3 ms·

Upon further review, surfer's new Theory of Everything severely deficient

8 points by nickb 19y ago

hhm 19y ago
Very interesting!! Read also: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theor... (linked in the article)
- nickb 19y ago
  Lubos Motl's a string theorist. String theory is not really a science anymore... it's approaching religion: it's not falsifiable and you can "prove" anything using string theory... literally anything you want. I wouldn't trust his review of any opposing theory. You're better off reading what Lee Smolin or Peter Woit have to say. At least they're objective.
  - hhm 19y ago
    I don't know Lubos Motl, but I'm sure you can be a good scientist working in string theory; ie: trying to make it falsifiable. I'm sure if the argument is "Motl works in string theory => Motl is not a scientist", then it's not a valid argument.
    - hhm 19y ago
      But now I know better about the specific case of Motl: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/lubo-motl.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/lubo-motl.html
    - nickb 19y ago
      That's not what I said at all. Your second post is more in line with what I said. Lee Smolin was/is a string theorist too but at least he's objective and is not religious about ST like Motl and some others. This is a good link: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html
      - hhm 19y ago
        I know about the case "not even wrong" and all that, and I agree. My point is: you can be a good string theorist, as well as you keep objective, as you say. I agree with that. Otherwise, we risk repeating the history: Schwartz was being believed to be nuts, until his team found some new interesting stuff. We don't know if that can happen again... Thanks a lot for the article, too.
rms 19y ago
But he doesn't claim to have a theory of everything! He claims that the E8 polytope is significant to physics, and I have a feeling it is.
- hhm 19y ago
  Yes, he claims. Or at least his paper is titled: "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything".
  - maths 19y ago
    The title is a pun actually, as the E8 group is technically both "exceptional" and "simple", in the mathematical sense of those terms, if i recall correctly. so the title is a joke of sorts.
    - deleted 19y ago
      [deleted]
  - rms 19y ago
    I didn't bookmark it and can't immediately find it, but I saw him say that he would be very surprised if his theory was universal truth and that the probability of him being correct was low -- but he thought he had a better shot at it than string theory.
downer 19y ago
Reality makes perfect sense if you consider that we're a simulation. Then the fact that solids really aren't is no more surprising than characters in a 3D game finding the same thing -- they aren't solid, they are composed of electrical signals, wtf?!? I admit this doesn't help explain what's "up a level", other than "some sort of computer".
henning 19y ago
if i were a physicist, i'd be very skeptical of any single person claiming to have a definitive solution to a challenging open problem. also, i'd be keen to prevent social science people from pulling a reverse Sokal hoax. then again, i don't know diddly squat about physics.
tlrobinson 19y ago
It's pretty silly that people keep making a big deal about this guy being a "surfer"... He has a PhD in theoretical physics... and also happens to be a surfer. So what?
calambrac 19y ago
Well, now that laserboy at ArsTechnica has weighed in, I think we can consider the matter settled. Let's all close the book on this one and head over to Fox News for some insight on foreign policy, then to Slashdot for a nice explanation of copyright law, and finally hit up Penthouse forum for some solid relationship advice.

8 points by nickb 19y ago

hhm 19y ago

Very interesting!! Read also: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theor... (linked in the article)

nickb 19y ago
Lubos Motl's a string theorist. String theory is not really a science anymore... it's approaching religion: it's not falsifiable and you can "prove" anything using string theory... literally anything you want. I wouldn't trust his review of any opposing theory. You're better off reading what Lee Smolin or Peter Woit have to say. At least they're objective.
- hhm 19y ago
  I don't know Lubos Motl, but I'm sure you can be a good scientist working in string theory; ie: trying to make it falsifiable. I'm sure if the argument is "Motl works in string theory => Motl is not a scientist", then it's not a valid argument.
  - hhm 19y ago
    But now I know better about the specific case of Motl: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/lubo-motl.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/lubo-motl.html
  - nickb 19y ago
    That's not what I said at all. Your second post is more in line with what I said. Lee Smolin was/is a string theorist too but at least he's objective and is not religious about ST like Motl and some others. This is a good link: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html
    - hhm 19y ago
      I know about the case "not even wrong" and all that, and I agree. My point is: you can be a good string theorist, as well as you keep objective, as you say. I agree with that. Otherwise, we risk repeating the history: Schwartz was being believed to be nuts, until his team found some new interesting stuff. We don't know if that can happen again... Thanks a lot for the article, too.

rms 19y ago

But he doesn't claim to have a theory of everything! He claims that the E8 polytope is significant to physics, and I have a feeling it is.

hhm 19y ago
Yes, he claims. Or at least his paper is titled: "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything".
- maths 19y ago
  The title is a pun actually, as the E8 group is technically both "exceptional" and "simple", in the mathematical sense of those terms, if i recall correctly. so the title is a joke of sorts.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
- rms 19y ago
  I didn't bookmark it and can't immediately find it, but I saw him say that he would be very surprised if his theory was universal truth and that the probability of him being correct was low -- but he thought he had a better shot at it than string theory.

downer 19y ago

Reality makes perfect sense if you consider that we're a simulation. Then the fact that solids really aren't is no more surprising than characters in a 3D game finding the same thing -- they aren't solid, they are composed of electrical signals, wtf?!? I admit this doesn't help explain what's "up a level", other than "some sort of computer".

henning 19y ago

if i were a physicist, i'd be very skeptical of any single person claiming to have a definitive solution to a challenging open problem. also, i'd be keen to prevent social science people from pulling a reverse Sokal hoax. then again, i don't know diddly squat about physics.

tlrobinson 19y ago

It's pretty silly that people keep making a big deal about this guy being a "surfer"... He has a PhD in theoretical physics... and also happens to be a surfer. So what?

calambrac 19y ago

Well, now that laserboy at ArsTechnica has weighed in, I think we can consider the matter settled. Let's all close the book on this one and head over to Fox News for some insight on foreign policy, then to Slashdot for a nice explanation of copyright law, and finally hit up Penthouse forum for some solid relationship advice.