## Tuesday, January 16, 2007 ... //

### Times & Slashdot books

A reader has pointed out an article in

that mentions, among other things, "gladiatorial spats" involving your humble correspondent and a notorious critic of string theory. While the critic's specialization is incorrectly described in the article and an untrue sentence of him is quoted, the article also contains a concise and accurate one-word description of that particular individual by your humble correspondent that the intelligent readers of The Times will surely find helpful. ;-)

A discussion at

is unusually enlightened, especially because of Ambitwistor whoever she or he is. I have no personal interest to promote her or his text because it contains some popular attacks against me caused by his imperfect understanding of the situation: but it also shows that she or he has understood some essential points.

Of course, the more the people interested in science understand about the actual internal architecture of physics, the better environment for science itself we obtain and the more obvious it will be that the critics, liars, parasites, and charlatans build on hot air, to say the least. Ambitwistor cites two main sources:

1. Jacques Distler's "motivation" why string theory is needed to get quantum gravity
2. Your humble correspondent's explanation of the unity of strings, their inevitability, uncuttability, and unseparability from well-established physics such as gauge theories - a favorite argument of David Gross