Recently, I came across two books that cast significant
aspersions on the entire notion of string theory: Not Even Wrong: The Failure
of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law by Peter Woit and
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of
String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin.
First of all, have you ever noticed how scientific works have
such long titles? It’s like they’re trying to summarize the book in the title.
What’s wrong with a tight, pithy title like Absurdities
of String Theory or Cutting the
Strings? Why these obsessive run-on sentences trying to squeeze onto book
covers? Have you ever seen a really obese individual dressed in spandex or some
other stretchy material? Scientific titles must be a real headache for cover
artists.
Now, I may have left you with the impression that I have actually read the two books I mentioned. In fact, I wouldn't mind if you had
that impression. It might cause you to think I was very intelligent and widely
read on matters of physics. If you’ll notice, however, I wrote that I “came
across” these books. More specifically, I read about them on Amazon.com. So, while the following might give you the
notion I understand it, I’m simply parroting comments from reviewers.
In his book, Woit makes the case that superstring theory is
not just far-fetched, it doesn’t even really have the substance to be described
as a theory. Since it makes no testable predictions, it cannot be proven, or, more
importantly, proven wrong. Essentially, this makes superstring theory
unchallengeable, so it survives and flourishes without being subject to the
scientific method.
Smolin, for his part, posits that much research in physics—the
search for the laws of nature—has entered the realm of the imaginary with its
dimensionless sub-atomic particles and multiple parallel universes. A lapsed
string theorist himself, Smolin laments that many of the best and brightest new
talent among physicists today are being drawn toward this mystical realm.
A RELEVANT ALLEGORICAL VIDEO
And, just when I’m beginning to think it may be safe to go
back into the waters of general and special relativity, I see this teaser on my home page from
the BBC news service: “Test ‘breaks light speed again.’” The article describes
experiments conducted at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in Geneva ,
Switzerland and an
associated Italian lab, INFN, at Gran Sasso in the mountains of central Italy ,
some 450 miles
away. The Geneva
lab shot bunches of neutrinos through the earth’s crust at a giant super-sensitive
detector at Gran Sasso. The results confirmed an earlier experiment in which
the neutrinos arrived some billionths of a second faster than light would have traveled
the same distance. This seems to turn on its ear the insistence, in relativity theory, that the speed of light, 186,282 miles per hour, is an absolute limit and that nothing can move faster. (NOTE: These results were later retracted due to experiment errors attributed to faults in equipment handling.)
What's more, I was reading a brief history of the neutrino on a website by the University of California, Irvine, and the synopsis reflects a very similar inception to that of string theory. It gave me pause.
I was starting to like that the idea of string theory, and
possibly other conjectures of quantum mechanics, were just so much magical
thinking. My mind began to erase branes, multiple universes and extra
dimensions from its working chalkboard. The world began to make sense again.
I’ll bet it was the French. They’re always trying to upset
the apple cart.
[?]
[?]
George Musser, I am again honored by your comments. However, I must note that you avoid the really weighty issues I've raised, like why scientific books have such long titles or how the included video relates to the string theorist's personal journey.
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, I think the attraction to numinous explanations is inherent in the human mind-set and its default response when other causes can not be discovered, hence the tossing of virgins into volcanos. The scientific method appears a workable safeguard. I had become a bit leery of string theory's inability to apply the method in so many instances, especially when speculation was laid on layer after layer. I wondered just where a scientific line might be drawn. So, I was fascinated to find serious, professional criticisms being offered; apparently a little reining-in is not wholly unjustified.
But then, there's that troublesome speed-of-light business. And, of course, one of the first related topics that pops up is time travel. I mean, gimme a break.
Thanks quantumly for your comments on the books.