Physicists - the new theologians

[ArnautDaniel]

It appears a large segment of the physics community has given up on physics and gone on to post-modern physics where they don't need to make predictions or compare results to experiments (i.e. String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity).

They are just the new theologians counting angels on the heads of pins.

Is this a sign of something deeply wrong with our society that even one of the most rigorous and down-to-earth of sciences starts getting stymied in metaphysical/theological nonsense?

Some quotes:

It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does not manifest itself. –Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. –Feynman, Noble Laureate

String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick. –Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

“It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one person spends 30 years, it’s a waste, but when thousands waste 20 years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that curious.” Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate

I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, “Well, it might be true.” For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there’s a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that’s all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn’t look right. –Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really works. They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical outcome of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their formalism includes a description of such things as protons and electrons. And they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental prediction. Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a logical consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature. Why, you may ask, do the string theorists insist space is none-dimensional? Simply because string theory doesn’t make sense in any other kind of space. --Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics

 

[Naraoia]

This reminds me of something a friend of mine (final year theoretical physics undergrad at the time) said after a few drinks.

Never believe anything a physicist tells you. Anything. They just make it up as they go along.

I giggled a lot, but it's not so funny when it's true.

 

[paug]

That's just THEORETICAL physics, not general physics. And as far as I understand, string theorists are laughed upon even in the theoretical physics community, so i wouldn't say the whole physics community is doing the equivalent of "counting angels on the heads of pins". And theoretical physics "one of the most rigorous and down-to-earth of sciences"? Maybe not. Although, that said, some of the theories I've come across lately have been preetty... bizarre.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Although, that said, some of the theories I've come across lately have been preetty... bizarre.

Well it used to be that theories had to meet the challenge of comparison with experiment.

I'd argue that the more bizarre the theory being discussed, the less it has to deal with pesky things like experiments and physical data.

 

[redwards]

Well it used to be that theories had to meet the challenge of comparison with experiment.

I'd argue that the more bizarre the theory being discussed, the less it has to deal with pesky things like experiments and physical data.

And the less likely it is to meet with any support. That's how the scientific community works.

 

[Chalnoth]

I find it interesting that string theory is so often derided just outside the physics community. Within physics it's typically considered a promising theory that needs a hell of a lot of work. Here are the basic reasons why it's considered promising:

1. String theory is a very mathematically beautiful theory. In the past, seeking mathematical beauty has been a tremendous boon to theorists searching for new theories.
2. String theory is, as yet, the only candidate fundamental theory that we have. Until somebody can come up with an alternative fundamental theory, or until it is shown that string theory is inconsistent with itself or with reality, string theory will still be a valid avenue of research.
3. Contrary to popular belief, string theory does make two very significant predictions: it predicts a fully-quantum law of gravity, and it predicts supersymmetry. The former is truly enticing for theorists because until string theory came along, nobody had a clue how to unify gravity and quantum mechanics. But in string theory, the theory doesn't work if you don't have gravity: it predicts it. And it's a fully quantum theory. And supersymmetry may well be detected at the LHC.

Finally, it is well-known among theoretical physicists that string theory is exceedingly difficult. It's soaked up a lot of man-hours just to get to our current understanding of the theory, and there's a lot left to go. It is entirely too premature to claim that the theory is unable to provide falsifiable experimental predictions (in a sense, the two above predictions are not falsifiable, as we already know about gravity, and supersymmetry may not be detected but still exist).

And even if the theory ultimately turns out to be false, the mathematics developed by people pursuing string theory will certainly remain useful to theoretical physicists and mathematicians alike.

Of course, there are a minority of theoretical physicists that deride the theory. But most consider it to be quite promising.

 

[[serious]]

One of the big things we are dealing with is the old Kepler/Tycho dynamic. We've got loads and loads of data points (as Tycho did) and we've got other people with interesting ideas on how to model them (as Kepler did). Whether string theory turns out to be the "perfect solids" idea or the "elliptical orbits" idea remains to be seen. Either way, running the data through different models isn't really "time wasted".

 

[ArnautDaniel]

One of the big things we are dealing with is the old Kepler/Tycho dynamic. We've got loads and loads of data points (as Tycho did) and we've got other people with interesting ideas on how to model them (as Kepler did). Whether string theory turns out to be the "perfect solids" idea or the "elliptical orbits" idea remains to be seen. Either way, running the data through different models isn't really "time wasted".

You see, you are assuming string theory actually makes testable predictions.

You can't run data through models that don't make predictions to compare the data with.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I find it interesting that string theory is so often derided just outside the physics community. Within physics it's typically considered a promising theory that needs a hell of a lot of work. Here are the basic reasons why it's considered promising:

1. String theory is a very mathematically beautiful theory. In the past, seeking mathematical beauty has been a tremendous boon to theorists searching for new theories.
2. String theory is, as yet, the only candidate fundamental theory that we have. Until somebody can come up with an alternative fundamental theory, or until it is shown that string theory is inconsistent with itself or with reality, string theory will still be a valid avenue of research.
3. Contrary to popular belief, string theory does make two very significant predictions: it predicts a fully-quantum law of gravity, and it predicts supersymmetry. The former is truly enticing for theorists because until string theory came along, nobody had a clue how to unify gravity and quantum mechanics. But in string theory, the theory doesn't work if you don't have gravity: it predicts it. And it's a fully quantum theory. And supersymmetry may well be detected at the LHC.

Okay, point me to a paper where an actual value is calculated that may be compared to an experiment.

Finally, it is well-known among theoretical physicists that string theory is exceedingly difficult. It's soaked up a lot of man-hours just to get to our current understanding of the theory, and there's a lot left to go. It is entirely too premature to claim that the theory is unable to provide falsifiable experimental predictions (in a sense, the two above predictions are not falsifiable, as we already know about gravity, and supersymmetry may not be detected but still exist).

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. –Feynman, Noble Laureate

And even if the theory ultimately turns out to be false, the mathematics developed by people pursuing string theory will certainly remain useful to theoretical physicists and mathematicians alike.

No professional mathematican would ever call string theory in its present form "mathematics". It has no semblance of mathematical rigor.

Even by the weaker standards of rigor in mathematical physics string theory is dreadfully unrigorous.

In fact, according to the LQG critics (I'm thinking of the author of "Not Even Wrong" here) the central theorem that is supposed to show that string theory even works was never proven, even by the unrigorous mathematical standards of string theorists.

Of course, there are a minority of theoretical physicists that deride the theory. But most consider it to be quite promising.

Hmm, a theory with no mathematical rigor and no experimental preditions.

Like I said, it isn't physics, it is metaphysics or theology.

 

[redwards]

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. –Feynman, Noble Laureate

It's Nobel, and I hope everyone knows Richard Feynman well enough that mentioning his prize is unnecessary.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

It's Nobel, and I hope everyone knows Richard Feynman well enough that mentioning his prize is unnecessary.

Nobody likes a pedant.

Yeah, and I hope people are well enough read to be familiar with the major works of Shakespeare...of course I'm typically wrong there.

 

[redwards]

Nobody likes a pedant.

Yeah, and I hope people are well enough read to be familiar with the major works of Shakespeare...of course I'm typically wrong there.

Sorry, I suppose. Feynman is one of my favorite science personalities. And he wasn't particularly fond of his Nobel prize. Call me defensive.

 

[Chalnoth]

Okay, point me to a paper where an actual value is calculated that may be compared to an experiment.



String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. –Feynman, Noble Laureate



No professional mathematican would ever call string theory in its present form "mathematics". It has no semblance of mathematical rigor.

Even by the weaker standards of rigor in mathematical physics string theory is dreadfully unrigorous.

In fact, according to the LQG critics (I'm thinking of the author of "Not Even Wrong" here) the central theorem that is supposed to show that string theory even works was never proven, even by the unrigorous mathematical standards of string theorists.



Hmm, a theory with no mathematical rigor and no experimental preditions.

Like I said, it isn't physics, it is metaphysics or theology.

I suggest you stop paying attention to a minority of what are essentially crackpots.

 

[redwards]

I suggest you stop paying attention to a minority of what are essentially crackpots.

Uhhh...

Are you suggesting that string theorists are crackpots or that the people who disagree with the idea are?

 

[Chalnoth]

Uhhh...

Are you suggesting that string theorists are crackpots or that the people who disagree with the idea are?

I'm not saying that people who disagree with it are, but rather that people who claim that string theory is a waste of time are basically crackpots. So far as we know, there are as yet no unsolvable problems with string theory, and there is no alternative theory that does any better. Therefore work on string theory, for the time being, can hardly be considered a waste of time.

If somebody comes up with a theory that is a real competitor to string theory, and it turns out to have fewer problems and be easier to derive direct experimental predictions from, then the people calling string theory a waste of time may have a point. Until then, they're just behaving like crackpots.

 

[redwards]

I'm not saying that people who disagree with it are, but rather that people who claim that string theory is a waste of time are basically crackpots. So far as we know, there are as yet no unsolvable problems with string theory, and there is no alternative theory that does any better. Therefore work on string theory, for the time being, can hardly be considered a waste of time.

If somebody comes up with a theory that is a real competitor to string theory, and it turns out to have fewer problems and be easier to derive direct experimental predictions from, then the people calling string theory a waste of time may have a point. Until then, they're just behaving like crackpots.

I don't think that pointing out the flaws in a theory is ever a waste of time, and certainly not 'crackpot'. More to the point, some of the most eminent physicists in the world are strong critics of string theory.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't think that pointing out the flaws in a theory is ever a waste of time, and certainly not 'crackpot'. More to the point, some of the most eminent physicists in the world are strong critics of string theory.

Sure, it's not a problem to merely point out flaws. The problem comes in when people conclude that just because there's some unresolved difficulty in a certain area of the theory, the theory should be abandoned. If these people really want to convince people that another area of research is more fruitful, then they should put their noses to the grindstone and get some work out in the area they think is more fruitful. If it actually is, then theorists will flock to it. This sort of inconsequential sniping helps nobody.

 

[redwards]

Sure, it's not a problem to merely point out flaws. The problem comes in when people conclude that just because there's some unresolved difficulty in a certain area of the theory, the theory should be abandoned. If these people really want to convince people that another area of research is more fruitful, then they should put their noses to the grindstone and get some work out in the area they think is more fruitful. If it actually is, then theorists will flock to it. This sort of inconsequential sniping helps nobody.

I'm sure there are a number of physicists doing exactly that. Some of them are probably chomping at the bit to experiment with the LHC. But in the meantime, there's nothing wrong with saying, "Guys, this line of thinking isn't getting us anywhere, let's look for something else."

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm sure there are a number of physicists doing exactly that. Some of them are probably chomping at the bit to experiment with the LHC. But in the meantime, there's nothing wrong with saying, "Guys, this line of thinking isn't getting us anywhere, let's look for something else."

Except it's difficult to convince people of that when it's proving to be such a promising area of research.

 

[redwards]

Except it's difficult to convince people of that when it's proving to be such a promising area of research.

Uhhh. I think that's disputed.