Of course Witten says that String Theory and M-Theory are the big breakthroughs. He says that M originally stood for "membranes", because a colleague thought that it was a membrane theory, but Witten was skeptical so he abbreviated it to M. He coysishly pretended it stood for Magical or Matrix. If it turned out to be a membrane theory, he would claim credit.
He admits that string theory could never accommodate parity violation, so it was always inconsistent with the Standard Model.
He defends the Landscape and his inability to predict anything from his theories by saying that gravity theory does not predict the length of the Martian year. Also he says his critics do not suggest a competing theory.
Wow, he cannot admit that he is really a mathematician wannabe who happens to like studying the mathematical structures of theories with no physical significance.
In order for string theory to even function hypothetically, a string (whatever that is structurally) would need to have the following characteristics:
ReplyDeleteThe string as defined would need to...
*be a one dimensional entity as proposed
*be somehow capable of vibrating
*be somehow capable of actually interacting with other strings physically
*be somehow capable of flexing, bending, tangling like an actual physical 3D object, and even possibly joining ends to create loops, none of which can be expressed in one dimension
*Super Strings are proposed as indestructible/indivisible elements
Few little problems here. One dimensional objects are purely abstract and can not interact, and can not do any of these physical manipulations as their only physical extension is length, as first of all, objects that bend, vibrate, tangle etc. all require 1. More than one structural element/component mechanically, and 2. More than one dimension of freedom in which to make said vibrations, movements, or deformations...which paradoxically means it actually can't be one dimensional (a line or line segment which can not bend or curve into another dimension).
I am not even beginning to touch the simple fact that Super Strings are based on silly mathematical beauty conceits and wishful fantasy, no actual scientific evidence or observation whatsoever. Objectively at best, String theory is just a few theoretical mathematical conjectures which are based upon many many assumptions, some of which have already been proven not to be so.