April 13th, 2007 the superstring revolution (?)

Recently, I finished reading a book called “The Trouble with Physics” by Lee Smolin, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute. The book is mostly a critique of why String Theory is bad for science. But on a more general context, it also talks about a certain type of sociology prevalent in the physics community that, Smolin argues, is hampering progress. I think the most representative example is his arguement about “Seers” and “Craftpeople”. Smolin argues that there are essentially two types of physicists. The more common type is the “Craftpeople”, someone who went into physics because they found themselves good at doing calculations and other “craftwork” that’s necessary to be a physicist. These people don’t think about stuff like philosophy or epistemology and show strong deferrence towards well-known physicists, like Feynman and Wheeler. On the other hand, there are the “seers”, the ones who go into physics because they truely care about how the universe works at the most fundamental level. These people might be artists or philosophers if they had not gone into physics. The deep fundamental questions are what drives them, and they are not afraid to challenge established ideas and think on their own.

Now, I think his description of “Seers” and “Craftpeople” are somewhat true, but I also cannot help feeling that most people are a mixture of both types rather than clearly one or the other. He does make a good point about when each kind is needed though. For example, you need Seers during revolutionary times when the experimental data is clearly in disagreement with established theories, or the theories are not sufficiently clear or elegant. On the other hand, you need craftpeople to do the “hardwork”, to establish all the ramifications of a new theory. For example, you needed the “Seers” like Einstein and Dirac to challenge Newtownian Mechanics and establish Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but needed “Craftpeople” like Feynman to work out all the applied theories like Particle Physics. Smolin also says that the “Seers” are usually motivated by philosophical principles to develop new theories while the “Craftpeople” are mostly occupied with not-so-elegant mathematical approximations and hard calculations to develop new models.

And thus, Smolin makes the point that in order to unify Quantum and Relativity, you need a “Seer”. Instead, we have had the “Craftpeople” dominant in physics for over 30 years, and their solution to the problem, String Theory, has failed specifically because it is, at best, a mathematical approximation and not a deeply motivated and philosophical theory.

I must say that everything he says is music to my ears because I have been sort of peeved at the “Shut Up and Calculate” mentality that I have found in physics so far. I was glad to know that talented physicsts, like Lee Smolin, cared about philosophical issues as much as I did. On the other hand, I also cannot help but wonder just how much of his arguments are oversimplified. Are most physicsts really so dumb as to deliberately ignore philosophy and epistemology? Can the lack of progress in theoretical physics for the last 30 years really be blamed on the “craftpeople”? If I become a physicist, it seems like there is treacherous road ahead of me.