Lubos Implodes into Quantum Stringy Foam

Lubos Implodes into Quantum Stringy Foam

L. Edgar Otto    October 22, 2013

I almost did not bother to read anymore of our humble correspondent's blogspot but hoping there was some meat in the initial title relating to the idea that some claim a string (now how we get from that to M theory without just more confusion and complication is the same issue or problem) it has zero dimensions - and we accept that it is unreachable... obviously the quantum view as time the thermodynamic summing as an arrow as if a string (despite its contribution in theory, even if not a complete one for physics) which in fact are still not effective for problems of symmetry that does not go far into what are the solid laws of thermodynamics and not tentative speculations.  He bans all the so called quantum theory detractors, citing history on one hand as a settled situation and on the other hand space as a wide landscape that can reach the same sort of geometric solutions for a given space.  But this is not a principle to which he divides theory into the quantitative and qualitative as if there cannot be more subtle third or more terms or physics (this is after all not just an appeal to a unified physics in a sort of Marxian synthesis (a Greek idea really from the position of characters in a play to which string theory by itself cannot be the God in the Machine to solve the plot- while there is humor in that some who watch the play in the amphitheater of public debate just have not evolved their understanding to be aware of the irony.  I would imagine Lubos at a crossroad where it was hoped his contributions, of which there are some as reporting on historical figures, has walled himself off from the dialog to which we may have to give up the hope that his freedom found in the wider possibilities of physics that QM seems to give him would not constrain him into a narrow domed firewall of introspection.

Yes, dear Lubos, it is your blog and my offense that you demean the likes of Baez or Sabine after what seems a long thought out discussion is about as mediocre as my reporting it on my personal blog to which we should agree not to waste each others time.  Would the logic not follow from your assertions that time may not be so solid a concept and space in structure (the so called amplitudohedron and so on) the source of rational physics? Is your concept of time so linear... yes, a great metaphor that we do not feel the train moving while we are in it... but time itself if it does indeed violate Lorentz (yet the vase and broken vase then it coming together again is not foreign to the idea that what appears illusion cannot find a final synthesis) then reading your take on history seems concerned with different eras and ideologies such that the coherence and consistency of your view stands well as far as it goes but is a mystery of hidden values that is unlikely to appear even with great sigmas of data and intelligence close to the best of possible general theories.

Clearly, even if the secret to our minds and body is reduced to the quality of our DNA (after all is chemistry not about quantum theory as a foundation?) we have the violation of symmetry in the universe of ones multi-cellular flesh that as recently suggested going to the nuts and bolts of the chemicals involved regardless of issues of locality... the cells of  a hierarchy of tissue (and perhaps our thoughts) age differently.  Yes, to the baboon our lifespan is longer and we are wiser due to a more coherent brain by superior sperm (as you say look for these articles in "Nude Scientist")  But how dare you think your wisdom is more advanced and contemporary than any of our lady scientists whose boobs have aged much faster than you and have had a much longer experience with the nature of gravity?

* * * * *