« The Good Old Days | Main | Papers to shock the unwary »
The Trouble with Physics
That is the new book by Lee Smolin. It is a fascinating take on theories of physics which have not worked out, including but not only string theory. The author explains why progress in particle physics is tough, opposes the anthropic principle and multiverses, explains string theory better than its popular science proponents, and sees a future in "loop quantum gravity." He stresses how differing views on "frame of reference dependence" underlie differences in fundamental approaches. Highly recommended, and yes it does go beyond other popular science books on similar topics. Excerpt:
As I reflect on the scientific careers of the people I have known these last thirty years, it seems to me more and more that these career decisions hinge on character. Some people will happily jump on the next big thing, give it all they've got, and in this way make important contributions to fast-moving fields. Others just don't have the temperament to do this. Some people need to think through everything very carefully, and this takes time, as they get easily confused. It's not hard to feel superior to such people, until you remember that Einstein was one of them. In my experience, the truly shocking new ideas and innovations tend to come from such people.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 9, 2006 at 04:53 PM in Books, Science | Permalink
Comments
It seems that the critics of string theory have been
out and about a lot recently. While still flying pretty
high, some air seems to be leaking from its balloon...
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Sep 9, 2006 4:54:26 PM
I worry about the damage string theory will end up doing to physics research. People spending money on it won't spend on the next thing.
Posted by: bhauth at Sep 9, 2006 8:40:23 PM
This is a very good book. His underlying views seem to be very theistic though; that's not a bad thing as it shows the humilty to not presume away the unknown too easily, but I wonder how many other readers will recognize it for what it is.
Posted by: Daniel313 at Sep 9, 2006 9:04:29 PM
"I worry about the damage string theory will end up doing to physics research. People spending money on it won't spend on the next thing."
It is not really a problem. There are no jobs doing string theory outside universities, and they are paid to teach. Their graduate students by in large have to work outside the field after they graduate.
Posted by: joan at Sep 9, 2006 9:21:31 PM
Featured in current Forbes (p.48, September, 18, 2006):
..."Science is like climbing a mountain through a fog that prevents us from knowing how to reach the summit. To get there, we need both hill climbers, who can quickly scale the highest peaks, and valley crossers, who possess intuition, an appreciation for serendipity and the ability to find new terrain. The more foundational and risky a problem, the more the balance needs to be shifted toward valley crossers..."
Posted by: mike at Sep 9, 2006 10:45:21 PM
Disclosure from Wikipedia link above:
Lee Smolin, one of the fathers of LQG, has explored the possibility that string theory and LQG are two different approximations to the same ultimate theory.
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Sep 9, 2006 11:48:47 PM
For a criticism of the criticism, check out the long Amazon review by a Harvard string theorist.
Posted by: Jin at Sep 10, 2006 12:11:26 AM
If you asked an "average" American to name some famous living American scientists...could they even come up with one name?
I think these "theoretical" guys are just treading water until the next Einstein comes along...and comes up with something of actual value for humanity.
Posted by: monkyboy at Sep 10, 2006 1:38:00 AM
This guy, apparently a Harvard string theorist, thinks Smolin is a crank.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1ZDPQA6FLY8XM/ref=cm_cr_auth/104-3899503-0537540?ie=UTF8
Posted by: bjkl at Sep 10, 2006 3:46:03 AM
Theoretical physics has made huge progress since Einstein. Indeed the problem with string theory is that the theory
it is supposed to be replacing, quantum field theory, has passed every experiment since the 70s when it was invented.
Posted by: Johan Richter at Sep 10, 2006 5:04:49 AM
I think these "theoretical" guys are just treading water until the next Einstein comes along...and comes up with something of actual value for humanity.
Yes, definitely. I'd prefer reasonably practical stellar flight, such that human transportation is ok but bulk trade is not. Then we can establish colonies with different types of government, economy etc. and finally have controlled experiment settings.
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Sep 10, 2006 6:38:12 AM
Isn't it obvious that the chaps who mount the bandwagon are necessarily not those who got it going? Of course, if you're good enough, you can both get a bandwagon going (Einstein's two relativities) and mount someone else's (Einstein using Planck's quantum idea). But since most physicists seem to reckon Einstein the second-best physicist ever, that does set the bar high.
Posted by: dearieme at Sep 10, 2006 7:07:57 AM
This is all well and good but why aren't these scientists working on any thing useful. Like the personal flying space-cars we were promised in the sixties...
Posted by: Stuart at Sep 10, 2006 8:07:20 AM
Before you place too much credence in the criticisms of Smolin, read Peter Woit's blog, Not Even Wrong. In particular, you might want to take a look at this entry. I have no idea who is right, but the controversy makes for exciting reading.
I have been following Woit's blog for about a year and have mentioned it several times on my own blog. He, too, has a book which is critical of string theory.
Coincidentally, I ordered Smolin's book about 15 minutes before reading this piece here at MR.
Posted by: EclectEcon at Sep 10, 2006 8:16:28 AM
It is true that string theory is supposed to replace
quantum field theory. But that qft holds up does not
disprove string theory. The problem with qft is its
inability to encompass general relativity. This has
been the big question all along. There have been some
vague opportunities for string theory to show something
empirically, nothing definitive, but it has not come
through anywhere for any of those so far.
There are several other alternatives besides quantum
loop, some of which look more appealing to me. For
example, check out the work of Rafael Sorkin.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Sep 10, 2006 3:04:04 PM
THE ASSUMPTION THAT DESTROYED PHYSICS
In "Beyond String Theory" in his book "The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Thory, the Fall of a Science, And What Comes Next" Lee Smolin asks:
". . . I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some wrong assumption we are all making. If this is so, then we need to isolate the wrong assumption and replace it with a new idea. What could this wrong assumption be?"
The answer:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
See also:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
See also the discussion in
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Sep 13, 2006 2:15:33 AM
EINSTEIN: THE GENIUS AMONG GENIUSES WHO KILLED PHYSICS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
The genius among geniuses at the end of his career:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Sep 17, 2006 2:57:54 AM
THE ULTIMATE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS
Concerning the importance of his second postulate Einstein was quite clear:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
It seems there can be no further ambiguity: shatter this postulate and Einstein's world becomes Newton's world again. Not if Newton's world has been converted into Einstein's ZOMBIE world - the vitality of this malformation is independent of Einstein's second postulate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf p.35 ("Relativity without c")
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Sep 23, 2006 3:18:05 AM
SUBTLETY AND BEAUTY IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":
"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong."
Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come from:
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Sep 24, 2006 7:22:28 AM
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT
The main concern of Einstein's hypnotists is to camouflage the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source and therefore Einstein's theory (and modern physics in general) is just a farce. The camouflage involves even simulated fights among hypnotists:
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i23/23a01401.htm
It is easy to see that hypnotists always discuss the idea of variability of the speed of light in a way that has nothing to do with Einstein's original definition of constancy (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source). In fact, in 1911 Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed of light is VARIABLE:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
By applying the equivalence principle one could easily convert Einstein's formula into
c' = c + v
valid in the absence of a gravitational field, where c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Then one could remember Einstein's words:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Sep 26, 2006 3:35:39 AM
THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT
The Royal Society: Science is dying!
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=5215
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/discussion.asp?id=2645
Einstein's criminal cult: Divine Einstein!
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://video.google.it/videoplay?docid=-3937213533481268060
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Sep 27, 2006 10:08:34 AM
EINSTEIN'S SYCOPHANTS AND THE NOBEL PRIZE
You would not win the Nobel prize in physics unless you worship Divine Albert in the right way. Here is a list of candidates:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_einstein06/my_einstein06_index.html
Note that the present winner George Smoot had to change his dithyramb in the right way recently (otherwise someone else from the list would have taken the money):
"Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy—seemed a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. MORE RECENTLY, I CAME TO REALIZE that Einstein based special relativity not on pure thought alone but....."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Oct 4, 2006 4:12:16 AM
EINSTEINIANS WILL UNDERSTAND EINSTEIN'S THEORIES
http://universe.nasa.gov/
"Astonishingly, all of these wild ideas are now known to be true. But now we must work toward the next step in our understanding. Einstein's legacy is incomplete - we do not understand the underlying physics of the very phenomena that came out of his theories."
Einsteinians will try to understand Einstein's theories by interpreting them in terms of Newton's particle model of light (that is, in terms of discontinuous structures confirmed by Einstein himself). Einstein has hinted at the final result:
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Oct 8, 2006 1:25:39 AM
HOW MANY GENERATIONS OF SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN LOST?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html
"Part of the problem, say critics, is that, in the Eighties, talented young physicists were encouraged by professors to take up string theory because of its immense promise. Now they are middle-aged department heads who have committed their lives to the subject and cannot see it is bogus. It is the scientific equivalent of the emperor's new clothes."
I think the campaign started much earlier - it is near completion now:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=5215
"Next generation of scientists could be lost say key science organisations"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Oct 8, 2006 2:17:26 AM
THE BEAUTY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/ :
"The gold standard for beauty in physics is Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. What makes it beautiful?"
The fact that it is an artefact based on the concept of light as a continuous field. If Einstein had used the concept of light as discontinuous particles (photons), the theory would be uglier. However the beauty is fatal: at the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts the death of physics:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
The choice Einstein had to make between the concept of light as a continuous field and the concept of light as discontinuous particles (photons) is rarely mentioned in the literature but still there are eloquent quotations:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ :
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
It is the fatality of Einstein's wrong choice that prevents relativity hypnotists from declaring the end of Einstein's era - they would all lose everything. So hypnotists will continue to worship Einstein's beauty and camouflage Einstein's idiocies forever.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Posted by: Pentcho Valev at Oct 10, 2006 7:50:05 AM
