June 27, 2006
WHY SHOULD BIOLOGISTS BE THE ONLY ONES MAKING NO PROGRESS? (via JD Watson):
Has string theory tied up better ideas in physics? (SHARON BEGLEY, 2006-06-23, The Wall Street Journal)
In his book, "Not Even Wrong," published in the U.K. this month and due in the U.S. in September, [mathematician Peter Woit of Columbia University] calls [string] theory "a disaster for physics."A year or two ago, that would have been a fringe opinion, motivated by sour grapes over not sitting at physics' equivalent of the cool kids' table. But now, after two decades in which string theory has been the doyenne of best-seller lists and the dominant paradigm in particle physics, Mr. Woit has company.
"When it comes to extending our knowledge of the laws of nature, we have made no real headway" in 30 years, writes physicist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, in his book, "The Trouble with Physics," also due in September. "It's called hitting the wall."
He blames string theory for this "crisis in particle physics," the branch of physics that tries to explain the most fundamental forces and building blocks of the world. [...]
In fact, "theory" is a misnomer, since unlike general relativity theory or quantum theory, string theory is not a concise set of solvable equations describing the behavior of the physical world. It's more of an idea or a framework.
Partly as a result, string theory "makes no new predictions that are testable by current _ or even currently conceivable _ experiments," writes Prof. Smolin. "The few clean predictions it does make have already been made by other" theories.
Worse, the equations of string theory have myriad solutions, an extreme version of how the algebraic equation X2 4 has two solutions (2 and -2). The solutions arise from the fact that there are so many ways to "compactify" its extra dimensions _ to roll them up so you get the three spatial dimensions of the real world. With more than 10 raised to 500th power (1 followed by 500 zeros) ways to compactify, there are that many possible universes.
"There is no good insight into which is more likely," concedes physicist Michael Peskin of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
If string theory made a prediction that didn't accord with physical reality, stringsters could say it's correct in one of these other universes. As a result, writes Prof. Smolin, "string theory cannot be disproved." By the usual standards, that would rule it out as science.
String theory isn't any more wrong than preons, twistor theory, dynamical triangulations, or other physics fads. But in those cases, physicists saw the writing on the wall and moved on. Not so in string theory.
In fairness to the poor string theorists, you can see why they'd figure physicists ought to be able to get away with the same sort of substitution of ideology for science that the Darwinists have in biology. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 27, 2006 5:54 PM
Physics is in the same basic shape it was in a little over a century ago--it is recognized that the Standard Model is insufficient, but not yet clear what will replace it. The problem is that physics is so much larger & complex than was the case 100 years ago. Back then, all the best young minds could know each other personally, and work things out fairly quickly (easy to say in retrospect, of course). That's just not possible anymore, so sorting things out will be much harder. Plus, science is Big Business now, which makes it much, much more resistant to change.
Posted by: b at June 27, 2006 6:58 PMIt's worse than a 100 years ago - then we had experiments left to do and experimental anomalies to explain. Today, physics is starved for new information, and it could be another century before we have enough experimental information to formulate a new theory.
Posted by: pj at June 27, 2006 7:50 PMSciencism doesn't have that much time left.
Posted by: oj at June 27, 2006 7:55 PMWhat I found especially interesting was the element of dogmatic faith now required of new physicists:
"'What is strange is that string theory has survived past the point where it should have been clear that it wouldn't work,' says Mr. Woit. Not merely survived, but thrived. Virtually every young mathematically inclined particle theorist must sign on to the string agenda to get an academic job. By his count, of 22 recently tenured professors in particle theory at the six top U.S. departments, 20 are string theorists."
It is like some corollary to Max Planck's statement on the acceptance of new scientific theories: 'A scientific fad does not survive by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is unfamiliar with anything else.'
Posted by: jd watson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 27, 2006 8:28 PM
Apparently the Universe doesn't care if Humans understand how it works or not. We can use physics to describe local phenomena but we will never know the whole story... sorry Michio Kaku but you're just the physics equivalent of a Scientologist.
Posted by: lebeaux at June 27, 2006 10:42 PMI have wondered if string theory is popular because it has been featured in several episodes of Star Trek (with the appropriate dancing energy strings in deep space).
Posted by: ratbert at June 28, 2006 8:42 AMratbert;
Heh. That's funny to the cognoscenti because those strings ("cosmis strings") have nothing whatsoever to do with "string theory" except having the same word in the name (like Erica Roberts and Julia Roberts).
But the real reason string theory persists is, because as noted, there isn't a clearly superior replacement (which in some sense makes it like Darwinism).
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at June 28, 2006 4:04 PMSo they're the same thing?
Posted by: oj at June 28, 2006 4:27 PMI cannot imagine persuading you otherwise.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at June 29, 2006 12:34 PMTry and dissuade Eric.
Posted by: oj at June 29, 2006 12:57 PM