His exposition produced a big impact on me, because the calculation of the value is so simple, and produces such a horribly wrong answer. One important step was hearing Raman Sundrum's wonderful talk at the Albuquerque APS meeting in 2002, in which he clearly brought out that we have no identified avenue to understand the value of the cosmological constant. That is enough to keep me, and the young people, busy! Don't bother me with superstrings and M-theory! There are other things that are right, that are so fantastic in their implications that I don't want to waste a great deal of your time on superstrings: I am here of course referring to Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics." I concentrate on teaching these three glories, as being things that we know are true, and that deeply offend our intuition-which must therefore be suppressed as simply wrong. As I explained to the students, "I do like it, but it might not be right. But, I never spent much time teaching it to students. Until very recently, I was a mainstream advocate of superstrings, glibly mouthing the party line: that superstrings produce quantum gravity that it is the only game in town and so on. And both authors are concerned that continued fixation on this failed theory, by professors who won their tenure as its advocates, will retard advances in other directions.
If superstring theory turns out to be correct (if that is even possible), then, superstring theory is, just maybe, in the class of quantum mechanics, in terms of its epochal impact.īoth of the books that I am reviewing suggest that that will never happen that superstring theory is without a future that it is in fact a failed theory. Until now? Well, this is a book review! I am reviewing two books that take on superstring theory. There have been many important advances since then, but nothing of the same epochal character. The last truly grand success of physics was in 1925, with the discovery of quantum mechanics. I think it is because people naturally sense that everything that we scientists are discovering, important as it is, is essentially superficial. Considering the fantastic practical successes of science, combined with the essentially total lack of any practical successes on the side of the priests, it is, perhaps, surprising that most people still do stick with those priests (to get what they feel is the real skinny). So, how are we doing today, in this regard? Well, nothing has changed in the sphere of religious advice, but there is, of course, a significant new element, that of "scientific" insight. And we the people have always been glad to have those priests' potent insight! Genuinely glad, because, although we are not so naive as to expect their advice to be perfect, we are mature enough to know that it is likely the best advice that we are going to get. Throughout human history, we have had, among us, an intellectual elite whose members kindly advise the rest of us as to "what it all means." These advisors have, typically, been the priests of the current religion.
for the Journal of Scientific Exploration by Professor Richard Conn Henry Not Even Wrong by Peter Woit. Review of "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit and "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. Review of "Not Even Wrong" and "The Trouble with Physics"
0 kommentar(er)
