The Elegant Universe: 25th Anniversary Edition(math.columbia.edu)
math.columbia.edu
The Elegant Universe: 25th Anniversary Edition
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=14092
16 comments
At one point, I considered going into theoretical physics (this would have been in the late 70s to early 80s), but got seduced by computers instead. If I had stuck with physics, I might have jumped on the string theory bandwagon and now, in retirement, find myself regretting that I'd wasted my life on it. You never know.
I will say that when I read "The Elegant Universe" I really enjoyed the early chapters that explain relativity and quantum mechanics and why they are incompatible. I don't think I ever finished the later parts of the book, nor did I read any of the "sequels". I was not very impressed with the NOVA adaptation. Too much glitz, too much Greene.
I will say that when I read "The Elegant Universe" I really enjoyed the early chapters that explain relativity and quantum mechanics and why they are incompatible. I don't think I ever finished the later parts of the book, nor did I read any of the "sequels". I was not very impressed with the NOVA adaptation. Too much glitz, too much Greene.
I don't pretend to understand modern physics. However, I did buy "The Elegant Universe" and got most of the way through it, until I got tired of the hype: especially, phrases like "It turns out that ..." when nothing has "turned out."
If you can't test it, it's not science. If it's just "beautiful mathematics" it should be in the Math Department. I don't find anything offensive about Woit's article. Disagreement is part of what everyone signed up for.
If you can't test it, it's not science. If it's just "beautiful mathematics" it should be in the Math Department. I don't find anything offensive about Woit's article. Disagreement is part of what everyone signed up for.
The Fabric of the Cosmos is far far better in my opinion and doesn't stick to theories - he attempts to explain concepts in an intuitive manner and it's an amazing exposition into physics.
Nothing wrong with theoretical-only theoretical physics, as long as it's properly labeled.
Greene and Woit are colleagues in the same department (Greene is in two departments) of the same university. This kind of public airing of grievances (at one point Woit calls something Greene writes "highly offensive") seems like not the appropriate mechanism for hashing out academic disagreements? Unclear to me.
I'm also having a hard time understanding Woit's position given that he's a math department guy. Sure, string theory doesn't look exciting from an experimentalist's perspective. But from a mathematical perspective it is an incredible achievement and valuable even if it turns out to not actually describe our universe.
I'm also having a hard time understanding Woit's position given that he's a math department guy. Sure, string theory doesn't look exciting from an experimentalist's perspective. But from a mathematical perspective it is an incredible achievement and valuable even if it turns out to not actually describe our universe.
You say you haven't understood his position, you mean from reading this blog post which isn't supposed to be even an overview of his position? Instead he has written an entire book elaborating on his view, which seems to be a well-regarded text in the very small niche of anti-string theory popular books.
Have you read his book? I think it is a perfectly valid and appropriate mechanism for hashing out academic disagreement and further should be welcomed by anyone who appreciates string theory. I personally haven't read his book but will be very surprised if he doesn't address your point that String theory makes good mathematics. I also personally think a simple answer for that objection would be that this is a perfectly valid reason to research it provided you are honest that is the only demonstrable benefit for it so far (which will then have implications on which funding pots you can propose to).
String theory advocates (particularly the extreme ones, such as Greene) that Woit targets seem to imply that the benefit of string theory to mankind has far exceeded other pure mathematics branches' contribution (for example category theory), particularly that it helped us figure out the unification of all known laws of physics when there are practically zero evidence that it managed that.
Have you read his book? I think it is a perfectly valid and appropriate mechanism for hashing out academic disagreement and further should be welcomed by anyone who appreciates string theory. I personally haven't read his book but will be very surprised if he doesn't address your point that String theory makes good mathematics. I also personally think a simple answer for that objection would be that this is a perfectly valid reason to research it provided you are honest that is the only demonstrable benefit for it so far (which will then have implications on which funding pots you can propose to).
String theory advocates (particularly the extreme ones, such as Greene) that Woit targets seem to imply that the benefit of string theory to mankind has far exceeded other pure mathematics branches' contribution (for example category theory), particularly that it helped us figure out the unification of all known laws of physics when there are practically zero evidence that it managed that.
> I'm also having a hard time understanding Woit's position given that he's a math department guy. Sure, string theory doesn't look exciting from an experimentalist's perspective. But from a mathematical perspective it is an incredible achievement and valuable even if it turns out to not actually describe our universe.
Woit is -- like all of us hopefully are -- a person interested in the truth. That his specialty is in mathematics doesn't mean he cannot comment on physical problems in physical theories!
Woit is -- like all of us hopefully are -- a person interested in the truth. That his specialty is in mathematics doesn't mean he cannot comment on physical problems in physical theories!
In undergrad I did physics so I used to tenuously be aware of this debate but I can't comment on the substance because I didn't go on to do my PhD in physics. But they're not colleagues in any meaningful sense. I don't ascribe any value to tenure or professorship but Woit is a "senior lecturer", which is basically an adjunct that's been around a long time, not a professor. For a long time his blog said he was the IT person for the department if I recall correctly. So Woit and his blog and lesswrong has absolutely always been more about click bait than substance to me. Greene isn't a paragon of scholarship either though - again, superficially, for many years now he's been a popsci celebrity rather than a real, actual, string theorist (much like Michio Kaku).
'Greene isn't a paragon of scholarship either though - again, superficially, for many years now he's been a popsci celebrity rather than a real, actual, string theorist' - Working at Cornell and Columbia, doing research on string theory and writing best-selling books on physics today qualifies a person as a pop-sci physicist? What would you have grouped Einstein as when he was working at the patent office? No really - serious question.
[deleted]
Einstein published his work on relativity on 30 June 1905 in the German physics journal Annalen der Physik, not a pop science book
IT person for the department is at the bottom of his list of professional responsibilities. He was in fact an assistant professor of mathematics at Columbia before his current role as senior lecturer.
Is suspect that Woit would argue that they are colleagues because Greene is also a mathematician and former physicist.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/
Is suspect that Woit would argue that they are colleagues because Greene is also a mathematician and former physicist.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/
I 100% agree with you - I don't buy anything about string theory and I believe it has almost nothing to do with the state of reality, but the attempt itself is honorable and the mathematics behind it is beautiful and can be used to advance our understanding of the universe. If it also inspires others to get into physics and discover new things about reality - it's an overall win for humanity so kudos to any string theorists out there :)
[deleted]
https://youtu.be/kya_LXa_y1E?si=wjHwG0p3J4HWRKs7
I was a gigantic pop science fan and read The Elegant Universe when I was approximately 13 and am excited it’s still being read even if it’s not necessarily true about our universe. It’s got the inspiration and excitement part that’s all I really needed as a kid.