MORE CRAP ======== Stephen Hawking writes in his book The Grand Design... M-Theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find. The fact that we humans... who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature... have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph. But perhaps the true miracle is that abstract considerations of logic lead to a unique theory that predicts and describes a vast universe full of the amazing variety that we see. If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3,000 years. We will have found the grand design. OK... Hawking has something of a reputation for this kind of thing. When Hawking was appointed Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University (the chair once held by Newton and Dirac), he used his inaugural lecture to declare that the unified theory... presumably the one Einstein was hoping to find... was close at hand in the form of SUPERGRAVITY, based on EIGHT super-symmetries. That was over 30 years ago. To date... right... nada. Do the authors of best-selling books about super-string theory actually themselves believe in this crap? When asked directly at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, which took place on 7 March 2011, Brian Greene replied--> If you asked me, Do I believe in string theory?, my answer today would be the same as it was ten years ago--> No. He went on to explain that he only BELIEVES ideas that make testable predictions. But he insists that, despite the conspicuous absence of testable predictions from string (or super-string) theory, it remains one of the best bets for providing a unified THEORY. (Not conjecture but THEORY... even though it is inherently unprovable.) [Unfortunately, there are MANY other Theories that claim to unify general relativity and quantum theory. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity, which, like string theory, has no testable predictions, but clearly illustrates that the Super-String Program is not the only game in town. (Loop Quantum Gravity assumes no background spacetime, but rather generates the geometric framework of spacetime from within the Theory, as did Einsteins General Relativity.) But Loop Quantum Gravity is the preserve of relativists, however, not particle theorists, and for this reason, it is less fashionable than is string theory.] Brian Greenes honesty is commendable. However, we might conclude that the continued publication of popular science books and the production of television documentaries that are perceived to portray string (or super-string) theory or M-theory as if they were ACCEPTED explanations of reality (that is, legitimate parts of the authorised version of reality) is MISLEADING at best... and ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE CRAP at worst. Me? I just call it more CRAP from bored physicists seeking notoriety (and tenure and book sales). Einstein produced two HUGE theories (special and general) that have been tested and proved, over and over, again and again. TESTED. PROVED. These bored physicists are no Einsteins, hard as they might try.
Posted on: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:16:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015