Re: What's really wrong with string theory?

["FrediFizzx"]

<sg552@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1162320720.116657.105380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Igor wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, no.  And it gets even better.  This deep quagmire of
> > terminology and seemingly empty mathematics still offers nary a 
> > single
> > physical prediction after all these years.
>
> Actually, it offers plenty of physical predictions, just not ones that
> can be tested with current technology. And there is a good reason for
> this, namely the vast number of possible vacua of the theory, each of
> which gives rise to distinct low-energy QFT approximations. This fact
> does not mean that string theory is wrong. By way of comparison, in 
> the
> time before Newton many physicists believed that a theory that
> explained the motion of the planets around the sun should be able to
> predict the specific size of the orbits we see. Of course we now know
> that this is impossible; any other set of orbits would do just as 
> well,
> and our solar system is the way it is because of the arbitrary initial
> state when the sun was created. The same may well be true of standard
> model.


I think Igor was talking about Sarfatti's ramblings. ;-)  But indeed, 
neither ST nor Sarfatti have *testable* predictions yet.  Hmm... I would 
think that if you have a basic entity (like superstrings) making 
everything, that their interactional geometry should produce the 
Standard Model every time.  This is what our Quantum Vacuum Charge 
scenario is based on and we make some testable predictions.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
                                www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps">http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
                                www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110">http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
                                www.vacuum-physics.com">http://www.vacuum-physics.com