A Racist On The Jews: Let The Donald Trump!

The Jews. First they were perhaps just a little bit cleverer, perhaps by accident, but any process...

No Go Area! What? What is that?

This is a warning especially to East Asians, most of which have never seen anything like this...

Nano Bubbles Unexplained Mysteries And One Big Mystery

The physics of nanometer sized bubbles is mysterious and controversial. Gas bubbles in liquids...

Free Speech in Bestest Year Ever: The Desperate 2016 Shutdown Breaks Dam

Usually the arXiv does time wasting nasty things like delay and then re-categorize articles with...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Thor Russellpicture for Robert H Olleypicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Michael Martinezpicture for Helen Barratt
Sascha VongehrRSS Feed of this column.

Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙], physicist and philosopher, studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory) at Sussex University... Read More »

An open letter to the office of the president of Boston University
 Dear Sirs!
Not only that the Theory of Everything cannot be reached by empirical science. Experiment cannot even decide which medium level theory is correct and who was supposedly wrong.

John Baez writes in "The Crackpot Index - A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics":

Cryptography aims to secure communication. Eve should not be able to eavesdrop on the communication between Alice and Bob. Quantum cryptography is 100% secure in as far as the physics is concerned. However, it is unsatisfying if this security is merely promised by a still new and even partially controversial theory. Who wants to trust their most important secrets to something that may be wrong?

  Modern physics is not accidentally relativistic and quantum, or in other words, Einstein-relative as well as Everett-relative (Bell-violating Everett-relativity is the very core of quantum mechanics!). Modern physics becomes ever more relativistic still today, and description relativity has revolutionized fundamental physics (see string theory dualities, Maldacena conjecture, black hole complementarity/holography, and so on). Why? Because we must take the observer’s perspective, and this means the describer’s perspective, ever more into account.

A common misconception is that all good scientific theory must be based on empirical science and provide ingredients where the theory can be potentially falsified (Karl Popper).

This dogma demands that a hypothesized theory should include something falsifiable, something that could be *possibly observed* and would then refute the theory (here in the words of Lee Smolin).