BenTheMan

Yes, Martin. I read the book, over the course of many trips to book stores. (I can't actually bring myself to buy the book.) And I find his book written in the same manner as your posts---attacking string theory without actually attacking string theory. And I have kept up with the arguments between people like Smolin and Polchinski, and I have read commentary like this one on amazon.com: Sounds like a criticism to me... And this about NEW: The two books serve the same purpose. I haven't read Woit's book in its entirety---just chapters here and there at Barnes and Noble---but this much is clear from the reviews I have read. There are two books, which advertise themselves as critiques of string theory, which amazon.com packages together for a sale price, which were written by two people who have the same opinions about string theory, and which both reach the same conclusions. So again, it is quite obvious to anyone that your index is biased. So---now what difference does it make? You will still tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, you will continue to make posts trashing string theory, and I will continue to amuse myself bydebunking bad science. So, you let me know when they figure out how to get SO(10) out of quantum gravity, and when they start deriving Yukawa couplings and mass matrices. Untill then, I'll stick with old school heterotic strings (where we can get SO(10), the MSSM, heavy tops, minimal higgses, no chital exotics...) which are quite successful in these respects, and WERE quite successful in these respects since the mid eighties.

Martin--- Aparently you have stopped responding to my points. I will ask again---why do you NOT include the sales rank of ``Not Even Wrong'' in your averages? To others--- the reason that Martin doesn't include the sales rank of Peter Woit's book is because it completely destroys his point. Peter Woit's book is ranked somewhere around #44000 (just checked today---I'm sure these things fluctuate pretty rapidly) on the amazon.com sales chart currently. This is pretty remarkable, actually, that the top five string books are STILL outselling Woit's book, even though Elegant Universe was written eight years ago. If you include this book in the ratio, it is much closer to 1:1. Martin has arbitrarily chosen to disregard THIS book in his index because it disproves his point. This is a pretty low thing to do, especially since he hasn't given me any specific reasons why one should ignore this book, that came out at more or less the same time as Lee Smolin's book. But, so it goes, I guess.

This is because departments are hiring LHC people. Martin---every post you make has the purpose of trashing string theory. The reason the index that you've arbitrarily created shows a decline is because so many people are still working on AdS/CFT. Again, when you create the meter stick, you can measure things as you wish.

Why is it that you people never accept the fact that this is not what science IS??? Explanations are useless if they don't make new and testable predictions (this is the situaition that string theory is in currently). All we can ever know is what we measure, and if what we measure agrees with our model, then it is ``correct''. There is no ``more correct''---either your theory agrees with the data or it doesn't. If there are two theories, we judge the merits of the theory by how many experiments they explain. If two theories work equally well, then the simplest one is considered correct. All we can ever measure is an effective field theory. Period. Elas you don't even know the properties of the strong force, but you want to get rid of it? I'm sorry---you want to explain it classically? Farsight, you can't explain half a dozen things that the Standard Model naturally incorporates, but you want to modify it? You don't even understand that electromagnetism doesn't even exist before electroweak symmetry breaking, but it is somehow fundamental? The internet is filled with people who pretend to be like Einstein, who want to reason their way into the correct answer, and who just end up shitting from their mouths. This simply doens't work with fundamental physics. Quantum mechanics is VERY different from classical mechanics. All you have to do is look at how GR was developed vs. how QM was developed---GR was discovered by one person. It is a classical theory and is easy to understand even for people who don't know very much physics or math. This is because the classical intuition serves very well... Quantum Mechanics took hundereds of people to unravel. This is because it is a much more difficult concept than GR---do you people think that Einstein was that much smarter than Bohr, Heisenberg, Schwinger or Schroedinger?

noob--- You are extrapolating your classical intuition FAR beyond its regime of applicability. This is not science. Even your first scentence, ``I am a believer...'' evidences this. In science there is no belief, only what can be tested and proven.

If I said yes would it make a difference? If this is true, why are you ignoring the sales ranking of NEW?

We should be clear and say that Farsight isn't very far from YOUR truth, and YOUR truth doesn't seem to be able to explain the strong force.

First of all, why does this matter? Second of all, it is shown to be the case in the LHC, because of hadronization. Third of all, this is Farsight's thread.

John--- It is a semantic thing, I think. I haven't looked into the details yet, but as long as you don't use the ``force'' as a ``force'', then it should be consistent, at least. I owuld be more comfortable if you used another word, but that's just me. You are treating the electron as a solid sphere with charge. Should spin be interpretted as the spinning of this sphere?

Are you concerned at all that your force has the wrong units?

If it's a different book, then why are you comparing the two? Then average in NEW into your index. Doesn't it do the same thing? Martin---with all due respect, you cannot believe that smolin NEVER intended his book as an anti-string manifesto. Just because he doesn't directly attack string theory in the text doesn't mean that this wasn't his intention.

Farsight--- There is some good insight here. Specifically this is a good way to think of mass at a classical level. This is something that I had never really thought that much about. The trouble happens when you try to define ``mass'' on a quantum level. You probably want to use an equation like [math] E = mc^2 = \hbar \nu[/math] to describe mass. This tells you that photons have an ``effective'' mass---in other words, a photon of frequency [math]\nu[/math] has the same energy as some particle with mass [math]m[/math]. Ok. Then you will tell me that by changing the frequency of the photon, you can create different masses, and explain all of the particles that we observe. First of all, is this correct? If so a question---why do we not observe MORE particles? The Standard Model has something like 15 particles in one generation, with no discernable pattern in their masses. Why only 15? Why not infinity? Presumably any value of [math]nu[/math] can be used in the above equation. Why do electrons have a mass of 511 keV? We should see a HUGE spectrum of electron-like particles, all with masses in units of [math]\hbar[/math].

That was the point. What do TWP book sales have to do with anything except book sales? As for the other books, if they're so critical of the string approach, why don't you average them in with the sales of TWP? Not Even Wrong #72,021 Road to Reality #8,025 Oh right. Because if you did that then the string books would win:) This discussion has already been had in other places, by others more qualified than myself. This is blatantly not true---just the TITLE of Smolin's book says as much. You say this like it's a bad thing. And, coincidentally, they are not exactly handing out tenure track position to string theory grad students. I have met very few graduate students who wouldn't LOVE to go to Europe to do a post doc. Progress of the controversy? What does this mean? This isn't the civil rights movement. The only thing this index you've created really determines is how many people are buying Smolin's book, versus Brian Greene's books. This is a result of Smolin's campaigning, poorly written New York Times articles, and NPR interviews.

This is an important point. One would hope that humanity has progressed since the scientific revolution, but... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28145 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28150 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28230 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28231 There are other examples of this that one can see everyday. Everytime you see someone online selling a book that uses ``the power of positive thought'', magic crystals, intelligent design and tinfoil hats, it is a bonafide affront to science.

Nivvedan--- I'm not sure what you're asking for, but... [math]E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/math] Also, the ionization energy (that is, the energy that you have to expend in breaking the electron away from a neucleus) goes up like the atomic number (Z) squared, I think. Don't quote me, but [math]E_{ionization} \cong Z^2 \times 13.6 {\rm~eV}[/math]

The only thing this means is that Smolin's book is the only anti-string theory book on the shelf. To me it is much more impressive that the Elegant Universe is still selling in the top 20 science books eight years after it was written. Should we really be judging science based on a popularity contest?

well the weak force is a short range force so it can't be an inverse square law. The strong force has an exponential in it, and it is definitely NOT inverse square law.

The interested student can do one of several things. He can email or message me, he can ask a question (which is, after all, the purpose of these boards, insofar as I understand it), or he can go to the link I posted which explains in a very detailed manner what th higgs actually IS. I'll post it here for your benefit, Xerxes: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69369 Of course, there is always Wikipedia, and a google search. Do you mean esoteric like this:

I gotta agree with Phi--- I've been to a few ranches, and the cattle are pretty much left to their own devices. (Even though I am from Texas, I do have a rather limited experience with this sort of thing.) The place where we deer hunt in South Texas, for example...there are about 1000 head of cattle on the ranch, and they're more or less wild. The vaqueros go out and round them up when it's time for them to be slaughtered. This is done as quickly and painlessly as possible---for one reason, if the animals are excited, then the meat has a lot of adrenaline in it. You can taste the difference in venison, at least, between deer that were killed immediately and deer that ran after they were shot. I assume that it probably works the same way in cows. I'm sure that animals are treated differently in different places in the world. In Japan, for example, I've heard that the Kobe beef cows (Wagyu, I think?) get mesages and such. There are also ``organic'' beef farmers (in Ohio the brand is ``Laura's Lean Beef'') which raise free range cattle, which aren't sent to feed lots.

What about the strong force? What about the weak force?

Xerxes---I don't think you are dim. I don't even think Farsight is dim. Deluded, perhaps, but dim people don't spend their time pondering on fundamental physics. The argument is that in these fora, there are two choices---one can either take their time to fully rebut someone like Farsight, or they can shrug it off. If they shrug it off, there is nothing to be learned, and we might as well not even have a discussion board. The other option is to treat Farsight's claim as a scientific one, and challenge it with the things that WE know. So Severian made the point about WW scattering at a TeV. If there is no higgs, then at a TeV, the theory ceases to be unitary. THIS means that probabilities no longer add up to one. Now, this is a MAJOR problem for a theory like quantum mechanics, which is absolutely based on probabilities adding up to one. Farsight has taken being told that he was wrong extremely personally, which is evidenced by his behavior in the other thread. He is extremely immature (who in the hell uses ``LOL'' anyway?), and refuses to answer claims against his theory. I started this thread to show those in doubt how Farsight's behavior and claims are typical of fringe scientists, known affectionately as ``crackpots'' or ``cranks'', and how his ideas of science fall dreadfully short of academic standards.

Chalk another one up for the Creationists.

[QUTOE]No, they don't, why should they? If it ain't science, it ain't on their patch. Period. Absolutely. This is the problem---uneducated laymen can't tell the difference. Why don't you go and read the ten pages of rebuttal to his ideas in the other thread. And if something isn't clear, you could always ask... Ahh. Yes. ``A lot of vague comments'' means that you don't care to bother with the details? If that were true, would this book be a best seller? Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't... http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/

Let us know how that goes.