Whoa nelly! I didn't say anything about brain imaging being used in that paper, or any of his past papers.

So, then, to what brain image are you referring?

cows, I'm fucking with you (see the comments section), like Oberon implied. I was trying to say that Bem *will* put out brain imaging data in the future -- it's the only option he has left. I don't need to be psychic to know this. My ambiguity was a set up, because I knew someone would try to refute me using a strawman. I just didn't think it would be someone smart like you. My dear sweet LOwL knew what I was up to, and I didn't even have to spell it out for him. Hopefully reading the rest of this post will make you less annoyed by what I did. I mean, I gave up on bashing Human Resource and 1337 for playing games, so hopefully you can forgive me too.

If you want to get fancy d000hg, you really should look into F-theory, which is an extension of M-theory that bumps up the maximum number of supercharges from 32 to 64 (if the extra, 12th, dimension is also spacelike, that is). That said, I am still a firm believer in 10D supersymmetric string theory. It might be numerology at this point, but I am convinced to a large extent that the 6 extra compactified dimensions relate to charge -- 1 for electric charge, 2 for weak-related charge, 3 for strong-related charge. See the original Kaluza-Klein theory for a basic intro into how positive and negative electric charge was found to arise from energy moving either left or right along 1 compactified dimension. Most string theorist would think I'm a crackpot for simply saying "1 + 2 + 3 == 6, tada!", so please don't quote me without doing your own investigations first.

forsandifs, the information I pointed to regarding the AdS/QCD duality does not just refer to black holes -- that's as utterly ridiculous as saying that the AdS/CFT and AdS/CMT dualities just refer to black holes. To say so is to effectively ignore an entire half of each of these dualities. I know this is precisely what you mean, because you say "string theory is cool" in one breath, and then in the next breath you write 10 paragraphs refuting what you just said. If the result had been null, it would have falsified string theory, so all your extra paragraphs are just unimportant bullshit propaganda.

This is eerily reminiscent (but opposite) of when Fermi's gamma ray observations picked up the null result that falsified Smolin's Doubly Special Relativity (DSR). Smolin scrambled to change his story about how this didn't falsify Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). Hossenfelder wrote a post defending Smolin directly afterward, I subsequently schooled her via comments on The Reference Frame about what a Markov process actually entails, and then she finally changed her tune and agreed that Smolin's theories were doomed. I have no doubt that this change of heart / transport back to the realm of mental stability was the ultimate reason why her contract at Perimeter was not renewed. I mean, Markopoulou certainly hasn't been fired, and she's not nearly as productive as Hossenfelder. Now, you may feel like saying that Hossenfelder's firing wasn't political, but I know better -- I wrote to Smolin on December 3, 2007, asking for any and all advice that he could spare. His response was that he was too busy taking care of his graduate students to read the work of others. Given that he raised the money for the Perimeter institute on the slogan "no one gives me a chance", it's clear that Smolin is an utter piece of shit hypocritical fuckface. Hey, but if this still sounds like a cool place for you to work, you should apply for the computer science guru positions that they advertise. I promise that you'll get no competition from me. ROFL

Please join Hossenfelder by getting with the program, and stop spouting Woit and Smolin's lies from the previous decade. I really do wish you would shut the fuck up, because I really do wish to avoid gamedev.net. Unfortunately I can't let you spout bullshit time and time again. Physics is confusing enough without liars in the mix -- your shit is far far worse than some nutjob claiming to be psychic! If you want to prove me wrong about supersymmetric string theory, then you should really prove to me how I was wrong when I utterly fucked up your precious Quantum Graphity/LQG program (thousands of pages of writing, lectures, books, a huge shrine in Waterloo) using only two papers that were short enough to read on the shitter. I guess what I mean to say is "put up or shut up". I put up, so now it's your turn. It makes me totally ROFLMAOBBQ to think that if Smolin hadn't been such a fuckin loser about the null gamma ray result / not helping out an amateur physicist with 5 minutes of his time, I probably wouldn't have written these two papers, and we wouldn't be having this "conversation". Anyway, I await your proof with unwavering patience.

Anyone else wishing to have an opinion on this "LQG/string war" should have at least read A First Course in String Theory by Barton Zwiebach.

Yawn.

Don't believe me though. The following quotes show that the limitations of string theory are not being hidden from the public. No one is lying here, except for Woit and Smolin:

From A First Course in String Theory by Barton Zwiebach (if Cambridge University Press wishes to sue me for these quotes, they can contact me at shalayka@gmail.com)

Section 1.2 String theory as a unified theory of physics

"For a theory as ambitious as string theory, a certain degree of uniqueness is clearly desirable. It would be somewhat disappointing to have several consistent candidates for a theory of all interactions. The first sign that string theory is rather unique is that it does not have adjustable dimensionless parameters. As we mentioned before, the Standard Model of particle physics has about twenty parameters that must be adjusted to some precise values."

"String theory has one dimensionful parameter, the string length l_s."

Section 1.3 String theory and its verification

"If string theory is correct, extra spatial dimensions must exist, even if we have not seen them yet. Can we test the existence of these extra dimensions?"

"It was assumed that in string theory the length scale l_s coincides with the Planck length, in which case extra dimensions would of the Planck length, as well. It turns out, however, that string theory allows extra dimensions that are as large as a tenth of a millimeter!"

"D-branes are real, physical objects in string theory. In this setup, the presence of large extra dimensions can only be tested by gravitational experiments. If large extra dimensions are detected, this would be strong evidence for string theory."

"In Chapter 15 we will study some models which use D-branes and have an uncanny resemblance to the world as we know it. In these models the particle content is in fact precisely that of the Standard Model (the particles are obtained with zero mass, however, and it is not clear whether the process that gives them mass can work out correctly)."

"String theory is in fact an unfinished theory."

Section 15.8 String theory and particle physics

"The early attempts to do string phenomenology were based on the heterotic E_8 x E_8 superstring theory. In this theory, six of the nine spatial dimensions are curled up into a small six-dimensional space with rather special properties: a Calabi-Yau space."

"The technical complications that must be faced with Calabi-Yau spaces prompted physicists to search for alternative six-dimensional spaces to compactify the heterotic string. If one simply uses a six-torus T^6, more than minimal supersymmetry survives and it becomes impossible to construct realistic models. Orbifolds provide a nice middle ground between Calabi-Yau spaces and tori."

"Finally, there are models based on M-theory."
[/quote]

As you can see, there is one string theory, and the compactification method is not yet known. When you say that there are an "infinite number of string theories", you actually mean "there are an infinite number of Calabi-Yau space parameter configurations", which is simply not the same thing. Get a clue before spouting more of your lies.

Go lose it where you actually can get punched for it.

Heh LOwL, given that I am a vehement supporter of legalized adult prostitution and adult prostitute rights in Canada, and that you have flipped out on me in the past for assuming that I think adult prostitution is "evil", you should really follow your own advice. Did you feel like punching me in the head then, even though you were being prejudicial and totally wrong?

Next time think before you assume, or go find someone else to punch you in the head. I wouldn't waste my energy on you, so stop acting like a thug with half a brain.

The fact of the matter is that these people that I'm slamming know exactly who I am, where I live, and how to get in touch with me. You on the other hand are just another anonymous coward without a useful opinion. You should think about that before acting so tough next time.

Heh LOwL, given that I am a vehement supporter of legalized adult prostitution and adult prostitute rights in Canada, and that you have flipped out on me in the past for assuming that I think adult prostitution is "evil", you should really follow your own advice. Did you feel like punching me in the head then, even though you were being prejudicial and totally wrong?

Next time think before you assume, or go find someone else to punch you in the head. I wouldn't waste my energy on you, so stop acting like a thug with half a brain.

The fact of the matter is that these people that I'm slamming know exactly who I am, where I live, and how to get in touch with me. You on the other hand are just another anonymous coward without a useful opinion. You should think about that before acting so tough next time.

I'm totally taking that bait. Can you stand up for it? Or you just type?

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304526770' post='4806468']
So is the "moving backwards in time" just a misconception? If I was looking at a bunch of Hydrogen molecules and anti-Hydrogen molecules, I would be seeing the same behavior? Them spinning in opposite directions. One red, one blue? How far down in the quantum level do I have to be to see/observe and significant difference?

I'm not a time expert (not that there was any danger of anyone mistaking me for one), but would it even be possible to observe something that actually went backwards in time? We are moving through time linearly and consistently in a single "direction", for lack of a better word. How could we actually observe something that has negative duration?

Maybe my understanding of time is too fundamental/flawed to approach this, or "duration" too subjective a concept to be applied to this sort of thing. But all of our clocks go forwards. To measure something with an actually inverted relationship to time (compared to us), wouldn't we need to be measuring it before the experiment began? This leads me to accept Human Resource's explanation about it being a mathematical convention. Unless time can be evaluated seperately from our perception of it (duration), I guess... I'm out of my depth.
[/quote]

To make a car analogy:

When you drive on the road you can also see the people driving in the other direction, despite the fact that their velocity is negative that of yours...

(compared to the Earth at least)

Quantum physics is the least confusing part of this thread...

The manic mind is a fascinating phenomena.

If the result had been null, it would have falsified string theory

And what about points 1 and 3 that I made in my last post?

BTW, its not very realistic to expect people to stop posting things you disagree with just because you want to quit this forum.

Taby,

I retract points 1 and 2 and thank you for educating me on them. EDIT: Also I apologise for unwittingly erroneously stating them as fact.

EDIT: However I maintain the following 3 points:

1 - Being a slightly altered version of point 3 in my last post. It suffers from Occam's Razor. The following is an illustrative quote from Newton. "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances". EDIT: Superstring theory postulates extra dimensions, if I'm not mistaken at least 9 of them... Dimensions that we may not be able to detect in the forseeable future.

2 - A lot of its predictions still need to be tested.

3 - As you said, its not finished.

EDIT: Point 1 in the above list is the only one that actually turns me off superstring theory because points 2 and 3 are to be expected from any theory at some point in its career. EDIT: However points 2 and 3 contribute to me not accepting it as "the truth".

EDIT: P.S. I think its unrealistic to expect someone to stop posting things you disagree with just because you want to quit the forum..