Scan barcode
A review by zeteticzymurgy
The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin
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.