Skip to main content

The Trouble with Physics

I enjoy reading layman physics books.  And, I enjoy the Science vs Religion debates, especially those that cast Science as a Religion.

Superstring theory has always both intrigued and bothered me.

Intrigued as, on the surface, it has a nice visual "ah ha" about it; the universe is comprised of tiny (zero dimension) vibrating strings, which can form chords and harmonies that result in manifestations that are available to the human senses.

Bothered as, below the surface, it is a huge mess of mumbo-jumbo that has no intuitive sense to it.  Relative to relativity (sic), this is a fairly easy statement to make; even a layman can get a grasp of relativity through Einstein's own writings.  But, relative to quantum theory, can Superstring theory really have "no intuitive sense".  What I really mean is that superstring theory has no science behind it - no way to test anything.  Quantum theory, on the other hand, has been tested over and over again. [As an aside, it really bothers me that I can't Google a good answer to "how does superstring theory explain Young's double slit experiment."  Maybe the question does not make sense?  Or, maybe, superstring theory is too convoluted to give an answer that makes sense.]

So, is superstring theory science or religion?

I was, therefore, extremely happy to read this book by Lee Smolin.  It articulates, expounds upon, and critiques Superstring theory from the perspective of Science.  And, Superstring Theory comes up lacking; sorely lacking.   This book is exceptionally well written, well thought out, and hard hitting.

I hope it makes the Clergy of Superstring Theory step back and think a bit.

Then again, the history of science is littered with skeptics; perhaps superstring theory simply needs more time to mature.  In 25-50 years Smolin will either be right or wrong.  It will be interesting to watch.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Fourth R.

Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic, and algoRithms.  My wife and I were just brainstorming about this: how coding should be the next "basic" skill.  Of course, someone was ahead of us and posted this .  It is awesome to see Mozilla Hackasaurus referenced in this article.  It is a small world. In the early days of the printing press, scholars wrote the books; the press was simply used for production (see this article ).  As time went on, "average" people became familiar with the medium, and used it for their own messages.  We are at just that point with the Web.  Software Engineers write the code, and the Web distributes it.   Software Engineers are the algoRithm scholars of today.  They won't be for long.  Soon algoRithms will be taught starting in elementary school, along with the other three R's.
Read more

Connectome as a Book

Your Connectome is a map of your brain.  Every neuron, every synapse. I am only a few pages into Connectome, but was intrigued by a sentence: "Human DNA....has three billion letters....would be a million pages long if printed as a book."  The companion question, "How many pages for the Connectome?" might be answered later in the book, but I thought I would take a shot at it here. Here is the punchline: Your Connectome book is 6.7 million times longer than your DNA book. That human DNA is about a million pages is not too surprising, although it probably is not optimized. According to quora there are between 1500 and 1800 letters per page.  I am going to use round numbers, namely 2000.  Then, the 3x10^9 DNA letters would actually be 1.5 million pages.  But this is very wasteful.  Even using just ASCII we can encode four DNA letters per character, so the book should really only be about 400K pages.  And, this book is much more interesting; in...
Post a Comment
Read more