Animosity in Academia
A few weeks ago, a buddy of mine told me about the anthropology department at Berkeley. Apparently, there are professors in the department who disagree with each other so much that the grad students of one professor may not be able to walk the corridors near the office of a professor with an opposing theory.
Now, I can sort of understand this kind animosity in an anthropology department, where people (in a certain respect) are free to make up whatever, but the beauty of physics is that eventually we will find a right answer. We're all looking for it, why not sit down and try to communicate to the other side peacefully and amicably?
Most of the communication between the stringists, the loopists, and and the anti-stringists seems to amount to the latter two calling the former stupid or foolish, and vice versa. Do you guys really think that a large portion of academia is "stupid"? Can we agree on the fact that string theory may or may not be right, and that loop quantum gravity may or may not be right, and that we should probably open more areas of research just in case neither are right? Can we agree that while the issue is unresolved, people should probably be working on all three roads?
What's the matter with all of you? You all have some of the best jobs in the world: you get to sit there, think about things that interest you, and get paid for it!
Here's my vision: a conference where all string theorists, loop gravity, and anti-string people get together. There would, of course, have to be a bit of alcohol at this conference. Everybody would pair up into groups of three, get some beers and talk/argue. Perhaps at the end a stringist would begin to understand why a loopist likes his ideas about quantum gravity, or an anti-stringist could convince a stringist that we need to open more alternatives towards a unified particle theory.
Eventually, everyone would get so drunk that we'd need a way to resolve disputes. I propose inflatable suit sumo wrestling. It consists of putting on a large sumo suit and trying to force your opponent out of the ring. Now, I've only suit sumo wrestled once, but I can attest to the fact that it's a great way to vent anger and frustration.
Here's what I picture:
S.G.: Where's your unified theory now, Witten?
E.W.: GArr, ya scurvy Glashow, get in the sumo ring!
Sure, nothing would actually be resolved, but at least we'd all have a good time.
14 Comments:
I can't help but feel that you began your post the way that you did in order to bait me into responding. Why are anthropologists any more free to "make up" things than physicists? Why do you think that it is only in physics that a "right answer" will be found (which may in itself be debatable, although I guess it depends on what time scale you're talking...)? When people fight about opposing theories on modern human origins, for example, or the position of certain fossils in the ancestry of our species, presumably we will eventually know if these ideas are right or wrong based on the discovery of new fossils, genetic evidence, etc. So please don't trivilize my science by claiming that we are free to "make up" any more than a string theorist does.
From Tony Smith, who was having trouble posting the blog (if anyone else is having trouble, email me at guarrera@gmail.com)
David, your blog post asks:
"... Most of the communication between the stringists, the loopists,
and and the anti-stringists seems to amount to the latter two calling
the former stupid or foolish, and vice versa. Do you guys really think
that a large portion of academia is "stupid"? ...".
... What's the matter with all of you? ...".
No. Theoretical particle physicsists in the USA are far from stupid,
but they are human and suffer from the vices of selfishness and greed.
The amount of grants and jobs is pretty much flat or slow-growing,
and about 90% of them are "stringists", 10% "loopists",
with others being negligbly small.
Since there is not much growth in grants and jobs,
the only way the "stringists", "loopists", etc., can grow is to
take away from the others.
Since the "stringists" have about 90% of the grants and jobs,
the "loopists", etc., attack the "stringists".
Since the best defense is a good offense,
the "stringists" attack the "loopists", etc.
(This is the same reasoning that produces USA political campaigns
that are very low on substantive discussion but very high on
personal attacks.)
Since grants and jobs in the USA are to a great degree politically
determined (the SSC was alive as long as Texas Bush I was president,
but non-Texas Clinton allowed it to die),
the level of debate is pitched to bureaucrats and politicians,
who don't understand physics, but are influenced by PR voices saying
"the other guys are just stupid crackpots".
That is why departments and laboratories have Public Relations
groups who issue press releases and dumb things down and sensationalize
in order to influence the bureaucrats and politicians,
leading to things like big New York Times etc headlines saying
"LAB X DISCOVERY MAY SHOW NEW PHYSICS", when, if you wait a few months
and read technical journals, you will see (no big NYT article) a small
paper saying "reanalysis of LAB X data shows anomaly was statistical
error" (or maybe due to a + or - sign error in a calculation).
The resulting mess is "What's the matter".
Unfortunately, the leaders of these groups (who are quite aware
of what is going on, even though it is unlikely that they will
ever admit it) will probably not adopt your very reasonable
method of cleaning up the mess:
"... a conference where all string theorists, loop gravity,
and anti-string people get together. ...",
because
the "stringists", being currently dominant, do not want to
give a forum to the less powerful "loopists", etc.,
because
any such forum might show that the "loopists", etc.,
might have some valid approaches, and funding such approaches
would (due to flat funding) mostly come out of the pockets
of the "stringists".
Many years ago I thought that "... the beauty of physics ...[was
that it was objective search for]... a right answer. ...",
but
over the years I have sadly come to believe that my summary above
is really true in the USA, and that in the ruthlessly capitalist
USA money is more important than truth.
That does not mean that there are not a few individuals (like
Peter Woit) who see things realistically and would like to change
things. Unfortunately, he is only one professor, and you would have
to be a math grad student at Columbia to study under him, and.
One professor who was very independent and fiercely honest at MIT
was Irving Segal, but unfortunately he died a few years ago.
If you ask around about him, you will find out about someone
whom I admire in math and physics.
If my summary is correct, which I unhappily think it is,
then there is the career alternative of doing stuff like financial
derivatives etc. In the present dollar-dominated world,
there is a lot of money to be made there.
As to whether the world's financial system will remain that way
for more than a few more years, or whether somebody else like China
will institute a new and different system in which Wall Street
plays a relatively minor role, time will tell.
Hi David,
while I understand your peaceful emotion, it seems that you don't appreciate the serious aspects of the situation.
All of us can agree that string theory may or may not be a theory of the Universe around us. We can even agree that there is some probability that even loop quantum gravity may be "correct" in some sense, although I can't imagine what it could mean.
But the real problems are not just about repeated arguments about some general questions "is string theory correct?" which is what you seem to think. This is not how physics works, and the people who think that this is what physics is all about definitely aren't understanding what science is.
The real questions are more detailed, and there are many of them. If you will pay 100 professors who don't believe quantum mechanics, for example, and want to create philosophical explanations why quantum mechanics is wrong, then - in our opinion - you're simply wasting tens of millions of dollars per year, to say the least. None of us needs to be upset about it - as long as you will pay it from your pocket. ;-)
The society just can't afford to fund too many crackpots and the whole institutes of crackpots - the society simply does not generate an infinite amount of resources. It's always important to try to decide reasonably what kind of research should be supported - it cannot be *any* idea.
You know, your posting would propose something like - let's divide the resources etc., give 1/10 (or even 1/2?) to loop quantum gravity, and make sure that they won't lose it. I think this is completely unacceptable. The probability that LQG is correct is infinitesimal, its picture has been ruled out more or less, and in science, one must always reflect the insights that have already been achieved.
I strongly think that they're not doing the right physics and I will oppose statements that they are very smart simply because these statements are not true. If someone can't understand how quantum mechanics works and why it works, he or she should have been failed as an undergrad physics student, for example. If someone grows up and impresses other people (non-scientists) with his "original" ideas, it's too late.
It's very easy to drink alcohole with a loop gravitist, or anti-string theorist, a new Einstein disproving relativity, or whatever. But it's not the main goal of physics to organize such parties, David. Incidentally, many conferences like that have already been organized, and none of them was ever useful. If a string theorist is drunk, of course that he can say that there are great ideas in loop quantum gravity. But physics is usually not done when you're drunk: physics is usually made by somber people, and once they're somber, they just know that LQG is crappy.
If one is somber, he sees these people propose ideas that simply ARE silly.
Best
Lubos
Hey Lubos,
You're right, I can't at this point in my academic career give a sober (the word I think you mean) look at either string theory or LQG (I'm only a first year). I guess my point is this...instead of the endless rhetoric about how LQG is bad, why not sit down with, say, Lee Smolin and say "Hey Lee, this is why I think your theory is bad." Lee, who has probably considered your arguements in the past can say "Yes, Lubos, but here's why I don't think that's so much of a problem, and also, I like LQG because it produces so and so result." The whole thing would be much more civil, and both of you would probably walk away learning a few things. Instead it seems to me (again, haven't been in the climate for long) we have a climate of pure vitriol where people at genuinely angry at each other. My point is everyone should relax, we're all after the same thing. Once one of these theories is "proven wrong," (perhaps part of the problem is that the timescale for this is quite long), I think it won't be hard to win over it's ex-proponents.
Did the past conferences involve inflatable sumo wrestling?
When you just KNOW you're right and the other side is plain wrong, it's justifiable to attack them.
Dear David,
you overestimate the battles on the internet. If you saw our contacts in real life, you would see that we're friendly towards each other. Lee is a nice guy.
I don't think that he has considered these arguments in the past, at least not too carefully. He's doing it right now. He's writing down a reply to my text about his recent article, and I will, of course, publish it as a main article as soon as he sends it to me.
But you can't expect that all the acts of friendship and peace eliminate the actual physical disrepancies and disagreement, to say it democratically. A lot of work done in particle physics is incompatible with the assumptions that LQG intends to impose, for example, and vice versa. One can be open-minded, but you cannot make compromises while you're working on something specific. Statements in physics are often very correct, and often they are completely wrong - unlike anthropology, there is usually a very sharp answer.
Sincerely
Lubos
I agree with Jamie that you guys are unfairly picking on anthropology.
And Lubos, based upon what you write online, I never would have guessed you're friendly with Smolin. :)
Many of the points in my earlier comment in this blog thread are clearly illustrated by the comments of Lubos Motl, such as:
"... I think this is completely unacceptable ...[to]... divide the resources etc., [to] give 1/10 ... to loop quantum gravity ... The probability that LQG is correct is infinitesimal, its picture has been ruled out more or less ... I will oppose statements that they are very smart ...".
Lubos is a protege of Ed Witten, the godfather of string theory, and Lubos's present position in the string mafia includes acting as internet enforcer: that is, not only does Lubos advocate and publicize string theory on usenet groups, blogs, etc., but he also attacks and tries to dismiss all alternative points of view.
Lubos is no more likely to openly discuss with an open mind an alternative to conventional string theory than is Rush Limbaugh likely to discuss openly and fairly a criticism of President Bush.
Note that, after his first comment in which Lubos says that the LQG "picture has been ruled out", and that giving resources to LQG is "completely unacceptable", and that advocates of LQG are not "very smart", he has the gall to say in a subsequent comment, about LQG advocate Lee Smolin "... we're friendly towards each other. Lee is a nice guy. ...".
With friends like Lubos, Lee doesn't need any enemies.
Tony Smith
To be fair to the string community, though, Lubos is apparently the only string theorist who goes about attacking anyone else who doesn't believe in string theory. Apart from him, I don't think there is any "string mafia".
I doubt there is really a "war" between string theorists and string skeptics. It's just that Lubos is overrepresented online. At least, I don't know of any other string theorist who holds such negative opinions as him.
Once people get attached to ideas, it is often difficult for them to give them up, even after the rational basis for them has evaporated. The history of science is full of scientists who had some neat idea, which turned out to be wrong, and they unfortunately decide to become crackpots rather than giving up on their beloved idea.
The loop gravity people definitely seem to be in this camp. It is simply impossible to argue them out of it. It would be like trying to convince a fundamentalist of evolution. Simply a waste of time.
Someday the string theorists may become crackpots too someday but they're not there yet.
Once a scientist has been recognized as a crackpot by his own community, he often decides to go directly to the public for support, as a certain portion of the public can be easily convinced of anything by someone who has scientific credentials. Smolin has done this quite brilliantly and now has the perimeter institute as a result.
Please note the flawed logic in the unsigned anonymous comment at time 3:07 PM:
The unsigned comment says that Smolin and the "... loop gravity people definitely seem to be ... scientists who had some ... idea, which turned out to be wrong, and they unfortunately decide to become crackpots rather than giving up on their beloved idea. ...".
However, unsigned anonymous does NOT give any reference showing any conclusive refutation of loop gravity.
In my opinion, that is because loop quantum gravity has not been conclusively refuted.
I will agree that loop quantum gravity is not yet a completed program, but that does not mean that it could not be successfully completed with further effort. For example, one possible approach might be a spin foam formulation with nodes related to the exceptional Jordan algebra, which is not unrelated to a paper by Smolin at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0104050 . It is even possible that such a structure might have a lot in common with some form of string theory, and it might eventually turn out that a useful realistic unified theory of gravity and the standard model could have both loop gravity and string theory aspects.
If Smolin, loop quantum gravity, and other non-standard approaches are considered crackpot and therefore underfunded (or even not funded at all), then it is my opinion that a lot of useful physics might be lost.
On a procedural note, I am posting as "anonymous" because it is easy enough for me to figure out how to do that with my browser. However, I am signing my name so that readers will be able to know who I am. Personally, I do not regard unsigned anonymous comments with as much weight as those from people willing to say who they are.
Tony Smith
Incidentally, everyone keeps claiming string theory and loop quantum gravity are the ONLY two approaches. Has everyone forgotten about the Euclidean gravity program by Hartle and Hawking?
While on the subject, why not take a look here (it is physics):
http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde/priory.html
please tell me where you sumo wrestled in the funny suits? Not easy to find, although many places to rent them
Post a Comment
<< Home