Scan barcode
founddrama's review against another edition
5.0
I first came across The Trouble with Physics when Richard mentioned Manny's excellent review in a comment on my review of The Elegant Universe. I left The Elegant Universe feeling invigorated about physics [1] but sour on string theory.
Simply put, for as elegant as string theorists claimed that string theory was, something (everything?) about it seemed... not quite right. There was a "too good to be true" element to it, but beyond that, it did not seem that there was a good layman's explanation for what they were really bringing to the table. Vibrating strings as the fundament of all matter and energy? Sure. But extra dimensions? You've got some explaining to do...
Thus was I delighted to hear of Smolin's book, wherein he discusses not only string theory (i.e., "the trouble with physics"), but the larger systemic problems with the academy and how science is funded, especially in the United States (i.e., "the trouble with physics"). Perhaps Smolin felt comfortable writing this book because he already perceived himself as a bit of an outsider [2]; regardless, we should all be glad that he did.
A couple of items that I delighted in while reading the book:
• A focus on failures and blunders. Science (like the rest of life) is full of things that are tried but ultimately fail. Need we any other reminder than the fact that science is made up of experiments? But beyond this, Smolin takes the bold step of presenting (in what seems like every chapter) some theory or conjecture or equation that was perceived as elegant and widely accepted "at the time", but then ultimately failed in the face of the experimental evidence.
• A cogent and easily comprehensible argument against string theory. Walking away from The Elegant Universe, I felt a deep sense of unease — that we had a theory or set of theories or set of loose proposals for what may some day become a theory, that had gained a lot of traction among some well-groomed and well-liked and well-spoken physicists that were well-received by the lay-public because they seemed so damn sure of themselves. But (and Brian Greene even says this in his book) you shouldn't be so certain of your hypothesis if you can't break it down in such a way that a layperson can at least get the gist of it — and can get the gist of what the deeper implications are [3]. But string theorists aren't really able to do that; and Smolin gives us a good tear-down of why (specifically) string theory breaks down under scrutiny.
• And yet string theory still gets a fair shake. But let's be honest here, there is something sexy about string theory, and it would be nice if that oh-so-elegant theory really were the real deal. And Smolin says over and over again that it might be — at least that some aspects of it might still bear fruit. And that he wouldn't have spent several years of his career looking deeply into it if he hadn't thought that to be the case.
• But ultimately we need to look elsewhere. For all the reasons we've already mentioned. Because it's "too good to be true". Because it doesn't really hold together. Because any theory you can just infinitely modify to meet your goals isn't helping you or anyone else.
• And then there's the discussion of the systemic problems with science, more generally. The tenure system. The grant-funding system. The peer review system. All of these things which are really important and yet at the same time so fundamentally flawed that you cannot help but drop your jaw when looking for answers to even the obvious questions about how to improve the situation [4].
Where does that leave me at the end of all this? A little stunned. I wish I'd read it immediately after reading The Elegant Universe — while all that string theory jargon was still fresh in my mind [5]. But just the same, Smolin's book is a powerful and fascinating look at 20th century physics and at the culture and climate of academic science in the early 21st century. Anyone even remotely interested in science — be it as an insider to the disciplines or as a lay-person — really ought to get down his/her local library and read this book.
----
[1] : Say what you will about string theory, but [a:Brian Greene|509|Brian Greene|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1227070497p2/509.jpg] does a hell of a good job in describing his antecedents in the field.
[2] : At least, that's the gist I get from his at-times-self-deprecating style.
[3] : And this continues to be my biggest beef with string theory, I think. That (1) there is no agreement among string theorists about what it is and (2) not only can they not explain it to a lay-person but they deride anyone not also doing string theory and (3) there are a lot of smart and interested lay-people out there reading these theories and just throwing up their hands and saying "Well if these smart guys believe in it then I guess I do too!" And that's just bullshit and we all deserve better than that.
[4] : And this applies to all sciences, not just physics.
[5] : Not that I've forgotten what Calabi-Yau manifolds are. Inasmuch as I could ever claim to know what they are.
----
Expanded version on my blog: http://blog.founddrama.net/2011/03/the-trouble-with-physics/
Simply put, for as elegant as string theorists claimed that string theory was, something (everything?) about it seemed... not quite right. There was a "too good to be true" element to it, but beyond that, it did not seem that there was a good layman's explanation for what they were really bringing to the table. Vibrating strings as the fundament of all matter and energy? Sure. But extra dimensions? You've got some explaining to do...
Thus was I delighted to hear of Smolin's book, wherein he discusses not only string theory (i.e., "the trouble with physics"), but the larger systemic problems with the academy and how science is funded, especially in the United States (i.e., "the trouble with physics"). Perhaps Smolin felt comfortable writing this book because he already perceived himself as a bit of an outsider [2]; regardless, we should all be glad that he did.
A couple of items that I delighted in while reading the book:
• A focus on failures and blunders. Science (like the rest of life) is full of things that are tried but ultimately fail. Need we any other reminder than the fact that science is made up of experiments? But beyond this, Smolin takes the bold step of presenting (in what seems like every chapter) some theory or conjecture or equation that was perceived as elegant and widely accepted "at the time", but then ultimately failed in the face of the experimental evidence.
• A cogent and easily comprehensible argument against string theory. Walking away from The Elegant Universe, I felt a deep sense of unease — that we had a theory or set of theories or set of loose proposals for what may some day become a theory, that had gained a lot of traction among some well-groomed and well-liked and well-spoken physicists that were well-received by the lay-public because they seemed so damn sure of themselves. But (and Brian Greene even says this in his book) you shouldn't be so certain of your hypothesis if you can't break it down in such a way that a layperson can at least get the gist of it — and can get the gist of what the deeper implications are [3]. But string theorists aren't really able to do that; and Smolin gives us a good tear-down of why (specifically) string theory breaks down under scrutiny.
• And yet string theory still gets a fair shake. But let's be honest here, there is something sexy about string theory, and it would be nice if that oh-so-elegant theory really were the real deal. And Smolin says over and over again that it might be — at least that some aspects of it might still bear fruit. And that he wouldn't have spent several years of his career looking deeply into it if he hadn't thought that to be the case.
• But ultimately we need to look elsewhere. For all the reasons we've already mentioned. Because it's "too good to be true". Because it doesn't really hold together. Because any theory you can just infinitely modify to meet your goals isn't helping you or anyone else.
• And then there's the discussion of the systemic problems with science, more generally. The tenure system. The grant-funding system. The peer review system. All of these things which are really important and yet at the same time so fundamentally flawed that you cannot help but drop your jaw when looking for answers to even the obvious questions about how to improve the situation [4].
Where does that leave me at the end of all this? A little stunned. I wish I'd read it immediately after reading The Elegant Universe — while all that string theory jargon was still fresh in my mind [5]. But just the same, Smolin's book is a powerful and fascinating look at 20th century physics and at the culture and climate of academic science in the early 21st century. Anyone even remotely interested in science — be it as an insider to the disciplines or as a lay-person — really ought to get down his/her local library and read this book.
----
[1] : Say what you will about string theory, but [a:Brian Greene|509|Brian Greene|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1227070497p2/509.jpg] does a hell of a good job in describing his antecedents in the field.
[2] : At least, that's the gist I get from his at-times-self-deprecating style.
[3] : And this continues to be my biggest beef with string theory, I think. That (1) there is no agreement among string theorists about what it is and (2) not only can they not explain it to a lay-person but they deride anyone not also doing string theory and (3) there are a lot of smart and interested lay-people out there reading these theories and just throwing up their hands and saying "Well if these smart guys believe in it then I guess I do too!" And that's just bullshit and we all deserve better than that.
[4] : And this applies to all sciences, not just physics.
[5] : Not that I've forgotten what Calabi-Yau manifolds are. Inasmuch as I could ever claim to know what they are.
----
Expanded version on my blog: http://blog.founddrama.net/2011/03/the-trouble-with-physics/
dave_peticolas's review against another edition
4.0
Smolin surveys the current state of fundamental theoretical physics and finds some problems. String theory has dominated the field for decades but has yet to produce a new experimental prediction. Furthermore, there is no real string theory as such, but rather an enormous number of possible theories which may or may not be unified under the even more speculative M-Theory.
Smolin challenges the scientific community to embrace alternate approaches to fundamental physics and introduces a number of them, some he has worked on and others he has not.
This is a very, very good book.
zeteticzymurgy's review against another edition
3.0
I could talk a lot about the ideas in this book, but I'll try to keep this a review of the book itself as much as possible.
I was predisposed to like this book, since I agree with many of the popular-level criticisms of string theory (not testable, not well-defined and distinct, over-appeals to mathematics and 'aesthetics', etc.). I've heard this book described as a polemic or as an unfair attack on string theory, and that's not quite right. He pulls no punches, certainly, but he makes his case well and seems to give his targets a pretty fair shake.
The book's strongest section is the beginning, where he lays out five questions that the next "big" (for lack of a better term) theory in physics should answer. This was well thought-out, well-described, and his clearest arguments against string theory and for alternate approaches come when he refers back to these questions.
The discussion of string theory itself started off well, as its beginnings and initial successes were discussed in terms of answering 1-2 of these Big questions. However, his succession of critiques of the theory fell flat to me. He would present a string theory conjecture or hypothesis, then dive into its problems rapidly and without much concern for making the writing/story compelling. I think his goal here was fairness to the idea, which is laudable, but it frankly did not make for great reading for a layperson. I caught myself skimming by the end of a critique of a given idea multiple times. Things improved by the end of his string theory criticisms, as he "pulled back" to focus on larger issues with the theory rather than (to a physics outsider) minutia. I hope string theorists appreciate the detailed back-and-forth he provided of individual conjectures, but I don't know that popular science consumers will.
His discussion of the "sociological" problems with string theory also left me wanting. The description didn't seem new to me, and he admitted as much when he related a story about how he had an article about this rejected by a journal because it's a known issue. Of course, science is a human endeavor and plagued by human problems. Entrenched views get revered and contrasting views may get squelched; a pessimist or postmodernist would make the comparison to religion and heresy, and indeed the author does. But, again, not a new problem: Planck, who Smolin would no doubt revere as a hero, quipped "science advances one funeral at a time."
Worse than this, though, I think Smolin grossly underestimates the difficulty in solving this problem. He claims it would be trivial to identify "seers" (his term) with unique ideas and out-of-the-box thinking about the Big Questions, and funding these people will increase the likelihood of springing the next revolution in physics. I think this is little short of a joke. The notion that these people can be identified and nurtured so easily is borderline asinine. He tells a romantic story about a mathematician who retreated to a farm to mull over space and time, and emerged a decade later with amazing ideas "untainted" by the "dogma" of academia. Great ... not to put too fine a point on it, but there's another story about a mathematician who did something similar an emerged as the Unabomber. Separating the wheat from the chaff, assuming the wheat even exists and/or is even achievable, would not be remotely as easy as Smolin supposes.
Now, all that said, I have to point out that I think Smolin's position is ultimately correct. I think this book is important and worth reading, despite its flaws. (Hence the three stars yet negative review.) If his descriptions of the physics community and string theory are accurate--and they seem to be--then something is indeed amiss. The problem is that Smolin's proposed fixes aren't really tenable: you can't force or even foster the "next Einstein." That's sort-of true by definition ... revolutionary ideas are celebrated because they're revolutionary, whereas an additional decimal place of precision is just that.
Now, I don't mean to say we (meaning humanity, or at least physicists) should give up and keep playing with untestable hypotheses in eleven-dimensional space. Rather, this book is precisely the sort of thing that needs to happen. It critically looks at the limitations of current physics theories, and attempts to give physicists a kick in the butt to think deeply and with some innovation. If one string theorist is embarrassed by this book and takes an objective look at his field, proving something right or wrong along the way, great! If one grad student reads this and is inspired to buck the string theory trend and stubbornly pursue non-string-theory physics, great! If Smolin's right, *that's* what progress will have to look like. I think the big limitation of his book is that he seems to think progress will look like, ironically, declaring orthodoxy 'heretical' and funding mavericks he would like to lionized.
I was predisposed to like this book, since I agree with many of the popular-level criticisms of string theory (not testable, not well-defined and distinct, over-appeals to mathematics and 'aesthetics', etc.). I've heard this book described as a polemic or as an unfair attack on string theory, and that's not quite right. He pulls no punches, certainly, but he makes his case well and seems to give his targets a pretty fair shake.
The book's strongest section is the beginning, where he lays out five questions that the next "big" (for lack of a better term) theory in physics should answer. This was well thought-out, well-described, and his clearest arguments against string theory and for alternate approaches come when he refers back to these questions.
The discussion of string theory itself started off well, as its beginnings and initial successes were discussed in terms of answering 1-2 of these Big questions. However, his succession of critiques of the theory fell flat to me. He would present a string theory conjecture or hypothesis, then dive into its problems rapidly and without much concern for making the writing/story compelling. I think his goal here was fairness to the idea, which is laudable, but it frankly did not make for great reading for a layperson. I caught myself skimming by the end of a critique of a given idea multiple times. Things improved by the end of his string theory criticisms, as he "pulled back" to focus on larger issues with the theory rather than (to a physics outsider) minutia. I hope string theorists appreciate the detailed back-and-forth he provided of individual conjectures, but I don't know that popular science consumers will.
His discussion of the "sociological" problems with string theory also left me wanting. The description didn't seem new to me, and he admitted as much when he related a story about how he had an article about this rejected by a journal because it's a known issue. Of course, science is a human endeavor and plagued by human problems. Entrenched views get revered and contrasting views may get squelched; a pessimist or postmodernist would make the comparison to religion and heresy, and indeed the author does. But, again, not a new problem: Planck, who Smolin would no doubt revere as a hero, quipped "science advances one funeral at a time."
Worse than this, though, I think Smolin grossly underestimates the difficulty in solving this problem. He claims it would be trivial to identify "seers" (his term) with unique ideas and out-of-the-box thinking about the Big Questions, and funding these people will increase the likelihood of springing the next revolution in physics. I think this is little short of a joke. The notion that these people can be identified and nurtured so easily is borderline asinine. He tells a romantic story about a mathematician who retreated to a farm to mull over space and time, and emerged a decade later with amazing ideas "untainted" by the "dogma" of academia. Great ... not to put too fine a point on it, but there's another story about a mathematician who did something similar an emerged as the Unabomber. Separating the wheat from the chaff, assuming the wheat even exists and/or is even achievable, would not be remotely as easy as Smolin supposes.
Now, all that said, I have to point out that I think Smolin's position is ultimately correct. I think this book is important and worth reading, despite its flaws. (Hence the three stars yet negative review.) If his descriptions of the physics community and string theory are accurate--and they seem to be--then something is indeed amiss. The problem is that Smolin's proposed fixes aren't really tenable: you can't force or even foster the "next Einstein." That's sort-of true by definition ... revolutionary ideas are celebrated because they're revolutionary, whereas an additional decimal place of precision is just that.
Now, I don't mean to say we (meaning humanity, or at least physicists) should give up and keep playing with untestable hypotheses in eleven-dimensional space. Rather, this book is precisely the sort of thing that needs to happen. It critically looks at the limitations of current physics theories, and attempts to give physicists a kick in the butt to think deeply and with some innovation. If one string theorist is embarrassed by this book and takes an objective look at his field, proving something right or wrong along the way, great! If one grad student reads this and is inspired to buck the string theory trend and stubbornly pursue non-string-theory physics, great! If Smolin's right, *that's* what progress will have to look like. I think the big limitation of his book is that he seems to think progress will look like, ironically, declaring orthodoxy 'heretical' and funding mavericks he would like to lionized.
theaceofpages's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.25
This is not the easiest book to describe. I really enjoyed the author's criticisms of how modern physics is done, especially string theory and how it's become basically undisprovable because of how broad and multifaced they have made it rather than because of the theory behind it. While this book is probably understandable to those who don't have much of a physics education, it can be quite dense and dry at times which I don't think I was as in the mood for as I could have been
ericvormelker's review against another edition
4.0
I absolutely loved this book, especially once I finished slogging through the string theory part. There were times where I found myself going 'wow'... and frustrated at my inability to repeat back what I was reading to my wife. Back 20 years ago, when I had just finished my Physics degree, I'd've probably understood it better and been better able to explain what I was reading.
Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Now, I just need to find someone to talk about it with!
Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Now, I just need to find someone to talk about it with!
pauldruce's review against another edition
3.0
Started off really strong, then goes into lots of waffle about the state of science and becomes a bit monologue esque. Genuinely interesting point within, I just think a shorter and punchier book would have been better,
randomcarpediem's review against another edition
3.0
"The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin who is a theoretical physicist argues that physics has lost its way. Lee Smolin suggests that there are too many theories and no solid proof that these ideas of extra dimensions, multiple universes and strings actually can or do exist.
Speculations dominate the field of physics and Lee Smolin is concerned that it is suffocating the progress of science. What is needed is to move beyond the string theory and look for something new; question the theories and search out new big ideas.
While reading this book I had to have my iPhone with me and I was constantly looking terminology and theories up on the internet. My knowledge of physics did not allow me to read the book without a lot of help from Wikipedia. I was rewarded for my effort for I did learn more about the science of physics than I thought I would.
I got the general feeling from the book that Lee Smolin is bitter towards the string theory community and feels they dominate the world of physics and that this world needs to move onto new ideas. I found his attitude a bit supercilious and found it slightly agitating.
If you are interested in physics and want to learn more about the community of physicist then grab your iPhone and read away.
Speculations dominate the field of physics and Lee Smolin is concerned that it is suffocating the progress of science. What is needed is to move beyond the string theory and look for something new; question the theories and search out new big ideas.
While reading this book I had to have my iPhone with me and I was constantly looking terminology and theories up on the internet. My knowledge of physics did not allow me to read the book without a lot of help from Wikipedia. I was rewarded for my effort for I did learn more about the science of physics than I thought I would.
I got the general feeling from the book that Lee Smolin is bitter towards the string theory community and feels they dominate the world of physics and that this world needs to move onto new ideas. I found his attitude a bit supercilious and found it slightly agitating.
If you are interested in physics and want to learn more about the community of physicist then grab your iPhone and read away.
books_and_tea_brie's review against another edition
3.0
I quite enjoyed this book, although I have to admit that I did skip through a few parts. I thought the first and last sections of this book were the best. I felt it got a little bogged down during the "A Brief History of String Theory" section of the book, which is where I tended to skip through parts. I enjoyed the history of "The Unfinished Revolution", and his description of the physics academic community in "Learning from Experience." He also does a good job showing alternatives to string theory with the section "Beyond String Theory." It is a good read, and quite enlightening on a part of society I was unfamiliar with.
bryanltimms's review against another edition
4.0
This book reminds me of why left the ph D program to begin with