|
Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law for Unity in Physical Law | 
 enlarge | Author: Peter Woit
Publisher: Basic Books
Category: Book
List Price: $16.95
Buy New: $9.54
You Save: $7.41 (44%)
New (34) Used (10) from $5.75
Rating:  35 reviews
Sales Rank: 35388
Media: Paperback
Edition: Reprint
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 320
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 7.9 x 5.3 x 0.9
ISBN: 0465092764
Dewey Decimal Number: 530
EAN: 9780465092765
Publication Date: September 3, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: Ships SAME or NEXT business day. We Ship to APO/FPO addr. Choose EXPEDITED shipping, receive in 2-5 business days. See our member profile for customer support contact info. We have an easy return policy.
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
When does physics depart the realm of testable hypothesis and come to resemble theology? Peter Woit argues that string theory isn’t just going in the wrong direction, it’s not even science. Not Even Wrong shows that what many physicists call superstring “theory” is not a theory at all. It makes no predictions, not even wrong ones, and this very lack of falsifiability is what has allowed the subject to survive and flourish. Peter Woit explains why the mathematical conditions for progress in physics are entirely absent from superstring theory today, offering the other side of the story.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 30 more reviews...
 A high-strung but interesting and helpful polemic on string theory September 5, 2006
229 out of 256 found this review helpful
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.
A timely and honest critique September 12, 2006
94 out of 102 found this review helpful
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.
contains interesting information on physics as well as criticism of String Theory July 11, 2007
5 out of 7 found this review helpful
As most people know Not Even Wrong is critical of String Theory. What I did not realize going into the book was the detail it delves into in describing events leading up to String Theory, especially events having to do with the Standard Model. I think the book is worth reading just for this information which spans half of the book. I don't know whether String Theory is right or not as I am not a physicist but I do believe that criticism is a healthy thing and that the author is clear in his criticism of String Theory. I would have wished for more information on other Unified Theories but he devotes only one chapter to this. I guess, as the author points out, there is only one game in town and it is String Theory.
Woit dissects "the only game in town" October 2, 2007
14 out of 15 found this review helpful
"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.
Well Crafted October 25, 2006
21 out of 27 found this review helpful
For anyone with at least a moderate academic background in physics Dr. Woit's book is a much better introduction to the problems with string theory, and the cottage industry that has grown up about it, than the Smolin book which covers similar territory. "Not Even Wrong", unlike "The Trouble With Physics", is meticulously organized, copiously footnoted, contains suggestions for further reading at the end of each chapter, and has a beautiful introduction to the nuts and bolts of the existing and proposed experimentation upon which the verifiability of string theory depends. If you've ever struggled through the texts of Arfken, Bjorken (or Peskin & Schroeder), Goldstein, Jackson, and Messiah at some point in your life, but the likes of Choquet-Bruhat, Baez, Weinberg and Kaku are still somewhat beyond reach, this is the book for you.
|
|
|
| |
