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.
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