I'm just saying -- the tragedy of string theory

 I watched the Stanford videos of Dr. Leonard Susskind discussing physics from the standpoint he uses in his series, Theoretical Minimum. Luckily I have some math and science background that let me follow what he said.

Dr. Susskind is one of the founders of string theory, back in 1969, but now he's sounding an alarm, and the interviewer here didn't seem to get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p_Hlm6aCok

Some of you scientists help me out. What I think Dr. Susskind was saying is:

1/ We have a beautiful and mathematically correct formulation of string theory.

2/ It supports de Sitter space, with its boundary, but we do not live in a bounded universe.

3/ We have a "visual" boundary, a horizon, beyond which we do not have the instruments to make observations. The universe goes way beyond that.

4/ If there is physical confirmation of the current string theory, the evidence lies in the part of the universe that lies beyond our horizon. Since we can't access it, we can't adopt string theory as superior to what we already have -- all the more so as it is inconsistent with the actual conditions of our universe.

The part that the interviewer struggled with was #4. He wanted Susskind to admit that there might be solutions beyond the horizon and so we can't rule out string theory. Susskind's point was that it doesn't matter if they are out there, we can't access them. It's the old invisible purple hippo of quantum mechanics. You can't prove that the hippo is purple because it's invisible.

If Susskind is right and string theory can't get along without a boundary, then it can't be right. The mathematicians need to sharpen their pencils and find a formulation that does not require a boundary.

And then Susskind points out the real tragedy. The young physicists of today don't want to do the work. They can't pick a problem independently and do the work without input from an advisor, professor, or other authority figure. If you tell them they're wrong it hurts their fee-fees. They refuse to consider taking up work that doesn't have a salary attached to it. They are into physics for the money, not out of curiosity. (These are not his words, he is much more diplomatic about it, but that's what it comes down to.)

When was the last time YOU studied something that wasn't job related, that wasn't involved in your CEUs or keeping your license as a professional? Yet the Internet has troves of college textbooks, and yesterday I found like 400 Schaum Outline texts on Internet Archive. If you complain about education in the US but you're not volunteering to improve your own education, setting an example for others, you're a hypocrite -- and before you turn that back on me, just wander for a while through my whole blog. All of that comes from self-education in the 21st century.

I'm just saying....