Frayed String: Lawrence Krauss
Print
Like (
STRING THEORY ISN'T fodder for small talk. After all, the idea that matter is not made up of particles but rather vibrating "strings" has the potential to turn our understanding of the universe on its head, even expanding the number of dimensions from four to 10 or 11.
Yet, it's also a theory that many physicists explicitly deny, stating that string theory isn't cohesive and should be disregarded.
On Wednesday, the Smithsonian will host "String Theory: Brian Greene and Lawrence Krauss Debate" at the National Museum of American History. Cosmologist Michael Turner will moderate.
Greene, professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University and author of the New York Times bestsellers "The Fabric of the Cosmos" and "The Elegant Universe," is a strong proponent of the theory and its 11 dimensions.
Krauss, however, thinks string theory is nonsense. In fact, Krauss — a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University and the author of books including "The Physics of Star Trek" — said he was hesitant about participating in this debate for that reason.
"There are two things: First, it's like the 'X-Files' — people want to believe," he said. "If you throw cold water on something, inevitably you always appear to be a villain. Secondly, to some extent, the question you might have is 'Why bother?' Why debate this subject? Why not talk about the many other things that are going on in physics? I know the public is fascinated by it, so I think it's important to try to explain to them that, in fact, it is really a theory in crisis, or not a theory at all."
Krauss has spent much of his career making science accessible and understandable to the general public, which is why he does these public appearances. "I think we owe it to the public and I think some of these ideas are among the most fascinating ideas humans have come up with. It's kind of a shame if we don't talk about them."
Tonight's debate is the third meeting between Krauss and Greene on string theory, and though it has been a topic of discussion for the past couple decades, Krauss said there is still something to be gained by such debates.
"The questions that string theory seems to address are questions that are intrinsically of interest to everyone," he said. "They may not involve building a better toaster, but questions of where we come from and where we're going and what is the fundamental structure of the universe are, at some level, questions that everyone asks themselves."
Describing string theory as "much ado about nothing," Krauss explained what the dispute is all about. "The debate is twofold. A: Does string theory have anything to do with the real world. And B: Is it, as I like to put it, ready for prime time? Is it worth all the hype and has it made any progress? I think the answer is no. It's been incredibly unsuccessful. It's a theory in crisis — it hasn't really achieved any of its major goals as espoused 20 years ago. I'm not saying a physicist shouldn't be looking at this stuff. I just think it's not worthy of a lot of attention. Now, there are no really good alternatives, but I can guarantee when there is, everyone is going to drop string theory like a hot potato and go onto something else."
» National Museum of Natural History, Baird Auditorium, 10th Street & Constitution Avenue NW; Wed., 7 p.m., $15 Smithsonian members, $25 general admission; 202-633-1000. (Smithsonian)
Written by Express contributor Katherine Silkaitis
Photo courtesy Lawrence Krauss
A Jolly Good Idea: Shop Around at Strathmore
Sufi-ce to Sing: Kailash Kher and Kailasa
Streets of China: 'Sound Kapital: Beijing's Music Underground'
Addison Road
The reason string theory is immoral is not just the deliberately misleading hype of string, and the ad hominem attacks on critics of string, which is a lazy approach whereby no careful science or disciplined checks are involved. The mainstream however objects if ad hominem attacks are used against it's leaders. For example, Ed Witten - M-theory creator - was misleading when he claimed:
‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.’ - Ed Witten, M-theory originator, Physics Today, April 1996.
Peter Woit remarks that the prediction is just a prediction of an unobservable spin-2 graviton and not a prediction of anything to do with gravity that is either already experimentally verified or checkable in the future:
‘There is not even a serious proposal for what the dynamics of the fundamental ‘M-theory’ is supposed to be or any reason at all to believe that its dynamics would produce a vacuum state with the desired properties. The sole argument generally given to justify this picture of the world is that perturbative string theories have a massless spin two mode and thus could provide an explanation of gravity, if one ever managed to find an underlying theory for which perturbative string theory is the perturbative expansion.’ – Quantum Field Theory and Representation Theory: A Sketch (2002), http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0206135
To give credit where due, Dr Ed Witten published a letter in Nature, Nature, Vol 444, 16 November 2006, stating:
‘The critics feel passionately that they are right, and that their viewpoints have been unfairly neglected by the establishment. ... They bring into the public arena technical claims that few can properly evaluate. ... Responding to this kind of criticism can be very difficult. It is hard to answer unfair charges of élitism without sounding élitist to non-experts. A direct response may just add fuel to controversies.’
So Dr Ed Witten at least doesn't encourage string critics to launch their attacks on critics, he just prefers to ignore critics. Maybe this is worse for critics with alternative ideas, however, where the choice is controversy or being ignored altogether.
By Nigel , Posted March 29, 2007 10:31 AMI don't believe String Theory will ever be testable or verified to be true. It is a waste of time and a dead end. Every time I see an article in y Astronomy magazine with references to the theory, I have to roll my eyes, and muddle through it, dismissing these outlandish ideas, even as I read about them. Gravity DOES need proper explaining, but Strings and Superstrings aren't doing it.
By Jim Nordhoff , Posted February 29, 2008 10:35 PMI wish to quote from my Physics Essays,vol.2 pp313-321 (1989) article regarding super string theory: "Superstring theory is believed to be a theory of everything. The extended structure, i.e., string instead of a point, is a novel idea, however, the theory is based on the logical extensions obtained from quantum theory, general relativity, quantum field theory, and gauge theories. There is no unique compactification scheme, and even if one finally obtains it, in my opinion superstring theory should be considered a CEDT, and hence it will not survive in the near future."
Here CEDT stands for complex extended derived theories explained in my paper.
The main problem is that the basic questions are not asked by super string theorists: What is charge? What is mass? and What is space and time? Alternatives are simply ignored. I envisage that the present understanding of the gravitation a la general relativity and the physical interpretation of the electromagnetism would go through a radical change, and quantum theory will not survive as a fundamental theory. A beginning in this direction has been made, see my books
at http://www.lulu.com/content/439658
http://www.lulu.com/content/453735
By Dr. S. C. Tiwari , Posted January 22, 2009 4:04 AM