is

          the father of modern physics--indeed, of modern science altogether.

          -Einstein , Ideas and Opinions

          .. my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of

          this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations,

          they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at

          the planets or Moon or my telescope. -Galileo

          A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents

          and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents

          eventually die, and a new generation grows up with it. -Planck

          Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It

          forces us to change our thinking in order to find it. -Niels Bohr

          ...my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning

          preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which,

          either because of its being their own or because of their having

          received it from some person who has their entire confidence,

          impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it

          out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea ...

          gain their instant acceptance ... whatever is brought forward against

          it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or

          with hot rage ... Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not

          be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their

          adversaries.... No good can come of dealing with such people . . . their

          company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous. -Galileo

          We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both

          true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -Newton

          Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -Einstein

          A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are

          composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is

          ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical

          thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as

          probability. -Einstein

          When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective

          representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to

          known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence

          the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in

          the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a

          representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the

          characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its

          entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction

          the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled.

          -Schrodinger

          Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we

          grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium--we will all say to

          each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been

          so stupid? -Wheeler

          Three Rules of Work: Out of clutter find simplicity; From discord find

          harmony; In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity. -Einstein

          A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder

          would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long. -Einstein

          Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more

          violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in

          the opposite direction. -Einstein

          Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas

          which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make

          the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid

          of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under

          a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find

          themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be

          doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite

          found their way out of the equations into their minds. -Maxwell

          I don't believe in mathematics. -Einstein

          Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that

          mine are greater. -Einstein

          Geometry is not true, it is advantageous. -Poincare

          A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -Plato

          Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can

          be counted counts. -Einstein

          Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by

          the nose. -Einstein

          The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is

          the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is

          a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe,

          is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Einstein

          The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Einstein

          Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of

          physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be

          said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible

          to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is

          obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The

          second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the

          material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself,

          with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the

          "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic

          concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a

          basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with

          great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and

          evaluation of theories since time immemorial. -Einstein

          String Theory has been the leading candidate ... for a theory that

          consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including

          gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV

          finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: "Although there is no

          rigorous proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite..." -STRING

          THEORY IN A NUTSHELL

          We don't know what we are talking about . -Nobel Laureate David Gross

          on string theory

          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 Ehrenfest (Imagine doing this for

          10-30+ dimensions!)

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

          Feynman, Nobel Laureate

          String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick.

          -Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

          Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a

          "theory" rather a "model" or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a

          theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it

          to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the

          elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able

          to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these

          particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I

          give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing,

          and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon;

          whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair? -'t Hooft, 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. -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 an 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? . . . 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. -Feynman

          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.

          --Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow

          The great irony of string theory, however, is that the theory itself

          is not unified. . . For a theory that makes the claim of providing a

          unifying framework for all physical laws, it is the supreme irony that

          the theory itself appears so disunited!! Introduction to Superstrings

          & M-Theory -Kaku

          If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of

          affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to

          develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his

          beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of

          logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but

          above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be

          summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment,

          demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated

          beliefs. The unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more

          precisely the naïve version of ether that preceded relativity. The

          unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would be

          perfectly in character for him to reexamine the facts, toss them over

          in his mind, and conclude that his beloved principle of relativity was

          not fundamental at all but emergent (emergent from MDT!) . . . It

          would mean that the fabric of space-time was not simply the stage on

          which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there

          might be something beyond. (MDT!) -A Different Universe, Laughlin,

          Nobel Laureate

          [String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to

          sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental

          evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special

          mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be

          calculated or predicted more easily. . . String theory is, in fact, a

          textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will

          always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful

          technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic

          consequence of an obsolete belief system-in which emergence plays no

          role and dark law does not exist. --A Different Universe, Laughlin

          The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the

          easiest person to fool. ... You just have to be honest in a conventional

          way after that. . . I would like to add something that's not essential

          to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you

          should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. . . I'm

          talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying,

          but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you

          ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our

          responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I

          think to laymen. . . If you're representing yourself as a scientist,

          then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they

          don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their

          decision. -Nobel Laureate Feynman, Cargo Cult Science

          To me there has never been a higher source of earthly honor or

          distinction than that connected with advances in science. -Newton

          Errors are not in the art but in the artificers. -Newton

          I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin

          not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations .

          -Galileo

          By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox . -Galileo

          A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand

          things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of

          them is not understanding . -Isaac Newton

          Gradually the conviction gained recognition that all knowledge about

          things is exclusively a working-over of the raw material furnished by

          the senses. ... Galileo and Hume first upheld this principle with full

          clarity and decisiveness . -Einstein

          LET US EMBRACE THESE PHILOSOPHIES AS WE FORGE AHEAD!!!

            • [deleted]

            ahahah yes and after we shall go make surf with an E x pseudo theory hihihihi

            No but I dream Ray ,Not you ,no it's not possible,I speak with you in private, no it's not possible you are on this team.hihihi

            Snif I am sad and now I am crying ,alone in my small garden in my small house in my small city in my small country.

            Hihihi humor humor and revolution !!!

            To be serious....I analyze Ray ,I analyze all that....and really all is a pure joke of fun for the sciences of second zone.

            Here is the list simple and evident .....Multiverses, strings, superstrings, M theory or Z or X...,the reversibility of time, the higgs and their external cause of mass,the the extradimensions....all that is just for the second zone Ray,really and you know it I hope.If not it's an other problem.

            The sciences are rationals Ray and Objectives....we see spheres but we don't see what you say .I respect you and you know I am frank, and I like when you are frank also,it's a rare quality Dr Cosmic Ray my friend.

            Steve

            • [deleted]

            Dear Kelly,

            Whether we are motivated by money, politics, or a search for the truth (I'm a businessman with a Doctorate in HEP Physics that considers myself closer to the latter category), we know that reality has a dual wave-particle nature, and should thus expect strings-membranes (wave behavior) and kissing spheres-CDT (particle behavior) to both be important.

            Large collaborations have the advantage of being able to work constantly, having lots of cheap & intelligent grad student labor, and having political power to block potentially competitive ideas. However, most large collaborations that I have known work by committee, and cannot respond or react to a new perspective as quickly as a smaller collaboration. I don't mind being called a maverick - the worst that can happen to me is that people DON'T hear my ideas.

            Have Fun!

            • [deleted]

            Hello Ray,

            You write, "Whether we are motivated by money, politics, or a search for the truth (I'm a businessman with a Doctorate in HEP Physics that considers myself closer to the latter category), we know that reality has a dual wave-particle nature, and should thus expect strings-membranes (wave behavior) and kissing spheres-CDT (particle behavior) to both be important."

            Dear Ray--did you reead any of Feynman's or Einstein's or Glashows or Laughlin's words above in the post made by kelly?

            In no way does wave-particle duality imply strings-membranes (wave behavior) nor kissing spheres-CDT (particle behavior).

            Please remember that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for strings nor for membranes, and certainly not for kissing spheres. From Galileo on down, as Einstein noted, the center and circumference of physics has always been found in physical reality. What are your business interests in making it otherwise? PErhaps you profit by peddling non-physical entities which have killed physics?

            You writes, "Large collaborations have the advantage of being able to work constantly, having lots of cheap & intelligent grad student labor, and having political power to block potentially competitive ideas. However, most large collaborations that I have known work by committee, and cannot respond or react to a new perspective as quickly as a smaller collaboration. I don't mind being called a maverick - the worst that can happen to me is that people DON'T hear my ideas.

            Have Fun! "

            If you study the history of physics, all great advances came from indivdiuals, not "large pools of cheap labor" organized by marxist professors more interested in serving their private bottom line as opposed to the higher ideals, even at the expense of physics. In fact, physics has been brought to a standstill by politicians posing as physicists while funding large pools of cheap labor with questionable intelligence, as what grad student with one iota of intelligence would want to be a faceless, proletariat gear of "cheap & intelligent grad student labor" in a regime based on lies, hype, and solinsky tactics? Surely any grad student capable of independent thought would prefer pondering physical reality on their own, rather than spending life's precious time parroting and promoting the groupthink lies and hype of the senior citizen trotskyite professors, who have never had a useful idea--not even back in the seventies when they were young, passionate, and full of the best intentions.

            You write, "I don't mind being called a maverick - the worst that can happen to me is that people DON'T hear my ideas."

            What is this supposed to mean? That the groupthink regime was right in burning Bruno at the stake and persecuting Galileo? That is is right for non-physicists and snarky handwavers to pocket millions of fiat dollars for non-theories as physics dies?

            Best,

            Jeff :)

            • [deleted]

            How physics works these days:

            1. Come up with a completely non-physical concept such as tiny little strings or little loops.

            2. Make surf that not only that these entities have never been seen, but make sure that it is impossible to even look for them.

            3. Falsely claim that you are doing what Einstein did.

            4. Raise hundreds of millions in funding and recruit the "best and brightest" political manipulators across the land while exiling physicists.

            5. Embrace and celebrate decades of failure as justifications for millions of more dollars.

            6. Reward regimists with cash and prizes.

            7. Wash, rinse, and repeat as true physicists and physics equations and physics are exiled from the academy and official discussions on the physics-free physics.