Lee Smolin wrote a very important book a few years ago called, âthe trouble with physics.â I give Lee a lot of credit: he recognizes there is trouble with physics; thousands of men have been working on string theory since the 1980s, and have yet to make anything resembling scientific progress in the subject. On the other hand, he misses out on an obvious reason why physics is in trouble, and I feel a powerful need to correct my intellectual superior in physics.
This book came out at around the same time as Woitâs ânot even wrong,â which is on a similar topic, though Woit takes a different tack. Both contain decent descriptive histories of what string theory is, and where it went pear-shaped. Both books explain the sociological and âeconomicâ forces in building up a large community of very smart people ⌠which doesnât function properly. Both also miss out on an important thing which is pretty obvious to people outside his field. What all quantum gravity people (Smolin and his crew of merry misfits included with the string theorists) are doing is entirely aesthetically driven. There is no reason gravity should have a quantum theory any more than a ham sandwich should have a quantum theory associated with it. There are no experimental, or even observational reasons to presume gravity has a quantum limit. Itâs all aesthetics. Theyâre nice aesthetics, but science has no real business doing aesthetics. The image Smolin paints of his flamboyant Italian colleague waving a knife around at the idea that the universe might not live up to his aesthetic ideals is supposed to be funny, but the knife fighter is emblematic of a very serious problem. Science is about learning about how the universe works, not seeking aesthetic answers to questions that the universe isnât asking. While many great physicists have been prey to neo-platonic grandiosity as to how the universe works, theyâre not being physicists when they think like that. Theyâre being art critics.
Allow me to explain what I mean with some other examples from Leeâs book. In his first chapter he defines what he claims are the five great outstanding problems in physics today. I must respectfully disagree with all but his second one. The four I disagree with are essentially cosmological questions; the questions string theory (and Smolin and Rovelliâs rival idea of âloop quantum gravityâ) ultimately attempt to answer. Quantum gravity may be a silly question. Iâm not some kind of lone heretic in saying this: Iâm stealing the idea from people much smarter than I. People like the grand old man of physics, Freeman Dyson -or perhaps better yet for credential worshippers, Phil Anderson, a man who discovered something of mind-boggling importance which is largely met with a world-weary shrug by theoretical physicists in noodle theory land. Both Dyson and Anderson agree that we may no more have a quantum limit for gravity than steam engines and other grossly macroscopic phenomena have a quantum limit. Assuming gravity does have a quantum limit may be the great intellectual folly of theoretical physics of the last 50 years. Donât do it just because Einstein did it. Einstein was also a communist, and we know that communism was a very, very bad idea.
Smolinâs outstanding problems numbers three and four, I count as essentially the same: he thinks it is important to come up with a unified field theory that predicts fundamental constants observed in nature. Why should things work this way, besides the fact that it would make Lee and his pals happy? Again; this âproblemâ is an aesthetic guess how he thinks things should be. These ideas about how a âtheory of everythingâ should be are problematic for the same reasons the idea of quantum gravity itself is problematic. While many people do indeed think the universe should have some sort of ultimate theory which can unify the particles and forces, and predict why the fine structure constant is what it is, the reasons people think such are historical and aesthetic -these reasons can not remotely be described as physics. Aesthetically, physicists like only having to remember a few things, rather than many things. You can derive everything about electromagnetism by memorizing very few simple facts; same with statistical physics. Historically, the unification of magnetism, electricity and light into one theory really was a tremendous breakthrough in human knowledge. 50 years later, all manner of practical uses were found for it.
Let us compare E&M to the most successful unification of modern times, the electro-weak theory (a unification of a force governing certain kinds of nuclear decay with that of electromagnetism). Unlike Maxwellâs equations, electroweak theory is abysmally ugly. Unfortunately for aesthetics, it does appear the universe works this way. The wise and benign god who wrote Maxwellâs equations must have contracted electroweak theory out to some perverse lesser daemon, like Loki. Comparing practical implications; 50 years from the invention of modern electrodynamics we had the creation of the modern world of AC power, radio and almost everything else involving electricity which you take for granted. 50 years from the creation of electroweak theory: there have been no technological implications. Iâll go out on a safe, sturdy limb and assert there will be none, ever. As an intellectual project, glorious electroweak theory is literally more technologically sterile than ⌠I donât know: Thomas Aquinas ideas on how many angels fit on the head of a pin. And electroweak theory is a smashing success compared to any kind of quantum gravity; it was motivated and verified by experiment.
As for the many outstanding problems in astronomical cosmology which Smolin collects together as the fifth major outstanding problem in physics; I find it hard to get too worked up about them, as the astronomers seem to find new âanomoliesâ every time they fire up a new telescope. Historically, astronomy gave us Newtonâs laws, but what has astronomy done for us lately in terms of real physics? Sure, dark matter and so on are interesting and worth thinking about, and it is nice to have someone telling the telescope johnnies what to look for, but there are far more frightening lacunae in physics which should be on this list.
Iâm a lowlife quant: I went to a cow college and did fairly badly for myself while I was screwing around in physics. Very few of my former colleagues will stand up for me and talk about my ultimate brilliance, because frankly, I didnât display any. However, even a mercenary dirtbag like me can come up with a better list than Lee Smolin, or, for that matter, any physicist in the public eye today. Here is the Scott Locklinâs five most important unanswered unquestions in theoretical physics today:
- The fundamentals of quantum mechanics. I admit it; I stole this one from Lee Smolin. I just want to know how it works when it starts to turn into classical physics. Seriously: this is important, and it isnât known. This is the subject I concerned myself with when I was doing physics. I made no progress at all, but I think itâs one of the things worth spending your time on. There are several small sub-fields of active research in the subject: quantum chaos and Mesoscopic physics. Maybe quantum information theory -though itâs been a long time since Iâve thought about it, and beyond Shorâs algorithm, I have read an awful lot of silly bullshit coming from this quarter. For some reason, there are not 10,000 physicists thinking about the basic question of nature, like there are in string theory. Smolin correctly identified the reason why: physics bureaucracy does not favor it.
- The second law of thermodynamics, chaos and the arrow of time. If you never thought about this, you will say, âyeah, whatever,â but this is important. Itâs important in all kinds of places; information theory, finance, psychology, and itâs not really understood why it is so.
- Self-organization and emergent properties in matter. Sure, you have ânanotechâ types of people (subject for another rant) trying to exploit this. Why doesnât anyone even attempt to understand this? Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel for this; it seems to be worthy of study, and there is tons more to do. Meanwhile, armies of vast string theorists count the angels on heads of a boson.
- Why is life? Never mind âhow does life work,â tell me why life works at all! Youâre all faced with an ultimate mystery of physics every morning in the shaving mirror. Why donât you think about it a little? Donât wave your hands on this one; tell me whatâs going on. There is obviously order here; order which can presumably be understood by mathematics.
- How do neural computers, aka brains work? Another problem of immense import. People are studying it; there are even good pop science books on the subject. Nobody is seriously studying it from a theoretical point of view.
I have this idea that physics, along with Western civilization in general, never fully escaped from the wandervogel era âplaying indian in the woodsâ navel gazing of post WW-1 Europe. In fact, I think as a result, physics attracts moosh-headed people who think this sort of âlooking into the mind of godâ thinking is, well, acceptable, when it really shouldnât be for a serious scientist. In the Victorian era which spawned the ideas of Maxwell and (early) Einstein, a theoretical physicistâs job was to come up with models that fit the experimental data; a physicist was a sort of mathematical phenomenologist. He was not an aesthetician, though he might create something of great aesthetic merit. An interesting observation which might be made is how physics followed many other formerly rigorous fields in to the badlands of âtheory.â String theory is to Victorian physics what modern Literary theory or artistic technique is to their Victorian analogs. Certainly, the modern things can be said to be more âsophisticatedâ -but it is also more useless for understanding the world.
Smolinâs idea that more affirmative action is going to help physics is laughably insane. Iâd go so far as to say this is probably a symptom of the type of mental illness which thinks doing quantum gravity is important âbecause it must be so,â aesthetically. Physicists did better before they were required by their Universities to engage in ritual Maoist witch hunts against racism and sexism. Thatâs a historical fact. Throwing away the simple, effective idea of judging physicists based on something resembling competence isnât going to get us anywhere good.
My attempt at a solution to this social problem (and it is a social problem) is a lot more radical and frightening to people who work within the University-Industry axis of mediocrity. It is positively heretical to people who worship education as some kind of secular sacrament. To my mind, the strength of the institution you belong to is the weakness of the individual. The very idea of a University is medieval and feudalistic, or at best Industrial. You want to do real original research? Quit academia and become a free lance consultant. Smolinâs most interesting menagerie of oddball physicists did just this, so I know heâd be behind me. Smolin himself works in a very nontraditional institute funded by private industry. Itâs what I have done, and freed of the bureaucratic need to churn out nonsense papers, or spend my time baking vacuum chambers, my creativity has blossomed. Iâll never be an eminence grise like Smolin in any subject, as Iâm not as clever as he is, but I will likely die richer, and have enjoyed my life more than chaining myself to some horrific bureaucracy whose purpose is to crush all original thought. Do you think Kepler would have had his brilliant idea if he were rotting in a University or government observatory somewhere? I donât, and I think if you want to be Einstein or Kepler, your path is clear, and is far away from a safe life of vegetable contentment, sucking at the public teat.
Someone needs to write a futurist manifesto of physics, because physics is no longer bringing us into the future. With apologies to F.T. Marinetti:
The universities? Government labs? Cemeteries! Public dormitories where one lies forever beside hated or unknown beings. Absurd abattoirs of play actors ferociously slaughtering each other with bureaucratic slaps, idiot journal editing blows, the length of the fought-over walls!
That one should make an annual pilgrimage, just as one goes to the graveyard on All Soulsâ Dayâthat I grant. That once a year one should leave a floral tribute beneath the icon of Albert Einstein, I grant you that⌠But I donât admit that our sorrows, our fragile courage, our morbid restlessness should be given a daily conducted drudge through the universities and neuroses of long dead physicists. Why poison ourselves? Why rot?
And what is there to see in quantum gravity except the laborious contortions of an artist throwing himself against the barriers that thwart his desire to express his dream of original research?⌠Admiring unification theory is the same as pouring our sensibility into a funerary urn instead of hurtling it far off, in violent spasms of action and creation.
Do you, then, wish to waste all your best powers in this eternal and futile worship of the past, from which you emerge fatally exhausted, shrunken, beaten down?
In truth I tell you that daily visits to government labs and academies (cemeteries of empty exertion, Calvaries of crucified dreams, registries of aborted beginnings!) are, for physicists, as damaging as the prolonged supervision by parents of certain young people drunk with their talent and their ambitious wills. When the future is barred to them, the admirable past may be a solace for the ills of the moribund, the sickly, the prisoner⌠But we want no part of it, the past, we the young and strong Futurist physicists!
So let them come, the gay incendiaries with charred fingers! Here they are! Here they are!⌠Come on! set fire to the government labs! Turn aside the canals to flood the universities!⌠Oh, the joy of seeing the glorious old frauds bobbing adrift on those waters, broken and shredded!⌠Take up your pickaxes, your axes and hammers and wreck, wreck the long dead academic system, pitilessly!
Links:
Lubos Motl is a righteous peckerwood for a mainstream physicist. If he reads this, heâll probably dismiss me as an insignificant dunderhead who couldnât make it in physics: thatâs one of the reasons I like the guy; I respect a straight shooter.
Some other guyâs list of important questions; typical âquantum gravityâ bias, but at least he notices some other interesting stuff I donât bother mentioning. Some of them are literally table top physics you could do at home.
A horrible example of the psychedelic quackery that passes for âscienceâ from the New York Times âscienceâ page
dachte kriminell
Tom Hall đşđ¸ âď¸ đĄ: 33
Sir Chris Wilson 3ď¸âŁ3ď¸âŁ
Gingy
DrChrisâ
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the