Comments on: Peter Woit’s Anti-String Theory Tirade http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/ Davide Castelvecchi, Freelance Science Writer: Physics, Astronomy, and Math Sat, 05 Jul 2008 23:33:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: CapitalistImperialistPig http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-127 Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:30:22 +0000 http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-127 String theory approximates GR. ST contains forces that break the equivalence principle. Also, in its current formulations it is background dependent - spacetime is not dynamic. String theory approximates GR. ST contains forces that break the equivalence principle. Also, in its current formulations it is background dependent - spacetime is not dynamic.

]]> by: castel http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-124 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:04:31 +0000 http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-124 Peter, about the dating triangle involving Schroedinger and Weyl: you said it would be better described as an open relationship than a m&#233;nage &#224; trois. You may be right as far as the usage of the expression in the English language. But I may have been thinking of the original French expression. Here's what my friend Julien had to say about it: <blockquote> I don't believe it requires the three partners to be in bed together. It can be, say, a woman with two lovers, and they all understand and accept the situation, and maybe they hang out altogether a lot, but still keep the sexual act private. </blockquote> For the record, Julien is French -- although he admits he is not an expert on the subject :-) Peter, about the dating triangle involving Schroedinger and Weyl: you said it would be better described as an open relationship than a ménage à trois. You may be right as far as the usage of the expression in the English language. But I may have been thinking of the original French expression. Here’s what my friend Julien had to say about it:

I don’t believe it requires the three partners to be in bed together. It can be, say, a woman with two lovers, and they all understand and accept the situation, and maybe they hang out altogether a lot, but still keep the sexual act private.

For the record, Julien is French — although he admits he is not an expert on the subject :-)

]]> by: castel http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-121 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:28:49 +0000 http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-121 Thanks nitin, the Hollywood star coincidence is hilarious -- I swear I didn't know about it. I'll respond to the other comments soon in a follow-up post. Thanks nitin, the Hollywood star coincidence is hilarious — I swear I didn’t know about it. I’ll respond to the other comments soon in a follow-up post.

]]> by: Dave Snider http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-120 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:44:27 +0000 http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-120 Davide, Can you explain a little more about why string theory can't do what general relativity can do? Aren't the Einstein field equations derivable from string theory? Davide,

Can you explain a little more about why string theory can’t do what general relativity can do? Aren’t the Einstein field equations derivable from string theory?

]]> by: nitin http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-119 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:42:19 +0000 http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-119 <i>The telegenic string theorist Brian Greene had hosted a successful NOVA miniseries and <b>seemed poised for the leap to Hollywood stardom</b>.</i> Well, he's already got a <a href="http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/04/01/string-theorys-star-on-the-rise/" rel="nofollow">star </a> on Hollywood's walk of fame! The telegenic string theorist Brian Greene had hosted a successful NOVA miniseries and seemed poised for the leap to Hollywood stardom.

Well, he’s already got a star on Hollywood’s walk of fame!

]]> by: Arun http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-118 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:37:04 +0000 http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-118 What is the evidence for strings analogous to the 19th century chemistry evidence for atoms? In the mid-1800s, even if atoms were a physical fiction, they allowed for good bookkeeping in chemistry. String theory does not have anything analogous going for it. Another analogy that comes to mind is the theories of the luminiferous aether. It was obvious that aether had to exist. It had to be mechanical, in accord with the best science of the time. Yet these mechanical properties were paradoxical. To quote Wikipedia: "Nevertheless, by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly effect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale." String theory seems to lead us to similar paradoxes. What is the evidence for strings analogous to the 19th century chemistry evidence for atoms? In the mid-1800s, even if atoms were a physical fiction, they allowed for good bookkeeping in chemistry. String theory does not have anything analogous going for it.

Another analogy that comes to mind is the theories of the luminiferous aether. It was obvious that aether had to exist. It had to be mechanical, in accord with the best science of the time. Yet these mechanical properties were paradoxical.

To quote Wikipedia:

“Nevertheless, by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly effect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.”

String theory seems to lead us to similar paradoxes.

]]> by: Peter Woit http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-116 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:08:34 +0000 http://sciencewriter.org/2006/10/peter-woits-book/#comment-116 Hi Davide, As far as I know it wasn't really a menage a trois with Schrodinger and Weyl. Weyl had a wife, it's just that Schrodinger and his wife had what you would now call an "open relationship". Schrodinger famously discovered the equation that bears his name while vacationing in the mountains with a woman not his wife (nor Weyl's). There were more than trois involved. From what I recall, when he fled to England in 1933 and was considering possible positions in Oxford or Princeton, both universities had a bit of an issue with him living with two women (his wife and the wife of a colleague). That was more of a menage a trois, I guess... I don't think it's quite accurate to say that string theory predicts six extra dimensions. For one thing, if you believe the M-theory story, there are in some sense seven extra dimensions, for another, the theory is completely silent on the size and shape of these extra dimensions. Hi Davide,

As far as I know it wasn’t really a menage a trois with Schrodinger and Weyl. Weyl had a wife, it’s just that Schrodinger and his wife had what you would now call an “open relationship”. Schrodinger famously discovered the equation that bears his name while vacationing in the mountains with a woman not his wife (nor Weyl’s). There were more than trois involved.

From what I recall, when he fled to England in 1933 and was considering possible positions in Oxford or Princeton, both universities had a bit of an issue with him living with two women (his wife and the wife of a colleague). That was more of a menage a trois, I guess…

I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that string theory predicts six extra dimensions. For one thing, if you believe the M-theory story, there are in some sense seven extra dimensions, for another, the theory is completely silent on the size and shape of these extra dimensions.

]]>