Images from The Elegant Universe
String theory kind of bugs me. Or maybe its just the latest offering from the ever-charismatic string theory guru Brian Greene that I found mildly irksome; the three-part TV series version of his book The Elegant Universe. A good friend gave it to me on tape (thank you friend), but Goodreads has posted a link to the episodes online. String theory is pretty groovy: the idea that the fundamental elements of the universe are not tiny particles at all, but vibrating loops. Maybe I'm just crabby cause of Christmas, but the show kind of turned me off the concept.
The show is a science graphics extravaganza. We are continually bombarded with the invitation to "picture" this and "imagine" that. I began to get the feeling that in any given instance, almost any analogy would do. Instead of falling apples to indicate gravity, how about anvils? Instead of slices of bread to indicate parallel universes, how about an ever expanding playlist of different mp3s? The art direction was very catchy but the visual themes seemed haphazard and I started to doubt the use of eye-candy in wrestling with abstractions.* And by extension I started to doubt string theory itself.
Is it a massive stretch to compare theories with pictures? Theories, like Einstein's theory of relativity, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, do function as a kind of representation. Like a model, or a diagram, they give us a means of sorting information into a configuration that carries meaning. As a lay person absorbing flashy science for a general audience,I am not required to go through the rigours of proving any theories. That's a problem, because I start to see the theories as interchangeable bits of culture, rather than tested modules of scientific knowledge with evidence attached. I do realize that lot of people do a lot of long boring computations on an ongoing basis just so that we can all adopt one theory over the next. And the same goes for string theory. (And the calculations balance!) But, unlike quarks and neutrinos, it just isn't possible to test empirically for evidence of strings.
I wonder, could we just as easily think of the universe as made up of tiny thumb tacks, tacks that poke into the fabric of space time and attach on pieces of other dimensions, so that the universe piles up like layers on an overstuffed bulletin board? Or maybe the universe is made up of cat hairs, that clump into balls in some places, like under the couch, but float freely as individual strips, carrying all kinds of microscopic information as they settle in your spaghetti sauce, or on the bosom of your best black dress. If we spent five hundred years doing the calculations on such a model, is there a chance that we could get the mathematics to work out? I know I'm out on a limb, but I don't think I'm alone in feeling that string theory, at least in the context of Brian Greene's TV show, is just a tad too self-reflexive. There's another word for that...oh yeah, elegant!
(*This could pose a problem for me, since making art images derived from science ideas is one of my ongoing projects.)
Well isn't that just a fine how do you do!!! Last week, Brian Greene romanced me with all that pretty string theory stuff, and now I am totally compelled by the new cat/hair/ball hypothesis.
b/t/w I've always wondered about that anvil that's been hovering a few feet above my head, so I am relieved that there is a scientific explanation.
I think that big assed super collider in Europe is suposed to answer some direct questions that string theory opens. Meaning that some stuff may be testable sooner rather than later. Plus I think the answer will be waiting for us on mars.
I'm kind of drawn to the thumbtack theory.
String theory was a jeopardy answer last night. Nobody got it.
I mostly like science shows, but the Extravagant Universe turned me off to. It does seem to just be arbitrary pretty pictures and he doesn't really explain the context. He may be illustrating science, I just don't think he is doing it all that well.
I'm not an expert, but I seem to remember that the initial reactions to string theory were pretty much the same as yours. However, when people started exploring it more, it became exciting because it seems to provide elegant solutions to a bunch of exisiting physics problems. I think physicists were seeing a really strange shaped hole, and looked for a shape that would fit it. Strings fit I guess and thumbtacks and cat hair don't really right now (but I'm sure no one has completely ruled them out).
Personally I'm voting for the cat hair. Mostly because I like cats, but also it has a nice "Horton hears a Hoo" quality to it. I always thought that Dr Suess was a visionary.
This reminds me of my answer to "is light a wave or a particle?"
Well, yes. And no.
Light act like a particle with wave properties, so it's both.
On the other hand. "Light" is light. "Particle" and "wave" are
mental constructs. They are models that are used to explain the
properties of things. But the model isn't the thing, it's just a
construct used to study the behavior of the thing.
I've thought about it more than a few times, because engineers
have earnest conversations about these sorts of questions. Some
engineers are very left-brained about this sort of question, and
seek single answer. Having a few models to understand
something complicated provides a more complete picture but
requires a tolerance for incongruity.
I've been exposed to string concepts, but I'm not string literate at
this point. I'm very late to this party, but I'll take a gander at the
programs. My expectation is that the conceptual model(s) haven't
gelled well enough in the scientific community.
Thanks Mark. It's good to hear from people with practical requirements for this stuff. A friend made the accusation last night that all this particle stuff I'm posting about is really theology. ouch.
And the Lord sayeth that all that is substantial shall be made of indivisible particles. And those particles shall be called atoms, for they are indivisible.
P.S. And the Lord sayeth that the atom shall be divisible into three indivisible particles that shall be known as electrons, protons and neutrons. And these three shall be indivisible.
P.P.S ...
|
Images from The Elegant Universe
String theory kind of bugs me. Or maybe its just the latest offering from the ever-charismatic string theory guru Brian Greene that I found mildly irksome; the three-part TV series version of his book The Elegant Universe. A good friend gave it to me on tape (thank you friend), but Goodreads has posted a link to the episodes online. String theory is pretty groovy: the idea that the fundamental elements of the universe are not tiny particles at all, but vibrating loops. Maybe I'm just crabby cause of Christmas, but the show kind of turned me off the concept.
The show is a science graphics extravaganza. We are continually bombarded with the invitation to "picture" this and "imagine" that. I began to get the feeling that in any given instance, almost any analogy would do. Instead of falling apples to indicate gravity, how about anvils? Instead of slices of bread to indicate parallel universes, how about an ever expanding playlist of different mp3s? The art direction was very catchy but the visual themes seemed haphazard and I started to doubt the use of eye-candy in wrestling with abstractions.* And by extension I started to doubt string theory itself.
Is it a massive stretch to compare theories with pictures? Theories, like Einstein's theory of relativity, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, do function as a kind of representation. Like a model, or a diagram, they give us a means of sorting information into a configuration that carries meaning. As a lay person absorbing flashy science for a general audience,I am not required to go through the rigours of proving any theories. That's a problem, because I start to see the theories as interchangeable bits of culture, rather than tested modules of scientific knowledge with evidence attached. I do realize that lot of people do a lot of long boring computations on an ongoing basis just so that we can all adopt one theory over the next. And the same goes for string theory. (And the calculations balance!) But, unlike quarks and neutrinos, it just isn't possible to test empirically for evidence of strings.
I wonder, could we just as easily think of the universe as made up of tiny thumb tacks, tacks that poke into the fabric of space time and attach on pieces of other dimensions, so that the universe piles up like layers on an overstuffed bulletin board? Or maybe the universe is made up of cat hairs, that clump into balls in some places, like under the couch, but float freely as individual strips, carrying all kinds of microscopic information as they settle in your spaghetti sauce, or on the bosom of your best black dress. If we spent five hundred years doing the calculations on such a model, is there a chance that we could get the mathematics to work out? I know I'm out on a limb, but I don't think I'm alone in feeling that string theory, at least in the context of Brian Greene's TV show, is just a tad too self-reflexive. There's another word for that...oh yeah, elegant!
(*This could pose a problem for me, since making art images derived from science ideas is one of my ongoing projects.)
- sally mckay 12-29-2004 12:09 am
Well isn't that just a fine how do you do!!! Last week, Brian Greene romanced me with all that pretty string theory stuff, and now I am totally compelled by the new cat/hair/ball hypothesis.
b/t/w I've always wondered about that anvil that's been hovering a few feet above my head, so I am relieved that there is a scientific explanation.
- L.M. 12-29-2004 6:57 am
I think that big assed super collider in Europe is suposed to answer some direct questions that string theory opens. Meaning that some stuff may be testable sooner rather than later. Plus I think the answer will be waiting for us on mars.
- joester 12-29-2004 12:17 pm
I'm kind of drawn to the thumbtack theory.
- sally mckay 12-29-2004 6:19 pm
String theory was a jeopardy answer last night. Nobody got it.
- Jean (guest) 12-30-2004 3:14 pm
I mostly like science shows, but the Extravagant Universe turned me off to. It does seem to just be arbitrary pretty pictures and he doesn't really explain the context. He may be illustrating science, I just don't think he is doing it all that well.
I'm not an expert, but I seem to remember that the initial reactions to string theory were pretty much the same as yours. However, when people started exploring it more, it became exciting because it seems to provide elegant solutions to a bunch of exisiting physics problems. I think physicists were seeing a really strange shaped hole, and looked for a shape that would fit it. Strings fit I guess and thumbtacks and cat hair don't really right now (but I'm sure no one has completely ruled them out).
Personally I'm voting for the cat hair. Mostly because I like cats, but also it has a nice "Horton hears a Hoo" quality to it. I always thought that Dr Suess was a visionary.
- leslie (guest) 12-30-2004 6:57 pm
This reminds me of my answer to "is light a wave or a particle?"
Well, yes. And no.
Light act like a particle with wave properties, so it's both.
On the other hand. "Light" is light. "Particle" and "wave" are
mental constructs. They are models that are used to explain the
properties of things. But the model isn't the thing, it's just a
construct used to study the behavior of the thing.
I've thought about it more than a few times, because engineers
have earnest conversations about these sorts of questions. Some
engineers are very left-brained about this sort of question, and
seek single answer. Having a few models to understand
something complicated provides a more complete picture but
requires a tolerance for incongruity.
I've been exposed to string concepts, but I'm not string literate at
this point. I'm very late to this party, but I'll take a gander at the
programs. My expectation is that the conceptual model(s) haven't
gelled well enough in the scientific community.
- mark 3-27-2005 11:39 pm
Thanks Mark. It's good to hear from people with practical requirements for this stuff. A friend made the accusation last night that all this particle stuff I'm posting about is really theology. ouch.
- sally mckay 3-27-2005 11:50 pm
And the Lord sayeth that all that is substantial shall be made of indivisible particles. And those particles shall be called atoms, for they are indivisible.
P.S. And the Lord sayeth that the atom shall be divisible into three indivisible particles that shall be known as electrons, protons and neutrons. And these three shall be indivisible.
P.P.S ...
- mark 3-28-2005 6:43 am