The Elegant Universe discussion

Greene is playing the role of The Captain of physics who is navigating his ship against all streams of Einstein's convictions on quantum mechanics, and hence invests so much in couching the deck of Physics into such a realm!
In his books he sets forth - what he and his school call "facts" - his interpretations on non-conclusive empirical results of certain experiments as "proof" without imparting with the readers any further information about the loopholes and other non-orthodox (i.e., realists and agnostics) positions in the world of physics. He is certainly a preacher more than a scientist in that regard!

I liked this book, but must concede you are definitely on the money. His presentation is very wham-biz-pow! without much supporting science to defend it.

He is way more into marketing himself and his brand of physics than into contributing to spread the knowledge of this science among the public. compare him with Ed. Witten and you will immediately tell who is the scientist from the PR Enthusiast!

I'm not sure it was his intention to come off that way. I think he is excited about this field of physics, as he has been researching it for decades. Also I believe this book was written for the layman not a theoretical physics student. The math required to back up his claims would turn off everyone except those with a high level math/physics background. Not everyone is good at nonlinear differential equations and math in 10 dimensions. Clearly this would vastly reduce his potential audience. I really think he just tried to make an extremely complex branch of physics accessible to anyone interested in the subject.

Mike wrote: "I'm not sure it was his intention to come off that way. I think he is excited about this field of physics, as he has been researching it for decades. Also I believe this book was written for the la..."

That is NOT true! If you follow his interviews and read his books you'll find him to be presenting something WAY MORE than just "facilitating" access to the laymen. Brian Greene is no more than a preacher who tries to convert blindly the masses. A real Physicist like David J. Griffiths puts him in his place: "supersymmetry and string theory must be for the moment regarded as speculations." Something you will not see Greene raising his audience's attention to; this means he is even DISHONEST and manipulative.

I was excited to read this book but, after the first half, when the string stuff comes in, I found it more difficult and difficult to go on. That is because the implications of the theory are too "exotic" and there are no equivalents in real life that help me to grasp them. As you have said, the string math is just too difficult for the normal people (like me), thus it becomes almost impossible for Green to explain the theory. As a result, I had the sensation that a lot of passages of the books are mere speculations: no evidence, no math, no equivalents. Just passion for the theory and a great desire for it to be the final truth. I am sorry but this is not enough to convince me, especially when the "sieve" you use to understand if a model is a good descriptor of reality or not is its elegance. It may turn out that simplicity and elegance not always are the ways Nature works.
In conclusion, I liked the book, and I would try to read it again, or to read something else because string theory is very interesting. Can you advice me? Actually, I'm stuck in the reading of 'Warped Passages' of L. Randall, before the section about string theory (it should be one o two chapters about it). I hope Lisa will explain it in a different way...

I liked this book, but must concede you are definitely on the money. His happy birthday gif is very wham-biz-pow! without much supporting science to defend it


gif

Can I recommend Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics? A superb examination of the scientific community and how string theory has come to dominate while other theories gain no traction or are ignored.

I think this is certainly a preacher more than a scientist in that regard! from cheap essay writing service

I read this book back in 2015. Lately the little bits of news from the physics community I catch mention that string theory is "dead". Jokes and laughs that it was good for work/practice, but a lot of physicists are giving up on it. Yet, the idea/theory of added dimensions is still taken seriously because it's a tool that ties in known forces of nature that normally do not work together in the 4 dimensional universe we perceive. Anyone know why so many have considered the overall string theory (the 5 smaller theories tied together) "dead" to pursue? Maybe "strings" is not considered an accurate representation of a particle's characteristics??