The Elegant Universe : Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory

Rating:
Summary: REView
Review: I am 15, and extremely interested in physics. I read this book when I was 11, and found it extremely interesting. I also recently read Greene's less technical book (The Fabric of the Cosmos). Both were understandable and made good use of various analogies.

While reading these reviews, I have been struck by how many people think string theory can't be experimentally validated. (To begin with, many scientific things can't; evolution, for example). If you've read The Fabric of the Cosmos, you would have seen that future experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (which is still under construction) will attempt to discover various supersymmetric particles predicted by string theory (they will also search for Higgs particles). Although these won't necessarily prove string theory, IF the braneworld scenerio is correct, collisions in the Large Hadron Collider will cause strings to vibrate in certain patterns which will cause a large amount of unknown particles to appear (simultaneously experimentally confirming the braneworld scenario and string theory).

In short, this book was a great (non mathematical) look at string theory, and many of these reviewers don't understand that string theory can infact be proven.

Rating:
Summary: Arrogance + wrong physics + elementary math = fiasco
Review: The book is well written, but is a work devoted to fiction. I carefully recommend the purchase of this beautiful book, since it will be an excellent "piece of collection" about a 20th century wrong project by an almost arrogant team (Seiberg has admitted, "Most string theorists are very arrogant.").

I reviewed this book on 2003 (please see "The violin is out of tune and the TOE is a TON"); then the initial ratio of votes was only of a 5-10% on favor of it. During these years, a number of persons contacted with me. The most fascinating case being a mathematician interested on string theory (SMT) that claimed that my previous review "would" be wrong even when he had not studied SMT still!

He dubbed about several of my affirmations and I thought on it carefully. How many readers as him still think that book says is correct? How many people are misinformed about the scientific status of SMT?

I am amazing that the own string theorists begin to broadly accept many of my previous, initially critiqued, claims. By a question of space this review is limited to some relevant topics.

String theorist Siegel recognizes: "the net result is that known string theories have little or no predictive power. They are thus less a `Theory of Everything' [TOE] than a `Theory of Nothing' [TON]." According to Woit, a 2005 review article by string theorist Giddings does not even pretend that the theory will ever make a real prediction about anything!

During decades, string theorists claimed for imminent first evidence for SMT. I remember the dozens of metaphysical claims for "stringy" supersymmetry and others exotic things... all that stuff never discovered again and again in accelerators. Then they looked for an elegant cosmological verification. Some string theorists exaggerated: "Astronomers prove string theory". More credible string-brane theorists as Joe Polchinski did not think so. On a recent meeting, cosmologist L. Krauss called SMT "a colossal failure".

These days, string theorist Susskind promotes the "Landscape", or the failure of prediction due to perhaps 10500 (the exact number is not known) vacuum states. I said, "10500" >> 18 >1, i.e. the unpopular idea of that SMT does not unify all on a single parameter. Susskind adds: "More and more as time goes on, the opponents of the idea admit that they are simply in a state of depression and desperation."

I said that SMT was not a scientific hypothesis. Now they agree: "physicists may have to rethink what it means for a theory to explain experimental data". It sound somewhat as given that SMT does not agree with basic underpinnings of scientific method, we would change the method for adapting it to our nonscientific "Credo" (recently named "kind of a church" by string leader Jim Gates)! Of course, this is nonsense and experimental physicists just smile.

Many string theorists have arrogantly ignored, furiously attacked (e.g. during decades claimed that LQG was wrong), or misunderstood other interesting approaches to quantum gravity. Recently we saw to Witten (the "Einstein of strings") working on twistor theory, to string theorist Vafa proposing that perhaps LQG was a part of SMT, etc. Brian Greene goes more far, and recognized on 2004 that LQG had advanced much. Now he is claiming that perhaps theoreticians from both sides would join and work on a future mixture of LQG and SMT!

On 2004, Glanz interviewed to Witten, who took the opportunity to announce that he had changed his mind about whether SMT will ever be a TOE. I simply read, "When Glanz contacted other string theorists and read to them what Witten had said, almost all of them told him that they too had been having their doubts about the theory."

It appears that Glanz's article have had dramatic effects at many universities and research institutes: canceling of lectures on SMT, halt publication of new undergraduate textbook on the topic; canceling of post-docs, summer programs, and conferences, etc.

On last Aspen celebration, also Brian Greene seemed open to the increasing idea that SMT may be wrong...

According to Greene, when we know the fundamental equations of physics, everything else, chemistry, biology, neurology, psychology, and so on, can be reduced to physics and explained by using the equations. The Nobel Prize for physics Phil Anderson brilliantly demolished that archaic point of view years ago. Moreover, Anderson critiqued string theory as a futile exercise as physics on a January News.

Freeman Dyson (Nobel Prize for physics) did a strong criticism on Greene's last book (The Fabric of Cosmos). Dyson agrees with my early review on that "stringy reinterpretation" of quantum mechanics is not serious (in fact, the understanding of string theorists is wrong on technical details).

As said two years ago, the book describes (very incorrectly!) our fascinating universe. Moreover, any scientific link with reality is lost. E.g. does SMT offer any explanation of why there are apparently three space dimensions larger than the rest? See Greene's "poetic explaining" and compare with Witten's reply to an interview after publication of The Elegant Universe: "That's a big problem that has to be explained. As of now, string theorists have no explanation of why there are three large dimensions as well as time, and the other dimensions are microscopic."

I wrote that SMT was very traditional and straightforward when compared with other advanced scientific theories and hypothesis on use. Some avid readers of string propaganda remained perplexed. Does SMT constitute a revolution in physics? Unfortunately, string theorists have just a superficial knowledge of some others disciplines! On a recent interview, David Gross (Nobel Prize for physics 2004), particle physicist and one of the leading lights of SMT, replied: "But we still haven't made a very radical break with conventional physics. We've replaced particles with strings-that in a sense is the most revolutionary aspect of the theory. But all of the other concepts of physics have been left untouched-a safe thing to do if you're making changes."

A chronic ignorant

Rating:
Summary: There's one in every crowd
Review: One reviewer said he/she stopped reading because there's no experimental evidence to support the theory. Well, duh? Ever heard of the scientific method? You develop a theory, then test it to see if it works. This same guy would probably have thought Einstein was a hack, since it took years to validate his theory. Does anyone think Einstein was a hack (well, maybe the moron who wrote "The Final Theory.")

I prefer to have an open mind (I'd even be willing to accept "The Final Theory" if it can be demonstrated by experiment - but don't hold your breath.)

This book is aimed at the heart of the scientific method. Future techology will provide the means to test the theory. In the meantime, if you can't dispute the theory through rigorous analysis, then your might try developing an experiment to test it. If you can't do that, then wait for someone who can.

I for one find it an acceptable and entertaining way to engage the non-scientist. Other physicists could learn from him.

Rating:
Summary: A possible Grand Unified Theory?
Review: Physicists believe that they are on the verge of a "grand unified theory" linking classical, quantum and relativity physics. The fundamental particle of matter is "superstrings". This is a well-written, engaging book for the general reader, taking us on a tour of the latest, ground-breaking discoveries of science. You will have to read it carefully to get a handle on the complex science involved, but it will be a rewarding exercise.



Rating:
Summary: AN EDUCATING BOOK
Review: Greene's The Elegant Universe is a well-written book on a subject that I believe only a handful of people understand. As a popular science reader, one cannot help noticing, about hlfway through the book, that the understanding of an amateur is truly limited by the sheer complexity and depth of the theories exposed. For example, Feynman's finding that electrons travel in all different paths from one point to the other, thereby being in different places at the same time, is an absolute challenge to understanding.

One should not expect to be thrilled and feel empowered in knolwedge as after reading for example Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, or even mathematical books such as Singh's Fermat's Enigma. Greene is a true physicist living on the edge of the science, telling us a story about where we are in knowledge; in telling this story, it is not possible to truly explain the theories behind our knowledge, so Greene (rightfully, I believe) resorts to a method of describing history rather than science.

The book can be divided into three sections, 1.relativity, 2.quantum physics and 3.string theory. Up to the end of section one, Greene does a masterful job of explaining the underpinnings of relativity theory in such a simple way that one can actually understand what Einstein was up to, if only for a few moments while reading the book. In this section I did feel like my brain was growing, as I was gaining knowledge. In the remaining two sections, I followed the book as more of a history than physics.

Overall, if you are used to pop science, this may be a good book on physics; I have found no other as simple in its explanation of relativity for example. However, one should not expect to understand string theory by the end of it, not at the level one understands evolution at the end of The Selfish Gene for example.

Rating:
Summary: Where are the data?
Review: I stopped reading The Elegant Universe on about p. 170 when it occurred to me that nothing I had read about string theory was supported by a single observation or experiment. In the history of science, string theory surely stands unique: an idea about which dozens of books, and thousands of papers have been published, yet one which produces no testable hypotheses, and cannot be subject to falsification. By contrast, Albert Einstein did not change physics forever when he published his theory of General Relativity, but rather when predictions made by the theory were directly supported by observations. String theory has not added so much as one piece of datum to the body of scientific knowledge. The genius of Greene, Witten, and others is that they freely admit this. They cannot be accused of generating false data, or mis-interpreting data, because there are none. String theorists are free to write books and papers, and attend symposia at posh resorts, secure in the knowledge that nothing they say can ever be proven false through observations or experiments. Unlike the great scientists like Darwin, Einstein, Watson & Crick, or Bohr, string theorists have become famous by just thinking about something.
Physics currently seems to be in some sort of rococo period in which flights of fancy can pass for good science. As intriguing as ideas about string theory, parallel universes, and higher dimensions are, for me they are intellectual dead ends until they generate testable hypotheses and real data.

Rating:
Summary: Yoga for the mind: stretch your perceptions
Review: I would like to add my kudos for Greene's book. It is a great piece of work that is truly fascinating and informative. This isn't just for the science geek. It's also for those who enjoy philosophy, cosmology, theology, and mind benders. You will truly need to warp your perception of what you once thought you knew. This is not the physics I learned in school. If it had been, I'd have paid more attention. (This is the perfect book to challenge your mind and keep it active.)

Let me also add, that as of this writing, PBS has done a wonderful thing and provided the entire three-hour special based on this book online. If you are finding certain parts slow going and difficult to comprehend, this special is perfect for walking you through some of the more difficult concepts (in my case, folded dimensions and how strings interact with them). Go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/.

Rating:
Summary: For fans of the theoretical
Review: This book is a wonderful read! Greene makes no assumptions about what you know; carefully explaining everything you'll need to understand the basic theory of strings. He explains difficult concept with colorful analogies. Who would have thought learning quantum mechanics or relativity would be this easy? I recommend this book for anyone who likes theoretical science or high school students going into college for physics.

Rating:
Summary: Not ready for prime time
Review: Differently from the more recent "Fabric of the Cosmos", I am not a big fan of this book. The simple reason is that, while "Fabric" mostly deals with well-established aspects of Physics and Cosmology, this book mostly covers half-baked speculations.

String theorists are not able to solve exactly the string theory equations, but this is not the worst of it: they don't even know what the equations are that they don't know how to solve. And, of course, experimental confirmation is not only lacking: in many versions of the theory it is impossible. Pushing these speculations on a public that is already confused about basic scientific facts is somehow irresponsible.

This book is only recommended for scientists working in different fields that want some idea of what the string theorists have been up to. This book is not recommended to the general reader: The theories presented in the main part of the book are not ready for prime time. This non-recommendation only applies if you plan to read the entire book: the first hundred or so pages are indeed very good!

Rating:
Summary: Excellent book but.......
Review: I have been trying to read this book cover to cover since I bought it when it came out. I found it fairly easy to comprehend the subject matter up to a point. I think that there were far to many subjects covered. There was definitely enough material there for several books. With that in mind, I will say that the author did an excellent job of condensing it but I found myself having to go back to earlier chapters for better comprehension. The complexity of the subject matter makes it next to impossible to describe certain aspects of this science adequately and in such a short book. I couldn't help but wonder if there is only a certain amount of comprehension that can be derived by describing these abstract concepts with words alone. I would imagine that an understanding of the mathematics that gave rise to these theories would be the only way to 'see' these concepts 'truly'. Never the less this book had me riveted almost to the very end at which point the descriptions became so convoluted and the writing so dramatic that I just gave up. I would have given this book 5 stars for the attempt alone if I hadn't read 'The Dancing Wu Lei Masters' afterward. I read that book cover to cover several times. In my opinion Brian Greene must have read it too because it appears to me that he attempted to copy the writing format and style. Sorry folks but I think Gary Zuka did it better. Maybe there's not much there on string theory but as far as I'm concerned no one has painted a better picture of the 'new' physics for someone with no scientific background what so ever. I would advise reading that book first then pick up a copy of The Elegant Universe and judge for yourself.