What do you think?
Rate this book
Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth
In this stunning new volume, Jim Baggott argues that there is no observational or experimental evidence for many of the ideas of modern theoretical physics: super-symmetric particles, super strings, the multiverse, the holographic principle, or the anthropic cosmological principle. These theories are not only untrue, it is not even science. It is fairy-tale physics: fantastical, bizarre and often outrageous, perhaps even confidence-trickery.This book provides a much-needed antidote. Informed, comprehensive, and balanced, it offers lay readers the latest ideas about the nature of physical reality while clearly distinguishing between fact and fantasy. With its engaging portraits of many central figures of modern physics, including Paul Davies, John Barrow, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, and Leonard Susskind, it promises to be essential reading for all readers interested in what we know and don't know about the nature of the universe and reality itself.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
93 people are currently reading
1000 people want to read
About the author
Jim Baggott
23 books147 followersJim Baggott completed his doctorate in physical chemistry at the University of Oxford and his postgraduate research at Stanford University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
September 2, 2013
Increasingly often, modern science is being attacked by people accusing it of failing to honor its own rules. The opening salvo was Smolin's
The Trouble with Physics
, which caused some damage; it was taken seriously within the scientific establishment and widely read outside it. Other authors attempting to do the same thing have been less successful. Non-experts found Woit's
Not Even Wrong
too mathematical and demanding; Berlinski's
The Devil's Delusion
was written off as creationist propaganda; Kragh's elegant and meticulous
Higher Speculations
somehow failed to have an impact; and Unzicker's
Bankrupting Physics
came across as an ignorant rant. But I have a feeling that Baggott is about to score another hit. He has worked as a scientist himself, appears well acquainted with the facts, writes nicely, and presents his material in a balanced and responsible way.
The book is divided into two halves. "Farewell to reality", says Baggott in the title, and very properly starts by considering at length the questions of what "reality" is, how science might presume to be able to find out anything about it, and what methods it can legitimately use. He considers numerous cases from the history of science and philosophy, and concludes that it is hard to frame clear general rules. The borderline between physics and metaphysics is not as sharply defined as one would wish (quantum mechanics, or for that matter Newton's idea of absolute space), and it is not straightforward to define what it means for a theory to be empirically testable (it was surprising that Dirac's ideas about anti-matter were soon validated, and experts believed for a long time that no one would ever be able to detect neutrinos). Nonetheless, he argues that there is broad agreement on what constitutes normal scientific reasoning, even if there is a substantial gray area around it.
He then spends four chapters presenting an overview of modern physics, concentrating on the fields where controversy has arisen: quantum mechanics, particle physics, relativity and cosmology. In the final chapter of the first half, he explains why the currently accepted mainstream picture must be incorrect or incomplete: he is particularly worried by the quantum measurement problem (Schrödinger's cat), the unknown nature of dark matter, the lack of explanation for the masses of the elementary particles, inability to make quantum mechanics coherent with relativity, and the apparent fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants.
In the second half, Baggot goes on to talk about the speculative attempts physicists have made over the last 40 years to address known gaps: supersymmetry, superstring theory, the multiverse (both the Many Worlds Interpretation and eternal inflation), the Cosmic Landscape and the Anthropic Principle. He argues that these are, simply, not science as it is generally known: they involve piling one assumption on top of another, with no empirical evidence at all to buttress it. When the whole shaky tower is complete, we have the theoretical edifice which Susskind presents in The Cosmic Landscape . Superstring theory (no empirical support) builds on supersymmetry (no empirical support), and gives rise to the vast Cosmic Landscape of different potential variant theories (no empirical support). Eternal inflation (no empirical support) means that all these different variant universes actually exist. The Anthropic Principle (according to Baggott, not even a scientific idea), then allows us both to argue that we have a solution to the fine-tuning problem, and, simultaneously, to claim that the fact that the fine-tuning problem has been solved somehow validates the other links in the chain; circular reasoning at its finest.
I had the same reaction as Baggott when I read Susskind's book: this doesn't make sense. I was startled by Susskind's assertion that the choice was between the Landscape and some version of Intelligent Design, and even more startled to see Richard Dawkins endorsing it. Baggott doesn't like ID any better than Susskind or Dawkins do, but he is is equally unimpressed by the Landscape. He honestly says that he doesn't know what the answer is. Over the last 500 years, science has had an incredible track record of explaining the physical world without recourse to supernatural explanations, and one would expect it to succeed here too. So far, though, it's completely unclear how it's going to manage that feat. The universe looks like it has been designed, but no one knows why, and the people who say they do know are the ones you should trust least.
If you haven't yet got involved in this fascinating debate, Baggott's book is an excellent place to start. Check it out.
The book is divided into two halves. "Farewell to reality", says Baggott in the title, and very properly starts by considering at length the questions of what "reality" is, how science might presume to be able to find out anything about it, and what methods it can legitimately use. He considers numerous cases from the history of science and philosophy, and concludes that it is hard to frame clear general rules. The borderline between physics and metaphysics is not as sharply defined as one would wish (quantum mechanics, or for that matter Newton's idea of absolute space), and it is not straightforward to define what it means for a theory to be empirically testable (it was surprising that Dirac's ideas about anti-matter were soon validated, and experts believed for a long time that no one would ever be able to detect neutrinos). Nonetheless, he argues that there is broad agreement on what constitutes normal scientific reasoning, even if there is a substantial gray area around it.
He then spends four chapters presenting an overview of modern physics, concentrating on the fields where controversy has arisen: quantum mechanics, particle physics, relativity and cosmology. In the final chapter of the first half, he explains why the currently accepted mainstream picture must be incorrect or incomplete: he is particularly worried by the quantum measurement problem (Schrödinger's cat), the unknown nature of dark matter, the lack of explanation for the masses of the elementary particles, inability to make quantum mechanics coherent with relativity, and the apparent fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants.
In the second half, Baggot goes on to talk about the speculative attempts physicists have made over the last 40 years to address known gaps: supersymmetry, superstring theory, the multiverse (both the Many Worlds Interpretation and eternal inflation), the Cosmic Landscape and the Anthropic Principle. He argues that these are, simply, not science as it is generally known: they involve piling one assumption on top of another, with no empirical evidence at all to buttress it. When the whole shaky tower is complete, we have the theoretical edifice which Susskind presents in The Cosmic Landscape . Superstring theory (no empirical support) builds on supersymmetry (no empirical support), and gives rise to the vast Cosmic Landscape of different potential variant theories (no empirical support). Eternal inflation (no empirical support) means that all these different variant universes actually exist. The Anthropic Principle (according to Baggott, not even a scientific idea), then allows us both to argue that we have a solution to the fine-tuning problem, and, simultaneously, to claim that the fact that the fine-tuning problem has been solved somehow validates the other links in the chain; circular reasoning at its finest.
I had the same reaction as Baggott when I read Susskind's book: this doesn't make sense. I was startled by Susskind's assertion that the choice was between the Landscape and some version of Intelligent Design, and even more startled to see Richard Dawkins endorsing it. Baggott doesn't like ID any better than Susskind or Dawkins do, but he is is equally unimpressed by the Landscape. He honestly says that he doesn't know what the answer is. Over the last 500 years, science has had an incredible track record of explaining the physical world without recourse to supernatural explanations, and one would expect it to succeed here too. So far, though, it's completely unclear how it's going to manage that feat. The universe looks like it has been designed, but no one knows why, and the people who say they do know are the ones you should trust least.
If you haven't yet got involved in this fascinating debate, Baggott's book is an excellent place to start. Check it out.
September 4, 2014
Baggott's text is ultimately an attempt to knock down one sector of the creeping pseudo-science that is increasingly masquerading as actual science in academia and especially in the popular presentation of science to the public. However, the far more satisfying portion of the book is Baggott's layman's overview of the progression of scientific advancement over the first three quarters of the 20th century. While I was aware of many of the aspects and topics he covered, in many cases the exact means by which the findings were experimentally confirmed and the sequence and timing of discoveries were details that weren't known to me. The logical sequence of discoveries and the depth at which he covered them were perfect for the purpose of the material. There was enough depth for someone like myself that is conversant in physics but doesn't actually practice it himself, and yet not so much depth that you hit road blocks in understanding due to pages of mathematics that you have to digest.
The second half of the book where he tackles how we went from empirical study and observation to fantastic leaps of imagination and untestable guesses is important, but ultimately far less interesting. It's much more interesting to point out what we know, than to have to spend many pages explaining why all this crap is largely things we don't know and have no present means of knowing. However, I felt that Baggott pretty thoroughly demolished string theory and everything else built on it. That perception of course is perhaps based on the fact that I fully expected him to do so, and he's in fact preaching to the choir on that point.
Baggott fails to tackle larger problems plaguing science at the moment. The truth is 95% of all papers are crap. Peer review isn't working as advertised. Scientific ethics are at an all time low with data being often manufactured or stolen. Experiment has shown that the vast majority of papers contain no repeatable observations, which anyone who actually looked at most papers out there would be able to guess. Models with dozens of make them up as you need them unknowns are too often substituting for experiments, and too often the creation of a model is treated as a result and not a theorem. Scientists increasingly spend more time creating computer programs and staring at shadows on the wall rather than collecting evidence. Evolutionary research has gotten lost in taxonomy Just So Stories about the distant and unknowable past, with for example 50 different untestable theories about how human upright posture evolved dominating debate. Science in general is increasingly a religious mindset proclaiming its incompatibility with all other religions. Too many scientists are doing backflips trying to justify a particular religious world view rather than actually observing the universe as if answering questions like "Is there a God?" was the reason for science's existence and not a tangential private belief. Sagan style historicism, wild imaginative speculation, quasi-spiritual romanticism and political activism seems to be trumping actual investigation, lab work, or any other rigor, and the public face of science is overwhelmingly controlled by a few religious zealots as if debating whether God was real was the most important use of a scientist's time. It certainly seems to be the most economically rewarding.
And scientists actually wonder why public esteem for science is on the decline as if it was some problem with the public.
But for what he is actually able to notice from his perspective, he seems to be looking at the right stuff and asking the right questions.
The second half of the book where he tackles how we went from empirical study and observation to fantastic leaps of imagination and untestable guesses is important, but ultimately far less interesting. It's much more interesting to point out what we know, than to have to spend many pages explaining why all this crap is largely things we don't know and have no present means of knowing. However, I felt that Baggott pretty thoroughly demolished string theory and everything else built on it. That perception of course is perhaps based on the fact that I fully expected him to do so, and he's in fact preaching to the choir on that point.
Baggott fails to tackle larger problems plaguing science at the moment. The truth is 95% of all papers are crap. Peer review isn't working as advertised. Scientific ethics are at an all time low with data being often manufactured or stolen. Experiment has shown that the vast majority of papers contain no repeatable observations, which anyone who actually looked at most papers out there would be able to guess. Models with dozens of make them up as you need them unknowns are too often substituting for experiments, and too often the creation of a model is treated as a result and not a theorem. Scientists increasingly spend more time creating computer programs and staring at shadows on the wall rather than collecting evidence. Evolutionary research has gotten lost in taxonomy Just So Stories about the distant and unknowable past, with for example 50 different untestable theories about how human upright posture evolved dominating debate. Science in general is increasingly a religious mindset proclaiming its incompatibility with all other religions. Too many scientists are doing backflips trying to justify a particular religious world view rather than actually observing the universe as if answering questions like "Is there a God?" was the reason for science's existence and not a tangential private belief. Sagan style historicism, wild imaginative speculation, quasi-spiritual romanticism and political activism seems to be trumping actual investigation, lab work, or any other rigor, and the public face of science is overwhelmingly controlled by a few religious zealots as if debating whether God was real was the most important use of a scientist's time. It certainly seems to be the most economically rewarding.
And scientists actually wonder why public esteem for science is on the decline as if it was some problem with the public.
But for what he is actually able to notice from his perspective, he seems to be looking at the right stuff and asking the right questions.
September 13, 2013
Baggott certainly has an agenda. This book is a summary of the present state of physics and he shows it is riven by methodological and epistemological difficulties.
'Farewell to Reality' says Physics has a core problem. As far as we have tested, General Relativity and Quantum Gravity are both very good at explaining the world we see around us (and some bits we dont!) but they cannot currently be consolidated into one theory. One of them (or both?) must be wrong, as they do not work together. In trying to solve this main problem (and this is merely a most pertinent one from many,) Physics has tied itself in a knot it is struggling to untangle.
Lee Smolin thinks he has found a possible answer in his latest book "Time Reborn" (and the hint is in the title,) but Baggott is very clear that his book will not provide many answers to the questions it poses. It is pure polemic. In this regard, Baggott is like the child who, amid all the pomp and grace of current physics is brave enough to admit that the Emperor has no clothes.
To show us why this is so, he has to fill us in with the history of physics so as to get us up to speed with the current state of physics. In this regard, the book is fantastic. As an introductory text of popular science, Farewell to Reality is hard to beat. Baggott doesn't quite dumb right down, nor does his exposition read so inscrutable as to be opaque. But make no mistake, Baggott is thorough too. A solid familiarity with popular science is helpful here, but Baggott assembles any knowledge needed to understand his arguments.
Thus, if they didn't know already, a reader will come away knowing what Bell said about Quantum Mechanics, what WIMPs, MACHOs, bosons and LamdaCMD refer to (as well as what a veritable cosmic zoo of acronyms and initials mean,) and they'll have also read a lot of Einstein's gnomic utterances on physics (each chapter begins with a pithy quote from his many.)
I benefited from this treatment, which was clear and colloquial, and his book did exactly what it set out to do: to help me see what's wrong with physics and how some solutions are in his eyes, only making things worse.
The ideas proposed as solutions to certain problems, are numerous. Branes crashing into branes. One dimensional strings vibrating but currently undetectable. Variations of graph theory on the Planck scale. A theory of the universe that imagines our word is merely a projection of some deeper rule, as if we are players on the surface of a galactic balloon. A world where every action you could take really happens each in its own separate and co-existent reality. Principles Copernican and strongly or weakly Anthropic. A menagerie of elementary particles we may never be able to detect and a Standard Model that is looking creaky.
So many competing ideas. Baggott dislikes this and dislikes that many conjectured ideas will remain, in absence of evidence, just that: mere conjecture.
And what of conjecture without current evidence? and competing truths? It is clear that the last few decades have seen a pluralistic notion of truth emerge and Baggott suggests that this laissez faire approach to rigour and truth may lie at the heart of physics' problem. A plurality of truth begets a plurality of approach and attempt. But, rather that, in my eyes, than physics constrained by old ways of working, a physics beholden to toeing a party line of How Science Must Be Done. rather a vitality of engagement than ossification, structure of a Procrustean kind thrust upon research that would recoil from the unfashionable.
Therefore, faced with indissoluble difficulties of mathematics and conceptual design, might not the best method be to work (following Feyerabend) 'against method'? Innovation must be allowed. Granted, in current state, it may seem that we are being spun a dangerous web of what Baggott calls 'Fairy Tale physics' but, to turn the phrase against its author, a fairy tale is merely the uncomfortable zone of tension that emerges when one type of discourse (normativity, 'what-should-be-done') meets local exception - the stricture where an old order is irrupted and challenged. And yet, society is healthier for them. They are exemplars not of an affirmation of existing order, but of a need to question it and to have been better for it. From such conflict does resolution both diegetic and extra diegetic emerge.
Tales of this kind are above all, a sharply delineated lesson pulled from the chaos of Life, and the more powerful for it. It is not Life true and real. A tale or fable works against current orthodoxy but Fairy Tale physics IS our orthodoxy. This is not the parlous state of affairs Baggott would have us believe*. Truth is messy. Our physics wholesale is messy (though locally congruent and gifted with explanatory and expository force.)
Seen in Kuhnian terms, the state of order today is to my mind, one of incipient epistemic revolution in forment. Seen in fairy tale form, it is Sleeping Beauty (though Baggott would have us believe that we are about to take a bite of poisoned apple, to fall into a sleep of reason) who just needs a nudge to wake up to a brighter world.
But enough tenuous analogy. We would do well to remember that a lot of Fairy tales end well (as indeed we must also recall that some do not). I am quite sure that this particular story will end well too. The moral of this particular knotty tale is that patience and tolerance are virtues. We must work as we must and realise some paths lead into forests as some lead home. (Ok, I know I said no more analogy...no more, I promise.)
For me, the lesson of Baggott's fairy tales is not for us to lift ourselves away from them back into the realm of the credulous, the hard nosed empiricist, the stance of the undreaming dead-at-heart. It should be a call instead to permit experiment of thought and not just experiment upon a lab bench, to admit simply put, challenge to order. This is not anarchism but dynamism, a field bubbling over with essential and productive action.
So too might this tale of Fairytale physics be a reminder that the exercising of indignation, whilst it is an inalienable right of any scientist and a function of a healthy open society, might be as much a hindrance to progress as it is a call to arms. Let each pursue their own enquiry as they may, and then one day tomorrow, or tomorrow upon tomorrow, the truth will out. Gordia still awaits its Alexander to cut away the knot. Our society - humankind as a whole - will benefit from whomsoever has the sharpest mind to make the cut.
* DISCLAIMER: I realise this idea is reprehensible to most, many, or any working or non-working scientist around, past (since say, Gallileo) or present (where empiricism is the gold standard). Also it'll be plainly obvious that I am not nor have ever been a scientist, not even to play one on TV, nor do I have any scientific training at all.
'Farewell to Reality' says Physics has a core problem. As far as we have tested, General Relativity and Quantum Gravity are both very good at explaining the world we see around us (and some bits we dont!) but they cannot currently be consolidated into one theory. One of them (or both?) must be wrong, as they do not work together. In trying to solve this main problem (and this is merely a most pertinent one from many,) Physics has tied itself in a knot it is struggling to untangle.
Lee Smolin thinks he has found a possible answer in his latest book "Time Reborn" (and the hint is in the title,) but Baggott is very clear that his book will not provide many answers to the questions it poses. It is pure polemic. In this regard, Baggott is like the child who, amid all the pomp and grace of current physics is brave enough to admit that the Emperor has no clothes.
To show us why this is so, he has to fill us in with the history of physics so as to get us up to speed with the current state of physics. In this regard, the book is fantastic. As an introductory text of popular science, Farewell to Reality is hard to beat. Baggott doesn't quite dumb right down, nor does his exposition read so inscrutable as to be opaque. But make no mistake, Baggott is thorough too. A solid familiarity with popular science is helpful here, but Baggott assembles any knowledge needed to understand his arguments.
Thus, if they didn't know already, a reader will come away knowing what Bell said about Quantum Mechanics, what WIMPs, MACHOs, bosons and LamdaCMD refer to (as well as what a veritable cosmic zoo of acronyms and initials mean,) and they'll have also read a lot of Einstein's gnomic utterances on physics (each chapter begins with a pithy quote from his many.)
I benefited from this treatment, which was clear and colloquial, and his book did exactly what it set out to do: to help me see what's wrong with physics and how some solutions are in his eyes, only making things worse.
The ideas proposed as solutions to certain problems, are numerous. Branes crashing into branes. One dimensional strings vibrating but currently undetectable. Variations of graph theory on the Planck scale. A theory of the universe that imagines our word is merely a projection of some deeper rule, as if we are players on the surface of a galactic balloon. A world where every action you could take really happens each in its own separate and co-existent reality. Principles Copernican and strongly or weakly Anthropic. A menagerie of elementary particles we may never be able to detect and a Standard Model that is looking creaky.
So many competing ideas. Baggott dislikes this and dislikes that many conjectured ideas will remain, in absence of evidence, just that: mere conjecture.
And what of conjecture without current evidence? and competing truths? It is clear that the last few decades have seen a pluralistic notion of truth emerge and Baggott suggests that this laissez faire approach to rigour and truth may lie at the heart of physics' problem. A plurality of truth begets a plurality of approach and attempt. But, rather that, in my eyes, than physics constrained by old ways of working, a physics beholden to toeing a party line of How Science Must Be Done. rather a vitality of engagement than ossification, structure of a Procrustean kind thrust upon research that would recoil from the unfashionable.
Therefore, faced with indissoluble difficulties of mathematics and conceptual design, might not the best method be to work (following Feyerabend) 'against method'? Innovation must be allowed. Granted, in current state, it may seem that we are being spun a dangerous web of what Baggott calls 'Fairy Tale physics' but, to turn the phrase against its author, a fairy tale is merely the uncomfortable zone of tension that emerges when one type of discourse (normativity, 'what-should-be-done') meets local exception - the stricture where an old order is irrupted and challenged. And yet, society is healthier for them. They are exemplars not of an affirmation of existing order, but of a need to question it and to have been better for it. From such conflict does resolution both diegetic and extra diegetic emerge.
Tales of this kind are above all, a sharply delineated lesson pulled from the chaos of Life, and the more powerful for it. It is not Life true and real. A tale or fable works against current orthodoxy but Fairy Tale physics IS our orthodoxy. This is not the parlous state of affairs Baggott would have us believe*. Truth is messy. Our physics wholesale is messy (though locally congruent and gifted with explanatory and expository force.)
Seen in Kuhnian terms, the state of order today is to my mind, one of incipient epistemic revolution in forment. Seen in fairy tale form, it is Sleeping Beauty (though Baggott would have us believe that we are about to take a bite of poisoned apple, to fall into a sleep of reason) who just needs a nudge to wake up to a brighter world.
But enough tenuous analogy. We would do well to remember that a lot of Fairy tales end well (as indeed we must also recall that some do not). I am quite sure that this particular story will end well too. The moral of this particular knotty tale is that patience and tolerance are virtues. We must work as we must and realise some paths lead into forests as some lead home. (Ok, I know I said no more analogy...no more, I promise.)
For me, the lesson of Baggott's fairy tales is not for us to lift ourselves away from them back into the realm of the credulous, the hard nosed empiricist, the stance of the undreaming dead-at-heart. It should be a call instead to permit experiment of thought and not just experiment upon a lab bench, to admit simply put, challenge to order. This is not anarchism but dynamism, a field bubbling over with essential and productive action.
So too might this tale of Fairytale physics be a reminder that the exercising of indignation, whilst it is an inalienable right of any scientist and a function of a healthy open society, might be as much a hindrance to progress as it is a call to arms. Let each pursue their own enquiry as they may, and then one day tomorrow, or tomorrow upon tomorrow, the truth will out. Gordia still awaits its Alexander to cut away the knot. Our society - humankind as a whole - will benefit from whomsoever has the sharpest mind to make the cut.
* DISCLAIMER: I realise this idea is reprehensible to most, many, or any working or non-working scientist around, past (since say, Gallileo) or present (where empiricism is the gold standard). Also it'll be plainly obvious that I am not nor have ever been a scientist, not even to play one on TV, nor do I have any scientific training at all.
June 30, 2018
After a sort of Golden age in high speculative popular science books in physics and cosmology ,with titles as The Elegant Universe,Prallel Worlds,Out of this World etc, it would seem that a theory of everything was near, but then we have now or some time ago a series of more realistic books that have given to us a bath of cold reality, with titles as Not Even Wrong,Farewell to Reality ,The end of Physics,The Truble with Physics or The End of Science.
What all this books put in value is the neccesity of make a fairly cristal clear diference between in what is a physical theory wholly acepted and overly tested in experiments as the Standard Model and General Relativity, and what it is highly speculative not wholy acepted or tested by experiments, as the Supersymetry,the Supergravity,the Superstring Theory, the Loop Quantum Gravity,the Everetts Many Worlds or the meaning of the Fine Tuning and Anthropologic Cosmological Principle.
Sadly 50 years after the standard model has been proposed ,and 100 years after the same with General Relativity, all experimental data collected in this years have not made other thing that succesfully confirm the truth of this models,it dont have appeared unexpected physics,yet with the most powerful collider made by men ,the LHC,neither has appeared new physics,only ever the same ,the confirmation of the Standard Model.
All this is very upseting, and in some way the theoretical physicist are rather confussed and lost, and gives way to wishful thinking and speculations in a supreme effort for surpass the theoretical frame of the standard model towards a succesful theory of everything ,unifiying the fundamental forces
And it is posible that with the present colliders no new physics appears,then except a pure thought discovery by a genius as Einstein we will be in trouble.
Going to the book Farewell to Reality is for me a fair very good book about what is present day real tested physics, and what is near wholly speculative physics that some call it fancy physics,the book is very well structured and accesible not as Not Even Wrong that has several highly tecnical chapters,yet the subject is very similar.
The book has three parts.
The first is about truth,reality and scientfic method.In this part are discused the reality principle,the fact principle,the theory principle ,the veracity principle and the copernican principle.
The second part titled The Authoriced Versión is about the well tested and acepted present theoretical frame and also its flaws and unknowns as the dark matter,the dark energy,the hierarchy problema it is to say the estreme diference between the strengh constans of the fundamental forces,the problem of renormalization but over all the problem of the vacuum energy ,the measured vacuum energy is of 10exp(-15) Joules for cubic centimeter,the predicted energy by the theory is of 10exp(105) Joules for cubic centimeter and this after a sort of renormalization cutting at the Plancks lenght ,being the worst numeric prediction of all the model.
finally in this chapter we have the rather,at least for me,metaphysical problem of the fine tuning.
The third part titled The Great Delusion is about the highly speculative efforts of surpass the present frame.This efforts include supersymetry,supergravity,the superestring theory.
All this theorys have failed or because their predictins have not been verified by experiments as for example the desintegration of the proton or not finding the superpartners in the supersymetry or beacuse don make predictions at all and by that cant be falsified;with regard to string theory a flaw is that has not predicted the dark matter and is backgroun dependant.
The book the pass to describe the controversial theory of the sort of fractal world split with the quantum measurement ,the Everetts many worlds theory;the inflationary multiverse and the cosmic landscape asumption ,this last could solve the Fine Tuning and the Antropic Cosmological Principle and finally the , yet embrionary ,black hole information,entropy,temperature theory and the holographic universe conjecture (the information of the universe is stored in its Surface).
The book ends with a reflection on the Antropic Cosmological Principle,related with The Fine Tuning problem.
There are two ACP ,the strong versión says that te universe is fine tuned for us to exist because exist a inteligent designer a watchmaker that has created it (the Templeton Fundation awards the scientifics that write books that in some way are biased to this),the weak versión says that the universe is fine tuned because we are here to obsereve it.
The autor dont regard this principle as science, because contribute nothing to the knowledge.
A accesible, absolutely and fairly honest book about the state of the art and filosophy of the science
Insistently recomended ,six stars.
What all this books put in value is the neccesity of make a fairly cristal clear diference between in what is a physical theory wholly acepted and overly tested in experiments as the Standard Model and General Relativity, and what it is highly speculative not wholy acepted or tested by experiments, as the Supersymetry,the Supergravity,the Superstring Theory, the Loop Quantum Gravity,the Everetts Many Worlds or the meaning of the Fine Tuning and Anthropologic Cosmological Principle.
Sadly 50 years after the standard model has been proposed ,and 100 years after the same with General Relativity, all experimental data collected in this years have not made other thing that succesfully confirm the truth of this models,it dont have appeared unexpected physics,yet with the most powerful collider made by men ,the LHC,neither has appeared new physics,only ever the same ,the confirmation of the Standard Model.
All this is very upseting, and in some way the theoretical physicist are rather confussed and lost, and gives way to wishful thinking and speculations in a supreme effort for surpass the theoretical frame of the standard model towards a succesful theory of everything ,unifiying the fundamental forces
And it is posible that with the present colliders no new physics appears,then except a pure thought discovery by a genius as Einstein we will be in trouble.
Going to the book Farewell to Reality is for me a fair very good book about what is present day real tested physics, and what is near wholly speculative physics that some call it fancy physics,the book is very well structured and accesible not as Not Even Wrong that has several highly tecnical chapters,yet the subject is very similar.
The book has three parts.
The first is about truth,reality and scientfic method.In this part are discused the reality principle,the fact principle,the theory principle ,the veracity principle and the copernican principle.
The second part titled The Authoriced Versión is about the well tested and acepted present theoretical frame and also its flaws and unknowns as the dark matter,the dark energy,the hierarchy problema it is to say the estreme diference between the strengh constans of the fundamental forces,the problem of renormalization but over all the problem of the vacuum energy ,the measured vacuum energy is of 10exp(-15) Joules for cubic centimeter,the predicted energy by the theory is of 10exp(105) Joules for cubic centimeter and this after a sort of renormalization cutting at the Plancks lenght ,being the worst numeric prediction of all the model.
finally in this chapter we have the rather,at least for me,metaphysical problem of the fine tuning.
The third part titled The Great Delusion is about the highly speculative efforts of surpass the present frame.This efforts include supersymetry,supergravity,the superestring theory.
All this theorys have failed or because their predictins have not been verified by experiments as for example the desintegration of the proton or not finding the superpartners in the supersymetry or beacuse don make predictions at all and by that cant be falsified;with regard to string theory a flaw is that has not predicted the dark matter and is backgroun dependant.
The book the pass to describe the controversial theory of the sort of fractal world split with the quantum measurement ,the Everetts many worlds theory;the inflationary multiverse and the cosmic landscape asumption ,this last could solve the Fine Tuning and the Antropic Cosmological Principle and finally the , yet embrionary ,black hole information,entropy,temperature theory and the holographic universe conjecture (the information of the universe is stored in its Surface).
The book ends with a reflection on the Antropic Cosmological Principle,related with The Fine Tuning problem.
There are two ACP ,the strong versión says that te universe is fine tuned for us to exist because exist a inteligent designer a watchmaker that has created it (the Templeton Fundation awards the scientifics that write books that in some way are biased to this),the weak versión says that the universe is fine tuned because we are here to obsereve it.
The autor dont regard this principle as science, because contribute nothing to the knowledge.
A accesible, absolutely and fairly honest book about the state of the art and filosophy of the science
Insistently recomended ,six stars.
March 7, 2020
A more balanced critique of string theory than the title suggests
Judging from the title, you'd think this would be strident polemic against string theory, but actually the first half of the book is focused on showing the developments in theoretical and quantum physics in the 20th century, grounded by the scientific method - experimentation, making testable hypotheses, tweaking of these to reflect the experiment's results, and repeating ad infinitum.
And then suddenly along comes String Theory, Multi-Verses, Holographic Universes, Membranes, P-Branes, Six-Dimensional curled up Calabi-Yau spaces, and more. Absolutely none of it is testable using current scientific experiments, since even the Hadron Large Collider at CERN is focused on smashing sub-atomic particles to find things liked the Higg's Boson, etc. How do you test to see if every minute event in the universe creates another universe, such as scratching your none, to there are infinitely splitting universes and none are the "real" one. Or the strong anthropic principle that suggests that the universe's natural laws are optimized for life because only a universe that has conscious beings could create an observer capable of recognizing this. It feels very much a tautology, to me at least.
I think Jim Baggott does a good job of pointing out why String Theory and its offshoots are essentially unprovable and a product of theoretical mathematics that suggest that we need 11 dimensions to explain the universe's natural laws. He wants a return to more experimental science and not "fairy-tale" science. Much like Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, but with less complaining about how the physics academic community is so dominated by string theorists that all other theories get pushed to the side, however true that may be.
Judging from the title, you'd think this would be strident polemic against string theory, but actually the first half of the book is focused on showing the developments in theoretical and quantum physics in the 20th century, grounded by the scientific method - experimentation, making testable hypotheses, tweaking of these to reflect the experiment's results, and repeating ad infinitum.
And then suddenly along comes String Theory, Multi-Verses, Holographic Universes, Membranes, P-Branes, Six-Dimensional curled up Calabi-Yau spaces, and more. Absolutely none of it is testable using current scientific experiments, since even the Hadron Large Collider at CERN is focused on smashing sub-atomic particles to find things liked the Higg's Boson, etc. How do you test to see if every minute event in the universe creates another universe, such as scratching your none, to there are infinitely splitting universes and none are the "real" one. Or the strong anthropic principle that suggests that the universe's natural laws are optimized for life because only a universe that has conscious beings could create an observer capable of recognizing this. It feels very much a tautology, to me at least.
I think Jim Baggott does a good job of pointing out why String Theory and its offshoots are essentially unprovable and a product of theoretical mathematics that suggest that we need 11 dimensions to explain the universe's natural laws. He wants a return to more experimental science and not "fairy-tale" science. Much like Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, but with less complaining about how the physics academic community is so dominated by string theorists that all other theories get pushed to the side, however true that may be.
April 24, 2018
Have we entered the era of Post-Empirical Science?
This book argues that much of what is presented as the latest discoveries in physics amounts to little more than fairy tales. It begins with a thorough instruction to the philosophy of science that could serve as a textbook. It then moves on to review our current state of knowledge about fundamental physics. I say “review” because I think it will be difficult to understand without some prior knowledge of physics. Finally, he explains why certain ideas such as string theory or multiple universes do not qualify as being truly scientific, because there is no way to determine whether or not they describe reality in any useful way that make testable predictions.
I will give one example of how this book changed my mind. I used to think that an anthropic argument made some sense. That means that the universe must have certain properties, so that intelligent observers like us can exist to measure those properties. It appears that many of those “fine-tuned” fundamental constants are constrained to a very narrow range of values.
For example, the cosmological constant, which determines the rate of the expansion of the universe, must have a small but positive value for observers like us to exist. It must be considerably smaller (by a factor of 10^120!) than the value that quantum theory predicts for the strength of vacuum fluctuations. Another example is the fact that the carbon atom must have a resonance at 7.7 MeV in order for it to be created by the fusion reaction in stars. No carbon, no people.
This argument seems to make sense, but it amounts to cherry picking to support a certain belief system that puts us at the center of the universe. The value of the cosmological constant is constrained by the fact that we observe stars to exist. There is no need to invoke one particular life form on a planet orbiting one particular star. Similarly, the value for carbon resonance is constrained by the fact that carbon is widely observed to exist throughout the universe. The carbon in us adds nothing to this vast body of evidence. The author points out that there is no fine-tuned constant that is specifically required for intelligent life. In his words,
“I reject the weak anthropic argument because it is simply empty of scientific content. How do I explain the fine-tuning of the universe? I have no explanation because science does not yet have an explanation. Scientists should not be afraid to say they don’t know.”
The problem is that modern physics is problem rich but data poor. And we have an insatiable appetite for instant gratification. We want answers now. Just like in the past, fairy tales provide us with instant answers. But this book is here to remind us that science needs a little more than that. It is worth reading.
This book argues that much of what is presented as the latest discoveries in physics amounts to little more than fairy tales. It begins with a thorough instruction to the philosophy of science that could serve as a textbook. It then moves on to review our current state of knowledge about fundamental physics. I say “review” because I think it will be difficult to understand without some prior knowledge of physics. Finally, he explains why certain ideas such as string theory or multiple universes do not qualify as being truly scientific, because there is no way to determine whether or not they describe reality in any useful way that make testable predictions.
I will give one example of how this book changed my mind. I used to think that an anthropic argument made some sense. That means that the universe must have certain properties, so that intelligent observers like us can exist to measure those properties. It appears that many of those “fine-tuned” fundamental constants are constrained to a very narrow range of values.
For example, the cosmological constant, which determines the rate of the expansion of the universe, must have a small but positive value for observers like us to exist. It must be considerably smaller (by a factor of 10^120!) than the value that quantum theory predicts for the strength of vacuum fluctuations. Another example is the fact that the carbon atom must have a resonance at 7.7 MeV in order for it to be created by the fusion reaction in stars. No carbon, no people.
This argument seems to make sense, but it amounts to cherry picking to support a certain belief system that puts us at the center of the universe. The value of the cosmological constant is constrained by the fact that we observe stars to exist. There is no need to invoke one particular life form on a planet orbiting one particular star. Similarly, the value for carbon resonance is constrained by the fact that carbon is widely observed to exist throughout the universe. The carbon in us adds nothing to this vast body of evidence. The author points out that there is no fine-tuned constant that is specifically required for intelligent life. In his words,
“I reject the weak anthropic argument because it is simply empty of scientific content. How do I explain the fine-tuning of the universe? I have no explanation because science does not yet have an explanation. Scientists should not be afraid to say they don’t know.”
The problem is that modern physics is problem rich but data poor. And we have an insatiable appetite for instant gratification. We want answers now. Just like in the past, fairy tales provide us with instant answers. But this book is here to remind us that science needs a little more than that. It is worth reading.
gave-up-on
December 5, 2013Who am I kidding I'm never going to understand quantum physics.
August 31, 2014
This is the first book I would recommend to other laymen interested in theoretical physics. Before picking apart what Jim Baggott calls, “fairy tale physics,” he explains the foundations of modern physics with particular emphasis on the Standard Model, Quantum theory, String theory, M-theory, Eternal Inflation, Many Worlds and Supersymmetry in an exhaustive, well-researched yet comprehensible presentation. His explanations are so thorough and clear that the expository portion of the book could stand on its own.
His criticisms focus on the proffering of non-falsifiable theories as fact in the (semi) popular media. The 1500-or-so theoretical physicists specializing in String theory worldwide are entitled to indulge themselves, he grants, but to characterize their postulates as anything more than supposition harms science.
His critique is tempered by an acknowledgment that Supersymmetry is testable, but as the expected supersymmetric particles have yet to be found even as particle accelerators operate at higher-and-higher energies, this body of work appears more-and-more to be a house of cards. Adding String theory to Supersymmetry, yielding Superstring theory, is to stack fantasy atop this shaky foundation.
I would add an area of worthy contrast, the holographic principle, being tested now at Fermilab’s Holometer. The discovery of the holographic principle, a product of the Susskind-Hawking debate over information loss in black holes, is a milestone in mathematics, regardless of its applicability in physics. Efforts such as these, and the progressive nature of the knowledge they bear, lie in stark contrast to the outright fiction that is intelligent design. Declaring both as non-scientific, while clearly recognizing the value of non-empirical-yet-mathematically-rigorous research, is the challenge.
My take is that Baggott gets it just right. There is (usually mathematical) value in much of the work being conducted in the pursuit of non-falsifiable physics, but tantalizing tales of strange new worlds should be categorized in Amazon’s fiction section. This book has challenged my views on the subject and elevated my thinking, which is the best that can be said of any book of this kind.
His criticisms focus on the proffering of non-falsifiable theories as fact in the (semi) popular media. The 1500-or-so theoretical physicists specializing in String theory worldwide are entitled to indulge themselves, he grants, but to characterize their postulates as anything more than supposition harms science.
His critique is tempered by an acknowledgment that Supersymmetry is testable, but as the expected supersymmetric particles have yet to be found even as particle accelerators operate at higher-and-higher energies, this body of work appears more-and-more to be a house of cards. Adding String theory to Supersymmetry, yielding Superstring theory, is to stack fantasy atop this shaky foundation.
I would add an area of worthy contrast, the holographic principle, being tested now at Fermilab’s Holometer. The discovery of the holographic principle, a product of the Susskind-Hawking debate over information loss in black holes, is a milestone in mathematics, regardless of its applicability in physics. Efforts such as these, and the progressive nature of the knowledge they bear, lie in stark contrast to the outright fiction that is intelligent design. Declaring both as non-scientific, while clearly recognizing the value of non-empirical-yet-mathematically-rigorous research, is the challenge.
My take is that Baggott gets it just right. There is (usually mathematical) value in much of the work being conducted in the pursuit of non-falsifiable physics, but tantalizing tales of strange new worlds should be categorized in Amazon’s fiction section. This book has challenged my views on the subject and elevated my thinking, which is the best that can be said of any book of this kind.
August 21, 2013
Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth by Jim Baggott
“Farewell to Reality" is a critical book of the current state of affairs of modern theoretical physics. Award-winning science writer and former scientist, Jim Baggott questions the veracity for many of the “fairy-tale” ideas proposed by modern theoretical physics. “The stuff is not only not true, it is not even science.” The author describes what modern physics can reasonably say about the nature of our physical reality and where it has abandoned the scientific method. Theoretical physics is difficult and this book will test your patience but ultimately the author succeeds in making clear where theoretical physicists have gone astray and its implications. This challenging 336-page includes the following twelve chapters: 1. The Supreme Task, 2. White Ambassadors of Morning Light, Quantum Theory and the Nature of Reality, 3. The Construction of Mass Matter, Force and the Standard Model of Particle Physics, 4. Beautiful Beyond Comparison, 5. The (Mostly) Missing Universe, 6. What’s Wrong with this Picture?, 7. Thy Fearful Symmetry, 8. In the Cemetery of Disappointed Hopes, 9. Gardeners of the Cosmic Landscape, 10. Source Code of the Cosmos, 11. Ego Sum Ergo, and 12. Just Six Questions.
Positives:
1. Well-researched and well-written book.
2. Good format. Each chapter begins with a chapter-appropriate quote from Albert Einstein.
3. Fair and even-handed. The author does a wonderful job of not overstepping his bounds. He is a defender of good science and that includes being able to say I don’t know over wild speculations presented as plausible theories.
4. The current state of modern theoretical physics clearly stated. “Speculative theorizing of a kind that cannot be tested, that cannot be verified or falsified, a kind that is not subject to the mercilessness of the scientific method, is now almost common currency.”
5. Does a good job of defining what science is all about. “Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.”
6. Baggott provides six principles about reality, science and truth. They principles define what it is that we apply science to, what science is and how we think we know when it is “true”.
7. The three components of the scientific method discussed.
8. The first half of the book focuses on what is good science. The author provides a lot of good information of what is understood in theoretical physics. The science, the theories and the scientists behind them.
9. The difference between Newtownian and quantum physics. The difficulties of measurements at the quantum level.
10. The forces of nature and the particle zoo. The taxonomy of particles. The origin of mass.
11. Special and general theories of relativity. Understanding spacetime. Interesting tidbits on how Einstein came up with some of his great ideas. “‘Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.”
12. The big bang theory explained. The ironic inception of the term.
13. Dark matter and dark energy. “The problem of dark matter demands a solution that lies beyond the current standard model of particle physics.”
14. Baggott is not afraid to be critical but is fair about it. “What kind of fundamental theory of particle physics is it that can’t predict the masses of its constituent elementary particles? Answer: one that is not very satisfying.?
15. Stephen Hawking and black holes. His battles with other scientists. Interesting stuff.
16. The shortcomings of science. “The standard model is a triumph. But don’t be misled. It is not a unified theory of the fundamental atomic and subatomic forces.”
17. The disappointment in finding the Theory of Everything. “We assume that a unique eleven-dimensional superstring theory is possible in principle, although we don’t yet know what this theory is.”
18. Confronting one of the biggest obstacles in science. “The problems that SUSY, superstring theories and M-theory seek to address pale almost into insignificance compared with one of the most fundamental problems inherent in contemporary physical theory — the quantum measurement problem.”
19. Strong conclusions. “I would conclude that the strong anthropic principle is not science”.
20. Endnotes and formal bibliography included.
Negatives:
1. This is a difficult book to read at times. Theoretical physics is very complex and even at its bare-bone it will test your patience and focus.
2. More illustrations would have added value.
3. The fine-tuning argument could have been handled better. Refer to my further recommendations.
In summary, Baggott makes the compelling case that in many instances modern theoretical physics have abandoned the scientific method. He states specifically that in fairy-tale physics the scientists have lost sight of empirical content and as a result can’t make testable predictions. The book at times is very challenging, theoretical physics even at its simplest is very complex and it will test the patience of many laypersons. It will test your resolve but ultimately the author succeeds in making strong arguments in favor of his case. Recommended with reservations noted.
Further recommendations: “Spectrums” by David Blatner, “The Elegant Universe” and “Hidden Reality” by Brian Greene, “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence M. Krauss, “About Time” by Adam Frank, “Higgs Discovery” and “Warped Passages” by Lisa Randall, “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking, “The Quantum Universe” by Brian Cox, “The Blind Spot” by William Byers, and “The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning” and “God and the Atom” by Victor Stenger.
“Farewell to Reality" is a critical book of the current state of affairs of modern theoretical physics. Award-winning science writer and former scientist, Jim Baggott questions the veracity for many of the “fairy-tale” ideas proposed by modern theoretical physics. “The stuff is not only not true, it is not even science.” The author describes what modern physics can reasonably say about the nature of our physical reality and where it has abandoned the scientific method. Theoretical physics is difficult and this book will test your patience but ultimately the author succeeds in making clear where theoretical physicists have gone astray and its implications. This challenging 336-page includes the following twelve chapters: 1. The Supreme Task, 2. White Ambassadors of Morning Light, Quantum Theory and the Nature of Reality, 3. The Construction of Mass Matter, Force and the Standard Model of Particle Physics, 4. Beautiful Beyond Comparison, 5. The (Mostly) Missing Universe, 6. What’s Wrong with this Picture?, 7. Thy Fearful Symmetry, 8. In the Cemetery of Disappointed Hopes, 9. Gardeners of the Cosmic Landscape, 10. Source Code of the Cosmos, 11. Ego Sum Ergo, and 12. Just Six Questions.
Positives:
1. Well-researched and well-written book.
2. Good format. Each chapter begins with a chapter-appropriate quote from Albert Einstein.
3. Fair and even-handed. The author does a wonderful job of not overstepping his bounds. He is a defender of good science and that includes being able to say I don’t know over wild speculations presented as plausible theories.
4. The current state of modern theoretical physics clearly stated. “Speculative theorizing of a kind that cannot be tested, that cannot be verified or falsified, a kind that is not subject to the mercilessness of the scientific method, is now almost common currency.”
5. Does a good job of defining what science is all about. “Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.”
6. Baggott provides six principles about reality, science and truth. They principles define what it is that we apply science to, what science is and how we think we know when it is “true”.
7. The three components of the scientific method discussed.
8. The first half of the book focuses on what is good science. The author provides a lot of good information of what is understood in theoretical physics. The science, the theories and the scientists behind them.
9. The difference between Newtownian and quantum physics. The difficulties of measurements at the quantum level.
10. The forces of nature and the particle zoo. The taxonomy of particles. The origin of mass.
11. Special and general theories of relativity. Understanding spacetime. Interesting tidbits on how Einstein came up with some of his great ideas. “‘Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.”
12. The big bang theory explained. The ironic inception of the term.
13. Dark matter and dark energy. “The problem of dark matter demands a solution that lies beyond the current standard model of particle physics.”
14. Baggott is not afraid to be critical but is fair about it. “What kind of fundamental theory of particle physics is it that can’t predict the masses of its constituent elementary particles? Answer: one that is not very satisfying.?
15. Stephen Hawking and black holes. His battles with other scientists. Interesting stuff.
16. The shortcomings of science. “The standard model is a triumph. But don’t be misled. It is not a unified theory of the fundamental atomic and subatomic forces.”
17. The disappointment in finding the Theory of Everything. “We assume that a unique eleven-dimensional superstring theory is possible in principle, although we don’t yet know what this theory is.”
18. Confronting one of the biggest obstacles in science. “The problems that SUSY, superstring theories and M-theory seek to address pale almost into insignificance compared with one of the most fundamental problems inherent in contemporary physical theory — the quantum measurement problem.”
19. Strong conclusions. “I would conclude that the strong anthropic principle is not science”.
20. Endnotes and formal bibliography included.
Negatives:
1. This is a difficult book to read at times. Theoretical physics is very complex and even at its bare-bone it will test your patience and focus.
2. More illustrations would have added value.
3. The fine-tuning argument could have been handled better. Refer to my further recommendations.
In summary, Baggott makes the compelling case that in many instances modern theoretical physics have abandoned the scientific method. He states specifically that in fairy-tale physics the scientists have lost sight of empirical content and as a result can’t make testable predictions. The book at times is very challenging, theoretical physics even at its simplest is very complex and it will test the patience of many laypersons. It will test your resolve but ultimately the author succeeds in making strong arguments in favor of his case. Recommended with reservations noted.
Further recommendations: “Spectrums” by David Blatner, “The Elegant Universe” and “Hidden Reality” by Brian Greene, “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence M. Krauss, “About Time” by Adam Frank, “Higgs Discovery” and “Warped Passages” by Lisa Randall, “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking, “The Quantum Universe” by Brian Cox, “The Blind Spot” by William Byers, and “The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning” and “God and the Atom” by Victor Stenger.
June 24, 2024
SUPERSTRINGS, SUPERSYMMETRY, & MULTIVERSES “FAIRY-TALE PHYSICS”?
Author Jim Baggott explained in the Preface to this 2013 book, “It seems that we can barely get through a week without being assaulted by the latest astounding physics story… We might agree that these stories are all very interesting and entertaining. But are they true? What evidence do we have for super-symmetric ‘squarks,’ or superstrings vibrating in a multidimensional spacetime? How can we tell that we live in a multiverse?... How can we tell that the universe is a hologram projected from information encoded on its boundary? What are we really supposed to make of the intricate network of apparent cosmic coincidences in the laws of physics?... There is as yet NO observational or experimental evidence for many of the concepts of contemporary theoretical physics, such as super-symmetric particles, superstrings, the multiverse, the universe as information, the holographic principle or the anthropic cosmological principle… This stuff is not only not true, it is not even science. I call it ‘fairy-tale physics.’”
He observes, “Quantum entanglement has opened up intriguing possibilities in quantum information processing, cryptography and teleportation… Such possibilities are based inherently on the kind of non-local spookiness … which Einstein hoped to avoid… There is no escaping the conclusion. Reality at the quantum level is decidedly non-local.” (Pg. 49)
He continues, “in experimental quantum mechanics we have run right up against what was previously perceived to be a purely philosophical barrier. The experiments are telling us that we can know nothing of reality-in-itself. We have to accept that the properties we ascribe to quantum particles like photons, such as energy, frequency, spin, polarization, position… are properties that have no meaning except in relation to a measuring device that allows them to be projected into our empirical reality of experience.” (Pg. 52)
He notes, “What the standard model of particle physics tell us is … There do appear to be ultimate constituents … and they do have characteristic physical properties, but mass is not really one of them… the energy of the massless force particles passing between them builds, adding to the impression of solidity and substance. Nobody said that science would deliver a description of empirical reality that was guaranteed to be easily comprehensible. But it is nevertheless rather disconcerting to have the rug of our common experience of light and matter pulled from beneath our feet in this way.” (Pg. 79-80)
He suggests, “It is a mistake to think that scientific progress is driven solely on the basis of scientific evidence. Theorists who have become enamoured of a particular theoretical structure may argue in its favor long after unambiguous evidence against it has been published and broadly accepted… It is this attitude among some theorists that is beginning to edge [supersymmetry] in the direction of fairy-tale physics. Instead of accepting the evidence at face value and acknowledging that nature might not, after all, be supersymmetric, they work to develop alternative interpretations or extensions to the theory which explain why the absence of light particles and WIMPs is not inconsistent.” (Pg. 179-180)
He points out, “On what basis do we choose strings, as opposed to any other kind of abstract construction? Because of a (possibly rather tenuous) relationship between the behavior of strings and the beta function identified in the scattering of mesons by [Gabriele] Veneziano. On what basis do we assume supersymmetry between fermions and bosons? Because this is the only way to get both kinds of particles into the same picture. What is the basis for assuming that six dimensions must be hidden in a Calabi-Yau space? Because it is our experience that the universe is four-dimensional. I think you get the point. Although this is all perfectly logical and reasonable, what we are actually doing is piling one grand assumption on top of another. I want to emphasize that there is no experimental or observational basis for these assumptions. This is a theory with little or no foundation in empirical reality. It is rather a loose assemblage of assumptions, ideas or hypotheses that say rather more about how we would like the universe to be than how it really is. I don’t think it’s uncharitable to suggest that this is looking increasingly like a house of cards.” (Pg. 195-196)
He continues, “M-theory is not a theory. Nobody knows that M-theory looks like, although many theorists have tinkered with structures that they believe it could or should possess. So, on top of a foundation built from a sequence of assumptions, we now erect the biggest the biggest assumption of all. We assume that a unique eleven-dimensional superstring theory is possible in principle, although we don’t yet know what this theory is.” (Pg. 197) Later, he adds, “the continued publication of popular science books and the production of television documentaries that are perceived to portray superstring theory or M-theory as ‘accepted’ explanations of empirical reality … is misleading at best and at worst ethically questionable.” (Pg. 207)
He states of the multiverse theory, “Let’s just check to see if we’ve understood this correctly. We live in a multiverse, ‘surrounded’ by parallel universes that by definition we cannot experience directly… Of course, there is no evidence in the physics of the authorized version of reality, so we must look to the physics of superstrings or M-theory… Justifying a multiverse theory because it is implied by superstring theory might just be acceptable if superstring theory was an already accepted description of the universe we experience. But it’s not…. The multiverse theory is justified by superstring theory but superstring theory cannot be proved because we live in a multiverse.” (Pg. 230)
He acknowledges, “I find the strong anthropic principle deeply worrying. By its very nature, it is intended as a counterpoint to the Copernican Principle. It therefore undermines the very basis of science as it has been practiced over the last five hundred years. It is surely a gift to those who, like the members of the Discovery Institute, seek to promote discussion of intelligent design as a valid ‘scientific’ theory.” (Pg. 272)
He concludes, “we have to square up to the challenge posed by fairy-tale physics. And this is all I ask of you. Next time you pick up the latest best-selling popular science book, or tune into the latest science documentary on the radio or television, keep an open mind and try to maintain a healthy scepticism…. What is the nature of the evidence in support of this theory? Does the theory make predictions of quantity or number, of matter of fact and existence? Do the theory’s predictions have the capability---even in principle---of being subject to observational or experimental test? Come to your own conclusions.” (Pg. 300)
This book will be of keen interest to those interested in theories of contemporary science.
Author Jim Baggott explained in the Preface to this 2013 book, “It seems that we can barely get through a week without being assaulted by the latest astounding physics story… We might agree that these stories are all very interesting and entertaining. But are they true? What evidence do we have for super-symmetric ‘squarks,’ or superstrings vibrating in a multidimensional spacetime? How can we tell that we live in a multiverse?... How can we tell that the universe is a hologram projected from information encoded on its boundary? What are we really supposed to make of the intricate network of apparent cosmic coincidences in the laws of physics?... There is as yet NO observational or experimental evidence for many of the concepts of contemporary theoretical physics, such as super-symmetric particles, superstrings, the multiverse, the universe as information, the holographic principle or the anthropic cosmological principle… This stuff is not only not true, it is not even science. I call it ‘fairy-tale physics.’”
He observes, “Quantum entanglement has opened up intriguing possibilities in quantum information processing, cryptography and teleportation… Such possibilities are based inherently on the kind of non-local spookiness … which Einstein hoped to avoid… There is no escaping the conclusion. Reality at the quantum level is decidedly non-local.” (Pg. 49)
He continues, “in experimental quantum mechanics we have run right up against what was previously perceived to be a purely philosophical barrier. The experiments are telling us that we can know nothing of reality-in-itself. We have to accept that the properties we ascribe to quantum particles like photons, such as energy, frequency, spin, polarization, position… are properties that have no meaning except in relation to a measuring device that allows them to be projected into our empirical reality of experience.” (Pg. 52)
He notes, “What the standard model of particle physics tell us is … There do appear to be ultimate constituents … and they do have characteristic physical properties, but mass is not really one of them… the energy of the massless force particles passing between them builds, adding to the impression of solidity and substance. Nobody said that science would deliver a description of empirical reality that was guaranteed to be easily comprehensible. But it is nevertheless rather disconcerting to have the rug of our common experience of light and matter pulled from beneath our feet in this way.” (Pg. 79-80)
He suggests, “It is a mistake to think that scientific progress is driven solely on the basis of scientific evidence. Theorists who have become enamoured of a particular theoretical structure may argue in its favor long after unambiguous evidence against it has been published and broadly accepted… It is this attitude among some theorists that is beginning to edge [supersymmetry] in the direction of fairy-tale physics. Instead of accepting the evidence at face value and acknowledging that nature might not, after all, be supersymmetric, they work to develop alternative interpretations or extensions to the theory which explain why the absence of light particles and WIMPs is not inconsistent.” (Pg. 179-180)
He points out, “On what basis do we choose strings, as opposed to any other kind of abstract construction? Because of a (possibly rather tenuous) relationship between the behavior of strings and the beta function identified in the scattering of mesons by [Gabriele] Veneziano. On what basis do we assume supersymmetry between fermions and bosons? Because this is the only way to get both kinds of particles into the same picture. What is the basis for assuming that six dimensions must be hidden in a Calabi-Yau space? Because it is our experience that the universe is four-dimensional. I think you get the point. Although this is all perfectly logical and reasonable, what we are actually doing is piling one grand assumption on top of another. I want to emphasize that there is no experimental or observational basis for these assumptions. This is a theory with little or no foundation in empirical reality. It is rather a loose assemblage of assumptions, ideas or hypotheses that say rather more about how we would like the universe to be than how it really is. I don’t think it’s uncharitable to suggest that this is looking increasingly like a house of cards.” (Pg. 195-196)
He continues, “M-theory is not a theory. Nobody knows that M-theory looks like, although many theorists have tinkered with structures that they believe it could or should possess. So, on top of a foundation built from a sequence of assumptions, we now erect the biggest the biggest assumption of all. We assume that a unique eleven-dimensional superstring theory is possible in principle, although we don’t yet know what this theory is.” (Pg. 197) Later, he adds, “the continued publication of popular science books and the production of television documentaries that are perceived to portray superstring theory or M-theory as ‘accepted’ explanations of empirical reality … is misleading at best and at worst ethically questionable.” (Pg. 207)
He states of the multiverse theory, “Let’s just check to see if we’ve understood this correctly. We live in a multiverse, ‘surrounded’ by parallel universes that by definition we cannot experience directly… Of course, there is no evidence in the physics of the authorized version of reality, so we must look to the physics of superstrings or M-theory… Justifying a multiverse theory because it is implied by superstring theory might just be acceptable if superstring theory was an already accepted description of the universe we experience. But it’s not…. The multiverse theory is justified by superstring theory but superstring theory cannot be proved because we live in a multiverse.” (Pg. 230)
He acknowledges, “I find the strong anthropic principle deeply worrying. By its very nature, it is intended as a counterpoint to the Copernican Principle. It therefore undermines the very basis of science as it has been practiced over the last five hundred years. It is surely a gift to those who, like the members of the Discovery Institute, seek to promote discussion of intelligent design as a valid ‘scientific’ theory.” (Pg. 272)
He concludes, “we have to square up to the challenge posed by fairy-tale physics. And this is all I ask of you. Next time you pick up the latest best-selling popular science book, or tune into the latest science documentary on the radio or television, keep an open mind and try to maintain a healthy scepticism…. What is the nature of the evidence in support of this theory? Does the theory make predictions of quantity or number, of matter of fact and existence? Do the theory’s predictions have the capability---even in principle---of being subject to observational or experimental test? Come to your own conclusions.” (Pg. 300)
This book will be of keen interest to those interested in theories of contemporary science.
September 16, 2018
For those interested in modern theories of physics, an excellent description. The best part, I think, is Chapter 1, which describes `the scientific method' in a deeper and more nuanced way that what you learned in middle school: hypothesize, test, conclude. Everyone who has any desire to understand what scientists do should read Chapter 1. Every teacher who's lessons bear some connection to science should read Chapter 1.
The first half of the book is then a history of 20th century physics (mostly relativity and quantum mechanics, quarks, etc) in understandable language (for non physicists), and anyone who wants to understand what these theories* are should read Part 1.
The second half of the book is a description of more recent ideas (post 1970s) about how the universe works, and he does a good job of describing these, too, even though they are based on mathematics that is so complex only a few people in the world understand it. He also rails against the method that some modern physicists use because it is not following the "science" that he laid out in Chapter 1. This part of the book should be read only by nerds who, even though they don't have the mathematical training, want to understand what's going on today in topics such as string theory, supersymmetry, and the multiverse.
*I use the word "theory" in the scientific way. A theory (like Newton's theory of gravitation) is a coherent set of rules (or perhaps "laws") that describe how the world works, and which explains all observations to date. Therefore, it is "true." If it is found that it doesn't explain observations, it's replaced with a new theory.
In everyday language, people should use the word "hypothesis" rather than theory, because that's what they usually mean. As in, "Oh, that's just a theory" should really be "Oh, that's just a hypothesis." The Theory of Evolution is just as true as the Theory of Gravitation.
The first half of the book is then a history of 20th century physics (mostly relativity and quantum mechanics, quarks, etc) in understandable language (for non physicists), and anyone who wants to understand what these theories* are should read Part 1.
The second half of the book is a description of more recent ideas (post 1970s) about how the universe works, and he does a good job of describing these, too, even though they are based on mathematics that is so complex only a few people in the world understand it. He also rails against the method that some modern physicists use because it is not following the "science" that he laid out in Chapter 1. This part of the book should be read only by nerds who, even though they don't have the mathematical training, want to understand what's going on today in topics such as string theory, supersymmetry, and the multiverse.
*I use the word "theory" in the scientific way. A theory (like Newton's theory of gravitation) is a coherent set of rules (or perhaps "laws") that describe how the world works, and which explains all observations to date. Therefore, it is "true." If it is found that it doesn't explain observations, it's replaced with a new theory.
In everyday language, people should use the word "hypothesis" rather than theory, because that's what they usually mean. As in, "Oh, that's just a theory" should really be "Oh, that's just a hypothesis." The Theory of Evolution is just as true as the Theory of Gravitation.
October 12, 2013
If you've read popular science books that talk about multiverse and parallel universes and the cosmic landscape and the anthropic cosmological principle and other such concepts that seem really fascinating but make you scratch your head and ask, but is any of this real?, the answer is, no, none of it is real if we use the yardstick of scientific method and require any theory to be testable and refutable and provide predictions that can be proved with experimental and observational evidence. A lot of it is not even science. Baggot rightly calls it fairy tale physics. The math behind it may be elegant and self-consistent, but it's just assumption piled upon assumption with no experimental evidence and no testable predictions.
September 18, 2018
Probably a bit over a 4. Very clearly spells out where scientific physics, with testable predictions and such, ends and metaphysics (or fairy-tale physics in the words of the author) begins.
Perhaps as valable as demarcting this line is the independent value as a great primer on modern physics from relativity to super-symmetc string theories. The book is worth the read for this along -- even if you disagree with the author's other points.
Perhaps as valable as demarcting this line is the independent value as a great primer on modern physics from relativity to super-symmetc string theories. The book is worth the read for this along -- even if you disagree with the author's other points.
May 2, 2019
First, I wish to confess that I understood only about 10% of the physics described. This is not unexpected, given that no one really seems to have found a successful way of easily explaining quantum anything, so I’m not too concerned. Still, it helped me develop a framework for understanding the broad strokes of what physicists are trying to deal with. This book, while written very legibly and not too heavy, deals with hard topics, so future reader be warned. All very interesting though, and without any need of much more than high school level background. The main con was that it was not good enough at explaining the subject material (for me). The main pro was that the reader can understand where a theory fails without fully understanding the theories themselves.
There are three levels to this book worth commenting on.
The first is the book’s role in sharing an opposing view to the general public. This is actually remarkably rare but very important, given that it properly demonstrates how science is and should be; a confrontation of ideas in the quest for the better one, a constant onslaught of criticism that will either make an idea stronger or kill it because it just wasn’t good enough. Here you have a stark division in what (the author finds) is true and what is speculation unhinged from reality. Then for all these points is a careful description of what makes one theory more reliable than the other, and also where the author’s preferred theories fall short. He also explains the framework of science, how it struggles with the problem of reality vs what we measure, and how this seems to be an unresolvable problem. Very nice.
The second level is the author’s personal opinion of what is and isn’t science. I found this to be an interesting opinion that I largely agree with. The biggest problem that he identifies is that a lot of theoretical physicists are not content to say “we don’t know yet”. Instead they presume that they have enough facts to go on, and from there they build these elaborate castles of mathematics, and offer it proudly to the world saying “well, it could be”. There is nothing wrong with doing this, but it is wrong to pass it off as science. The author often calls it metaphysics, which used to be the domain of philosophers but apparently it’s a topic that has gone out of fashion with them, so maybe it’s time to establish a new branch of “thought” just for this type of vaguely science-based, strongly mathematical, speculation. Maybe “matheology”. In any case, these theories are crazy! They are substantially no different from science fiction, just without the fun plot component. It is true that a lot of theories we accept today were thought of as crazy in the past, but the only reason they became accepted is because they (eventually) made testable predictions that actually explained experimental results better than other theories. Until these multiverse theories start producing such predictions, it is fair to dismiss them, I think. Some proponents of these theories argue that its time to move past science that asks for testable predictions if the theory is otherwise coherent, but coming from neuroscience, I agree with the author that this puts all of science at risk, especially to the general public who have members that are just waiting for the opportunity to insert their own “theories” into mainstream science (homeopathy, psychoanalysis, intelligent design). Again, it’s ok to create a new domain of science based speculation, but please let’s not call this science. Science is about the method, and while it’s flexible on the origin of ideas, the ideas have to be structured in a certain way to be a subject of science.
The last level of the book is the actual physics. As I said, I understood very little, but still more than I previously did. In general, this book provides a fairly legible landscape of physics theories, both the solid ones and the “fairy tale” ones, and the holes in both. Of the “standard” physics theories, I was left often perplexed by what was either a problem that the author had oversimplified and so I missed what the core issue was, or it really was a simple issue and physicists had been deluding themselves for years. In particular, the measurement problem and the “breakdown of the wavefunction” of light particles. Regarding the measurement problem, this is essentially the fact that when you measure something, you disturb the thing you’re measuring, and thus other properties of that thing no longer hold. As a neuroscientist, this seems to be the most inevitable yet obvious thing in the world. If I ask a person a question, my very act of asking will change the person’s state and therefore answer. If I probe a neuron with an electrode, I’m poking this poor neuron and it’s neighbors. I imagine the problem is even more amplified when dealing with such tiny particles that you have to divise kilometer long donuts under the Swiss-French border to get numbers that eventually could be a consequence of the presence of a particle. So why did it shock the physicists world to realize that you couldn’t identify both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time? Regarding the breakdown of the wavefunction, I’ll just wait to learn more before speculating. Despite the fact that it left me with way more questions than answers, it was a good read.
There are three levels to this book worth commenting on.
The first is the book’s role in sharing an opposing view to the general public. This is actually remarkably rare but very important, given that it properly demonstrates how science is and should be; a confrontation of ideas in the quest for the better one, a constant onslaught of criticism that will either make an idea stronger or kill it because it just wasn’t good enough. Here you have a stark division in what (the author finds) is true and what is speculation unhinged from reality. Then for all these points is a careful description of what makes one theory more reliable than the other, and also where the author’s preferred theories fall short. He also explains the framework of science, how it struggles with the problem of reality vs what we measure, and how this seems to be an unresolvable problem. Very nice.
The second level is the author’s personal opinion of what is and isn’t science. I found this to be an interesting opinion that I largely agree with. The biggest problem that he identifies is that a lot of theoretical physicists are not content to say “we don’t know yet”. Instead they presume that they have enough facts to go on, and from there they build these elaborate castles of mathematics, and offer it proudly to the world saying “well, it could be”. There is nothing wrong with doing this, but it is wrong to pass it off as science. The author often calls it metaphysics, which used to be the domain of philosophers but apparently it’s a topic that has gone out of fashion with them, so maybe it’s time to establish a new branch of “thought” just for this type of vaguely science-based, strongly mathematical, speculation. Maybe “matheology”. In any case, these theories are crazy! They are substantially no different from science fiction, just without the fun plot component. It is true that a lot of theories we accept today were thought of as crazy in the past, but the only reason they became accepted is because they (eventually) made testable predictions that actually explained experimental results better than other theories. Until these multiverse theories start producing such predictions, it is fair to dismiss them, I think. Some proponents of these theories argue that its time to move past science that asks for testable predictions if the theory is otherwise coherent, but coming from neuroscience, I agree with the author that this puts all of science at risk, especially to the general public who have members that are just waiting for the opportunity to insert their own “theories” into mainstream science (homeopathy, psychoanalysis, intelligent design). Again, it’s ok to create a new domain of science based speculation, but please let’s not call this science. Science is about the method, and while it’s flexible on the origin of ideas, the ideas have to be structured in a certain way to be a subject of science.
The last level of the book is the actual physics. As I said, I understood very little, but still more than I previously did. In general, this book provides a fairly legible landscape of physics theories, both the solid ones and the “fairy tale” ones, and the holes in both. Of the “standard” physics theories, I was left often perplexed by what was either a problem that the author had oversimplified and so I missed what the core issue was, or it really was a simple issue and physicists had been deluding themselves for years. In particular, the measurement problem and the “breakdown of the wavefunction” of light particles. Regarding the measurement problem, this is essentially the fact that when you measure something, you disturb the thing you’re measuring, and thus other properties of that thing no longer hold. As a neuroscientist, this seems to be the most inevitable yet obvious thing in the world. If I ask a person a question, my very act of asking will change the person’s state and therefore answer. If I probe a neuron with an electrode, I’m poking this poor neuron and it’s neighbors. I imagine the problem is even more amplified when dealing with such tiny particles that you have to divise kilometer long donuts under the Swiss-French border to get numbers that eventually could be a consequence of the presence of a particle. So why did it shock the physicists world to realize that you couldn’t identify both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time? Regarding the breakdown of the wavefunction, I’ll just wait to learn more before speculating. Despite the fact that it left me with way more questions than answers, it was a good read.
July 20, 2015
Veldig mykje info om utviklinga av kvantefysikken og forskning i det store og det heile, samt (omsider) det Baggott kallar "eventyrfysikk". Tung bok å lese på senga (for ferske forskarar). Dog ein god moral om å halde eit ope sinn og "keeping a healthy scepticism". Lol.
July 7, 2015
Miejscami trudna, ale warto przeczytać. Struny multiswiaty i inne cuda autor zalicza do fizyki bajkowej, mimo starań przeciwników, moze kiedyś będzie udowodnionie to, ale na razie nie. Jest też trochę o stowarzyszeniach religijnych.
October 8, 2020
Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth, by Jim Baggott is a criticism of modern theoretical physics. Baggot is currently a freelance science writer. A graduate of Manchester with a degree in chemistry and a PhD in physical chemistry from Oxford he was a lecturer at the University of Reading. He is the author of several books on quantum physics and reality.
There has been an explosion in Physics for the common man, or at least the lay person that chooses to follow. I was working on an electronics degree in the mid 1980s and I came across a copy of Taking the Quantum Leap by Fred Alan Wolf. I was amazed at book about quantum physics that I could follow. Earlier I picked up a book on String Theory and I was thoroughly discouraged as the book was entirely mathematical equations. Times changed for the better. Hawking's A Brief History of Time made physics popular again. But is popular good?
Since then the Discovery Channel and the Science Channel have kept the general public up to date and interested. It's is actually surprising how many people actually knew something out the Higgs particle last year. Documentaries covering physics, reality, time, and quantum mechanics are all readily available and constantly updated. The concept of multiple universes even made its way to prime time television as the science fiction show “Sliders”.
Baggott writes a clear introduction with a list of items he would like the reader to think about and follow along with as they read the book. He traces science from the observable to the purely mathematical. Along the way he explains the corrections made to theories and scientific thought. The idea of what is reality comes into play and does science actually describe reality. Reality can be a matter of perspective. Plato's cave allegory is an excellent example of reality. From the prisoners view, the shadowy images are reality yet for everyone else it is not. Einstein introduced the world to the idea that time and space were not constant, only the speed of light is constant. Numerous thought experiments were made, but still, empirical observation supported these predictions. Relativity was, and is, difficult but, all in all, not mind blowing. The Standard Model again is difficult, but has a beauty in it: symmetry of particles. Then came the discovery of more particles and the need to explain them, Super Symmetry, Sting Theory, additional dimensions, Multiverses. We have gone from elegant and empirical to seemingly impossibly complex and untestable. Just because mathematics can provide a solution, is it necessarily the right right solution; more importantly which of the several mathematical conclusions is right...if any?
There comes a point when science loses touch with empirical world. Baggott uses the term fairy tale. Opponents would counter, “Here is the mathematics to prove it.” Baggott uses the term metaphysical to describe where science is headed. I can see the direct relation to what he is say. Without empirical data or proof, what separates science from metaphysics or religion? Modern physics seems to have abandoned the scientific method and pursued unobservable, untestable, and unfalsifiable science: fairy tale. Perhaps it's the popular science selling itself to the mass market, where popular is better selling than factual. Selling the idea on a holographic universe is more profitable than being right. Has sensationalism taken over modern science? Baggott gives his views in this book.
Farewell to Reality is doing for science what Zealot is doing for religion. It is setting up a challenge and creating controversy. Baggott's book is a bit deeper than popular science books like A Brief History of Time. Rather than fame or fortune Baggot wants to save science. He presents a clear and well written book. The book is well cited and almost 40 pages of documentation are provided. Farewell to Reality is an excellent book for the science minded. It may be a bit difficult for those without a science or a physics background.
There has been an explosion in Physics for the common man, or at least the lay person that chooses to follow. I was working on an electronics degree in the mid 1980s and I came across a copy of Taking the Quantum Leap by Fred Alan Wolf. I was amazed at book about quantum physics that I could follow. Earlier I picked up a book on String Theory and I was thoroughly discouraged as the book was entirely mathematical equations. Times changed for the better. Hawking's A Brief History of Time made physics popular again. But is popular good?
Since then the Discovery Channel and the Science Channel have kept the general public up to date and interested. It's is actually surprising how many people actually knew something out the Higgs particle last year. Documentaries covering physics, reality, time, and quantum mechanics are all readily available and constantly updated. The concept of multiple universes even made its way to prime time television as the science fiction show “Sliders”.
Baggott writes a clear introduction with a list of items he would like the reader to think about and follow along with as they read the book. He traces science from the observable to the purely mathematical. Along the way he explains the corrections made to theories and scientific thought. The idea of what is reality comes into play and does science actually describe reality. Reality can be a matter of perspective. Plato's cave allegory is an excellent example of reality. From the prisoners view, the shadowy images are reality yet for everyone else it is not. Einstein introduced the world to the idea that time and space were not constant, only the speed of light is constant. Numerous thought experiments were made, but still, empirical observation supported these predictions. Relativity was, and is, difficult but, all in all, not mind blowing. The Standard Model again is difficult, but has a beauty in it: symmetry of particles. Then came the discovery of more particles and the need to explain them, Super Symmetry, Sting Theory, additional dimensions, Multiverses. We have gone from elegant and empirical to seemingly impossibly complex and untestable. Just because mathematics can provide a solution, is it necessarily the right right solution; more importantly which of the several mathematical conclusions is right...if any?
There comes a point when science loses touch with empirical world. Baggott uses the term fairy tale. Opponents would counter, “Here is the mathematics to prove it.” Baggott uses the term metaphysical to describe where science is headed. I can see the direct relation to what he is say. Without empirical data or proof, what separates science from metaphysics or religion? Modern physics seems to have abandoned the scientific method and pursued unobservable, untestable, and unfalsifiable science: fairy tale. Perhaps it's the popular science selling itself to the mass market, where popular is better selling than factual. Selling the idea on a holographic universe is more profitable than being right. Has sensationalism taken over modern science? Baggott gives his views in this book.
Farewell to Reality is doing for science what Zealot is doing for religion. It is setting up a challenge and creating controversy. Baggott's book is a bit deeper than popular science books like A Brief History of Time. Rather than fame or fortune Baggot wants to save science. He presents a clear and well written book. The book is well cited and almost 40 pages of documentation are provided. Farewell to Reality is an excellent book for the science minded. It may be a bit difficult for those without a science or a physics background.
February 19, 2022
The first half of this book goes through the history of particle physics and cosmology from Rutherford‘s first slit experiment.
In chapter 1, Baggott offers the following six principles:
1. The reality principle – we must content ourselves with things as they appear.
2. The Fact principle – tests are never theory neutral; they are never free of contamination from some theory or another.
3. The Theory principle – founded on abstract mathematical concepts.
4. The Testability principle– does not like verifiability or falsifiability; prefers testability.
5. The Veracity principle- theory is excepted on surviving tests. A theory can always be disproved in the future.(How Popperian of him.)
6. The Copernican principle – the universe is not organized for us; we are not privileged observers.
However, his definition of realism is actually representationalism, of the Lockean or Cartesian sort. But this is not a work on philosophy and we do not need to think about the skepticism that this position creates.
The second half includes discussions of supersymmetry, superstring theory and M theory. There is a discussion of branes, and discussions of information theory and black holes and holograms and the anthropic principle.
He calls all of these developments fairytale physics. I called them speculative metaphysics. Spinoza and Leibniz and Hegel famously did this. The fact that human beings, smart human beings, can create coherent systems to describe the world they live in does not mean that their inventions and creations have anything to do with reality.
It was very refreshing to read a book about modern physics that did not praise the more fanciful notions that physicists entertain these days. Don’t get me wrong, I think this sort of thing must be done. Without the resources to do empirical testing at this time, speculation might help us to invent or develop further ideas which might then ultimately lead to testable theories and perhaps knowledge itself. This can take a long time, but in the meantime, it would be nice if physicists did not try to pass themselves off as gurus.
In chapter 1, Baggott offers the following six principles:
1. The reality principle – we must content ourselves with things as they appear.
2. The Fact principle – tests are never theory neutral; they are never free of contamination from some theory or another.
3. The Theory principle – founded on abstract mathematical concepts.
4. The Testability principle– does not like verifiability or falsifiability; prefers testability.
5. The Veracity principle- theory is excepted on surviving tests. A theory can always be disproved in the future.(How Popperian of him.)
6. The Copernican principle – the universe is not organized for us; we are not privileged observers.
However, his definition of realism is actually representationalism, of the Lockean or Cartesian sort. But this is not a work on philosophy and we do not need to think about the skepticism that this position creates.
The second half includes discussions of supersymmetry, superstring theory and M theory. There is a discussion of branes, and discussions of information theory and black holes and holograms and the anthropic principle.
He calls all of these developments fairytale physics. I called them speculative metaphysics. Spinoza and Leibniz and Hegel famously did this. The fact that human beings, smart human beings, can create coherent systems to describe the world they live in does not mean that their inventions and creations have anything to do with reality.
It was very refreshing to read a book about modern physics that did not praise the more fanciful notions that physicists entertain these days. Don’t get me wrong, I think this sort of thing must be done. Without the resources to do empirical testing at this time, speculation might help us to invent or develop further ideas which might then ultimately lead to testable theories and perhaps knowledge itself. This can take a long time, but in the meantime, it would be nice if physicists did not try to pass themselves off as gurus.
December 14, 2022
This was a good book because it has a message about a problem with what we call, Science. It wasn't a great book Because it teeters on opinions of the author as to what even qualifies as science. In general, science to the author is anything stated by mainstream science as science And that fringe stuff which is just whack-a-doodle bull sh1t on the side (which the author Has to mention) is just fringe stuff. IMO the author has brought up an Interesting Dilemma. Much of the questionable fringe stuff asks questions and backs up statements with empirical facts while Many/All of the fringe mainstream theory (what the author calls fairy-tale science) does Not. What's also never said/questioned is that Many of the mainstream science theories which the author doesn't even question (as unreal). Are backed up By Nothing More than theory and numbers which do Not Add Up. SUSY and Multiverse are not even linked to demonstrable experience But CMB (basis of big bang, expansion, dark matter, red shift, and cosmology 101) are all highly Questionable. None of that in this book.
So this author asks a great question, and then teeters back and forth at the end of the book, on whether we should call Anything that can't be experimentally confirmed Science Theory. Great Q, my answer is No. But what about All those things that Mainstream science says Is Not Science which Can and have been experimentally confirmed? What about that fringe science that Exposes the mainstream science to criticism? There's nothing in the book except distain!
So this author asks a great question, and then teeters back and forth at the end of the book, on whether we should call Anything that can't be experimentally confirmed Science Theory. Great Q, my answer is No. But what about All those things that Mainstream science says Is Not Science which Can and have been experimentally confirmed? What about that fringe science that Exposes the mainstream science to criticism? There's nothing in the book except distain!
October 27, 2019
Good book from a seasoned science communicator. It starts with some ruminations on what makes science science, then a large chunk of the book giving a potted history of 20th century physics and cosmology before we get into the heart of the book - the examination and criticism of much of late 20th and 21st century physics - Supersymmetry, Strings, M-theory, Multiverses, Anthropic principle, etc. Much of the criticism is familiar but the author gives a good overview and is largely persuasive. I liked the potted history best - one of the better ones I have read.
I enjoyed the writing style (unmistakably British) but I do wonder if readers from other cultures might be confused by some of the irony / borderline sarcasm. Definitely worth a read.
November 13, 2017
I don't agree with everything that Baggott argues here, but its a pretty good argument. Baggott sees a lot of theoretical physics, M theory, string theory etc etc, as having abandoned what he sees as the perimeters of science and should be considered metaphysical speculation not scientific speculation. The first chapter deals with epistemology, which is rare for a book about science. Then most of the first half establishes the basics of Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum theory, before laying into how attempts to combine them have gone off track. I don't completely agree with Baggott's definition of science, too rigid for my tastes, but he does argue very well.
January 19, 2018
This book is not for people whose knowledge of particle physics consists entirely of what you've managed to glean from the CERN's press releases. I fall into this category. This book was not for me. 75% of it was way over my head. I'm not even sure I should be writing a review for this. The only reason I am bothering is because the synopsis led me to believe that this book was written for lay people and it is NOT. Unless I am waaaaaaay more stupid than the average lay person. In which case, I hate this book for bringing that fact to light.
June 28, 2018
I've read it all. While i agree with the author's point of view, i find the overall arguments presented in a rather weak manner.
He could have gone a bit more into detail as to why some things are wrong. I've read some books on physics where the authors themselves offered more volume and more detail of critique to their own work.
A few formulas accompanied by some explanations and then some debate as to why they are partially wrong could have gone a long way.
This was a missed opportunity. Too bad, as i really liked the overall approach.
He could have gone a bit more into detail as to why some things are wrong. I've read some books on physics where the authors themselves offered more volume and more detail of critique to their own work.
A few formulas accompanied by some explanations and then some debate as to why they are partially wrong could have gone a long way.
This was a missed opportunity. Too bad, as i really liked the overall approach.
January 15, 2023
If I hadn’t already read Peter Woit’s ‘Not Even Wrong’ or Sabine Hossenfelder’s ‘Lost in Math’ I’m sure I would have thoroughly enjoyed this book. But instead I found it slow going, lacking the punch and brutally honest takes of those other two books. This might be down to personal style - Woit’s book was a lot deeper and included a lot more physics and that is how I prefer my popular science books. I had to skip a lot of sections at times to get to the real point of what Baggot was trying to say, but when I got there it was worth it.
February 8, 2024
He presents himself as a healthy conservative in physics in general, as he advocates the central role of the scientific method. In this book, the author describes and criticizes many circumstances in which the proposals had no proof and no chance of proving, but still, the proponents were nonapologetic, and wanted to continue with the hypothesis because of its mathematical beauty, that is what he called "fairy tale physics". Still, it does not mean that these proposals are wrong, just are very difficult to be tested at the moment.
February 8, 2018
Baggott encourages the reader to think more critically and skeptically about scientific theories. He argues that, according to six principles that “define what it is that we apply science to, what science is and how we think we know when it is ‘true,’” some of modern “physics” is really “metaphysics” - indistinguishable from fantasy.
August 27, 2018
Although I agree with the author's primary thesis, the writing is very awkward and sound argumentation is severely lacking. It may serve as a decent layman's survey of the current state of theoretical physics, but as a criticism it falls short of its aim.
October 21, 2020
A very good overview of the condition of the science of physics. Good explanations of the requirements for science and a (partly historical) review of developments within theoretic physics and what has been empirically verified and what not.
February 25, 2021
A very good History lesson on current scientific knowledge
A very good History lesson on current scientific knowledge. And a good critical look at common pseudo-science. Surprisingly readable, given the subject matter.
A very good History lesson on current scientific knowledge. And a good critical look at common pseudo-science. Surprisingly readable, given the subject matter.
January 14, 2022
Although i didn't understand everything what he mentioned in quantum mechanics I understood it well enough to know what he meant by fairytale physics.
The book reminds me of Materialism and Empirio-criticism written by Vladimir Lenin which I also recommend reading.
The book reminds me of Materialism and Empirio-criticism written by Vladimir Lenin which I also recommend reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews