Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.   A string is the shortest possible entity, but it can be shortened a bit to win the debate

    One lost soul claims that he can find a location within the Planck length:

    “ Any point on such a world-sheet can be described by two numbers, one specifying
      the time and the other the position of the point on the string” (p. 159) [1]

    This statement is irrational for at least two reasons. Firstly, as I already said, the Planck length is the shortest line imaginable
    or of any use in Mathematical Physics:

    “ The characteristic length scale of strings may be estimated by the Planck length of
      quantum gravity” [2]

    “ 1 Planck unit often represents the largest or smallest value that makes sense given
      the current understanding of physical theory… At lengths and times of less than
      approximately one Planck unit, quantum theory as presently understood no longer
      applies.” [3]

    Therefore, it is irrational to attempt to locate points along what is conceptually impossible to divide (Fig. 1).

    A second problem with attempting to locate points along a string is that the theorist just finished telling us that there is no up,
    down, or sides to a string. How did the ‘dimension’ of time suddenly cut across our Planck length? Is the string now two-
    dimensional? Do we need two numbers to specify a point on the string now?

    It is the incessant amending of the initial assumptions that converts String Theory to poppycock. But it only gets worse…


    2.0   A string can be stretched as necessary to accommodate any theory

    A string theorist next tells us that a string is malleable:

    “ Strings are stretchable” [4]

    “ I began to realize that what was being described here was a string, an elastic string,
      like a rubber band, or like a rubber band cut in half. And this rubber band could not
      only stretch and contract, but wiggle” [5]

    Some mathematicians loop them into hula-hoops:

    “ The number of times the string winds around the circle is called the winding
      number.” [6]

    Others scan the hula-hoop and believe they have built a tunnel:

    A closed string looks like a small loop, so its worldsheet will look like a pipe [7]

    But then, if the string can stretch, what was the purpose of the original ‘Planck length’ assumption? Where did the extra ‘points’
    that add length to the string come from? (I would hope that it didn’t come from the concept ‘energy’.)

    So at this juncture, the rational thinker wonders what was the purpose of the Planck length if we are going to stretch it, shrink it,
    and chop it into pieces.

    More significantly, if the string is the shortest entity conceivable, how can it vibrate? Vibration implies that it is made of parts
    that are free to move at will with respect to other parts within the Planck length (Fig. 1). The mathematicians routinely ignore
    their initial assumptions. A mathematical physicist is an individual who refuses to work within a scientific regime.
The Planck Length
stretches and shrinks
to accommodate
String Theory

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/11/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

Fig. 1   String Logic # 1: Walk the Planck

The shortest length is made of even shorter lengths! The 1-D line is made of 0-D points!
Yeah, Bill! The Planck Length
stretches! Just like a slinky or the
neck of a giraffe! What's so hard
to understand about that?

1.        The string mathematicians point to Exhibit A: a photograph of a straight, 1
Planck-length long, continuous 1D string, the shortest object possible according to
their impeccable calculations. This is already a non-starter because as you can see

the thickness of the string (i.e., its height) is smaller than the alleged smallest length
possible. This defeats their proposal. But let’s continue.

2.        The prosecutors next point to Exhibit B and tell the jury that the Planck length

is made of tiny points. (So much for the Planck length!) Magnification of this shortest
of objects also reveals that both the points and the lines are two-dimensional (2D).
Each line and each point has both width and height! That’s why you can see it! (So
much for the 1D!)

3.        Finally, the mathematicians break, stretch, coil this shortest, thinnest of objects
(Exhibit C), blatantly encroach on another mathematical dimension, and explain that
they unite it with other strings to form bigger loops (Exhibit D). The fact that we can
break the string anywhere supports their earlier assertions that the shortest of lines

is made of points. So at this juncture you wonder:

    “What was the reason for postulating that a string is a 1-D, one
     Planck length long entity if the mathematicians are going to stretch,
     shrink, and bend it at will during the dissertation?”

    [So Bill, why is it that you say that the mathematical physicists
     of the world are a bunch of stupid morons?]

         a.  This page: The Planck Length stretches and shrinks as necessary to
      accommodate String Theory