…At least in my field, as submitted to the ArXiv. Just saw “Remarks on the world-sheet saga” by Bert Schroer. The abstract (and the paper) is full of excellently derisive turns of phrase that are hilarious to read! Example from the abstract:
Attention is given to how such misleading metaphors originate and how their support is maintained by quantum mechanical analogies to models which for good reasons never existed before in particle physics physics and whose only purpose is to uphold the string metaphor. The correct localization is inconsistent with the idea of world-sheets and the string-theoretical interpretation of T-duality.
He’s not actually trying to make the reader laugh, I think, but is attempting to make some serious physics points in there, apparently suggesting alternative lines of development and interpretations in the construction of string theory, calling into question the very notion of the worldsheet and things derived (such as T-duality) from using it as a central organizing concept. I don’t really understand his central point, so far, (anyone who wants to chime in with (sensible) remarks (NOT advertising for their pet patent office products), go right ahead), but it is always good to look at (perhaps honestly expressed, as opposed to certain well-known political pontificating!!) alternative views on what is being done, research-wise, so go ahead and look.
-cvj
Since this thread has gone totally off topic, and since you’ve nothing new to say about your own claims beyond presenting laughably sparse slides from 2007, I think I’ll just close this thread. This is a total waste of time.
-cvj
Excellent. This is truly funny. This is your proof that the entire community of string theorists is misguided and wrong? Before, I might add, we’ve even done with the research? Before we’re done with even fully understanding and defining the theory? This is your proof that it is all a waste of time? That’s just too funny. The point, Peter, is that we don’t know whether it is right or wrong either, nor what the outcome of the entire program of research will be, ultimately. But we’re not (or at least, that large percentage of the field I know and trust) are not presuming the answer at the outset, like you are. That’s why it is called research. We don’t know. You don’t know. You claim (and try to convince the public at large) that you know the outcome.
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
Clifford,
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.
It’s like you did not read what I wrote above about the issue. I addressed your publicly made statements and was not writing book reviews… and so on and so forth… No, I’m not going to repeat it all.
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
Clifford,
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.
… anyway, Peter, before we start going in tedious circles again (I’ve got actual science to get on with), and/or before you start making up a new pack of untrue gossip to spread about me, and/or sending your pack of yes-men over to fog things up even more, how about we just let people discuss, if they want to, the paper that is the subject of the post?
-cvj
speak of the devil and he appears.
Nope. You’ve got that wrong again, Peter.
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
Clifford,
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.
I said: – “So I’ve nothing to say about what you write since I don’t read it.”
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
Hi Peter,
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
Hi Jacques and Clifford,
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…
It’s more than a little weird that it says ‘Contribution to “Strings 2009″‘ below the title. Is he planning to crash the conference?
(And as a bonus I got some cheap entertainment from the turns of phrase in the writing… 🙂 )
-cvj
Ah. I see. Well, even if it does not hit the mark, at least he tries to write equations and make his objections at least look somewhat like science, as opposed to the babble, deception, and fakery tactics of his admirer.
Cheers,
-cvj
There’s a reason Peter Woit is such a big fan of his.
Ha! Thanks for the summary guys! I’ll have a another go at reading it. I did find it puzzling that he did not comment on the fact that even though the string theory community are, in his view, utterly wrong about world-sheets and T-duality, there’s a stunning literature of results (mathematical and physical) that seem to follow from it, or are consistent with it (we can begin with mirror symmetry, for a start)… So I’m sort of curious what structure replaces our misguided notions and still gets all that right. I couldn’t see an addressing of that point, nor an alternative suggestion, but I could have missed it….(?)
-cvj
I believe his argument can be summarized as follows.
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.
Not really my kind of thing when it comes to humor, too impenetrable. As far as I can tell, he is complaining that string theory is not really a theory of strings, but we already knew that…But maybe I am missing the point, did I mention it is kind of impenetrable?