Ethan Siegel has a review of some of the current contenders for a theory of Quantum Gravity on his blog Starts With A Bang. The review is found at Ask Ethan #91: Does Quantum Gravity Need String Theory?. I'm not going to try to interpret what he says. He gives a quick overview of 5 different ideas which are currently being investigated. Interesting for any body interested in the subject.

Bill Gill

Ethan just proved he is completely out of his depth and has just written an what can only be described as a typical glossy science media garbage that is at it's heart completely wrong in almost every way possible. It wasn't just bad on one thing it was bad on everything

You might want to read just one analysis of Ethan's masterpiece
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/ethan-siegels-misconceptions-on-quantum.html

LM was actually uncharacteristically kind I know a few who went well beyond that.

Dilaton's posted comment about what Ethan did is about exactly spot on. Ethan's work on cosmology is first class his work on theoretical physics not so much

This article had the word "gravity" in it:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20150428025743.shtml

My Motl sure got carried away. A relatively short article by Ethan Siegel requires a huge article to rebut it line by line. He seems to be totally dedicated to String Theory. He reacts to any suggestion that String Theory might not be right as if it was an attack on his god. It is kind of like a religious authority (RA) who has had some small part of his belief system questioned. An RA in that condition will respond to a small question with an impassioned sermon about the absolute correctness of his/her belief. A brief statement to address the question is not deemed to be sufficient. For example consider the Catholic Churche's response to Martin Luther's questions about Church doctrine.

Then of course he completely denies that any of the other areas of investigation into a theory of Quantum Gravity have any value. This seems to be in complete disagreement with what I have been seeing more and more often. That a scientist should always entertain the idea that she/he might be wrong. A real scientist should always doubt her/his beliefs. If he/she doesn't look for things that would disprove what she/he knows to be right then he/she can easily lead her/him self down the wrong path. I'm afraid a lot of String Theorists have fallen down in this respect. Of course the fact that string theorists seem to have gotten a lock on the physics departments of many American universities can lead to this sort of an attitude. It doesn't leave much place for other ideas to be considered.

Bill Gill

And for once I almost agree with you Bill

Personally I like to consider all options but then there a experimental results which rule things in and out.

As I said I don't think LM gets everything right but his understanding is lets just say a hell of a lot better than Ethan's. What I will say is at least LM got the basics facts and experiment results right.

You like your consensus in science well it's definitely closer to LM's than Ethan but cooler on the string's. Ethan's article could have been written in the seventies that is how out of date it is. There were a few comments that the founder of Asymptotic safe gravity Steven Weiberg conceded the idea was dead but I have not personally seen it, last I knew he was still beating it up and if I get time I will follow that up.

As I said it was just a really bad article I was expecting Matt Strassler to raise a few eyebrow's over it as well.

One of the funnier postings about the whole issue and tone of the article

"Some prefer actually correct to political and/or attitude correct. Those who prefer not thinking but like polite, wrong and dumb have so many choices. Those who feel a nicer tone is needed probably should go to those sites because the wrong included is more offensive than the attitude expressed"

As I recall Matt has some doubts about String Theory as well. He did say that they had developed some wonderful mathematical tools for use in other aspects of QM.

Bill Gill

And another country heard from. Sabine Hossenfelder has an interview with Lee Smolin on Ethan's Starts With a Bang blog.
The Road Less Traveled… To Quantum Gravity
An interview with theoretical physicist Lee Smolin.

I assume that Lee Smolin, who has been active in research on Quantum Gravity for many years, is not an acceptable spokesman for your taste Orac?

Bill Gill

To the uninitiated, i.e. me, Smolin's responses seem well balanced and interesting, even if I don't understand all of them.

I recently came across an Einstein quote which seems relevant.

"Because of the intra-atomic movement of electrons, the atom must radiate not only electromagnetic but also gravitational energy, if only in minute amounts. Since, in reality, this cannot be the case in nature, then it appears that the quantum theory must modify not only Maxwell's electrodynamics but also the new theory of gravitation. (Einstein 1916).

I wonder if the informed view of intra-atomic movement is the same now as it was in 1916.

You would be correct Bill G he is a first class crackpot and don't get me started about his last book. That may be too harsh, maybe he just found the good drugs in his studies as his early work was semi ok. He hasn't quite reached the Sean Carroll levels but running fast and hard to get there.

Hey but he can put a good article together for the the glossy science magazines so it must be science worthy .. right

Oh BTW in the amazon reviews of his last book it most gets 1 star which is 1 more than I give it.

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis...howViewpoints=0

The most accurate customer review of his last book was this one


What exceeded my expectation is the number in the reviewers who realize the guy is a crackpot and the book complete dribble which I guess means education is improving on these things.

Interesting Sabine interviewed him on his 2001 book not his latest

The question that springs to my mind is how many drugs were taken in the period between the books.

So I guess I should ask is Lee Smolin a good scientist on the science of Quantum Gravity to you Bill G? You seem to intimate that people including me should respect this guy

Orac, your quote in red says two things to me:

This chap didn't like the book.

If the book has upset someone that much, it might be worth a look.

Well, you don't give an attribution for the quote. Was the review by a String Theory True Believer? The fact that Smolin is a professor of physics does seem to give him some credibility. Particularly when he is just giving a short overview of a number of different ideas which are being investigated. Please note: I said "which are being investigated". If a proposal is being investigated you have to provide some proof that it is wrong before you start running off about its total lack of credibility. I expect that some or all of them are wrong. Until somebody comes up with a theory that can be fully tested I am certainly not going to accept any body's word that any of them is junk.

String Theory may be a really beautiful theory, but beauty in physical theories is not a clear indication of truth. The Ptolemaic model is a beautiful theory that describes the motion of the planets in good detail. It is wrong. So String Theory may be wrong, no matter how beautiful it is. I personally have very little faith in it, but that doesn't mean it is wrong, it just means that I don't like it.

Personally I think that both space and time are probably quantized. That isn't based on any great knowledge, just a feeling that since everything else seems to be quantized then space and time should match.

Bill Gill

The quote comes from number 35

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis...howViewpoints=0

It is attributed to William R. Franklin "Illuminatus" VINE VOICE on February 26, 2013

I have no idea what the guy believes or who is is but he is spot on the money IMO ... you probably see it very different

Yes I see it very differently, at least in regard to attacks on lists of possible areas of research into quantum gravity. As long as there is no approach that provides an adequate and tested theory then just declaring that all theories except the most studied one are junk is unjustified. If String Theory really provided testable results then it might be more favored among people who are not True Believers, but it doesn't. So until it can then people should be encouraged to try to come up with new ideas that may provide a better description of how the universe works.

So the lists of areas of research into quantum gravity are completely valid. The approaches may not wind up going any where, but listing them is a completely valid exercise and can be useful to people who are not actively working in the field. I assume people who are working in the field already know about the different approaches. Those people can do a better job of evaluating the value of those approaches, and while they are doing it they should always keep in mind that their preferred approach may be wrong. Most scientists at least give lip service to the idea that even settled areas of research may be wrong. In an area that isn't settled they should admit that there is a strong likelihood that they are wrong.

Bill Gill

So people should keep investigating crackpot ideas that can be shown to be trivially false by a number of experiments .... hmmmm interesting concept.

Calling Marosz .... explain your idea to Bill again ... he needs pages and pages of drawings please and lots on new experiments you built out of lego on the kitchen table


The real answer is even with greats like Einstein we trivially ignore some of there theories and ideas because we know they are trivially wrong due to later results.

Lee Smolin may once have had valid ideas but all his ideas are long washed up on the scrapheap of experimental results, you may care to do some reading. He has one last theory still standing that inflation is caused by the simplest field and what he is short on is what this field is. I would argue that it is not even really a unique idea because I have seen it suggested indirectly by many. Every other theory and idea he has contributed is dead like a Norwegian Blue.

Unfortunately getting Lee Smolin to explain the current state of physics seems a bit to me like asking Einstein to explain Quantum Mechanics back in his day ... given what they believe you might get some half truths and it will be entertaining

For what it's worth at the level you are prepared to read I stick with Prof Matt Strassler.

Ok, let's take this one step at a time. Please answer the following question.

Do you believe that String Theory is correct?

Bill Gill

And another item from Sabine Hossenfelder. She has a post on her BackReaction blog Where are we on the road to quantum gravity?

Bill Gill

Nope I don't think it is correct but nor do I think it is dead and possibly it will kick on for years yet and that is fine as it isn't definitively dead. Again that is a personal view nothing more, nothing less. I liked the ideas a few years ago but would have expected different results and so have cooled on the idea.

An interesting question to ask is when does a scientist become what I call a crackpot. My answer would be when they refuse to accept results because they don't like them or they are at odds with there theory yet they have no alternative answer.

Einstein did not like the implications of QM, his objections were fine in the 1920's but by the late 1930's and then the 40's I probably would have called him a crackpot. It's hard historically because I wasn't there to see what he said and you always wonder how accurately the media got his views.

You don't like Lubos but he is operating in a small window that is still valid and hasn't moved yet into the crackpot status. I haven't ever seen him say he won't or doesn't believe something and he accepts results and as long as he does that he is fine with me. He operates in that area you sort of discussed legitimate alternative ideas.

I actually am quite interested in this idea at the moment
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150527-a-new-theory-to-explain-the-higgs-mass/

Not saying it is correct or anything remotely like that but it's an interesting new approach.

I love her honesty she hasn't a clue what to do with Quantum Gravity next but just not string theory please

Interesting she actually is thinking along lines I once posed to you and got a certain reaction from

That is techno speak for the the fact gravity isn't a quantum effect at all and so you better go set her straight Bill G, Quantum Gravity has to exist doesn't it because it's in Bill's box

I keep being absolutely astounded by Orac. Whatever I say I am wrong. I can even recall a couple of years ago when I said that I had just realized that the 'magic' in the quantum entanglement was based on conservation laws. Orac immediately pointed out that I was an idiot and didn't understand anything. We went on for several pages of back and forth until he explained it clearly for me. He explained that it is based on conservation laws. I'm glad he finally got me set straight on that. I might otherwise have gone on thinking it was based on conservation laws.

He apparently is setting out to do it again. I provided a link to a brief discussion of various areas of research into quantum gravity. And now I don't know anything about the subject. I didn't claim to be an expert. I was just trying to provide some insight into what is going on in the field, using information from somebody who is more familiar. When I provide more links he jumps all over those as being totally worthless. Well, I guess he gave a qualified approval to Sabine's article. But the only thing that I saw in that article was a couple of references to more extremely poorly supported research efforts.

It also seems that Orac only believes in non-quantum gravity. I hope he figures out how it works before long.

Bill Gill

Taking all that together I pretty much think you proved my point Bill

Again try reading what is actually written and stop making things up because you have an issue with me. You are so hung up about being right it's actually funny, I can imagine Bill's business card .... Bill never been wrong Gill

So answer have you ever been wrong Bill?

You remind me of the joke of the 60+ guy that the wife always makes wrong so when he gets on the internet he is a monster



The thing about real science is there isn't a right only a not wrong, something you never really get your head around. There is a long list of things we thought were right that are actually wrong, that janitors like me simply don't get hung up about it. Someone makes a statement the simple question you ask yourself is can I falsify that with any result or experiment I know. Still doesn't mean your answer is right it just isn't wrong for now and yes Bill I have been wrong thousands upon thousands of times

For the record for any souls brave enough to read on and ignore the Bill G stupidity. It sounds to me Sabine has reached and touched the wall in Quantum Gravity, the point where you have exhausted all paths. At that point you either need a genius to think of something no-one else has or you start thinking about other solutions to the problem.

Sabine being a logical person is doing the obvious next step, she can't sit and stare at a blank wall for the rest of her life and so she is moving on like yours truely.

What you have left in the Quantum Gravity research seems to be a few leftover Prima Donna's like Lee Smolin trotting out garbage that is trivially flawed but keeping them in a paycheck. If there is a solution to Quantum Gravity it isn't going to come from these old washed up fossils it will come from the young ones in the field with new and novel ideas because that is what is needed.

So pretty much I don't have any answers at all, the best I can do is falsify the garbage that some deluded idiots trot out as an answer.

I started out with a simple link to a list of possible quantum gravity approaches. Orac immediately attacked it, and me, because he perceived it as being horrible science. I'm not sure what his problem with a list is. Apparently the only way he knows to discuss science is to go into attack mode. His first point is to use a String Theory True Believer's attack on the post as a sign that I don't know or understand anything. Then he says he doesn't believe in String Theory, but the main thing he had against the original list was that it was all wrong about String Theory. Now I am a hopeless idiot because I admit that I don't know what the answer is, but am willing to accept whatever is found to be the answer, when there is one.

The only thing I can figure is that Orac doesn't really want to discuss science, he just wants to stir up discontent like a lot of other Internet Trolls. That leaves just one possibility. In the future I will ignore all posts by Orac. If anybody wants to discuss science I will be happy to do so. Any posts by Orac will be ignored.

Bill Gill

No Bill it's called conversation about science

If you stopped worrying about being right, especially at your level of understanding and just discussed things it might work a lot better for you.

Do you understand what ad hominem attacks are Bill?

You tried the appeal to authority and now you are going the other way

Lubos is a string believer as was Lee Smolin and myself once upon a time. Lubos still is Lee Smolin and myself are probably much more cool on the idea now. Even in your crazy view of how you say science works he has the same standing as Lee Smolin and Ethan as a PhD scientist in the subject area.

Deal with the science and the arguments not the personality ... an issue you are constantly having trouble with. If you can not deal with the issue it is probably best you ignore my posts ... my concern on what you think or do is very low as you contribute nothing to the discussion.

I can trivially falsify Lee Smolin as Lubos did in his article, the point is recent nuetrino experimental results are incompatible with Lee Smolin's ideas. If you have an issue take Lubos's response apart sentence by sentence like he did to Ethan and stop whining like a little dog.

So enough of the tough trash talk Mr I am right Bill Gill ... scientific argument please put up or shut up.

In God we trust, everyone else bring data

That is the blunt version because I am sure everyone has had enough of you whining about me, the bad string guy, the bogey man, that guy who looked at you funny and whoever else you don't like ... it's a public science forum deal with it. At the moment you are acting like a child ... I don't like them so they aren't right and they have girl bugs

Last Reply!



Like your comments about me you mean?

Bill Gill

Best keep that one out of the public domain, or you could be out of the "Hunt" for the Nobel.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/...20&type=cta

Haha no chance of that Marosz will get it besides I am out of ideas

Keep an eye on LHCb results that is about the only interesting thing at the moment unless you have "Your own untested theory"

LOL no Bill that was a personal attack nothing ad hominem about it, I grew tired of the trash talk and was making a point. Perhaps I should get a warning from AR2 but I thought we were here to discuss science not whether we liked or respected each other.

For the record I don't dislike you, but you have an incredible ability to make me laugh with all your myths and misconceptions you believe in, obviously very passionately .... Bill G standard science (TM) and all that. In some ways you aren't as far from Paul as you would like to think, at least in my eyes.

For the record I don't ever disregard your arguments just because they are from you. I try and take all questions and arguments as they come, the simple question is can I falsify it, call it habit. Pretty sure I answered all your questions, so perhaps compare and see how many of mine you answered

Final personal comment, try and remember science only deals with you being NOT WRONG it doesn't deal with being right. You can falsify other ideas but you can't ever prove that your answer is "right", it's more a case of last answer standing. Suggestions not falsified that can be tested and are valid with all known results are all equally "right". So be very careful about claiming to be "right", there are many conflicting ideas that are "right" in science. The extension is never use personal bias to select one answer when multiple answers exist, you aren't GOD.