Voodoo Physics

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.

Then those dang Europeans challenge one of the basic tenets of relativity theory.

I’ll bet it was the French. They’re always trying to upset the apple cart.

[?]

Me and my shadow

"You're holding me back"

Okay, here's something to think about:

While you, at your world class best, can propel yourself at about one mile in four minutes, your shadow can move at the speed of light.

Go figure.

"I just can't keep up
with myself."

And if that's true, if you could cast a shadow 186000 miles long, it would take a full second for a change in your position to ripple all the way from your shadow's feet to it's head. (Or should that be "his" head? Does your shadow have a gender? I think that may be more a matter of metaphysics.)

Then it would take another second for the light from that change to travel back to you. In effect, as the "ripple" moved away, it would appear to slow down, because the light source would be further and further away.

"I'm out'a here!"

And then, with just a short burst of speed on your part . . .






I'm just sayin'.

[?]

Incomplete

As I've mentioned, I've been working my way through George Musser’s The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory. Unfortunately, I haven't been having all that much success.

First off, let me say that I do not believe any fault lies with Mr. Musser or his book. He seems competent and his writing style is pleasant. It's just that I have the same trouble with his book as I've had with every other book on these topics: I've got no freakin' idea what he's talking about!

All I know is that, I start out okay with this stuff, but then it's like watching the author row a boat into the fog. He becomes less and less distinct, and then I can't see him at all anymore. I look hard, but I only can hear the squeak of the oars in the oarlocks, just the vaguest hint at what it's all about. It's so frustrating that I'd like to bang my head against something, but the only thing available is the fog.

I'm sure the fault must be mine. Well, I'm not even sure about that, either. I mean, I'm not exactly stupid. And maybe that's the problem.

The book is for the complete idiot. Maybe I'm not a complete idiot. Maybe I'm an incomplete idiot. Maybe there's some studying I must do or courses I have to take in order to reach complete idiot status.

What I am fully certain of is that drifting about in the fog is getting a mite irksome.

So I'm going to look into this business of becoming a complete idiot. I feel motivated.

[?]

Teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy

I want to put a few things in perspective. Strings, for instance.

As I mentioned last time, I’m working my way through George Musser’s The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory. I want to get a handle on what subatomic level we are dealing with when we talk about strings.

Deconstruction of matter:

1. Macroscopic, e.g., diamonds

2. Molecular, diamond allotrope

3. Atomic, carbon

4. Subatomic - Electron

5. Subatomic - Quarks

6. Strings (Image**)

First, let’s take another look at the diagram I used in my last entry, showing the progressively smaller and more basic parts of matter.

Now, try to wrap your mind around this concept: the most common estimate of the size of strings is that a string compares to an atom in roughly the same proportion that a human being compares to the entire observable universe. And we know that atoms are so small that it is only in recent years that we’ve been able to scan to the level of individual atoms with advanced electron microscopes. So I find it hard to imagine how infinitely smaller strings must be.

Beyond that basic fact lies the practical problem of ever even being able to observe a string—assuming they do exist. It would be tantamount to looking from earth to some very, very distant planet in a galaxy far, far away with the intention of being able to read the scoreboard at a Buckyball stadium there (Buckyball being the sporting pastime of the residents of that very, very distant planet). It’s likely to be a long time, if ever, that we have instruments able to directly observe either strings or Buckyball scoreboards on distant planets.

Of course, even when I was in school, no one had ever seen an atom. Technically, just a few short decades ago, atoms were just a theory, sort of like strings are now—or global warming or evolution, for that matter. But, even then, there was evidence that atoms existed. Their effects could be predicted and tested so that, even if we couldn’t see them, we knew the little devils were there.

We’re not quite at that point with string theory, though. There are competing theories which still have legitimate physicist adherents. Among the major contenders is loop quantum gravity theory. Among other things, the loop gravity theory proposes that space itself is actually composed of something, “space atoms” if you will, that act as the means for the transference of gravity—gravity being the main problem between defining the macro-universe (planets, stars, galaxies) and the micro-universe (atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons quarks and strings).

While the effects of gravity were well established by folks like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, their theories don’t hold up on that micro-universe, subatomic level. Hence, as I’ve mentioned, quantum theory was developed.

As Musser notes, for most practical purposes, those discrepancies don’t matter. Both astronomers and particle physicists can each explore their respective fields without regard to the theoretical offsets regarding gravity. But, eventually, when the ultimate questions of black holes or the Big Bang must be answered, then it will matter a great deal.

[?]

What would you do if I sang of a string?

Would you stand up and walk out on me?

At Amazon.com

For the next week or few, I suspect we’ll be talking about string theory. I’ve just started a new book, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory by George Musser (2008, the Penguin Group, New York, NY).

This week, I just want to go over the basics, some of which I’ve discussed before.

Back in the day, when I studied science in school, the theory was that the basic building blocks of matter were atoms, and atoms were composed of protons, electrons and neutrons, held together by various electro-magnetic, inertial and gravitational forces. This is, more or less, the classical theory of physics, fully supported by the general theory of relativity.

But there was a, shall we say, “companion” theory of physics called quantum mechanics; however, when I was in school, it was not popular enough to make it into the general science textbooks. Even so, quantum mechanics was a serious field of study limited only by the problem that many of its theories could not be tested given the technology of the day.

Over time, though, technology began to catch up and quantum theories became more and more accepted.

Deconstruction of matter:
1. Macroscopic, e.g., diamonds
2. Molecular, diamond allotrope
3. Atomic, carbon
4. Subatomic - Electron
5. Subatomic - Quarks
6. Strings       (Image**)

The problem remains, however, that some of the basic tenets of quantum theory and classical theory, while provable, are not, apparently, compatible. This led to a quest for a “unified theory” that would explain those incongruent notions. String theory is the most popular hypothesis to date, though it is neither complete nor unanimously acclaimed. String theory is based on the work of Italian theoretical physicist Gabriele Veneziano and was first described in 1969.

Very, very simply, string theory proposes that the atomic particles we called protons, electrons and neutrons are made up of even smaller stuff and that this stuff is in the form of both looped and open-ended one-dimensional strings. It is the nature and behavior of these strings which, so to speak, ties together quantum theory and classical (general relativity) theory.

Then it gets interesting.

[?]