9.16.2006
On Academism and String Theory
Gregg Easterbrook (TNR writer, sometime Slate contributor) published a great article in Slate this past week, on the subject of University Physics departments and their unquestioning acceptance of "String Theory."
The backdrop for this article is the fact that at the top universities, each field of study tends to develop an unquestioned and close-minded paradigm, sometimes manifested as a particular theory of framework within which everyone must work. At least in some departments, there are two or three major frameworks, so that there is still intellectual rigor and argumentation. According to this article, that has not been the case for decades in theoretical physics. And based on my intuitions and perceptions of people I've known who are interested in physics, that is a dead-on accurate claim.
I used to be a theoretical physics nerd, and read lots of quasi-popular books on the subject. I remember when a friend of mine (similarly inclined) introduced me to the concept of 11-dimensional string theory, which purported to explain practically everything in theoretical physics that was interesting to a young physics nerd. It sounded great.
Apparently, I wasn't the only one -- university physics profs have adopted this idea as gospel, and according to the author of the new book mentioned in Easterbrook's article, a young physicist is committing career suicide if he disputes the model! All this without any evidence to speak of for the "theory."
I am pretty sympathetic to these types of claims, if only because academic types do tend to create an entrenched wayof thinking and defend it tooth and nail against interlopers, critics, and entrepreneurial thought by younger faculty. I've seen this happen in numerous fields, such as law and medicine.
Anyway, the article is a good read, if only to update you on the state of theoretical physics in the academy. I find experimental physics far more exciting these days - particle accelerators, new forms of matter, materials science - stuff that might actually help the world and our understanding of nature. Theoretical physics has sadly become a bit like priests in the ivory tower, dispensing their wisdom and silencing any critics of their 11-dimensional theory of being, time, and everything. At least, so it seems. I'd love to read a rejoinder by someone, showing that physics departments are far more open and critical of String Theory. But so far - nada.
The backdrop for this article is the fact that at the top universities, each field of study tends to develop an unquestioned and close-minded paradigm, sometimes manifested as a particular theory of framework within which everyone must work. At least in some departments, there are two or three major frameworks, so that there is still intellectual rigor and argumentation. According to this article, that has not been the case for decades in theoretical physics. And based on my intuitions and perceptions of people I've known who are interested in physics, that is a dead-on accurate claim.
I used to be a theoretical physics nerd, and read lots of quasi-popular books on the subject. I remember when a friend of mine (similarly inclined) introduced me to the concept of 11-dimensional string theory, which purported to explain practically everything in theoretical physics that was interesting to a young physics nerd. It sounded great.
Apparently, I wasn't the only one -- university physics profs have adopted this idea as gospel, and according to the author of the new book mentioned in Easterbrook's article, a young physicist is committing career suicide if he disputes the model! All this without any evidence to speak of for the "theory."
I am pretty sympathetic to these types of claims, if only because academic types do tend to create an entrenched wayof thinking and defend it tooth and nail against interlopers, critics, and entrepreneurial thought by younger faculty. I've seen this happen in numerous fields, such as law and medicine.
Anyway, the article is a good read, if only to update you on the state of theoretical physics in the academy. I find experimental physics far more exciting these days - particle accelerators, new forms of matter, materials science - stuff that might actually help the world and our understanding of nature. Theoretical physics has sadly become a bit like priests in the ivory tower, dispensing their wisdom and silencing any critics of their 11-dimensional theory of being, time, and everything. At least, so it seems. I'd love to read a rejoinder by someone, showing that physics departments are far more open and critical of String Theory. But so far - nada.
# posted by Vanity @ 12:57 
Comments:
<< Home
I guess I didn't realize that string theory was so widely accepted. As far as I know, there is still plenty of debate going on and that is precisely how it should be. What Briane Greene and other string theorists have to say is quite interesting, but it is not a currently provable theory and, beyond sparking discussion and creative thought, it leaves plenty of room for other theories trying to answer the great gap in theorical physics.
Post a Comment
<< Home
