- #1
ccdantas
- 343
- 0
Here is the link:
http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/Response%20to%20Polchinski.html"
http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/Response%20to%20Polchinski.html"
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason why string theory occupies one of four parts of the book was to give a context in which to raise some broad and fundamental questions about how science works, and how well it works in the present academic environment-compared to earlier times when there were many fewer scientists, they were far less organized and professionalized and yet, progress was faster.
turbo-1 said:It's important the people realize that Smolin is not trying to spike string theory...
Smolin invested a lot of years in string. Now that it appears that there may be an infinite number of "viable" variations of string, (reducing the predictive value of the approach) perhaps it is time to come at the problem from a different angle. That's all.josh1 said:Which people? People that matter? I don`t think so.
turbo-1 said:Smolin invested a lot of years in string.
turbo-1 said:...it is time to come at the problem from a different angle.
Chronos said:Perhaps some feel Smolin is playing both sides against the middle.
Chronos said:He is unabashedly disloyal to both camps. I find it refreshing.
josh1 said:You along with most people around here need to understand why physicists have so much confidence in string theory despite the challenges it currently poses and so little in alternative approaches.
George Jones said:Is this really true? The anecdotal evidence that I have accumulated seems to indicate that there is a fairly strong dichotomy in the physics community with respect to string theory.
George Jones said:Almost (but maybe not quite) unanimously, astrophysicists, condensed matter physicists, atomic physicists, etc. have made disparaging comments (to me) about string theory. The positive comments that I have heard about string theory have come from people in the high energy crowd (not necessarily string theorists).
Chronos said:Perhaps some feel Smolin is playing both sides against the middle. He is unabashedly disloyal to both camps. I find it refreshing.
George Jones said:...
Almost (but maybe not quite) unanimously, astrophysicists, condensed matter physicists, atomic physicists, etc. have made disparaging comments (to me) about string theory. The positive comments that I have heard about string theory have come from people in the high energy crowd (not necessarily string theorists).
josh1 said:But what is the origin of this division?
josh1 said:(I assume that by "dichotomy" you meant "division".)
josh1 said:Is it based on a detailed and accurate understanding of string theory or something else? Keep in mind that string theory is by many orders of magnitude more difficult than any other field in physics and requires much more training in both physics and mathematics before it and it's prospects can be accurately assessed.
josh1 said:... physicists have so much confidence in string theory despite the challenges it currently poses and so little in alternative approaches
josh1 said:It really sounds like you're basing your opinions on everything but an understanding of string theory, an understanding which is required if you want to be able to distinguish between baloney and the facts. If you want to ground your opinion in the latter, you need to learn about string theory.
josh1 said:So the question now is from whom would you rather learn string theory? Maybe you would prefer learning about string theory from experts on laser optics rather than string theorists, or maybe from condensed matter physicists rather than string theorists, or maybe from members of this forum rather than string theorists, or maybe from polemicists like woit/smolin who rail against string theory largely for personal reasons rather than string theorists, or maybe from anyone who has an opinion rather than string theorists.
josh1 said:... physicists have so much confidence in string theory despite the challenges it currently poses and so little in alternative approaches
josh1 said:It's very hard to deal with patients with brain tumors when for no good reason they insist that their neurosurgeon defend their choice of treatment against the opinions of the physicians of all the other specialties. Neurosurgery is a very complicated field requiring very specialized knowledge to understand and practice.
josh1 said:... physicists have so much confidence in string theory despite the challenges it currently poses and so little in alternative approaches
f-h said:...you dismiss everyone who disagrees with your assessment..
josh1 said:Respectfully George,
Your preceding post is just a massive copout, and indicates that there's probably no way I would ever be able to convince you that you need to reconsider the basis of your opinion. Again, no disrespect intended.
josh1 said:And this is related to physics how? I indicate why members may want to consider more carefully the basis of their opinions. Near as I can tell, they rarely do, or at least when it comes to string theory.f-h said:...you dismiss everyone who disagrees with your assessment..
In any event, I do not "dismiss" people. (Though I think we all sometimes need to do better at responding to the post and not the person, and quite frankly, based on past experience, this does indeed include you f-h. But again, this has nothing to do with physics).
ccdantas said:Let's return to discussing Smolin's response to Polchinski's review of TWP.
Sauron said:Josh, how much knowledge of string theory do you believe that it is necessary to have to properly judge it´s merits?
f-h said:"it’s clear that smolin continues to hold string theory to a different standard than he does other ideas, especially his own."How so?
Kea said:No, please, I'm quite enjoying this.
ccdantas said:Except for a very few...no one seems competent...or educated enough... to really face...the...issues raised by smolin in a...technically informed way...
turbo-1 said:Dear josh1, I find it enlightening that in your last post, smolin's name is never capitalized and Polchinski's always is. Please stop with the not-so-subtle...
Evidently not, since you persist in your childish behavior.josh1 said:I wasn't trying to be subtle.
turbo-1 said:
josh1 said:Quoting smolin from his response to Polchinski: “Of course, the key point on which good scientists differ in their judgments is precisely how long is too long to invest a large portion of our resources in fundamental theory on such a long and risky bet.”
In a radio show he did (I think with Brian Greene), smolin said that the time limit he had in mind was something like ten years. So if you haven’t produced a theory that makes predictions etc by then, you should move on. Thus smolin says that time has run out for string theory...
marcus said:... ten-year time limit...
ccdantas said:I have intentionally opened this polemic thread here, to have some feeling on the kind of responses one would get from contributors of Physics Forums, a place I do enjoy visiting every day.
It seems to be nearly impossible to reach at a high level discussion about the specific points raised by Lee Smolin almost nowhere over the blogosphere or forums!
...
josh1 said:He did say this, though apparently I've forgotten when. But he must have some figure for string theory in mind since he makes it quite clear that he views this time period as having ended long ago...
marcus said:Stick to the book. Where in the book does he talk about this? When I can see a page, with what he actually said on it, then I will be able to decide for myself if his judgment is evenhanded or not.