particle string dichotomy

I said some time ago that Quantum loop gravity and string theory are in some sense identical… This is true! They are in the same way wrong. As everyone knows how quantum loop gravity is wrong (and if not, I’ll insist on that in a future blog-post), some are not aware about the ways in which string theory is wrong. Now, as  said before, I won’t criticize, as Peter Woit does, the fact that string theory is a perturbative approach to something unknown… The technique is ok, the idea that I call topological re-summation makes perfect sense to me and people should work on that, etc. The way in which string theory is wrong relates to the fact that it creates a false dichotomy between point like particles and string-like “particles”… Why false? You would say you can certainly tell the difference between a point and a line and string theory considers all generalizations (branes, etc.). Well, this is not the point: nobody could ever say physical particles are mathematical points. This idea, no matter how widespread it may be is obviously wrong. There is no such thing as a mathematical point in nature. It is just a description. Saying that you end up with problems at the level of renormalizability etc. and yes, string theory deals with UV completion in a nice way. However, the fact that string theory gives you a fundamental object that stops UV-divergencies does NOT mean fundamental objects are strings. Making them “strings” just means you made a very naive extension, of the sort made by QLG people when saying their nonsense… You see, the main issue here is not if the “fundamental building block” is a particle or a string but what structure you can add on whatever the fundamental thing is… and if that structure depends on some other things there might, and just might, be a question whether your fundamental thing is really fundamental or if there can be a thing as fundamental as you expect it to be? I believe not! There are several ideas that I will publish sooner or later… the main point however is not to  confound the description of reality (which might be pleasant in some representations and rather unpleasant in others) and reality itself…

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s