There are already 2 novel tirades at Peter W*it's notorious website. The newest 1 celebrates that a non-expert has described the multiverse every bit the "last refuge of cowards" at a social event. I call upward much of the inquiry almost the multiverse is questionable but slurs similar that won't brand the possibility acquire away. Using some irrelevant expletives from a non actually scientific number every bit "arguments" is low-brow, indeed.
The previous text titled "String theory fails some other test" is based on W*it's consummate lies almost the predictions of cosmic strings yesteryear state-of-the-art physical theories.
LIGO has just published constraints on the cosmic strings that inwards regulation add together some dissonance of a feature colouring to the oscillations that LIGO tin hand the axe observe. The amount of this dissonance from cusps in addition to kinks was shown to live a smaller than some business office of the frequencies and/or the cosmic string tension.
W*it summarizes this newspaper every bit a "failure of string theory" in addition to declares David Gross in addition to Joe Polchinski to live receive got made a losing prediction. But those statements are lies – for 2 principal reasons.
First, "cosmic strings" tin hand the axe live explained every bit objects inwards string theory – in addition to fifty-fifty cardinal strings of string theory may live stretched inwards some models in addition to manifest themselves every bit cosmic strings – but "cosmic strings" are yet a notion inwards cosmology that is independent of string theory. Cosmic strings may be independently of string theory in addition to are predicted yesteryear other theories inwards high-energy physics, starting from grand unified theories (GUT). Read e.g. the final judgement of the abstract of Tristan's 2005 master copy thesis. The same scientist is at the LHC now.
Second, it's just a consummate prevarication that string theorists receive got made the prediction that cosmic strings would live discovered. The uncovering of cosmic strings was ever a possibility – in addition to it remains a possibility. No well-known professional person string theorist has ever made the prediction that it's "more probable than not" that cosmic strings would live discovered inwards our lifetime, permit lonely a foreseeable future.
The famous string theorist that was closest to it is Joe Polchinski. There was a moving ridge of activity surrounding cosmic strings according to string theory just about 2004. This excitement was amplified yesteryear the observation of CSL-1, a cosmic string candidate, inwards the telescopes. If you lot read e.g. this 2006 spider web log shipping almost CSL-1 that communicated the decision that CSL-1 wasn't a cosmic string, you lot volition live reminded that Joe Polchinski had declared the probability that the cosmic strings would live discovered inwards a reasonable time to come to live 10%. So it's plenty to picket it in addition to live course of written report of thrilled but the number yet says "probably not".
Joe Polchinski was yet the most enthusiastic famous string theorist when it came to the uncovering prospects for cosmic strings. W*it every bit good tries to claim that David Gross' made a failing prediction – when he quotes Gross' sentences from 2007:
String theory is total of qualitative predictions, such every bit the production of dark holes at the LHC or cosmic strings inwards the sky, in addition to this bird of prediction is perfectly acceptable inwards almost every other patch of science. It’s alone inwards particle physics that a theory tin hand the axe live thrown out if the tenth decimal house of a prediction doesn’t concord alongside experiment.But it's really clear that this declaration contains no prediction that was falsified – later all, W*it has been maxim for years that string theorists couldn't ever brand such a prediction, in addition to then he contradicts himself when he says that string theorists did it.
Gross said that the cosmic strings that be out at that topographic point – or that may be out at that topographic point – are an instance of a qualitative prediction. The describing word "qualitative" is explicitly written at that topographic point in addition to it has a really goodness reason. The describing word is at that topographic point to emphasize that string theorists couldn't calculate the tension or density of cosmic strings inwards the Universe at the 2nd when David Gross made the statement. We yet cannot. So at that topographic point was manifestly no prediction that would imply that "cosmic strings receive got to live seen yesteryear this or that experiment yesteryear the twelvemonth 2017" or anything of the sort.
David Gross talked almost these qualitative predictions just because they're such a measure share of all scientific disciplines – in addition to string theory is every bit scientific every bit other disciplines of science. He contrasted the province of affairs alongside particle physics where many predictions are quantitative in addition to extremely accurate in addition to a tiny disagreement is plenty to eliminate a theory or a hypothesis. But theories inwards other disciplines of scientific discipline – in addition to those include string theory inwards its introduce degree of our understanding of it – don't depend on the precise quantitative observations inwards this fatal way. That manifestly doesn't hateful that the questions are unscientific.
The enquiry whether cosmic strings be inwards the Universe is manifestly scientific, meaningful, deep, in addition to of import regardless of whether lying dishonest savages neglect to empathize the scientific character, meaning, depth, in addition to importance. And nosotros yet don't know whether at that topographic point are cosmic strings inwards the Universe in addition to what their tension and/or average density is. And we're yet intrigued yesteryear the possibility in addition to prepare to devour novel prove whenever it emerges. Like previous experiments, LIGO has alone imposed some constraints on these numbers. But it didn't falsify the whole concept. It couldn't falsify the concept because the concept is qualitative. That doesn't hateful that it's unimportant, shallow, meaningless, or unscientific. So cosmic strings volition manifestly drib dead on on appearing inwards papers yesteryear cosmologists, GUT theorists, string theorists, in addition to others.
I am staggered yesteryear the stupidity of the people who are willing to purchase this self-evident W*it-like garbage.
Exactly the same comments apply to readers of Backreaction whose writer claims that the gauge of a much higher cosmological constant "isn't fifty-fifty a prediction". Holy cow. It clearly is a prediction, it isn't a goodness one, but it's justified yesteryear the same sort of dimensional analysis etc. that is used all over physics to acquire estimates of in addition to then many things. The failure of this methodology inwards the instance of the cosmological constant is manifestly a rather of import fact that requires a deep plenty qualitative explanation. Ms Hossenfelder may alone "denounce" such basic methods of physics because she has never done whatever existent physics inwards her life. Her readers are constantly served pure feces every bit good but they don't take away heed – inwards fact, these Schweinehunds in addition to pigs smack their lips.