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.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #100651 in Books
• Published on: 2007-09-03
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 320 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780465092765
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
String theory is the only game in town in physics departments these days. But echoing Lee Smolin's forthcoming The Trouble with Physics (Reviews, July 24), Woit, a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn't predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they're willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors. The first half of Woit's book is a tightly argued, beautifully written account of the development of the standard model and includes a history of particle accelerators that will interest science buffs. When he gets into the history of string theory, however, his pace accelerates alarmingly, with highly sketchy chapters. Reading this in conjunction with Smolin's more comprehensive critique of string theory, readers will be able to make up their own minds about whether string theory lives up to the hype. (Sept.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
"Woit offers some intriguing ruminations on the relationship between physics and mathematics..." -- New York Times Book Review, 9/17/06

"[A]n intriguing view of a significant scientific controversy..." -- Library Journal, 8/15/06

"[L]ively and entertaining" -- Discover Magazine, September 2006

About the Author
Peter Woit is a lecturer in the mathematics department of Columbia University, where in recent years he has taught graduate courses in quantum field theory, representation theory, and differential geometry. His math and physics blog, Not Even Wrong, has been featured in Discover, Seed, and New Scientist. He lives in New York.

Customer Reviews

A timely and honest critique
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.

A high-strung but interesting and helpful polemic on string theory
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.

Open mind
The first part - essentially an account of the development of the standard model - really isn't aimed at the layperson at all - the total lack of equations notwithstanding. I much prefer F. Close's "The Cosmic Onion" (released in 1983 but a new edition called "The New Cosmic Onion" is now available), Veltman's "Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics" or even Lisa Randall's account in her very popular "Warped passages". However, Peter Woit does show some originality in approaching the matter from a mathematician's point of view, and in elucidating the important role of Hermann Weyl in the development of quantum mechanics, something you certainly won't find in other popular books on theoretical physics.

The second part sets out to prove that String Theory (ST), the acclaimed (or proclaimed?) successor of the standard model - is "not even wrong", meaning that this theory can't even be falsified. A very ungrateful task, given a) the attractiveness String Theory noticeably exerts on both professional theoretical physicists and laypersons alike (as evidenced by the huge popularity of Brian Greene's and Michio Kaku's books, amongst others); and b) the fact that alternative (and far less celebrated) approaches seem to be - from a layman's perspective at least - as tentative as ST.
I cannot say his strategy appears to be very coherent - we rather get a succession of pinprick attacks. Each of those in itself would probably not have convinced me there was something wrong with ST, but taken together, they succeed in making ST far less incontestable than some popular science writers would have us believe.

This is not a book I would easily recommend to the average lay person totally ignorant of particle physics - one would have to read a number of other popular science books first (*) - but to my knowledge Peter Woit is the first who dared to challenge the "ST establishment" so openly and fearlessly. If only for the sake of "open-mindedness", I suggest one reads this book (and preferably Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with physics" also), together with some of the excellent popular books on ST if you haven't already done so.

(*) In fact, I would almost consider A. Schumm's "Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics" compulsory reading before attempting to read the first part of Woit's book.