Cosmology Intelligent Design News

Columbia mathematician Peter Woit wonders why string theory is so popular …

Spread the love

Because it is not about the science. Which is largely non-existent.

Popular culture needs the multiverse, and string theory is the gateway drug.

Here

I’m busy with other things, so no possible way I can keep up with the claims about string theory flooding the media for some reason these days. It’s hard enough to find the time to read all of this, much less write something thoughtful about it… One obvious point to make though is that none of it acknowledges the obvious: the widely promoted idea that we can get a unified theory and explain the Standard Model by using a theory of strings has turned out to be an empty one.

See also:Why modern cosmology not only doesn’t but can’t make any sense

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “Columbia mathematician Peter Woit wonders why string theory is so popular …

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    I pay no attention but people want the next cool thing in physics because they see physics as top dog in sciency things.
    I doubt this string thing is right and more important its not proved like Einsteins etc stuff.
    It shows again speculation carrys the day as in evolution.
    Physics now has fallen to the same error as evolutionism.
    Conclusions without scientific proof .
    String thing might be true. But I notice its all guessing.
    I got a attenna for it from somewhere.

  2. 2
    harry says:

    Why string theory? Because multiverse theory depends on it. Why multiverse theory? One of the discoveries of modern science has been that the fine-tuning of the Universe such that life would be a possibility is so unlikely to have happened mindlessly and accidentally that we can be more certain that it didn’t happen that way than we can be that gravity will continue to work and that all the laws of physics will remain in effect. The implication of that discovery has not been lost on the reigning Atheocracy.

    Multiverse theory is atheism’s incredibly lame response to this situation. The supposition is that if there are a virtually infinite number of universes then one of them had to end up tuned for life. Frank Close, professor of physics at the University of Oxford:

    Ellis and his cosmologist colleague Joe Silk, a professor at the Université de Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, call this “a kaleidoscopic multiverse comprising a myriad of universes.” They, as proxy for many physicists, then pose the basic challenge: the suggestion that another universe need not have the same fundamental constants of nature as ours inspires the question of what determines the values in our universe. Of the variety of universes that could exist, the conditions for the narrow range of parameters for which intelligent life could exist are trifling. The odds that we exist are therefore so vanishingly small, that multiverse theory claims that there is a “landscape” of universes “out there” in which all possible values of these parameters exist. Thus one universe will exist somewhere with conditions just right for life, and we are the proof.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.....c-theories

    Dr. Woit, in the article at the “Here” link above, also provides a link to the article containing Frank Close’s remark. Dr. Woit’s comment on the article:

    Close correctly identifies the problematic nature of multiverse pseudo-science, but misses the basic facts about the string theory landscape. This is not a theory of “great mathematical elegance”, quite the opposite, and there is no such thing developed “in recent years”. If you go back 30 years, there were then claims of “elegant” string theory models, but those never worked out.

    Maybe the reason string theory is so popular is because the reigning Atheocracy desperately needs it to be popular: Way too many people are getting tired of Emperor Atheism leading the cultural parade around without any clothes on. Although not enough are yet willing to publicly point that out.

Leave a Reply