Slashdot Mirror
Theoretical Physics Breakthrough or Hoax?
Brooklyn Bob writes "Ever get the feeling that some theoretical physics papers just don't make sense? According to this New York Times article, you may be right. Genius or gibberish? Who knows?" This belongs on your virtual refrigerator with nice big virtual magnet.
Physics papers aren't just published all willy nilly. They must be reviewed by other physicists. Also, most theorists don't work alone, but instead work in a group, so there are checks and balances going on there.
I do admit, however, that theoretical physics seems harder and harder to understand. Newton's laws are far more simple to do calculations with than Relativistic Dynamics. And Newtonian Gravity seems far more simple than General Relativity. And then you have Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, and now String Theory (which is full of unsolvable differential equations).
However, just because the mathematics and principles involved are harder to understand, doesn't mean that they are hoaxes. Indeed, despite the computational and conceptual difficulties involved in General Relativity (to which I find the conceptual difficulties fairly easy to overcome, but to which the math to solve a problem seems to take forever), the theory works far better for extreme conditions than its predecessor.
Before I conclude, I would like to point out that there is a difference between computational difficulties and conceptual. Many modern theories take very difficult mathematics to solve even seemingly simple problems. However, to build a loose conceptual notion of of, say, General Relativity, is fairly easy, given some experience with problems. I usually find it a lot easier to understand the concepts of a newe theory, and then trust that the theorists are honestly doing the math in in effort to show that the theory pans out as compared to the real world.
I've babbled on long enough; it's just my two cents as a Physicist.
-Jeff
No, but to people who do understand the field in which the Bogdanov brothers claim to be researching (I am a PhD student in string theory and include myself in this set), their paper is complete gibberish.
Their paper is full of unfounded assertions strung together, combined with definitions and other assertions that are patently false. The paper does not follow a logical chain of reasoning that allows the reader to repeat or verify their conclusions (which are also not clearly stated).
Furthermore, when confronted by other theoretical physicists (on the sci.physics.research Usenet group) with specific, detailed questions about their work, the authors have systematically refused to answer, or selectively answered with further vague or absurd statements. To me, this is the real clincher: they have completely failed to demonstrate a technical understanding of the field in which they claim to be working.
It is clear to everyone in the field that these papers are nonsense and should never have been published. The only actual supporters of the authors seem to be from non-scientists or physicists who are unqualified to judge the work itself.
Check out the Guardian's top 10 scientific blunders page. They've got psychologists, physicists, chemists... all working to pull down science's reputation.
this is about a controversy -within- the physics community. since members of the physics community (sokal, as mentioned in the article) have taken upon themselves to sully other academic communities concerning determinism, it only makes sense they are held to the same yardstick they would hold others. for instance, ironically in light of the sokal hoax, quantum theory has been in revolt against determinism for most of a century, with significant criticisms against that trend from einstein at solvay in 1927 and 1930 and at princeton in 1935, from bell in 1965, from clauser in 1978, and from aspect in 1982. individuals among quantum theorists may have very definite opinions about the relevance of causality vs correlation. but as a community the only thing they appear to agree upon is that some among their number are speaking gibberish. just who among their number are speaking the gibberish depends on who among their number you talk to. some, like wheeler, will insist there is not even a controversy, and this is taken up as an orthodox academic position by many physicists.
i haven't noticed any "ceaseless battering of the physics community in the name of sensationalism" by slashdot. there is, however, a lot of disagreement among physicists as to who is making any sense, whatever the writer of the article understands.
The field of physics is obviously doing a good enough job of sullying itself. You see, despite whether or not the writer understands what's happening, the article talks about scientists and mathemeticians sullying physics:
Scientists have been debating whether the Bogdanov brothers are really geniuses with a new view of the moment before the universe began or simply earnest scientists who are in over their heads and spouting nonsense
Not to mention these quotes from people in and around the field:
1. "Dr. Roman W. Jackiw, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who read and approved Igor Bogdanov's Ph.D. thesis, said he found it speculative but "intriguing.""
2. "Dr. John Baez, a physicist and quantum gravity theorist at the University of California at Riverside, who has conducted a dialogue with the Bogdanov brothers on the Web site math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov, said, "One thing that seems pretty clear to me is that the Bogdanovs don't know how to do physics.""
3. "Dr. Peter Woit, a mathematician and physicist at Columbia University, said of the brothers' work, "Scientifically, it's clearly more or less complete nonsense, but these days that doesn't much distinguish it from a lot of the rest of the literature.""
Notice that those credentials don't appear to belong to journalists. Then who is defaming the field of physics? Maybe a physics professor, a physicist, and a mathematician! ;) Interesting.
The reporting does appear to make some physicists uncomfortable, and on slashdot it appears some are trying to push negative focus away from the physics community and onto the journalists -- a good scapegoat because of the "writer's inability to understand it" :-O
However this reaction is not surprising because any of us would do the same to protect our own field. Don't be surprised, but do see it for what it is.
With the Sokal hoax, many physics people jumped up and shouted that Sokal had "proven" that cultural studies was a "bogus" discipline. Now, with this hoax, the same people are backpedalling, saying that this time the issue is "complicated" and that "physics isn't for amateurs." If anything, this hoax seems more damning to me than Sokal.
;)). The paper was published because an established physicist was making bold statements about the philosophical basis of his field. That's not news? Of course, as it turned out, that physicist was a snake in the grass.
Why? In his paper, Sokal didn't pretend to be a literature professor; he claimed at the start he was a physicist. The review board of Social Text weren't physicists and so they couldn't really evaluate the physics part of his paper. Instead, they trusted Sokal that he was following the usual academic honesty and integrity in his assertions. As it turned out, and as we all now know, he wasn't -- he was intentionally distorting his beliefs about physics in order to perpetrate a hoax. What Sokal did was a lot like a researcher falsifying data: review boards usually have no way of knowing whether a submitter has falsified data and so they have to rely on the person's academic integrity, just like the board of Social Text had no way of knowing whether Sokal was sincere in his representation of physics, so they had to trust him.
The Bogdanov brothers, however, published as physicists, about physics, and in journals reviewed by physicists. Not only that, but the people who reviewed them are now spouting inanities like "he worked for ten years, so he deserved a doctorate." (Um, no, he can work for 30 years, but if he doesn't understand the stuff, he doesn't get the doctorate.)
If Sokal had tried to write as a literature professor, I highly doubt his paper would have gotten through. I've read his paper, and quite frankly, it was *not* accepted for what it had to say about cultural studies. The knowledge the paper represents of cultural studies reads like an enthusiastic but over-bold sophomore who just took his/her first class in critical theory (disclosure: I teach critical theory to sophomores, and I've seen those papers
Why do you put Sokal in the same group as Schon? Schon was hedging the data to get prestige and more funding (most likely). Sokal was criticizing the social sciences for their lack of rigor by submitting a parody --- which they published without any fact checking.
So let's get it straight: Schon is a talentless hack; Sokal is a dedicated scientist who wants to see more people acting and thinking rationally. If you don't believe me, check out his website. From personal experience I can tell you that Sokal is a good guy. It makes me sick to see people like you lashing out without even taking time to learn about what you're talking about (actually, people like you were the motivation for Sokal writing that piece.).