Phil Gibbs wrote an article defending the M-theory with the key reason as that there is nothing else offering a viable alternative to M-theory. Luboš Motl also wrote, “If there’s no theoretical revolution that will immediately and convincingly change our opinion about what is right around the corner behind the Standard Model, the status quo will simply continue whether you like it or not.” The followings are quotes of their sayings.
Phil Gibbs wrote, “The problem is that there has been evidence for fine-tuning in nature for a long time. One of the earliest known examples was the carbon resonance predicted by Hoyle at precisely the right energy to allow carbon to form in stellar nucleosynthesis. If it was not there the cosmos would not contain enough carbon for us to exist. Hoyle was right and the resonance was soon found in nuclear experiments. Since then we have realized that many other parameters of the standard model are seemingly tuned for life.
“The conclusion seems to be that string theory cannot predict low energy physics at all. This is unacceptable according to the scientific method or so they say. There must be a better way out otherwise string theory has failed and should be abandoned in favor of a search for a completely different alternative. But the string theorists carry on. Why is that? Is it because they are aging professors who have invested too much intellectual capitol in their theory. Are young theorists doomed to be corrupted into following the evil ways of string theory by their egotistical masters when they would rather be working on something else? I don’t think so. Physicists did not latch onto string theory just because it is full of enchanting mathematics. They study it because they have come to understand the framework of consistent quantum theories and they see that it is the only direction that can unify gravity with other forces. Despite many years of trying nothing else offers a viable alternative that works (more about LQG is for another post).
“The only significant difference for the multiverse of string theory is that many of the string theory states describe different stable vacuua whereas in the standard model the stable vacuua are identical under gauge symmetry.
“People can complain as much as they like that the multiverse is unscientific because it does not predict the standard model. Such arguments are worthless if that is how the universe works.
“If you think that life arises naturally no matter what the parameters of physics are then you would expect life to take a very diverse range of forms.
“ I mean that there should be different solutions to the chemistry of life that work on other planets. … If we find that all higher lifeforms on other planets uses these same processes then we can be sure that physics is fine-tuned for life.”
Luboš Motl wrote, “I used the number from the fine-structure constant because it’s going to be my example. It is equal to and this dimensionless number quantifies the characteristic strength of one of the most familiar fundamental interactions, the electromagnetic force. Note that the value is also “much smaller than one” and we could say that it is rather unlikely (less than one percent probability). However, with some extra knowledge, we may argue that the value isn’t too unnatural. Why?
“However, in the electroweak theory, and electromagnetism are no longer fundamental. They are produced as a mixture of two interactions, those mediated by the and gauge fields, respectively, and the extra angle determining the mixing – the Weinberg weak angle – is another source of the potential smallness of the low-energy fine-structure constants such as the electromagnetic one.
“So if you imagine that the success of the Standard Model will continue during or after the LHC run that will begin in April 2015, it would mean that we will have a proof of some 1% fine-tuning in Nature. That’s great but it will only be evidence that our naive, egalitarian, uniform probability distribution is no good – and rather weak evidence, for that matter. If there’s still a 1% or 0.1% probability that such a smallness occurs by chance, its appearance is a 2.5-3.5-sigma signal supporting “something new”.
“Nothing fundamental has really changed about our inability to experimentally probe Nature at the fundamental scale. And the idea that some new physical phenomena would “have to” occur at the LHC has always been more wishful thinking (plus promises used to convince everyone that a new collider has to be built) and less solid, justified reasoning.
If there’s no experimental breakthrough and no theoretical revolution that will immediately and convincingly change our opinion about what is right around the corner behind the Standard Model, the status quo will simply continue whether you like it or not. In particular, some kind of a supersymmetric scenario remains the most likely candidate for new physics that will be observed on a sunny day in the future. In fact, we have repeatedly argued that supersymmetry’s relative odds have increased due to the “negative” LHC data so far. But without a theoretical revolution, we can’t really know when the Standard Model will finally break down.”
The following is my comment (http://blog.vixra.org/2013/07/18/naturally-unnatural/#comment-33501 ).
This is how “Nature” works; “ready, get-set, go”, no tuning of “any kind” at all.
If the axiomatic expression of a (any) physics theory (not Nature) cannot “directly’ make contact with “Nature” but relies on some “tuning”, it is simply “wrong”.
Luboš Motl used a dimensionless parameter (Alpha, fine structure constant) as an example of this fine-tuning issue. Is the smallness of Alpha (= 1/137.03599) unnaturally too small?
Richard Feynman asked another question, “Why is this Alpha so damn mystically unnatural? No ‘formula’ of any kind (physics equation or otherwise) can calculate it”.
Phil Gibbs wrote, “The problem is that there has been evidence for fine-tuning in nature for a long time. One of the earliest known examples was the carbon resonance predicted by Hoyle at precisely the right energy to allow carbon to form in stellar nucleosynthesis. If it was not there the cosmos would not contain enough carbon for us to exist. … Since then we have realized that many other parameters of the standard model are seemingly tuned for life.”
Is Alpha the Hall-mark of unnaturalness and of the fine-tuning? Of course, not, as the Alpha is not damn mystically unnatural after all; (Feynman, Sir). It can be easily calculated with the following “physics equation”.
Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order sharing + sum of the higher order sharing)
= 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …) = 137.03599…
A(2) = 28.743 “degrees” is the Weinberg angle (θW ), the most important quantum parameter in the Standard Model.
The sum of the higher order sharing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…] = .00065737 + …
Alpha is “precisely” derived, not fine-tuned. Alpha is not just a coupling constant for electromagnetism but is a “central” lock which locks the DNA of the universe, the three nature constants [e (electric charge), c (light speed) and ħ (Planck constant)]. After this DNA is firmly locked, the universe is allowed to evolve with total “freedom”. Thus, carbon resonance and all parameters of the standard model which are seemingly tuned for life are the “precise (not fine-tuned)” outcome of this locked DNA; no fine-tuning at all. Nature is precise, not fine-tuned.
Luboš Motl wrote, “If there’s no experimental breakthrough and no theoretical revolution that will immediately and convincingly change our opinion about what is right around the corner behind the Standard Model, the status quo will simply continue whether you like it or not.”
A theoretical revolution will definitely face the “debate” for it being right or wrong. Yet, there is no argument of any kind needed for the above “physics equation” for Alpha, as its correctness can be verified by any 8th grader with a piece of paper and a pencil. Furthermore, no LHC dancing (or any other whatnot steps) of any kind is able to “alter” the Alpha formula, that is, to challenge the “physics” which underlies beneath the Alpha formula. In this Alpha-physics, SUSY (with s-particles), M- and F-theory are all wrong. There is no nightmare but death-sentence for them.
“If the axiomatic expression of a (any) physics theory (not Nature) cannot ‘directly’ make contact with ‘Nature’ but relies on some ‘tuning’, it is simply ‘wrong’. “
The followings are the “direct” outcomes (via the axiomatic expressions) of the Alpha-physics, no tuning of any kind.
1. The Alpha equation.
2. The G-string (available at http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/#comment-32550 ), which produces 48 known elementary particle.
a. Phil Gibbs wrote, “The conclusion seems to be that string [M-] theory cannot predict low energy physics at all.”
b. Peter Woit wrote (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6002 ), “… since the story of the last thirty years is not one of evidence for string [M-] theory unification [getting the Standard Model out of it] accumulating, but the opposite: … String [M-] theory unification is an idea now discredited in the scientific community … The most common attitude I hear among string theorists is that the ways people used to hope to connect it to the SM have failed.”
Yet, every 8th grader (not knowing any physics) is able to make a proofreading check between the G-string and the 48 known elementary particles.
3. The Super-unification (including the gravity) with the unified force equation.
Force (degenerated) = K (degenerated) F(unified), K is the coupling constant.
F (unified) = ħ / (delta T * delta S) ; T, time; S, space.
4. Uncertainty principle: Delta P * Delta S = Force * Delta T * Delta S = K (degenerated) ħ
The “strength” of the quantum effect is determined by K (the coupling).
5. The expansion of universe is accelerating, see page 50 of the book “Super Unified Theory (US copyright # TX 1-323-231, issued on April 18, 1984)”.
The 5 above are only some examples of the “direct” consequences of this Alpha-physics, no tuning of any kind involved. The Nature is Precise but not fine-tuned.
The followings are some comments from some commenters and with my answers.
@ Bill Evans, “The question of whether alpha can be derived is irrelevant – you have not understood the issue at all.”
Thanks for your great insight. It will be a nice thing to do for sending an email upstairs to Dr. Richard Feynman on this great news right the way.
“Dear Dr. Feynman:
I knew that you went upstairs with a great regret, without resolving the damn mystery of Alpha which bugged you all your life. But, a great gentleman just assured me that the damn mystery of Alpha is totally “irrelevant” after all (as you simply did not understand the issue at all), that is, all your fuss was the result of a hysteric anxiety. Just stay calm, and you will be fine.
Furthermore, this new Alpha-equation is predominately determined by a weak-mixing-angle which is the rock bottom base for Electroweak Unification, which was published right before your journey to upstairs. That is, you did not have the time and energy to evaluate it. Otherwise, you would surely have resolved that damn mystery before your long journey.
Yet, the most comforting news is that one physicist has assured me that this new Alpha-equation is purely numerological, having nothing to do with physics. The weak-mixing-angle in the equation is only numerological smoke-screen. So, really, nothing you have missed.