Monday, September 04, 2006
Interesting
Yesterday's post at the "Reference Frame" takes notice of the fact that string theory, and criticisms of it, are the most unusual topics for blog discussions. Physics is an unusual topic because very few people really understand it. Many of the people who post on "Not Even Wrong" and the "Reference Frame" like to THINK they know a lot about physics, when in fact they probably haven't even had a high school physics education.
The problem with "Not Even Wrong" is that too many know-it-alls (who really know nothing) decide to offer their ignorant opinions in comments. The problem is not Dr. Woit's criticism; he is entitled to his opinions, even they aren't the opinions of the majority.
The "Reference Frame" has the same problem of being overrun by crackpots. Although Dr. Motl's beliefs are controversial, they don't seem wrong (or "not even wrong") :) Just because they don't seem wrong doesn't mean they necessarily are right. Not every idea in contemporary string theory is right, either, although string theory certainly has a lot more potential than its alternatives.
This potential is mostly exemplified by its strength in numbers. If loop quantum gravity were mainstream and string theory were considered a "fringe" idea, LQG would have more potential. This is not the case, though.
Nevertheless, I have often found it amazing that string theory is more popular than LQG. String theory requires extra dimensions and bizarre mathematical constructs, and it seems incredibly counter-intuitive (unless you're a string theorist.) Why would so many people take on a task that is extroardinarily difficult and counter-intuitive?
The fact that so many people do this IS indeed mysterious, if you consider the difficulty of the material alone. I find it very hard to believe that string theory will be an empty effort, considering its popularity.
During the late 19th century, classical mechanics was the most popular framework for explaining the universe. It was far from being "not even wrong", even though it was very incomplete. Anyone who worked on theories of phlogiston, for example, couldn't be taken seriously, because- well- there is no such thing as phlogiston!
Quantum mechanics refined classical mechanics, but it didn't entirely supplant it. (The two disciplines are related through the Correspondence Principle.) Some famous physicists, including Einstein himself, didn't like it. They thought it was ugly and counter-intuitive. But Einstein had actually won the Nobel Prize in 1921 for the photoelectric effect, which... guess what... is a quantum phenomenon!
The critics of string theory think exactly the same way. They think it's ugly and counter-intuitive. These physicists are very intelligent, and, like Einstein, many of them have worked on the theory that they criticize :) So why would they be against it?
I have to draw a conclusion from this, one that has several meanings:
STRING THEORY IS THE NEW QUANTUM MECHANICS. ¶ 8:37 PM
The problem with "Not Even Wrong" is that too many know-it-alls (who really know nothing) decide to offer their ignorant opinions in comments. The problem is not Dr. Woit's criticism; he is entitled to his opinions, even they aren't the opinions of the majority.
The "Reference Frame" has the same problem of being overrun by crackpots. Although Dr. Motl's beliefs are controversial, they don't seem wrong (or "not even wrong") :) Just because they don't seem wrong doesn't mean they necessarily are right. Not every idea in contemporary string theory is right, either, although string theory certainly has a lot more potential than its alternatives.
This potential is mostly exemplified by its strength in numbers. If loop quantum gravity were mainstream and string theory were considered a "fringe" idea, LQG would have more potential. This is not the case, though.
Nevertheless, I have often found it amazing that string theory is more popular than LQG. String theory requires extra dimensions and bizarre mathematical constructs, and it seems incredibly counter-intuitive (unless you're a string theorist.) Why would so many people take on a task that is extroardinarily difficult and counter-intuitive?
The fact that so many people do this IS indeed mysterious, if you consider the difficulty of the material alone. I find it very hard to believe that string theory will be an empty effort, considering its popularity.
During the late 19th century, classical mechanics was the most popular framework for explaining the universe. It was far from being "not even wrong", even though it was very incomplete. Anyone who worked on theories of phlogiston, for example, couldn't be taken seriously, because- well- there is no such thing as phlogiston!
Quantum mechanics refined classical mechanics, but it didn't entirely supplant it. (The two disciplines are related through the Correspondence Principle.) Some famous physicists, including Einstein himself, didn't like it. They thought it was ugly and counter-intuitive. But Einstein had actually won the Nobel Prize in 1921 for the photoelectric effect, which... guess what... is a quantum phenomenon!
The critics of string theory think exactly the same way. They think it's ugly and counter-intuitive. These physicists are very intelligent, and, like Einstein, many of them have worked on the theory that they criticize :) So why would they be against it?
I have to draw a conclusion from this, one that has several meanings:
STRING THEORY IS THE NEW QUANTUM MECHANICS. ¶ 8:37 PM
