Here are some of my comments on James Gates Adinkra work and string theory work. This is not meant to discourage people from working on those theories but rather to encourage more work to be done to critically analyze it and peer review it. This is a rough copy article, and informal. I've not edited it carefully yet. I'm throwing it out on the web, because there exists very little information on James Gates work and adinkras, and error correcting math equations regarding string theory.
The issue with adinkras is no one seems to be peer reviewing his work. Many seem to accept it at face value because he has a PhD. What is needed is someone like Lee Smolin, or a similar critic who is skeptical of string theory, to peer review the work and find flaws. I just found that the adinkras were pretty much images you could create using mathematics but do these actually exist or are they just mathematical creations? One can create mathematical equations to create pretty much anything, but do they actually physically exist in physics or is it just math games being played? thatís where the peer review needs to step in which James Gates seems to have none. No peers seem to be interested in reviewing his work, possibly because his work is too bizarre or unbelievable. I could be wrong about the peer review, as I havenít checked recently.It was months ago when I looked for people reviewing his work and I found almost nothing at all. Maybe since months have past, someone has done some peer review of his work - and I donít just mean peer review like a scientific journal accepting the paper, I mean serious peer review such a s a physicist looking deeply into the work and writing artcles in response to it. A lot of things slip into physics without any proper peer review. My skepticism of adinkras is the start of peer review, as Iím already one criticizing it - but Iíve far from dove deep into it and studied it for months or weeks. I was turned off by the fact that you could pretty much create any sort of mathematical equations to generate images (thatís all that adinkras seem to be) - so how can it be falsified if math can pretty much do anything and generate any image anyone wants?
How are adinkras falsifiable is a question to be asked by peers reviewing it. For example in Microsoft Excel, one can generate graphs using equations. So what? this does not mean that any of these graphs exist in physics itself. So, I demand evidence that adinkras actually relate to physics, and not just math that generates images like an excel equation set can generate fancy graphs on a screen. You wouldnít say the universe is like an excel spreadsheet just because images are generated using excel equations.
You can generate graphs or charts with math equations too but just because you can generate these does not mean they exist in reality in physics of the universe.. and I could be wrong but it appears thatís all adinkras are: mathematics equations that produce interesting results? I would have to study further but where does James Gates get the idea that these mathematics equations actually exist physically and not just on paper using maths?
String theory does have the problem of being stuck in maths land rather than hard science, and this is something peers have criticized string theory of before: is it purely a math game being played and not actual science that relates to reality? Is reality based on mathematics and is not actually a hard science like physicists thought?
A small quibble with James Gates I have, and this is purely a nitpick and in no way means to discredit his work, is that he uses the web browser as an analogy (in the video recorded talk with Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Green, and other scientists on stage), rather than say tcp/ip in general: video games have to have error correction too, not just browsers, and IMO a multiplayer video game which streams massive amounts of data over a connection is a far superior analogy than a web browser which just loads a single page of dumb text and a few images at a time. This could be a nitpick and I could be going too far here in my quibble' I just donít find a web browser to be a very impressive analogy for a simulation - our simulation is definitely nothing like a web browser that serves dumb text; it would be much more like a massive multiplayer game streaming massive amounts of data all over the place, if in fact we are simulation.
But again back to adinkras: enough with the error correction criticism. I still think adinkras need to be looked at closely by other scientists which from my research hasnít been done. But the last I looked into this was months ago. Maybe things have changed since then. Just because you have mathematics equations on paper that are able to generate interesting images, does not in any which way or form mean that those equations exist in reality itself. If I am misunderstanding this, and James Gates has some hard evidence or scientific tests to prove they do exist in reality (falsifiable) then I stand corrected! Thatís what the peer reviewers need to look into.
String Theory often takes the approach of not actually providing hard evidence for their theory and it exists only on paper, without hard evidenceÖ.. This should definitely be something worked on: finding scientific evidence, not math evidence!
Whatís interesting with string theory is that even if it is not true in our physics, one could use string theory to create a new physics in a computer simulation and see how string theory works in a new universe even if this universe is not running on string theory. Sort of like how physics engines in video games are not actual earth physics but something similar to them without being exact copies of them. What peer reviewers and people interested in the field need to do, is provide hard evidence that proves James Gates work actually exists in reality and not just on paper. If it is found in the universe itself that would be interesting. Who is working on this?
Regards, Larry Olson