String Theory and the Crackpot Index By glor in Science Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 10:08:39 PM EST Tags: string theory, crackpot index, popular physics (all tags)
	Recently two books, by Peter Woit and by Lee Smolin, have been published questioning whether the enormous theoretical effort applied to the problems of string theory has been fruitful. Both books have been reviewed in several popular publications, and generated substantial discussion both inside and outside of the physics community. One response was published several days ago by Briane Greene on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times (also here). A famously grouchy observer called the editorial a long, wistful plea for patience. But what struck me most as I read it was its similarity to the crackpot index maintained by John Baez. So, for fun, I scored it.

I feel a little dirty having done this. Part of me feels compelled to point out that I know this is a newspaper editorial for general consumption, rather than a "scientific" document. But I think the fact that a comparison with a crackpot index has any traction at all says something important and unpleasant about string theory's role in physics. Points awarded (or considered) are listed below. A -5 point starting credit. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). The initial all-caps is a newspaper tradition. No points awarded. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. Only Professor Greene's present academic affiliation is mentioned. No points awarded. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. It's at the end, not the beginning: "I have worked on string theory for more than 20 years because I believe it provides the most powerful framework for constructing the long-sought unified theory." 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". "Even so, researchers worldwide are still working toward an exact and tractable formulation of the theory's equations." 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, ... and 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton ... I'm not sure whether the standard quantum gravity discussion of unification as the grand theme of the history of physics qualifies here. Certainly there are not statements of the type Baez generally filters for, where the crackpot writes, "I'm smarter than Einstein." But the implication is that, were Newton or Einstein alive today, they would be working on string theory too. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". "Such was the case until the mid-1980's, when a new approach, string theory, burst onto the stage. ... As word of the breakthrough spread ..." 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. Another item of questionable relevance in an op-ed. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. "Even on his deathbed [Einstein] scribbled equations in the desperate but fading hope that the theory would finally materialize. It didn't." 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. "Finally, some have argued that if, after decades of research involving thousands of scientists, the theory is still a work in progress, it's time to give up." (One might ask whether this question gets a pass, too, since such opinions have in fact been expressed by reputable people.) 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. "To be sure, no one successful experiment would establish that string theory is right, but neither would the failure of all such experiments prove the theory wrong." Certainly, Dr. Greene has been been working for a long time (10) on a paradigm shift (10), towards which Einstein struggled on his deathbed (30). For his effort, his theory has no equations (10) and no tests (50). With the starting credit, that much makes 105 points. Is Dr. Greene a crackpot? No. But is this how physics should be presented to the public?

Related Links

by Peter Woit by Lee Smolin several popular publicatio ns by Briane Greene also here famously grouchy observer crackpot index Also by glor