The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a… (2006)

Hard work, especially in the middle sections where there is lots and lots of string theory, loop quantum gravity, and what-all-else. The end section on the sociology of physics and how, sociologically speaking, the business of academic science is not working very well at the moment, is very interesting though.

I have come out of it with only a pretty vague awareness of string theory but a rather more definite sense of what's wrong with contemporary science as it is actually practiced in the academy. Feeds interestingly into undergraduate study done years ago on philosophy of science. ( )

String theory is a science fad. I believe it is not dissimilar to phlogistin or the aether. The academic world is stuck in a rut. Can you imagine how technology would progress if new engineers had to acquire tenure? ( )

This is the best and perhaps most challenging book I've read this year. It's divided in three parts: a history of developments in physics during the 20th century; a explanation and critique of string theory (concluding that string theory may be a dead end in the search for a theory that will unify what we know about the world); and a sociological argument about what it will take for the discipline of physics to regain the momentum of frequent advances it enjoyed until about 1974.

The target for the book is at least partly an interested lay public. Although many of the theories Smolin references rely on complicated or cutting-edge math, there's no math in the book; Smolin explains what various theories mean and how they relate to each other without wading through them. So, the narrative demands concentration, but no special technical training. Smolin is a wonderfully clear writer, is generous towards his colleagues (including those with whom he disagrees), and shows humility about his own successes.

Because I have no independent basis to judge Smolin's statements about theories, I've read a number of online reviews of the book, and discussions on the physicists' blogs. I've been surprised by the degree of vitriol in some; they seem to me to have largely missed his key points: that string theory can't be falsified in any traditional sense, and that it has monopolized resources that might better have been spread across a range of approaches, many of which offer greater opportunities for experimental verification. I've been particularly astounded by the claim that Smolin shouldn't have published his critique of string theory in a book meant for the general public, but should have 'kept it within the profession'. I'd have never had the chance to run across, much less understand, his argument if he'd done that, and would have a much poorer grasp of the scope and potential of modern physics, including string theory. I'm profoundly grateful that he wrote this book. ( )

Although intended for the lay reader, the first two-thirds of this book, covering the details of the various versions of string theory, were rather slow going and I kept putting the book down for a few days or even weeks. However, I am glad that I kept on trying as the last part of Smolin's book was worth the effort. Here he explains a bit about his philosophy of science and what he thinks science is, how it should work, and how it really works, especially in academia. He also gives a few ideas about how to make science, particularly theoretical physics, work better. Recommended for those who have read enough about string theory to be able to follow the first parts of the book without too much trouble.

Lee presents String Theory really well. I thought his explanations of the areas that need focus within String Theory were very well presented. The last couple of chapters where he talks about the physics community and what needs to change sounds like the same problem that every business and organization has when it reaches a certain size and a certain amount of money flowing into it. I really liked the science, the commentary was ho-hum.