Slashdot Mirror


The Hidden Reality Draws Ire From Physicists

eldavojohn writes "Scientific American is running a piece by science journalist John Horgan attacking pop physicist Brian Greene's latest offering, titled The Hidden Reality. He's not entirely alone; Not Even Wrong backs him up and reminds us of a growing list of multiverse propaganda. The journal Nature ran a short piece (subscription required) trying to remind everyone that Greene's book is more theory than fact, but apart from those three responses, the popular press seems to be gobbling up this tantalizing concept of a multiverse. NPR offers an excerpt while SFGate and The Wall Street Journal entertain us with interviews of the controversial Greene. The New York Times and Salon seem to think it's worthwhile, with Salon even calling it 'the science behind' the multiverse theory. The New York Times thought it worthwhile to give Greene an op-ed column. For better or for worse, Greene has certainly brought this great debate to the public's attention — similar to his exhibition of String Theory."

6 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Colbert by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can check out a fairly entertaining interview of Brian Greene by Stephen Colbert from last Thursday on Colbert's web site.

    I can't say this will educate you further one way or another and I am certainly not qulified to weigh in on either side of the debate but the guy was pretty candid with Stephen and, well, I found it entertaining...

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    1. Re:Colbert by chemicaldave · · Score: 3, Informative
      Users who can't watch the clip might be interested in this brief transcript I just typed up.

      Colbert: So there are other parallel universes out there.
      Greene: No. I'm not saying that.
      Colbert: Wait. That's all you've been saying.
      Greene: No no. The math suggests there's a possibility, but until we have experimental evidence for these things -
      Colbert: Math is not experimental evidence. Math is high falutin-doodilling.
      Greene: Math suggests things that you wouldn't be thinking about if you didn't have that mathematics as your guide. Then you need to do experiments.

      He seems pretty straightforward about this not being actual science.

  2. Re:So... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

    His sole beef is that it's impossible to prove or disprove.

    Which means it is not and cannot be science. Unless someone comes up with a way to test the "multiverse" theory, it is nothing more than a mental exercise.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  3. Re:String Theory - not 100% sure I'd call it scien by Rising+Ape · · Score: 3, Informative

    Huh? Both theories of relativity have been quite well tested, special relativity especially so. Mass-energy equivalence, time dilation and mechanics (where different from Newtonian) have all had experimental tests. Similarly, for GR, differences in Mercury's orbit, gravitational time dilation (Pound-Rebka experment) and so forth.

  4. Re:String Theory - not 100% sure I'd call it scien by DM9290 · · Score: 4, Informative

    By that same logic, though, you can flush most of Einsteins work too. We do not posses, nor are we likely to posses in our lifetimes barring alien intervention, the technology to directly test and observe either the General or Special theories of relativity.

    Well I guess then you must believe in alien intervention because its all happened already:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

    --
    No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
  5. Great Scientific American article on multiverses by nessus42 · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you want to get the actual scientific scoop on multiverses, as opposed to John Horgan's myopic rant, check out this excellent article by renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark. It was the cover story in Scientific American a few years ago.

    |>ouglas