Shortly earlier I came to Rutgers inwards Fall 1997 (not counting a see inwards Spring 1997), it was a powerful thinking machine, arguably a transcend 5 house inwards string theory inwards the world. (This comment does not say that Rutgers is non proficient today, it's real good; too it does not imply that a novel graduate pupil similar me was the crusade why Rutgers ceased to move at the absolute Olymp of theoretical physics, I was also little a original for such big changes. In the mid-to-late 1990s, it was but natural for the richer universities similar Harvard to attract folks from that "hot field" that did much of their recent of import piece of work at "slightly less obvious" transcend places such every bit Rutgers too Santa Barbara.)
Before the brains were absorbed yesteryear some of the "more expected" famous universities inwards the U.S., string theory faculty at Rutgers every bit a grouping were known – relatively to other physics professors at Rutgers – for their odd contributions to scientific discipline too also funding too they enjoyed some instruction advantages relatively to non-string faculty, too then on, a setup designed to farther improve their efficient research. I was ever imagining how hard such a setup would direct maintain been inwards Czechia, due to jealousy, a characteristic of the Czech national character.
Fast forrard to 2016. Last week, the notorious critic of string theory Peter Voits (yes, this is the right spelling) gave a Broadway show.
The Rutgers website suggests that the host – the adult man who likely had the thought to invite Voits – was Herbert Neuberger, a lattice estimate theory guy. This hypothesis makes some sense; Voits' alone papers most physics, those written inwards the mid 1980s, were most estimate theory, too.
Along amongst a string theorist whom I know real good too who is located inwards Asia, nosotros agreed that the string theory Rutgers faculty were no warriors. And indeed, the reports say that no local string theorist has attended the anti-string colloquium too if he did, he remained completely invisible. If nosotros insist on polite words, Mr Neuberger is quite a jerk. Can yous imagine that a string theorist would organize a colloquium yesteryear a non-physicist who attacks e.g. lattice estimate theory?
The slides from Voits' colloquium are available every bit a PDF file. Let me move through them.Needless to say, the kickoff crazy thing most the utter was the title:
Not Even Wrong, 10 years later: a thought from mathematics on prospects for commutation physics without experimentTen years after the publication of an anti-physics tirade (one of hundreds of similar tirades yesteryear the laymen yous may uncovering inwards the libraries or on the Internet) that no high-energy physicist has ever taken seriously, Voits too his host must shout back that it was such a big bargain that it deserves a colloquium. Now, the next page (2/32) is the outline:
Now, this is just champaign sick. First, why should a 5th of a colloquium move dedicated to "advertisements", allow lonely advertisements that don't assist the scientific query inwards whatever way? Is Prof Neuberger also planning to plow the physics.rutgers.edu website to a porn website?
- Advertisements: quondam book, blog, coming book
- What happened to string unification
- 2x most how mathematics helps to guide physics
- Representation theory is useful for the Standard Model
The 2nd betoken is said to move most the string unification – except that the speaker hasn't written a unmarried newspaper (or whatever text that makes whatever feel or could earn a citation from a scientist) too at that spot are many other ways to come across that he is 100% unqualified to utter most these hard matters, specially when it comes to advances that emerged inwards the recent decades (let lonely recent years).
The remaining 3 bullets out of 5 desire to bring the thought that both mathematics inwards full general too representation theory are useful inwards physics too the Standard Model. What? Is this meant to move the theme of a colloquium? I understood the importance of mathematics inwards physics when I was iv too the importance of representation theory inwards physics when I was 10. Every janitor who was allowed to construct clean my part for grad students had to know these basics, too. You must move joking, Sirs.
Page 3/32 makes the story of the anti-physics majority fifty-fifty crazier. We acquire that the majority wasn't truly written 10 years ago; it was to a greater extent than oftentimes than non written fifteen years ago. Huge developments direct maintain taken house inwards string theory too theoretical physics inwards the recent fifteen years. Even if the majority were relevant for scientists dorsum inwards 2001, too it patently wasn't, it would direct maintain been outdated yesteryear today. So how tin sack ane peradventure organize a colloquium inwards 2016 for which this majority is meant to move ane of the primary pillars?
Page 4/32 shows a screenshot of the "Not Even Wrong" blog. Voits boasts that it has 1,500 spider web log posts (TRF has 6,600) too 40,000 comments (we direct maintain way over 100,000) too most of the 20,000 page views a solar daytime are yesteryear "robots" (maybe Voits' ain robots). Now, why would anyone care? All this Internet traffic is completely negligible relatively to the most influential servers on the Internet. Why would somebody utter most it at all? Why should the fourth dimension of Rutgers students, postdocs, too professors move wasted yesteryear a mediocre website? Because it claims to direct maintain something to practise amongst physics? It has nil to practise amongst the professional, serious physics.
Slide 5/32 promotes Joseph Conlon's book – quite embarrassing for Joseph. Page 6/32 says that Voits is writing a majority most quantum mechanics. Given the fact that Voits misunderstands pretty much everything that is to a greater extent than complicated than a sure minor threshold, ane can't await much from that book.
On slides 7-8/32, nosotros acquire that Voits liked the years 1975-1979 too ane of his achievements was to move an unpaid visitor at Harvard inwards 1987-1988. Wow. Who could peradventure hand a damn? I've attended dozens of colloquia yesteryear the Nobel prize winners but if the speaker or the host began to utter most some detailed affiliations, it would plow me off totally. Now, why should the Rutgers physics community endure through a utter that lists unpaid visits yesteryear a crackpot that took house some xxx years ago?
Pages 9-12/32 include some popular-book-style introduction to string theory every bit understood inwards the 1980s, amongst ii vague sentences most the 1990s too a purely non-technical comment most the recent years. Is this degree of depth plenty for a Rutgers physics colloquium these days?
Page 13/32 says that at that spot is "hype most string theory" too uses a 17-year-old New York Times photograph of Lisa Randall every bit evidence. Now, Lisa's too Raman's finding was of import inwards phenomenology; it wasn't quite string theory, just string-theory-related ideas; the article was rather sensible; it appeared 17 years ago; too physicists shouldn't acquire their cognition most their land from the New York Times, anyway. So what the hell is the operate that this slide could play inwards a physics colloquium inwards 2016?
Page 14/32 says that the multiverse may be according to string theory too Voits states that "it is non science" too "it is dangerous" without a glimpse of a justification. Page 15/32 claims that at that spot is the "end of science" too mentions Susskind's term "Popperazzi" for the religious cult claiming that some stupidly misinterpreted oversimplified ideas yesteryear a random philosopher should move worshiped every bit the most of import thing yesteryear all physicists. If Voits at to the lowest degree invented something every bit catchy every bit "Popperazzi". He hasn't. He's done no physics for xxx years but fifty-fifty when it comes to talking points, he is purely stealing from others – whether it's Wolfgang Pauli, Leonard Susskind, or somebody else. Is that plenty for a physics colloquium?
Pages 16-17/32 inform us most the shocking thing that mathematics is a non-empirical science. Great to acquire something novel too deep. He also lists some random buzzwords from mathematics similar "Riemannian geometry" but it remains absolutely unclear why he did so. Let me enjoin yous why: all these buzzwords are meant to mask the fact that he is nil else than an ignorant layman too crackpot.
On pages 19-20/32, nosotros are invited to purchase a "different vision" too "radical Platonism". Everyone knows what is "Platonism" but what it agency for it to move "radical" remains unclear – but it must move related to Lee Sm*lin's "mysticism", nosotros learn. What? Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 slide says that the Standard Model plant rather well. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 janitor would move plenty for that, too.
Page 21/32 lists things similar lattice estimate theory too some nonperturbative electroweak theory but says nil most those random phrases. On page 22/32, it's said that "quantum gravity could move much similar the Standard Model", but it's non explained how this could move true. He of a abrupt jumps to the stringy multiverse ane time to a greater extent than too says that it's "circular". Whether string theory implies a multiverse or not, at that spot is patently nil round out most it.
Page 23/32 starts to mix the random buzzwords from representation theory such every bit the Dirac cohomology too categorification. On page 24/42, we're told that the momentum is related to translations, a thing that many high schoolhouse students know, too. Voits has "nothing to say most the mysterious part, how does classical conduct emerge". Nothing is non also much to say most this foundational lawsuit for somebody who claims to move writing a majority on quantum mechanics.
Page 25/32 escalates the crackpottery. He plant at the degree of basic definitions of a linear infinite or a commutator – the materials just about from the kickoff undergraduate lecture on linear algebra – but he pretends that he has flora something that could perhaps compete amongst string theory too maybe supercede it. What? This is just a collection of randomly mixed upwards uncomplicated buzzwords too super-elementary mathematical expressions from the undergraduate linear algebra courses. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 few to a greater extent than slides say some ill-defined things that endeavor to pretend that Voits knows what the Dirac operator or category theory hateful – except that it's self-evident that he doesn't truly empathise these concepts.
The concluding page, 32/32, summarizes the talk. Ten years after the "string wars", string theory is failing fifty-fifty to a greater extent than than ever before, the audience was told yesteryear the stuttering critic of science. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 work is that this is clearly a totally untrue disceptation too the utter didn't incorporate anything at all that could substantiate this statement, specially non something that would move related to the recent fifteen years inwards theoretical physics – developments that Mr Voits doesn't direct maintain the slightest thought about, non fifty-fifty at the popular-book level.
We "learn" that the Standard Model could move unopen to a theory of everything – yes, it is for sure "somewhat close" (not "too close") but no to a greater extent than details are offered yesteryear Voits – too representation theory could move useful.
The second, key bullet of the summary says that if the disclose of available novel experiments is limited, physicists must "look to mathematics for some guidance". Holy cow, but that's precisely what string theorists are doing too that's precisely why Voits too Sm*lin – too the brainwashed sheep who direct maintain these crackpots seriously – criticize most string theory at almost all times. And at ane time he wants to recommend this "power of mathematics" every bit "his" recipe to proceed? Holy cow.
(Emil Martinec made a much ameliorate comment on this breathtaking cognitive dissonance of Mr Voits.)
The fact that a colloquium similar that has been allowed at Rutgers looks similar a serious breakdown of the system. Mr Neuberger should move given hard fourth dimension but because I know most of the string theorists who are currently at Rutgers faculty, I don't believe that anything similar that volition truly direct maintain place. The tolerance for talks amongst the right "ideological flavor", despite their unbelievably lousy quality, has move a part of the political correctness that has conquered much of the Academia.
No comments:
Post a Comment