## Tuesday, December 06, 2011 ... //

### Michael Duff, string critics, and global warming

Michael Duff has written an essay for Foundations of Physics that identifies some errors in much of the criticisms of string theory by the crackpots:

String and M-theory: answering the critics (arXiv)
Michael Duff is an important researcher at the Imperial College London who has written papers on supergravity and membrane theory before the events of the Second Superstring Revolution made it clear that these theories, when completed to be consistent, are inseparable from string theory. In the mid 1990s, it became clear that Duff studies the same "animal" as string theorists.

In recent years, he was particularly excited about multilinear invariants inside the black hole entropy formulae in compactified M-theory and their analogies with concepts in quantum computing. I took the picture a few years ago when Mike visited Harvard. The building behind the Physics Department's firefighters' staircase that was routinely used at that time (a reconstruction of the Jefferson Laboratory) belongs to the Law School.

In 2007, Duff debated Lee Smolin, one of the most fashionable anti-string crackpots of that time who had just enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame. The trouble with physics, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that there are two Smolins and not just one (I know both Smolins in person, too). Duff explained that Smolin's propositions he wants to write books about are indefensible at the level of scientific arguments so Smolin created two faces – one presented in front of the experts and another one presented just to the media and the stupid people who are buying his crackpot books.

His analogy comparing string theory with Manchester United and the oppressed LQG-like research with a team from a village I forgot was also amusing.

Now, Duff returned to these topics. TRF readers may be interested in a footnote on page 8. Duff refers to a nice summary of the triumphs of unification that your humble correspondent wrote half a year ago or so.

You may check that this long article of mine doesn't contain a single word about the climate or politics. It's really a summary of the triumphs of unification in physics. However, it would apparently still be politically incorrect in the Academia to refer to my text (or me) without further disclaimers. So how is an essay on unification introduced?
7I do not share Lubos Motl’s extreme views on politics, global warming, and sometimes not even string theory. However, he occasionally has some good physics summaries, including a recent one giving a nice history of the triumphs of uniﬁcation [26].
Holy crap! What the hell is "extreme" about my views on politics or even global warming? A majority of the people in the civilized world agree with me about almost any of them. I am the ultimate prototype of centrist opinions that have been tested by centuries of the human experience.

But even if you were confused about the fundamental fact that it is the far left Academia's opinions, and not mine, that are extreme, what the hell is the role of such a sentence about politics and global warming in an essay about criticisms of string theory? Is the Academia so unbelievably hijacked by the far left movement that declarations of the loyalty to the global warming myths and other politically motivated misconceptions has to be included even in papers about string theory, just because someone who isn't a part of this left-wing bandwagon is being cited?

If Michael Duff genuinely believes that there is a looming man-made climate threat, then he is a brainwashed simpleton just like other global warming whackos. It's 2011, Michael, and only complete radical nutcases and a bunch of corrupt pseudoscientists continue to believe that there is anything dangerous going on with the climate. It clearly doesn't help one to avoid these elementary misconceptions if he is an M-theorist. But it still doesn't give him any justification to insult me in this way in a sentence that has totally nothing to do with the topic of his paper.

I am amazed how I could survive in this hostile environment that still (or "already"?) de facto lives in an era of fascism where only one extreme opinion on politics (and even the climate) is "allowed" and every other opinion must be labeled "extreme" and spitted upon by everyone who wants to stay in this fascist environment.

You should be deeply ashamed, Michael.

What I find particularly shocking is that the morally dirty extreme people don't get any of these off-topic and personal insulting "introductions" even though they suck. For example, one of them who is a colleague of Brian Greene is someone of a shockingly low character, as Mark Nuckols who knows him very well recently pointed out.
See the full revelation by Mark Nuckols about the anti-string crackpot
This "string critic" came for the most pro-Nazi publicly known family in Latvia that took the local responsibility for the years of the holocaust. As a document describing the war years in Latvia says,
As the only candidate who was loyal to Germany and might replace O. Dankers, the Nazi functionaries were forced to accept the former Latvian Ambassador in Germany O. Voits – no other person, more or less publicly known, was found.
Be sure that the surname of Oskars Voits resembles the name of a "string critic" and it is no coincidence. Also, it's known that this person was cheating during the exams. When his ex-GF was raped, he refused to accompany her to the police station to identify the black rapist, so the black Gentleman was given a permission to have fun with additional humanities professors. But immoral people similar to this "critic of physics" are just OK from the viewpoint of the Academia's establishment and they don't need to get any offensive disclaimers in preprints, do they?

I urge Mr Duff to remove the insulting introduction and replace it by an apology.