### Thursday, March 16, 2006

## the interesting history of Not Even Wrong

The idea of

" ... it is becoming increasingly clear by now that the new 'theory' does not predict anything. He has to introduce a 'super force' acting over long distances to achieve a consistent theory of gravitation. But we know already that apples fall towards the earth according to the standard model of Aristoteles, which is perfectly capable to explain all empirical evidence we have. On the other hand, we know that the moon and celestial bodies follow their circles ever since Ptolemeus introduced his geometric theory. It does not make sense to unify these two theories until we understand the fundamental issues much better.

One can easily see that the rules outlined in the Principia allow for more possible paths than just circles. Subsequently, Isaac gets lost in the 'landscape' of possible solar systems and makes hardly any firm new prediction in his book. It is very convenient that his friend Edward Halley has used the new 'framework' to forecast the return of a comet, but then made sure this event would not occur in our lifetime. This 'theory' is clearly

Meanwhile, I shall continue to meditate about the geometric nature of the circle, which is clearly an important principle guiding our universe. My good friend Lee Small, following related ideas, reported recently some interesting results about the nature of the triangle. I will have more to say about this later."

As you can see, I am following a great tradition of scientific debate.

*Not Even Wrong*is grounded in a long history of deep thinking. In 1701 the then famous P. Wont published a damning review of the*Principia*, published several years earlier:" ... it is becoming increasingly clear by now that the new 'theory' does not predict anything. He has to introduce a 'super force' acting over long distances to achieve a consistent theory of gravitation. But we know already that apples fall towards the earth according to the standard model of Aristoteles, which is perfectly capable to explain all empirical evidence we have. On the other hand, we know that the moon and celestial bodies follow their circles ever since Ptolemeus introduced his geometric theory. It does not make sense to unify these two theories until we understand the fundamental issues much better.

One can easily see that the rules outlined in the Principia allow for more possible paths than just circles. Subsequently, Isaac gets lost in the 'landscape' of possible solar systems and makes hardly any firm new prediction in his book. It is very convenient that his friend Edward Halley has used the new 'framework' to forecast the return of a comet, but then made sure this event would not occur in our lifetime. This 'theory' is clearly

*not even wrong*and I cannot understand why it attracts so much attention. Instead of wasting all resources on the new infinitesimal mathematics, our students should focus on a solid education in arithmetic instead.Meanwhile, I shall continue to meditate about the geometric nature of the circle, which is clearly an important principle guiding our universe. My good friend Lee Small, following related ideas, reported recently some interesting results about the nature of the triangle. I will have more to say about this later."

As you can see, I am following a great tradition of scientific debate.

Comments:

Links to this post:

<< Home

Peter,

very interesting to see the historical contect of this debate.

Are you sure it is Edward Halley and not Edmond?

very interesting to see the historical contect of this debate.

Are you sure it is Edward Halley and not Edmond?

Peter,

this is a great article and I fully agree with you. We do not know what gravitation really is.

But I have a revolutionary idea about this on my webpa

this is a great article and I fully agree with you. We do not know what gravitation really is.

But I have a revolutionary idea about this on my webpa

Peter,

Newton also had several papers also on stringy theory, alchemy, M-theory, religion, extra-dimensions, and creationism.

Sadly, all were rejected for publication because he couldn't get an endorser on the international arXiv, which was controlled by the terribly vindictive Lubos Leibniz, plagarist of Newton's calculus.

Newton's inverse square law of gravity was independently discovered by Hooke, although Newton did the important work of proving that it applies to elliptical orbits, not just circles. Newton never expressed it with the constant G because he didn't know what the constant was.

Newton did have empirical evidence, however, for the inverse square law. He knew the earth has a radius of 4000 miles and the moon is a quarter of a million miles away, hence by inverse-square law, gravity should be (4000/250,000)^2 = 3900 times weaker at the moon than the 32 ft/s/s at earth's surface. Hence the gravity acceleration due to the earth's mass at the moon is 32/3900 = 0.008 ft/s/s.

Newton's formula for the centripetal acceleration of the moon is: a = (v^2)/(distance to moon), where v is the moon's orbital velocity, v = 2Pi.[250,000 miles]/[27 days] ~ 0.67 mile/second), hence a = 0.0096 ft/s/s.

So Newton had evidence that the gravity from the earth at moon's radius is the same as the centripetal force for the moon.

The great mathematician Edmond Witten told Newton gravity is stringy, but Newton ignored him and missed on being a genius.

Newton also had several papers also on stringy theory, alchemy, M-theory, religion, extra-dimensions, and creationism.

Sadly, all were rejected for publication because he couldn't get an endorser on the international arXiv, which was controlled by the terribly vindictive Lubos Leibniz, plagarist of Newton's calculus.

Newton's inverse square law of gravity was independently discovered by Hooke, although Newton did the important work of proving that it applies to elliptical orbits, not just circles. Newton never expressed it with the constant G because he didn't know what the constant was.

Newton did have empirical evidence, however, for the inverse square law. He knew the earth has a radius of 4000 miles and the moon is a quarter of a million miles away, hence by inverse-square law, gravity should be (4000/250,000)^2 = 3900 times weaker at the moon than the 32 ft/s/s at earth's surface. Hence the gravity acceleration due to the earth's mass at the moon is 32/3900 = 0.008 ft/s/s.

Newton's formula for the centripetal acceleration of the moon is: a = (v^2)/(distance to moon), where v is the moon's orbital velocity, v = 2Pi.[250,000 miles]/[27 days] ~ 0.67 mile/second), hence a = 0.0096 ft/s/s.

So Newton had evidence that the gravity from the earth at moon's radius is the same as the centripetal force for the moon.

The great mathematician Edmond Witten told Newton gravity is stringy, but Newton ignored him and missed on being a genius.

For the record:

I have a PhD in physics from the University of California.

1. I defend Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.

2. I accept orthodox quantum theory in it’s domain of validity. Where to draw that line in the sand is the issue.

3. I accept the data of precison cosmology.

gr-qc/0602022 14th version including comment on the George Ellis astro-ph/0603266

Title: Emergent Gravity: String Theory Without String Theory

Authors: Jack Sarfatti

I just want to say I'm not self-important, that's all.

I have a PhD in physics from the University of California.

1. I defend Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.

2. I accept orthodox quantum theory in it’s domain of validity. Where to draw that line in the sand is the issue.

3. I accept the data of precison cosmology.

gr-qc/0602022 14th version including comment on the George Ellis astro-ph/0603266

Title: Emergent Gravity: String Theory Without String Theory

Authors: Jack Sarfatti

I just want to say I'm not self-important, that's all.

motley,

I do not need to defend Lubos Leibnitz, but you seem to confuse him with somebody else.

As far as I know, there was a physicist with similar sounding name who showed that gravity is a weak force, which was quite revolutionary at the time.

He stirred up a heated debate (pun intended) when he insisted that the "Little Ice Age" was a natural event and not a supernatural punishment.

I do not need to defend Lubos Leibnitz, but you seem to confuse him with somebody else.

As far as I know, there was a physicist with similar sounding name who showed that gravity is a weak force, which was quite revolutionary at the time.

He stirred up a heated debate (pun intended) when he insisted that the "Little Ice Age" was a natural event and not a supernatural punishment.

In four dimentions the gravitation is not weak. Maybe in your stringy universe!

All cars would fly into the universe if the gravitation would be weak.

All cars would fly into the universe if the gravitation would be weak.

Don't worry Lubo about the context of statements ancestroy or otherwise. As to what you might have written on the blackboard about strings, and what Einstein might have written instead.

Geometrical insight is greater then the axiomization indicated, was from other thoughts of Dirac, and not just the mathematical statements assigned? Such inclination to a quantum perspective and dynamical valuation, of what GR is assigned in curvature, was taken down to the ideas of what signaled the curvature indicators with regards to high energy considerations?

Geometrical insight is greater then the axiomization indicated, was from other thoughts of Dirac, and not just the mathematical statements assigned? Such inclination to a quantum perspective and dynamical valuation, of what GR is assigned in curvature, was taken down to the ideas of what signaled the curvature indicators with regards to high energy considerations?

Good that things turn to the better at least in Germany now. See eg the "Workgroup on the Philosophy in Physics" at a meeting of the German Physical Society. Especially inttriguing is the contribution Does a Higgs mechanism exist?"

The author investigates the argumentative

structure of the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the context of gauge theories. He finds that upon closer critical analysis, the Higgs mechanism is just a rewriting of the degrees of freedom and as such cannot posses any interpretable instantiation in Nature. The philosophical results suggest that neither an ontological, nor an epistemological interpretation of the Higgs mechanism is tenable!

This proves that indeed, all of the theoretical particle physics of the past 25 years should go right into the trash can!

The author investigates the argumentative

structure of the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the context of gauge theories. He finds that upon closer critical analysis, the Higgs mechanism is just a rewriting of the degrees of freedom and as such cannot posses any interpretable instantiation in Nature. The philosophical results suggest that neither an ontological, nor an epistemological interpretation of the Higgs mechanism is tenable!

This proves that indeed, all of the theoretical particle physics of the past 25 years should go right into the trash can!

Jack Sarfatti said: "For the record: I have a PhD in physics from the University of California."

In his paper hep-th/0112261 entitled Algebraic Dreams, Pierre Ramond says:

"... Nature shows that space-time symmetries with dynamics associated with gravity, and internal symmetries with their dynamics described by Yang-Mills theories, can coexist peacefully. How does She do it? ... there remain important unanswered questions. ...".

According to a superstring theory web site:

"... For bosonic strings ...[you]... can ... do quantum mechanics sensibly only if the spacetime dimensions number 26. For superstrings we can whittle it down to 10. ... ... There are higher dimensional objects in string theory with dimensions from zero (points) to nine, called p-branes. In terms of branes, what we usually call a membrane would be a two-brane, a string is called a one-brane and a point is called a zero-brane. ... A special class of p-branes in string theory are called D branes. Roughly speaking, a D brane is a p-brane where the ends of open strings are localized on the brane. A D brane is like a collective excitation of strings. ...

... the five superstring theories are connected to one another as if they are each a special case of some more fundamental theory ...

... an eleven dimensional theory of supergravity, which is supersymmetry combined with gravity ... didn't work as a unified theory of particle physics, because it doesn't have a sensible quantum limit as a point particle theory. But this eleven dimensional theory ... came back to life in the strong coupling limit of superstring theory in ten dimensions ... M theory is is the unknown eleven-dimensional theory whose low energy limit is the supergravity theory in eleven dimensions ... many people have taken to also using M theory to label the unknown theory believed to be the fundamental theory from which the known superstring theories emerge as special limits ...

... We still don't know the fundamental M theory ...".

Tony Smith

www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/

In his paper hep-th/0112261 entitled Algebraic Dreams, Pierre Ramond says:

"... Nature shows that space-time symmetries with dynamics associated with gravity, and internal symmetries with their dynamics described by Yang-Mills theories, can coexist peacefully. How does She do it? ... there remain important unanswered questions. ...".

According to a superstring theory web site:

"... For bosonic strings ...[you]... can ... do quantum mechanics sensibly only if the spacetime dimensions number 26. For superstrings we can whittle it down to 10. ... ... There are higher dimensional objects in string theory with dimensions from zero (points) to nine, called p-branes. In terms of branes, what we usually call a membrane would be a two-brane, a string is called a one-brane and a point is called a zero-brane. ... A special class of p-branes in string theory are called D branes. Roughly speaking, a D brane is a p-brane where the ends of open strings are localized on the brane. A D brane is like a collective excitation of strings. ...

... the five superstring theories are connected to one another as if they are each a special case of some more fundamental theory ...

... an eleven dimensional theory of supergravity, which is supersymmetry combined with gravity ... didn't work as a unified theory of particle physics, because it doesn't have a sensible quantum limit as a point particle theory. But this eleven dimensional theory ... came back to life in the strong coupling limit of superstring theory in ten dimensions ... M theory is is the unknown eleven-dimensional theory whose low energy limit is the supergravity theory in eleven dimensions ... many people have taken to also using M theory to label the unknown theory believed to be the fundamental theory from which the known superstring theories emerge as special limits ...

... We still don't know the fundamental M theory ...".

Tony Smith

www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/

Peter,

I agree that P. Wont was important, but we should not forget about the work of Lee Small. He wrote in a famous pamphlet about "the crisis of fundamental physics":

"...

i) It is increasingly clear that the Newtonian solution can not be extended beyond the 2-body problem. Please correct me if I am wrong.

ii) It is not even clear if our solar system is stable according to this theory. I understand that the group around Laplace is working on a perturbation theory, but so far we have no proof that it will converge.

iii) I propose to focus our attention on the properties of the simplest geometric object. The idea that the world is made of many triangles is very appealing at a fundamental level.

..."

I only mention this because his ideas are still highly influential.

I agree that P. Wont was important, but we should not forget about the work of Lee Small. He wrote in a famous pamphlet about "the crisis of fundamental physics":

"...

i) It is increasingly clear that the Newtonian solution can not be extended beyond the 2-body problem. Please correct me if I am wrong.

ii) It is not even clear if our solar system is stable according to this theory. I understand that the group around Laplace is working on a perturbation theory, but so far we have no proof that it will converge.

iii) I propose to focus our attention on the properties of the simplest geometric object. The idea that the world is made of many triangles is very appealing at a fundamental level.

..."

I only mention this because his ideas are still highly influential.

Hi feminista,

it is a scientific fact that only men are intelligent enough for this kind of discussion.

What are you doing tonight?

it is a scientific fact that only men are intelligent enough for this kind of discussion.

What are you doing tonight?

Hi Tony,

Please, no more here about stringy stuff, as it will only encourage a flood of crackpots to start discussing their own pet theories.

The last time I discussed work by Jacques Clerk Maxwell about the landscape of 10^500 aethers, I was flooded by alternative theories, and was deemed a non-active researcher, losing arXiv trackbacks for six months.

Please, no more here about stringy stuff, as it will only encourage a flood of crackpots to start discussing their own pet theories.

The last time I discussed work by Jacques Clerk Maxwell about the landscape of 10^500 aethers, I was flooded by alternative theories, and was deemed a non-active researcher, losing arXiv trackbacks for six months.

This was a disgusting comment by "love the babes" and I apologize to feminista in the name of all decent scientists.

feminista,

I am travelling a lot and I wonder if we should meet so that I can apologize better to you.

feminista,

I am travelling a lot and I wonder if we should meet so that I can apologize better to you.

Particle physics of the last 30 years is the greatest intellectual failure in the history of mankind.

BERTIE'S POST SHOWS THAT EVEN THE HIGGS MECHANISM IS ALL WRONG.

Juan

CENTER OF (COMICAL) SCIENCE

BERTIE'S POST SHOWS THAT EVEN THE HIGGS MECHANISM IS ALL WRONG.

Juan

CENTER OF (COMICAL) SCIENCE

First year data:

http://www.discover.com/images/issues/feb-06/dialogue-woit.jpg

Three year data:

http://www.discover.com/images/issues/feb-06/dialogue-woit.jpg

Note the hundred-fold increase in Not Even Wrong resolve.

http://www.discover.com/images/issues/feb-06/dialogue-woit.jpg

Three year data:

http://www.discover.com/images/issues/feb-06/dialogue-woit.jpg

Note the hundred-fold increase in Not Even Wrong resolve.

This is my last comment for this blog, I’m done with all of this. You can read me in forthcoming papers if you’re interested.

Penrose showed clearly that the entropy in both images has to be the same!

Science is dead. Nice job y’all.

-drl

Penrose showed clearly that the entropy in both images has to be the same!

Science is dead. Nice job y’all.

-drl

Guess who's back ...

Peter I would never leave you.

I was just kidding!

We two were made for each other.

And did you really believe I would publish a paper?

-drl

Peter I would never leave you.

I was just kidding!

We two were made for each other.

And did you really believe I would publish a paper?

-drl

Well, the superstring theory:

6D+observer= Superobserver-4D. Therefore, in a superobserving, physical predictions have no sense and all requirements to test the theory physically must be considered as stupid misunderstandings of the stringy universe.

6D+observer= Superobserver-4D. Therefore, in a superobserving, physical predictions have no sense and all requirements to test the theory physically must be considered as stupid misunderstandings of the stringy universe.

Another two fundamental theorems: 1.One cannot observe the Universe, since it is already observed by the stringies.

2. The stringy is uniquelly determined by its curvature and torsion up to the Superobserver motions.

Proof. If Superobserver would not move, then the Universe could be observed by a curvature and torsion alone, which is possible only in CY-varieties, where no Universe exists. - Contradiction.

Post a Comment
2. The stringy is uniquelly determined by its curvature and torsion up to the Superobserver motions.

Proof. If Superobserver would not move, then the Universe could be observed by a curvature and torsion alone, which is possible only in CY-varieties, where no Universe exists. - Contradiction.

Links to this post:

<< Home