-cvj

And you offer this joke as a proof of this strong claim. Can you not see how ridiculous that is? (Combined with the fact that you’ve never written a credible paper demonstrating competence in this field that you are condenming.) This is another fancy talk with slides of pretty pictures, and a few equations here and there. Looks much like the thing you offered as laughable rigourous proof of the wrongness of string theory a year or two ago.

I’d hope that after two years there’s an actual paper out by now with actual computations, and that it has been discussed in the community? I think I missed it. People would love to see that, so that they can know whether to go work on something else. Do point people to it.

Thanks for the giggles.

Good luck with the BRST work. I recommend doing more of that - working on a well-defined problem that is compatible with your expertise (assuming it is) - instead of sitting around condemning an entire field of on-going research and saying poisonous things about it simply because you don’t like it.

-cvj

You know very well that I’ve repeatedly made scientific arguments about string theory, in many different forms. One of the most conventional forms is the talk I gave to particle physicists in Rome and Pisa, the slides are here:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/testable.pdf

My experience in dealing with you though, is that it matters not one bit what form I make my arguments in, you’re not going to read them. That’s a reasonable position to take, many string theorists have decided to go about their business and just ignore these arguments. You’ve decided instead to combine attacks on me with a refusal to read what I have to say.

As far as doing science, yes I’m busy too. A long-term project on a rather different version of BRST is reaching fruition, paper is half written, should be done this summer. I’m speaking about it at a conference in St. Petersburg in a few weeks.

You want to pretend it is fundamental, fine. Others will read what I wrote above and can tell the difference.

So, Peter, come out from behind that silly figleaf and tell us: How is the actual scientific argument for your claims coming along then? Have you written a paper yet? Constructed a demonstration the community can discuss? Is anyone going to see it soon?

Try to do some science, Peter. Please try. Back up your claims with science and not obfuscation if you want them to be taken seriously. Until then, you’re wasting everyone’s time.

-cvj

Don’t you think it’s a teeny bit peculiar that someone would write a long sequence of blog postings denouncing two books they hadn’t read? I and your other readers never conceived such a thing was possible until you finally admitted it. For all but the true believers, you completely lost credibility at that time. This is not a trivial point, it’s a fundamental one about what it means to honestly engage with arguments you disagree with.

By the way, from what I remember, both Lee and I independently had the idea to send you copies of the early manuscripts of our books, thinking you might be willing to take a look and set us straight on anything we had wrong about string theory. Little did we know then about how you deal with arguments you find inconvenient.

-cvj

I denounced your arguments. The ones which you offered to everyone on your blog, on radio shows, in public debates in a number of places, and also ones you offered on my blogs. I never, as you know, claimed to have read the books. You can read everything I wrote about your and Lee’s sayings over the last 4 or whatever years it is, and you will not find me saying I read those books. I addressed what you both kept coming back to the blogs and saying, or saying publicly elsewhere.

Why would I lie about something so silly? And why would I read them? Our science is done by presenting clear scientific arguments that you can outline with equations and sharp argument. This is the language of our field. I do not go to read popular level accounts to get those science arguments, and if I had a scientific argument to make (or as strong as the ones you claim to have), I would not hide it inside a popular book. I would write a paper. Discuss it with my colleagues clearly and up front.

You’ve made your claims, and been invited to provide support for them many times and you fail again and again to present anything barely beyond laughable. I address those claims as you have made them publicly. This is nothing to do with books.

I have and will continue to point out how interesting and sad it is that the books got so much attention from the media due to the phenomenon of science editors loving to play up the “establishment vs the underdog” science story, even when the underdog (in your case) has not written a single useful paper (any papers?) on the subject that they are denouncing, but that is nothing to do with reading the book. That is a comment on science coverage, and knowing (on your part) manipulation of its flaws. (Hence the name “More scenes from a storm in a teacup” for the series.)

It is quite funny to see how much hay you make over a trivial and obvious point, as an attempt to distract the lay reader (since no professional is fooled by this charade) from the fact that you’ve failed to get anywhere with an actual scientific argument. That’s a bit sad.

Going to keep coming back?

Best,

-cvj

Your long sequence of denunciatory postings about my book and Lee Smolin’s, in the course of which someone finally got you to admit you hadn’t read them (and refused to ever do so) was quite remarkable. I encourage everyone to read them.

Except of course when you show up here (as you so often do… why is that? Very flattering that you care so much…) to try to spread poison about string theory whenever there’s a thread about it you don’t approve of. At those times, I or someone else will then say something to disarm your nonsense, and then you shrink away again. Fun times!

-cvj

I read enough of what you write several years ago when you were in the habit of making up personal facts about people (including me) and using them in your, ahem, professionally run campaign. That (combined with your shocking inability - embarrassingly demonstrated on many threads here - to construct a coherent proof of your strong claims about the science beyond bar-quiz level bluster) was when I realized that you were not actually interested in discussing science honestly and so I’m afraid I gave up. So I’ve nothing to say about what you write since I don’t read it.

All the very best.

-cvj

For the record I have no views one way or another concerning Schroer’s claims about world-sheets and T-duality. If you just can’t help yourselves and must find excuses to insult me, I think you can do better than this. Why not actually address something I write?

One thing I do agree with Schroer about is the pathetic dishonesty and lack of professionalism of certain string theorists, especially certain prominent bloggers…

-cvj

Cheers,

-cvj

did find it puzzling that he did not comment …

There’s a reason Peter Woit is such a big fan of his.

-cvj

1) (Perturbative) string theory isn’t really a theory of 1-dimensional extented objects. It’s “really” just an infinite-component local field theory.
2) Ergo, if the target space is non-simply connected, there are no string winding modes.
3) Ergo, no T-duality.

Yes. It’s really that dumb.