Authors: Nigel B. Cook
String theory is not a quantum theory. It is a classical continuum model with quantization applied to it. It does not derive quantum field theory from particles; it quantizes classical geometry and declares the result to be a quantum field theory. This paper gives a more detailed rebuttal to string theory than Dr Peter Woit's arXiv paper of decades ago, which has failed to kill the endeavour [1]. It is alleged, with evidence, that mainstream string theory "critics" are actually in a tactic symbiotic conspiracy with string theorists in the exactly the same way that the mass media is in a tactic symbiotic relationship with Western government civil servants. Every exposure of scandal simply results in more investment in the scandal to shore it up. If SUSY's sparticles aren't discovered at a given energy, then that means more money must be put into building bigger particle accelerators to get higher energy, because the sparticles must be higher energy than the last experiment, etc. The symbotic relationship for the general news media's conspiracy with Western government's civil servants was first delinerated in Paul H. Weaver's 1994 "News and the Culture of Lying: How Journalism Really Works". We apply it to string theory and also to general "oscillating controversy areas" such as nuclear weapons; showing that symbiotic corruption is generated by Parkinson's Law; the straightforward milking of taxpayers by elites.
Comments: 20 Pages. (Note by viXra Admin: Please cite listed scientific reference and submit article written with AI assistance to ai.viXra.org)
Download: PDF
[v1] 2026-09-26 22:36:51
Unique-IP document downloads: 10 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.