Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist

1.0   What is a string?

The first thing we need to resolve before we can decide whether String Theory (ST) has any scientific merit is whether a string
is a physical object or an abstract concept. An object has shape. A concept does not. It’s a black and white type of issue. Does
a string have shape or not? Are we supposed to visualize what the theorists are talking about, or are they going to ask us to
watch another mathematical movie?

2.0   All string theorists without exception claim that a string is a physical object

String theorists invariably treat their beloved string as a physical object. There is no question about it. The literature is saturated
with examples that suggest that this is what the mathematicians have on their minds.

“ the basic idea of string theory is surprisingly simple. It says that everything in the
universe, from the tiniest particle to the most distant star is made from one kind of
ingredient—unimaginably small vibrating strands of energy called strings.” [1]

“ In conventional quantum field theory the elementary particles are mathematical
points, whereas in perturbative string theory the fundamental objects are one-
dimensional loops (of zero thickness).” [2]

[0 thickness? Hmmm. Sounds like a bum’s paycheck already!]

“ strings which are 1-dimensional objects. They have no thickness but do have a
length, typically 10-33 cm… so these strings are so small that they practically look
like point particles[3]

[Uuummhh? Pardon me. What does a point particle look like?]

“ a one-dimensional object, meaning that if you want to travel along a string, you
can only go forwards or backwards in the direction of the string, there is no
sideways or up and down on a string.” [4]

[How can anyone even conceive of traveling along a string when the string is alleged
to be 1 Planck length long: the shortest distance or length imaginable?]

“ Cosmic Strings are impossibly heavy, one-dimensional, thin tubes of ancient high-
energy vacuum.” [5]

[Thin tubes? I thought the other guy said strings have no thickness.]

If you factor in that the string theorists use these 1-D strings in dynamic situations and to construct gravitons, matter, chain-
mails, and space-time, there can be no doubt that they intend you to believe that they are referring to a physical structure as
opposed to an abstract mathematical concept.

Thus, the string theorist has no choice but to grab a crayon and begin drawing a string for us before he explains his theory.
Or better yet, he should produce a mockup of this object, a medium-sized statue for example, and place it in the middle of the
conference room so we can all see it and touch it and know what it is that they’re talking about. This would allow you to verify
independently whether the string is 1-D as advertised.

Schwarz nimbly sidesteps this requirement. She apologizes and laments that her strings are so tiny that she is unable to bring
them to class:

“ If string theory is to be a theory of quantum gravity, then the average size of a string
should be somewhere near the length scale of quantum gravity, called the Planck
length, which is about 10-33 centimeters, or about a millionth of a billionth of a
billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. Unfortunately, this means that strings are way
too small to see by current or expected particle physics technology (or financing!!)
and so string theorists must devise more clever methods to test the theory than just
looking for little strings in particle experiments.” [6]

[Looking for? How in the world do String Theorists ever hope to see what, by their own

Unfortunately for her, this lame excuse is not going to take her off the hook. In Science, the prosecutor absolutely needs to
point to the exhibits that underlie his theory before he does anything with them. This doesn’t mean that Schwarz has to bring
a genuine string to her presentation. The scientific method allows her to point to a picture or a mockup of one. The jury simply
needs to visualize what is on her mind. This is not an unreasonable request; it should not overburden the prosecution. It
should not be too difficult for her to produce a drawing or picture because the founding fathers of String Theory testify that
there may be a humongous spaghetti floating around in space:

“ it’s conceivable that the big bang could have produced a string so large that it would
be present in today’s universe and could be visible in telescopes.” [7]

“ How would you see it? Well, if it floated by your telescope, or if it floated in the fields
of vision of your satellite that’s observing the heavens, it could create, for instance,
a disturbance to the microwave background radiation.” [8]

In fact, every string theorist out there illustrates a string as a 3-D object that is projected in 2-D on his website or book. Not a
single illustration of a string in all of Mathematical Physics shows a 1-D object as described by the mathematicians (Fig. 1). [9]
So what are the stupid idiots of string mathematics talking about?
 What does a string look like?
 Not a single example of strings that the theorists illustrate is anything other than 2-D or 3-D! The mathematicians use the word dimension inconsistently. On the one hand, they say that a string is mathematically 1-D: it takes a single number to specify a position along a string. On the other they say that they have trouble seeing one, now referring to physical dimensions (length, width, and height). They are now alluding to the fact that a string is devoid of width or height. String theorists use unscientific language to communicate their thoughts. This is the source of most of their problems.
 I don't know about 1-D, Steve!I can see these circus acrobats hanging onto something that looks more like 3-D.

Therefore, Schwarz’s motion is denied. She has no excuse to avoid the requirement of the  scientific method. If the experts
tell us that we can conceptualize a gigantic string floating in space and that we should be able to see it through a telescope,
we are evidently talking about a 2-D or 3-D entity. Schwartz shouldn’t have any trouble drawing this spaghetti for us. Of
course, her description of this string should be consistent with the exhibit she presents. It would be unscientific of her, for
example, to point to a 2-D figure and call it a 1-D string. On the other hand, if a string is supposed to be 1-D, (no width and
no height) this would certainly explain why Schwartz is desperately brainstorming alibis. The reason she has trouble
detecting a string and bringing one to her show-and-tell has nothing to do with size. It has to do, instead, with the fact that
the idiocy that she is proposing is a logical impossibility. No one, including herself, can even imagine such a monster. Yet
Schwarz callously asks for funds to find it. She’s really got to be kidding! Both her theory and the funds die there! The
mathematicians should set aside their theories for a while and spend a little more of their ‘valuable’ time working on their
unfathomable  hypothesis.

3.0   A string fails all the requirements necessary to qualify as an object

But let’s not waste our time waiting for the string theorists to come up with their 1-D worm. There are so many conceptual
errors with this perfectly flat, 1-D object that I hardly know where to begin. Let’s just briefly run through some of the basic
errors that string theorists make when conceptualizing architecture just to show you that they don’t understand the
scientific method and to reinforce that a string is a logical impossibility.

a.       In Physics, in the real world, in Science, there is no such thing as a 1-D object, especially a
1-D object that looks like a tube. All tubes and cylinders that I know of are 3-D. You would
think that string theorists were introduced to basic geometry in elementary school. Then
again, that was a long time ago I guess. We cannot imagine let alone illustrate a 1D object.
Anything that has zero thickness is called empty space! There is no stand-alone object that
anyone can imagine which only has height.

b.      Proponents of the string cannot even imagine a medium that can possibly contain and contour
their hypothetical ‘length’. Can space enclose that which has only length?

c.      The mathematical moron perennially boasts that science is what you prove with an experiment.
Here he has a chance to put his money where his mouth is. If someone alleges that a leprechaun
exists, before the jurors can verify his claim, they need to visualize the object. The first
requirement a prosecutor of a theory has is to produce a picture, a photograph, or a sculpture
of the leprechaun. How else will the skeptic test the theory in the lab?

The prosecutor may ask the Court to describe the leprechaun instead of presenting him, and
allege that it is just a little man with green dress and a pot of gold.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t cut it in Science. In Science, there is a bare minimum test or
experiment for an object, and that is to draw or produce it. The prosecutor should be prepared
to treat a juror as if he were a neophyte (i.e., an ET). The prosecutor must point and name.
Before we can get to descriptions, concepts, or definitions, we must teach the ET the nouns.
If the prosecutor alleges that a leprechaun exists, as a minimum he should be able to illustrate
the main exhibit of his case. The problem with string theory is that the mathematician cannot
point to a 0-thickness string on the blackboard, let alone in space.

e.       String theorists claim that a string is one Planck length long, the smallest length tolerated in
Mathematical Physics. This is really odd because the P-brains next tell you that this ‘plank’ is
made of points. Assuming the mathematicians are referring to locations (which they incon-
gruously call ‘positions’), how are we supposed to find a location within the smallest length
possible. If the Planck length is the tiniest ‘mathematical object’, it IS effectively a synonym
of location. What ruler are you going to use to measure the distance from the endpoint to
midpoint if there is nothing smaller than the entire line? How do you move ‘forward’ along the
smallest conceivable length if the string is the smallest conceivable length? And if the height
is zero (i.e., zero thickness), the string is already thinner than it is long. This defeats the
hypothesis that the string is the 'shortest' length. But when the string vibrates it necessarily
encroaches on a second dimension. Following the specifications of Mathematics, now we
need 2 numbers to specify a point on the string.

f.       For the purposes of Physics, energy is not a physical object but an abstract mathematical
concept. There is no such thing as ‘energy’ in science. You cannot draw a picture of this
alleged physical object. If a string is pure energy, it is definitely NOT a valid scientific
hypothesis. The ‘string = energy’ proposal is self-defeating. Again, the only experiment
possible if the proponent believes that energy is a physical object is to ask him to grab a
crayon and show us what he’s talking about. If the theorist alleges that the string is made
of vacuum, then for sure he has been smoking some nasty stuff. We have a string made of
vacuum which in turn is made of strings. Great! The only thing I know of that is ‘made’ of
vacuum is the cavity in a mathematician’s brain.

g.       In Physics, continuous means ‘made of a single piece’. In Math, it means exactly the
opposite: made of discrete segments, pieces, or components. For example, the number
line of Mathematics, which the mathematicians incongruously call a ‘dimension’, is
conceptually segmented. Make your number as tiny as you want it to be: it is nevertheless
different than its two escorts. Hence, if a string is mathematically continuous (i.e., made of
points or locations) then it is NOT continuous for the purposes of any physical interpretation
that the mathematician wishes to provide at the end of the presentation.

4.0   The string theorist's argument is circular

As a corollary, the mathematician finally tells us that a 0-D point particle is actually a vibrating string which in turn is

“ On much larger length scales, such as the scales visible in physics laboratories, such
objects would look very similar to zero-dimensional point particles. According to string
theory, the various elementary particles in the standard model of quantum field theory
correspond to different vibrational modes of tiny fundamental strings.” [14]

[ I wonder what this 0-D point particle string theorists talk about looks like? How does a
vibrating 1-D string convert to a 0-D point particle? Obviously, if the mathematician is
talking about ‘seeing’ a particle or a string, he is alluding to physical dimensions:
length, width, and height.]

So after all is said and done, the crucial structural aspect of a string is a circular argument. A point is a vibrating string
in turn made of points (Fig. 2).

These arguments should make it apparent to you that it is unnecessary to give more time, money, or support to this
irrational venture. The entire project should be scrapped today and restarted when the string theorist complete their
rehabilitation at the funny farm. The test for the allegation that a string is a physical object is for the theorist to chalk it
on the board. If he can’t, it doesn’t belong in science. It is not that there is suspect mathematics involved in String T
heory. It is that the object at the center of discussion is irrational from the start. We’re done. Strings are now dead. But
let’s continue, what the hell!
 Fig. 2
 String Theory holds that every particle -- photons, electrons, quarks, protons, etc., -- is really a vibrating string. However, String Theory also holds that every string is in turn made of points. This is a circular argument.
 The Pierrestring[10]
 The Schwarz particle interaction [11]
 The Mukhi String [12]
 The Cambridge String [13]

________________________________________________________________________________________