Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory
Ethan Siegel

Indeed, the M-string theory is a total bullcrap for the following reasons.

One, M-string claims that all Standard Model (SM) particles are forms of vibration of the M-string, but it fails to provide a language to describe them. On the other hand, the G-string gives the precise description on the SM particles (see http://putnamphil.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-final-post-for-now-on-whether-quine.html?showComment=1403375810880#c249913231636084948 ).

Two, M-string fails to calculate any Nature constants (such as Alpha) and claims that those constants cannot be calculated with a stupid (insane) idea of Multiverse. On the other hand, the Nature constants of THIS universe can be easily calculated (see, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html ), and thus the Multiverse is easily crashed (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html and https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/damage-control-for-the-multiverse/ ).

Three, M-string claims to be the only Quantum Gravity but: {

First, it fails to provide a quantum gravity equation. On the other hand, the G-string has a Unified Force Equation {F (unified) = K*ħ/ (delta S*delta T), which derives the Uncertainty Principle {Delta P x Delta S >= ħ}.

Second, it fails to provide a prediction (or postdiction) on the dark energy/dark mass. On the other hand, the G-string can calculate the Planck CMB data, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/ .

Third, it fails to address the hierarchy problem. On the other hand, G-string gives it a very simple answer, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/why-making-something-easy-so-difficult-aae8e3715b6d#.annkp7aeg .}

Four, M-string fails to link the known physics of THIS universe to the origin of life of THIS universe. On the other hand, the G-string shows that both proton and neutron are the seeds of Turing computer, see http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm .

Five, M-string fails to calculate the mass of the Vacuum Boson (VB, wrongly named as Higgs boson). On the other hand, the G-string calculates the VB mass as 125.46 +/- Gev and predicts that the first excited state of vev (ground state of vacuum energy) should be at 738 +/- 30 Gev, see https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong .

Six, M-string are deeply linked to SUSY while SUSY is now very much ruled out experimentally. On the other hand, SUSY is stupidest idea of mankind, and the physics argument on this is provided in detail at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-hope-of-susy-parousia.html and https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/natures-master-key-cuts-out-susy-the-undead/ .

Seven, the most important one is that M-string is totally unable to address the issue {Why is there something rather than nothing?} even conceptually. On the other hand, the G-string gives the detailed description and mechanisms on this, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/here-is-the-correct-answer-5d1a392f700#.5tznj7g5z .

Peter Woit denounces M-string for over a decade because of his FAITH on Popperianism which is even a worse stupidity than the M-string one. The stupider damning the stupid can never be convincing. That is, Woit did great disservice for the task of cutting out the stupidity of M-string.

Wrong is wrong, and there is no salvation to it. The M-string theory is a total bullcrap. There are going to be zillion prominent physicists who will definitely (100% many times over) go down the history with the greatest shame, not only with topmost stupidity but the total dishonesty.

For the Popperianism stupidity, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/damning-the-popperianism-and-the-multiverse-4ea7740fcca6#.lhz1lbrjg

If you are too lazy to click all those links above, you can read the summary of my physics (The final TOE, Theory of Everything) at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/the-final-toe-theory-of-everything/ .

Dr. Carlo Rovelli (Director of the quantum gravity group, Centre de Physique Theorique de Luminy) also pointed out that M-string theory has failed totally on its own criteria, at the Munich conference (in December 2015) on “Why Trust a Theory?” See https://videoonline.edu.lmu.de/en/node/7477 , the following is a page of his talk (slide 16).

Universe lock, (1/Alpha): see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html

Universe bookkeeping, Cosmological Constant: see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/

Note added on June 8, 2016: {On June 06, 2016, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder wrote an article “Why not string theory?” http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/06/dear-dr-b-why-not-string-theory.html : Why not string theory? Because enough is enough.

Some days I side with Polchinski and Gross and don’t think it makes that much of a difference. It really is an interesting topic and it’s promising. On other days I think we’ve wasted 30 years studying bizarre aspects of a theory that doesn’t bring us any closer to understanding quantum gravity, and it’s nothing but an empty bubble of disappointed expectations. Most days I have to admit I just don’t know.}

Note (added on September 9, 2016)

The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).


See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/

M-string claims that the low-energy string vibrational patterns (wavelength and amplitude) on Calabi-Yau space correspond to our familiar elementary particles (fermions and bosons).

Where is the list for this {particle/music note} description?

Is this just a hot air hype?


See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/the-era-of-hope-or-total-bullcrap/