Customer Reviews

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

String theory is a formidable subject to learn, both from a physical and mathematical standpoint. But it is even a harder subject to teach to an audience of non-experts, not because its ideas are hard to express verbally in front of this audience, but because its practitioners sometimes feel it is beneath them to do so. Those who are not familiar with string theory but are curious as to its conceptual foundations might therefore be left to themselves to pursue an understanding of these foundations. However such an understanding can be obtained, for there are of late a few books that have been written by experts in string theory that are targeted to a readership that have a strong desire to learn the subject.

The author of this book recognizes the paucity of expository material on string theory, particularly that dealing with the mathematical formalism, and although this book is a polemic against string theory and its status as a physical and scientific theory, the author introduces (perhaps on purpose) the reader to the theory in a way that is understandable without sacrificing scientific accuracy. But the book could also be of interest to more advanced readers, i.e. those (such as this reviewer) who have a thorough understanding of the physics and mathematics behind string theory but who are not conducting research in it. The author demands rightfully that scientific theory must be testable or at least must have some amount of empirical predictions. He pulls no punches in his critique of string theory, and is very open about what he thinks are the motivations behind those who are actively involved in it. A researcher's motivations of course are not germane to the validity of a theory that he or she proposes, but they are relevant to the understanding of why a particular theory is entrenched in the scientific community, even though there is no experimental evidence for it.

This reviewer disagrees with the author in his claim that string theory is not a "beautiful" theory. And it is the mathematical formalism that is used in string theory that gives it its beauty. Indeed, just the algebraic geometry alone that is employed in string theory is an example of this. That combined with the differential geometry, complex manifolds, and algebraic topology makes string theory a beautiful multi-faceted mathematical gem. That being said, there are many ideas in string theory that deserve to be classified as "speculative" mathematics, as the author does in this book. This classification arises because of the presence of the ubiquitous path integral, an object that has resisted rigorous mathematical formulation.

So yes, the mathematical formalism behind string theory is beautiful, and intoxicates those who contemplate it. But a physical theory must be more than just "mental masturbation" (a characterization imputed to the physicist Murray Gell-Mann in the book). It must also make predictions that can be measured in the laboratory, and these measurements must be reproducible and above all understandable to interested parties. The author does not find any of these predictions in the string theory as it exists at the present time, and he is correct in his claims.

Those who have worked in the academic setting will understand fully the negative reaction the author received when the manuscript was being circulated for review, and which he describes in some detail in the book. This criticism of course was anonymous, following the usual practice in the research community, and such anonymity is a temptation for recklessness and vituperation, and the author gives examples of this. So the book does not only describe some of the ideas of string theory, it also goes into the social interactions and attitudes among string theorists. It would be unfair to say that all string theorists are arrogant and protective of their status as academicians. But those that meet this characterization are in a position that cannot be morally justified. The discovery of scientific truth demands a transparency not only because of the complications of the theory, but also because those who are not directly participating in it are responsible for it's financing (the taxpayer). String theorists, along with all scientific and mathematical researchers are morally obligated to report their discoveries to those who are not in their field in a manner that makes it crystal clear what they are all about. String theory should not be a collection of documents that are to be protected and interpreted by a small body of privileged priests of knowledge.

I've been following the arguments made by Peter Woit against String Theory for quite some time, and it's a pleasure to be able to have them all in a single volume. His arguments are very persuasive, and his writing clear and to the point. This, however, is not a book that the general audience will find easy to follow. The earlier chapters recount the canonical story of the success of the particle physics in the 20th century, and if you are familiar with that story you can safely skip these chapters. The later chapters are the really interesting ones, but unless you have at least some familiarity with theoretical particle physics and the modern mathematics, you might find yourself lost. Even with that caveat it is still possible to appreciate the central theme of this book: theoretical particle physics took a wrong turn somewhere in the late 70s and the early 80s, and has never been able to recover from this. Woit is appealing in this book to the practitioners in the field to be more honest with their assessments of the direction in which the theoretical particle physics is headed, and the lack of any meaningful progress.

Unfortunately, I am very sceptical of the potential impact of this book on the field of particle physics. The Emperor is naked, but he is perceived as irrelevant as well.

The first part - essentially an account of the development of the standard model - really isn't aimed at the layperson at all - the total lack of equations notwithstanding. I much prefer F. Close's "The Cosmic Onion" (released in 1983 but a new edition called "The New Cosmic Onion" is now available), Veltman's "Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics" or even Lisa Randall's account in her very popular "Warped passages". However, Peter Woit does show some originality in approaching the matter from a mathematician's point of view, and in elucidating the important role of Hermann Weyl in the development of quantum mechanics, something you certainly won't find in other popular books on theoretical physics.

The second part sets out to prove that String Theory (ST), the acclaimed (or proclaimed?) successor of the standard model - is "not even wrong", meaning that this theory can't even be falsified. A very ungrateful task, given a) the attractiveness String Theory noticeably exerts on both professional theoretical physicists and laypersons alike (as evidenced by the huge popularity of Brian Greene's and Michio Kaku's books, amongst others); and b) the fact that alternative (and far less celebrated) approaches seem to be - from a layman's perspective at least - as tentative as ST.
I cannot say his strategy appears to be very coherent - we rather get a succession of pinprick attacks. Each of those in itself would probably not have convinced me there was something wrong with ST, but taken together, they succeed in making ST far less incontestable than some popular science writers would have us believe.

This is not a book I would easily recommend to the average lay person totally ignorant of particle physics - one would have to read a number of other popular science books first (*) - but to my knowledge Peter Woit is the first who dared to challenge the "ST establishment" so openly and fearlessly. If only for the sake of "open-mindedness", I suggest one reads this book (and preferably Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with physics" also), together with some of the excellent popular books on ST if you haven't already done so.

(*) In fact, I would almost consider A. Schumm's "Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics" compulsory reading before attempting to read the first part of Woit's book.

It is said that over the entrance to Plato's Academy hung a sign that read "let no one ignorant of geometry enter these walls." A similar sign should be posted on the cover of this book, also mentioning a knowledge of calculus, algebra, and number theory.
Nonetheless it is a very good book which illustrates how fads and peer pressure can effect even the most dispassionate among us.

It's basic message can be summed up as follows: 20th century physics did a great job of explaining how the world works. By 1975 the fundamentals of underlying reality were pretty well understood, save for a few loose threads. The most troublesome of these was the question of how to explain gravity in a way that harmonized with quantum mechanics.

A group of well-meaning mathematicians and physicists developed an idea called string theory to solve this final problem.From the first it appealed to many as an elegant and beautiful theory, and soon the physics community was singing its praises.

Unfortunately, many decades later, it remains not only unproven but unprovable. No one has yet devised a way to make predictions from it that can be proven true or falsified, ex. the claim that there are dimensions beyond the four we currently experience. Without the ability to empirically examine its claims, it is not science, but rather a form of mathematical philosophy. Given this, it behooves the scientific community to look in other directions for a true unified field theory.

It takes the author 275 pages to say this, and along the way he dumps on heavy doses of higher math terminology which will leave the unitiated with their heads spinning. Being no mathematician, I was sent to the dictionary numerous times seeking meanings for several of the terms he threw out.

I suggest that prospective readers familiarize themselves with the following terms before tackling this book:

Imaginary numbers

Symmetry (as used in physics)

Representation Theory

Field theory

Differential Geometry

Spinors

Supergravity

And there are more that I can't think of right now...

Despite its challenges I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to understand the current state of thought in advanced physics. It gives a glimpse of the dark side of science, where universiy politics and trendy ideas all too often decide how research dollars will be spent.

A suggestion to the publisher: you may want to consider including a glossary at the end of future editions, explaining the jargon in layperson's terms.

As for myself I enjoyed the mind-expanding effect that came from the struggle to understand the technical details, and I believe I was actually able to grasp the gist of most of them after supplemental study. Mathematics experts and intellectually courageous seekers of truth should enjoy the book as well, once they grasp the significance of supersymmetrical forms not breaking down under vacuum conditions, leading to speculation about how the beta function, first studied in the 1800s, seemingly has the potential to describe an analytic s-matrix.
Elementary!

I picked up "Not Even Wrong" after working my way through "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. Both books attack the problems of string theory from much the same direction - string theory shows none of the results necessary to be classified as anything more than a new type of math. In other words, if you can't use it to predict any new results and it only confirms old results by presetting all your variables to already known values, it's not science. And the opposite of science is religion, which is exactly how a lot of string theory adherents view this new math. "The Trouble with Physics" is an easier read, with lots of background, history and characters. "Not Even Wrong" assumes you are already up to speed on the theory, because Peter Wolfe spends very little time spoonfeeding the precepts and gets down to foundation level problems immediately. I have no background past high school level math and physics but can usually hold my own with popular science texts. I would not recommend "Not Even Wrong" as a beginning text or even intermediate - this is for people who understand the concepts already.

"The fundamental problem with string theory is that, as far as its central goal of unifying physics goes, over the last nearly 25 years it has not only not made any progress toward explaining anything about particle physics, but, quite the opposite. Everything that has been learned about string theory makes it more and more clear that the original hopes for getting unification this way were just misguided and can't work. The derivative here is the wrong sign." Peter Woit, posted on his weblog September 13, 2007.

Some readers may think that this book gets off to a painfully slow start, given the author's long telling of the history of particle physics, particularly as regards work done with particle accelerators/ colliders. But stay with it [it's worth it!]. Woit holds degrees from Harvard and Princeton (PhD, theoretical physics) and has taught both mathematics and physics at Columbia. He happily describes himself as a mathematician, in large part because that is indeed the career he has chosen but also in large part because he is obviously disgusted with the current state of theoretical physics--in so far as the superstring/ M-theory disciples of Witten have abandoned anything resembling orthodox science. Woit shows no hesitation in acknowledging Witten's great genius, but unlike most theorists of recent decades he is not interested in worshiping at Witten's feet, no matter what the cost. And Woit isn't just some disgruntled nay-saying spoilsport (I can't strictly judge the psychological state of someone I don't personally know, but he doesn't strike me in this way at all). His concern is that there are other prospects for a unified theory that have been summarily brushed aside by the popular mantra that "string theory is the only game in town." [Federal] research funding, positions of influence notably including department chairs, academic and research hirings, increasingly all have played what we are told (by string/brane theorists themselves) is "the only game in town." But after three decades of glowing hype, this "game"--superstrings/'M-theory'/'brane-world'--has failed to move forward. It has essentially demonstrated that it cannot move forward in any scientific sense.

"Superstring theory is to a large degree thought of by mainstream physicists as mathematics and by mainstream mathematicians as physics, with each group convinced that it makes no sense within their frame of reference but presumably does within someone else's." pg 204

Like so many other armchair theorists, I've read and enjoyed books like Greene's `Elegant Universe' and Hawking's glossy `Universe in a Nutshell'. But any astute reader has to notice that no real connection is made between what we are told are compellingly "beautiful mathematics" and the physical world we can examine, and, given a sound theory, even interrogate, to any degree at all. It is particularly instructive to consider strings/ brane-world from the critical perspective of pure mathematics, i.e., Woit's perspective in this volume. It seems that the abstract equations ARE strangely "beautiful" UNTIL the math must be patched to conform to a universe with precisely three large spatial dimensions; as soon as we are forced to manipulate the additional dimensions, the beauty of the mathematics begins to fade. That `beauty' has been fading for 20 years at this writing. Woit finds the equations of strings/branes to be growing uglier at every turn. After decades of contortion, strings/branes are ever becoming less beautiful than advertised. And, as Woit briefly explains with stark, non-glossy frankness, strings/branes are NOT the only game in town, or at least they shouldn't be.

Many mathematicians would cautiously agree that strings/branes make for interesting mathematics--if they can be divorced from physics. There may be sufficient cause to suggest, as some have, that strings/branes make for interesting theology as well. But are strings/branes SCIENCE? At this late date it seems that the answer is probably `no'.

"If someone could come up with a legitimate, distinctive, testable prediction of string theory that gave even the correct order of magnitude for some experimental result, that would be a huge breakthrough."

As I have suggested to anyone willing to listen, read Peter Woit's thought-provoking book, especially if you've read Greene, Hawking, and/or Susskind.

The first part of the book takes the reader on a brief tour of particle physics and string theory. I'm afraid that unless you already learned some of this stuff before, you'll find it hard to follow.

The second part of the book is high-level analysis of particle physics. This is the part that makes the book so important. Woit shows how the academic funding process and human inclination to follow fashionable ideas has led the field astray.

Especially interesting for me is the close parallel Woit draws between postmodern theory and string theory. Both have taken root in that most secular of states, California, while they are both, in fact, a religion rather than a science.

On the whole I would recommend reading this book, especially if you are a scientist.

Peter Woit, in "Not Even Wrong", voices a suspicion that the "String Theory" of matter and energy might be a little too popular for the good of physics. Woit, a mathematics lecturer at Columbia University, shows that string theory is so pliable that it can be made to fit any data. This is quite contrary to the usual rules of science, in which the validity of a theory is assessed by testing unique predictions of that theory. Yet despite this lack of testability, String Theory commands the greatest attention in particle physics today (and the greatest amount of grants, staff appointments, etc.)
The level of the book should be noted. Since the mathematics involved is well over the head of the lay reader, one has to trust Woit's descriptions of what various mathematical techniques do, and how they relate to physical theories. As Woit details in his chapter "The Bogdanov Affair", the ideas are sometimes so arcane that even experts can't tell what might be valid research, and what might simply be a hoax. Woit does his best to help the reader, however, by including juicy biographical details of physicists' lives, great quotes in the chapter headings, and good lists of both technical and popular references for the concepts in each chapter.

"Not Even Wrong". This phrase originates with Pauli, who applied it scathingly to any theory that had to be taken on faith because it was not falsifiable by experiment. Peter Woit employs the phrase to describe supersymmetric string theory, which is currently all the rage. Fighting words indeed!

I'm a qualified theoretical physicist, no longer practicing. For many years, I heartily supported the efforts of string theorists to achieve either a further illumination of the standard model or a synthesis of general relativity and quantum mechanics. I am sad that they have really achieved neither. Perhaps one day they will achieve something. I still wish them every success.

But the string community (or any other scientific group) cannot be allowed to turn their chosen approach into a fad, a cult, a religion or - worst - an inquisition. That might be sociologically amusing if it weren't so pernicious for physics and physicists. The effect is that physics departments become the monopoly of self-perpetuating, self-congratulating clans of homogenous thinkers. (Lee Smolin uses the psychological term "groupthink".) Young physicists are informed that string theory "is the only game in town". Sign up for it or go away.

Historically, scientists have countered our natural human hubris to believe whatever we think in two ways. One is by challenges from fellow scientists, who invent new theories, at odds in large or small ways with the standard thinking. The other is by nature, whose measured phenomena often contradict established theories. Of course, in the physical sciences, experimental evidence always holds the trump card over human speculation.

String theory is currently in an unfortunate place. There is no imminent experiment that could bring it into contest with nature. And, because of the iron curtain within which the string community seems to have walled itself, there is little contact between the adherents of string theory and their potential human challengers. Woit's book opens a channel of dissent, which can only be healthy for physics, both as a science and as an academic career.

In summary then, this book makes strong points about the current "unscientific" state of string theory, ones that need to be publicly and vociferously stated. Woit speaks out firmly and professionally, with specific, well-reasoned arguments and some occasional passion.

To point out that an emperor has no clothes takes no courage for a small, innocent child. However, it takes bravery for a professional to point out the same thing, with full knowledge of the impact that his iconoclasm might have. I admire Woit for standing up in print for what he believes.

Of course, like any scientist, Woit may be right or wrong. Time will tell. But it is chilling that, because his book challenged the entrenched orthodoxy, Woit had such difficulty in getting it published,. That fact alone, ironically, means that the book's publication is most timely indeed. And I very much enjoyed reading it.

In the 90's, I started hearing about this wonderful leap in our understanding of physics, called "string theory". From the brief clips that I had read, I thought. "Wow, I want to know more." So when, "The Elegant Universe" came out, I immediately bought it and read it.
The book was very well written, and everything was presented in such an exuberant, upbeat manner. The illustrations were entertaining, but really all of the things that he covered scientifically, I knew had already been discovered previous to string theory. There were no new discoveries in the book, but everything in the book was being mixed with string theory, and then it was given a wonderful send off, with how string theory could solve everything. I'm sorry, but I couldn't at that point help but feel, that I had just been given a heaping helping dose of complete BS. He did add a lot of sugar to it though. No new discoveries. No real predictions. But lots of hopeful innuendoes, and future promises, if only the universe was in 10 dimensions. If, if, if, and then, wouldn't it all be grand.
I thought that I was all alone in feeling that the wool was being pulled down over my eyes. I thought that maybe there was something wrong with me. I read the book a second time, a few years later, and I bought Greene's second book, "The Fabric of the Cosmos", and yet still, my BS meter kept going off. It was kind of like those commercials that say things like. "This product works five times better than the leading brand." ...leading brand of what?
Finally some other books started coming out that explained that I was not the only one who felt this way. I read Lawrence Krauss' book, "Hiding in the Mirror". It was nice and polite in saying that "string theory" may not be the answer after all.
Lee Smolin came out with, "The Trouble with Physics". That book was even better at showing "string theory" for the mistake that it is, and how the physics academia have shamelessly promoted it. It made me feel sorry for those that were trying to pursue a higher education in physics.
Finally this book, "Not Even Wrong" written by Peter Woit. I've gotta admit that most of what he says in the first half of his book is over my head. I have never studied the math that is involved with particle physics or "string theory", but Woit has. He can point out all of the flaws in detail with "String Theory". From about chapter 12 on, I understood the ideas represented and discussed.
String theorists use phrases like, "It's the only game in town.", and "It's so elegant and beautiful, that there must be some truth to it." This book shows that some games just aren't worth playing, especially if you can never win. He also points out that the math involved is not really elegant or beautiful at all.
Can "String Theory" be proven wrong? No. But that's because it makes no predictions about anything. It's like an incomplete sentence. "The sky is ....". String theorists have been saying for over 20 years that they are just that close to solving everything. Woit can tell you that that's complete and total BS. No amount of math can complete the sentence and solve everything.
"Not Even Wrong" is also good at showing the scary situation that the physics community is in right now. Their self glorifying promotion, the greed, and pride have all attributed to this terrible situation in which they have created a belief system that is completely false. It is no longer science anymore, but they have gone so far down that road into falsehood that they are too embarrassed to say that they were mistaken. They have become a false religion of physics.
Scientists are not better people like they want you to believe. They are just people. They are prone to the same mistakes that everyone else is. Just as there are some good people, there are also some good scientists, but the opposite is also true. Don't be mislead.
If you are a student of physics in college, "Not Even Wrong" really should be read by you. "The Trouble with Physics" was an easier read, and so if you are a layman with a basic knowledge of physics, this book would be for you. If you are just beginning your adventure in science and physics, but are wondering about "string theory", "Hiding in the Mirror" would be the easiest book to understand.