Fascism or Nazism?
Frederick Forsyth's Daily Express piece on fascism defines it as a way of treating other people, not as a doctrinal creed. For this reason, we must call the creed of the string theorist either Nazism or some equivalent. I think for scientific clarity 'Nazism' is the best term, as it shows we are not lurking in obscurity like John S. Bell and David Bohm. We're not interested in intellectual genetic prejudices or games, but in destroying them. Progress requires the destruction of 'warped' pseudoscience which holds bach progress, the destruction of string theory. Curiously, Dr Peter Woit has retained my comment as follows:
November 1st, 2005 at 3:28 am
“The idea seems to be to get particle theorists spending their time developing software to do numerical computations…”
Monte Carlo methods and even just numerical integrations of hard to solve anayltic functions are fun. Also, why not just fit a wave equation to the group behaviour of particles (molecules in air) and talk sound waves?
Far easier than dealing with the fact that the sound wave has an outward pressure phase followed by an equal under-pressure phase, giving an outward force and equal-and-opposite inward reaction which allows music to propagate.
Nobody listens to music, so why should they worry about the physics?
Certainly they don’t listen to explosions where the outward force has an equal and opposite reaction, too, which in the case of the big bang tells us gravity. Far better to stick to horseshit computing.
Now for exposing the charlatans.
Dr John Gribbin quotes Feynman out of context as saying vaguely 'nobody understands quantum mechanics'. Feynman had invented path-integrals!
What does Feynman say about people like Dr John Gribbin who falsely claimed an earthquake would destroy Los Angeles in 1982 when Jupiter aligned with the other planets?
Feynman said, in his 1964 Cornell lectures (broadcast on BBC2 in 1965 and published in his book Character of Physical Law, pp. 171-3):
'The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculative theories of physics] you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. ... There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving i on a territory.'
On page 38 of this book, Feynman has a diagram which looks basically like this: >E S<, where E is earth and S is sun. The arrows show the push that causes gravity. This is the LeSage gravity scheme, which I now find Feynman also discusses (without the diagram) in his full Lectures on Physics. He concludes that the mechanism in its form as of 1964 contradicted the no-ether relativity model and could not make any valid predictions, but finishes off by saying (p. 39):
'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one, and I got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up to today , from the time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical description of the mathematical machinery behind this law which does not either say the same thing over again, or make the mathematics harder, or predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other the mathematical form.
Does this mean Feynman is after physical mechanism, or is happy with the mathematical model? The answer is there on page 57-8:
It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities. But ... it is not good to be too prejudiced about these things.