Physicist Lee Smolin’s 2006 book “The Trouble with Physics” is ostensibly about physics; in particular, the quagmire that string theory has turned into: a leviathan that has the majority of the world’s advanced theoretical physicists engaged in pursuit of a theory or system of theories that is yet to be validated by experiment. It also encounters difficulties predicting much of anything, including the very basic features of the universe we live in.
I had heard of the book and had seen reviews before I picked it up at discount bookstore. And one of the reasons I became interested in the book was not so much its discussion of string theory, but its survey of physics in general, e.g., the quest to unite or reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, an explanation of the standard model and its fundamental particles or anything else that the author might be able to explain.
But aside from identifying and elaborating on the five basic problems of physics early on, the going got very tough in the middle portion of the book. When arguments were based on terms such as “background dependence”, “emergence” or “the Maldacena conjecture”, it was very difficult even to take sides.
Nonetheless, near the end of the book, in three chapters (“How Do You Fight Sociology?”, “What is Science?” and “Seers and Craftspeople”), I started marking down Smolin’s remarks for what he was saying about belief systems.
We need not relate all of Smolin’s concerns about string theory vs. other physical theories such as quantum gravity with which Dr. Smolin is concerned. But it is interesting to see how he addresses the problem of a pervasive and compelling social environment.
Noting that physical theories should have a tendency to have formulations that avoid generating expressions which are described as “infinities” ( roughly, numerators divided by zero denominators), Smolin discovers that many or most of the practitioners of research in the string theory field assume that earlier pioneers had taken care of this matter in papers - published sometime or somewhere. Smolin says this is not the case and has informed many of his colleagues.
“When I described this situation in my review paper, it was greeted with disbelief (page 280)…. I had a similar experience talking to string theorists; some were shocked that the proof of finiteness had never been completed. But their shock was as nothing to compared to that of those physicists and mathematicians I talked to who were not string theorists, and who believed that string theory was finite because they had been told it was. For all of us, the impression of string theory as finite had had a great deal to do with our acknowledgment of its importance. None of us could recall ever having heard a string theorist point to it as an unsolved problem…
“None of the string theorists I’ve discussed these issues with have decided, on learning that the theory has not been proved finite, to stop working on string theory.
“But when and if the issue of finiteness is settled, we will have to ask how it happened that so many members of a research program were unaware of the status of one of the key research results in their field."
-----------------
This was not the only example of cracks in the façade. In a review article that Smolin quotes, two researchers write:
“In summary, we see convincing reason to place [Maldacena’s duality conjecture] in the category of true but not proven. Indeed, we regard it on much the same footing…”
Smolin notes, that he had never heard of a mathematician referring to a result as true, but unproven. He believes that the above authors reason that string theory is a well-defined mathematical structure – despite wide agreement that even if it is true, we have no idea what that structure is. Then, when it comes to defending these unproved conjectures, string theorists often note that something is “generally believed”.
Suddenly I begin to see things that I have seen in other people’s pamphlets. But they are coming from physicists.
“No sensible person doubts that this is true...”
“Anyone who hasn’t been asleep for the past six years knows that…
“I doubt that there are many hold-outs left who doubt that the above statement holds...”
In response to the last quote, Smolin says:
“It doesn’t feel good to have to admit to being one of the holdouts, but that is what a detailed examination of the evidence forces me to be.
“This cavalier attitude toward precise support for key conjectures is counterproductive for several reasons. First, …it means that no one works on these important open problems – making it more likely that they will remain unsolved. It also leads to a corrosion of the ethics and methods of science, because a large community of smart people are willing to believe key conjectures without demanding to see them proved…
“The discussion has brought out seven unusual aspects of the string theory community.
1. Tremendous self confidence, leading to a sense of entitlement and of belonging to an elite community of experts.
2. An unusually monolithic community, with a strong sense of consensus , whether driven by the evidence or not, and an unusual uniformity of views on open questions. These views seem related to the existence of a hierarchical structure in which the ideas of a few leaders dictate the viewpoint, strategy and direction of the field.
3. In some cases, a sense of identification with the group, akin to identification with a religious faith or political platform.
4. A strong sense of the boundary between the group and other experts.
5. A disregard for and disinterest in the ideas, opinions and work of experts who are not part of the group, and a preference for talking only with other members of the community.
6. A tendency to interpret the evidence optimistically, to believe exaggerated or incorrect statements of results, and to disregard the possibility that the theory might be wrong. This is coupled with a tendency to believe results are true because they are “widely believed”, even if one has not checked or even seen the proof oneself.
7. A lack of appreciation for the extent to which a research program out to involve risk.
…
“How could a community act in a way so at odds with the goodwill and good sense of its individual members?
“It turns out that sociologists have no problem recognizing this phenomenon. It afflicts communities of highly credentialed experts, who by choice or circumstance communicate only among themselves. It has been studied in the context of intelligence agencies and governmental policy-making bodies and major corporations. …There is a literature describing the phenomenon, which is called groupthink.
‘ a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative course of action.’
…It requires that members share a strong “we-feeling” of solidarity and a desire to maintain relationships at all costs. When colleagues operate in a groupthink mode, they automatically apply the ‘preserve group harmony’ test to every decision they face.”
Another characterization of groupthink from an Oregon State University website:
“Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an out-group opposed to their goals. You can if a group suffers from groupthink if it:
1. Overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance,
2. Collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,
3. Demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,
4. Has a culture of uniformit where individuals censor themselves and others so that the façade of group unanimity is maintained, and
5. Contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members, from the leader.