String theory has attained a pivotal role in fundamental physics and has been treated as a well-established and authoritative theory for quite some time by the community of string theorists and by physicists in related fields. As we have described above, large parts of fundamental physics are influenced by string theoretical analysis. He does go on to mention skeptics, but to him a majority of the field is behind string theory, with the skeptics only coming from outside particle theory:.
On one side of the divide stand most of those physicists who work on string physics and in fields like inflationary cosmology or high energy particle physics model building, which are strongly influenced by string physics. That group represents a slight majority of physicists in theoretical high energy physics today. Based on an internal assessment of string theory and the history of its development, they are convinced that string theory constitutes a crucial step towards a better and more genuine understanding of the world we observe.
On the other side stand many theoretical physicists of other fields, most experimental physicists and most philosophers of physics. They consider string theory a vastly overrated speculation.
- Changing the Workplace Safety Culture.
- Healing Relationships: A Preaching Model!
- What Is Spacetime, Really?.
- About the Department;
- Lipidomics And Bioactive Lipids Specialized Analytical Methods And Lipids In Disease.
String theory thus should not be taken to announce an end of science but rather to represent a new phase of scientific progress. In this new phase, progress in fundamental physics is no longer carried by a sequence of limited, internally fully developed theories, but rather by the discovery of new aspects of one overall theoretical scheme whose general characteristics identify it as a candidate for a final theory, yet whose enormous complexity bars any hope of a full understanding in the foreseeable future.
- High Five (Stephanie Plum, No. 5).
- Physics Course List 12222-2020.
- The Edible South: The Power of Food and the Making of an American Region;
What is the reason you should accept this final theory that no one can understand? This is a real and serious problem, which Dawid studies in detail, although from a point of view which just naively accepts all arguments made by string theorists. He considers three main reasons for studying a theory with no empirical support:.
Given the entirely theoretical motives for its creation, the lack of satisfactory alternatives and the emergence of unexpected explanatory inter-connections, the standard model can be called a direct precursor of string theory. This book will be welcomed by those pursuing such a goal. The case of the most prominent string theorist blogger reminds me of one of the funnier things in the Dawid book that I forgot to mention, this footnote:.
Lee Smolin has applied the concept of groupthink to the community of string physicists which, incidentally, seems a quite accurate representation of what many critics of string physics do think about string physicists but is careful not to present it as a core argument. String theorists, when entering a discussion with their critics see e. Polchinski in his reasoning against Smolin , try to keep the debate at an entirely physical level. Last Updated on May 15, I just went to a conference attended by a mix of mathematician and physicists.
- Approaches to Fundamental Physics: An Assessment of Current Theoretical Ideas - Google Libros.
- Simplicial Homotopy Theory (Modern Birkhauser Classics).
- Zombies and Calculus;
Since I started reading this blog recently I was curious to ask a few physicists what they think about string theory. My motivation was pretty simple: I just find it a bit doubtful that one guy arguing against so many of the top physicists in modern times can be right. It is truly bizarre to me that such as state of affairs is possible in physics. And, by the way, none of the people I talked to knew who Peter Woit is.
I think Dawid is right about string theory being treated as a well-established and authoritative theory. These posts are so predictable and shallow.
IN ADDITION TO READING ONLINE, THIS TITLE IS AVAILABLE IN THESE FORMATS:
It is a project that a lot of brilliant people choose to work on out of their own free will, for reasons that are become pretty clear to someone with the right preparation who bothers to investigate it. There is no sane reason to complain about the top people in theoretical physics doing what they obviously see as the most productive use of their talent.
If a superior idea ever emerges that is demonstrably more promising to address the big mysteries of physics, then the attention and status will shift accordingly. In the meantime trying to maximally tear down and obfuscate all the promising properties and insights that motivate the study of string theory does nothing to help advance either the public understanding or science.
In the past it meant those who came forward with predictions that were later verified by experiment. This must be the only field that justifies itself by bragging about how smart its leaders are, and claiming to have the only theory that attempts to have a theory of everything while actually explaining nothing. Is not the investment of resources into such a business an extremely risky gamble? It is my impression that Nature suprised us over and over again during the history of high-energy physics, each time with new structural layers, new forces, unexpected mixings, etc.
Examples: Who could have imagined such a thing as the weak interaction before the observation of beta decay? Who could have devised a theory of nuclear interactions when nuclei were not even discovered?
Donate to arXiv
Who could have described QCD before the interior of nuclei were probed? Now we have 15 more orders of magnitude in energy to explore until we reach the Planck scale, surely there can be quite a few unforeseen phenomena with little to do with our current theories to be revealed out there… Science without experimental guidance and evidence, to me that sounds more like faith. This is kind of off-topic though, the point of the book is to give a justification for string theory research assuming no relevant experimental data.
It would be a lot easier if they would just stop calling it a theory. At least electroweak includes QED. If they can not similarly include the standard model, then in what useful sense can one refer to it as a theory?
I have no problem with speculation. In string theory, the argument is that you can include the Standard Model. The problem is that if so you can probably include just about anything else, getting a theory of everything, just not in a good way. Every time Peter writes a blog post on string theory, we see ridiculous comments claiming that string theory is a religion. There are some very good reasons for studying this theory. For example, string theory gives the right answer when used to calculate black hole entropy, and it has some general features that are expected to hold in any successful quantum theory of gravity.
To all, enough of this kind of thing. But the strongest reasons for studying string theory are scientific and mathematical reasons, not sociological ones. The point is that some of the main reasons that people keep working on and promoting string unification schemes are not scientific, but sociological. I came here for the philosophy of science arguments presented by the book. Does Dawid present any prior examples for the No Alternatives argument? Did any other branch of science struggle for decades with a very complex theory with no empirical support because there was nothing better?
Would he prefer, say, for cancer research, that if some biologists devise a complex model that feels like the right one to those who understand, yet is expected to yield no fruit for decades, the entire field should stick with it? OK, granted, Weinberg had a theory in before any numbers were in, but there was never any doubt about connecting with experiment, for better or worse.
Looking for other ways to read this?
If Dawid can find himself persuaded otherwise then we are reduced to who thinks which theory is mathematically prettier than the rest, and it becomes a matter of opinion. A bunch of physicists bet money that Parity was the truth. Opinion was worth zilch. Your view is a common one, but its not a truly accurate portrait of how these developments have gone.
Nature has surprised us with new manifestations of the basic principles of relativity and quantum mechanics, but none of the surprising developments you mention has altered these basic principles.
Approaches to Fundamental Physics | SpringerLink
It took time to fully appreciate, but electromagnetism and its non-abelian generalizations are the only possible ways to have an interacting spin-1 field consistent with relativity and quantum mechanics. Many people were impressed with this idea of generalizing electromagnetism but were discouraged because the lack of new long-range forces seemed to rule them out. There is a big difference between finding surprising and novel ways to implement well-established principles of physics versus a development that actually requires abandoning them.
So, sure, there is always some small chance that around the next bend everything we know about physics will just go out the window. And thats exactly what string theory is, the one fully-consistent way to talk about quantum gravity while incorporating the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics. Unless there appears solid evidence to the contrary, the idea that preserves those principles will remain the most promising.
Some people do have access to the book itself via the CUP page I linked to. Also, Dawid has been writing about this with similar arguments in quite a few places, he has links to such papers on his website, see here. Is this a fair assessment? I actually think this is an interesting question. When you are starting thinking about a speculative idea, the reasons for examining it more closely often are not that you see some potential way of testing it. You can think of a lot of good reasons why people decide to pursue one speculative idea rather than another.
I am shocked that the no alternative argument still gets a hearing given the major progress on key issues in loop quantum gravity and spin foam models. Does the book acknowledge this progress? However the last five years there has been major progress on both of these and other issues including having a detailed and credible account of the onset of inflation following a quantum bounce.
If it was valid to deny LQG the status of a full alternative approach to quantum gravity because of these issues any honest account must acknowledge the progress made. The no alternative argument fails on sociological as well as scientific grounds. This summers upcoming LQG meeting has already reached more than registrations. Its fair to say that LQG is now after 25 years a healthy and vibrant large established research community.
There is considerable progress as well on other alternative approaches to quantum gravity including causal dynamical triangulations and causal sets. I would be curious to read the book and see if the author has an up to date account of of the alternatives he claims do not exist. Dawid discusses LQG on pages , with a very string theory-centric point of view. The oddest part is this. Other than that, he evaluates things by his three kinds of arguments I explained in the posting. We all agree that it is important to think about what the correct model of quantum gravity is, right? Of course one should try this a la ADD and so on , but other than the hierarchy issues, there is no reason to think that quantum gravity should be so nice to us.
Quite the contrary, the fact that something as baroque as the Standard Model is to come out of this at low scales, makes it for me unlikely that there should be anything fundamental to the observed low-scale physics. Given this, I find it disingenuous to criticize string research for the lack of predictive power at the weak scale. The Bergsonian approach does not follow this template. For one thing, its structures are not particularly beautiful, new, or neglected in the fields they are drawn from.
But the greatest divergence from the template is that neither Bergson himself nor the present axiomatizer ever set out to find more elegant or effective physics theories. Scientists themselves may have little reason to remark on this, but philosophers of science have started drawing attention to its importance. To take one example, L. Of course, many people find this viewpoint sane and non-contradictory; God bless them. Bergson realized that this paradox cannot be escaped by altering, augmenting, or otherwise jazzing up a scientific theory within the standard account. Instead, the whole framework of a timelessly-existing ensemble of all possible worlds must be scrapped, and replaced by a framework in which the world is the continual creation of genuinely new possibilities.
But it was not possible to formalize this idea until set theorists developed rigorous machinery for enlarging the universe of possible structures. Whether such a family can exist, and be structurally similar to the world we actually observe, is now the question.