- #1
ccdantas
- 341
- 0
Week246: What does John Baez have to say about TWP and NEW?
- Context: Graduate
- Thread starter ccdantas
- Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
John Baez's Week246 discusses the current state of physics, emphasizing the need for new approaches beyond established theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity. He argues that if a theory cannot be explained to a high school student, it is unlikely to be the final theory. Baez highlights the importance of diverse approaches in theoretical physics to mitigate risks and enhance the chances of breakthroughs. His insights reflect the core messages from the works of physicists Lee Smolin and Peter Woit, advocating for a broader exploration of ideas in the field.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of theoretical physics concepts, particularly string theory and loop quantum gravity.
- Familiarity with the works of John Baez, Lee Smolin, and Peter Woit.
- Basic knowledge of scientific communication and the importance of clarity in explaining complex theories.
- Awareness of the current debates in the physics community regarding the search for a Theory of Everything.
- Explore John Baez's other writings on mathematical physics and his teaching methods.
- Read Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics" for insights into the limitations of current theories.
- Investigate Peter Woit's critiques of string theory and his perspectives on alternative approaches.
- Study the principles of effective scientific communication to improve the clarity of complex ideas.
The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, science communicators, and students interested in the philosophical and practical challenges of modern physics. It is particularly relevant for those exploring alternative theories and the importance of clear explanations in scientific discourse.
- #2
- #3
CarlB
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 1,246
- 45
It's a kind of unusual post from Baez, a comment to the effect that physics really is in trouble and needs a new approach. But who knows what it is.
My feeling is that if you can't explain the basic underlying principle of your theory to a high school student, it may not be wrong, but it will not be the final theory.
My feeling is that if you can't explain the basic underlying principle of your theory to a high school student, it may not be wrong, but it will not be the final theory.
- #4
Demystifier
Science Advisor
- 14,608
- 7,224
A great thought!CarlB said:
I think I will cite it sometime and somewhere.
There is also a similar one (I am not sure who said that, but it was somebody famous, perhaps Einstein):
If you cannot explain a theory to a layman, then you do not really understand that theory.
- #5
ccdantas
- 341
- 0
John Baez is one of the best expositors I can think of (and, of course, a leading mathematical physicist).
One thing that I also found out is that he is a very patient and attentive person. I've been drawing figures for his quantization and cohomology course and from this process I have learned a lot from him.
Yes, I also think this particular TWF unusual. A lot has been said and written about these books for a while now and I believe it is the first time he openly writes something about them.
I think all that he wrote is reasonable, mainly:
- "(...) casual observers must have gotten the impression that physics was always on the brink of a Theory of Everything... but mysteriously never reaching it. These books correct that impression."
- "It's true there's no obviously better theory than string theory. Loop quantum gravity, in particular, has problems that are just as serious as string theory. But, the "only game in town" argument is still flawed."
- "If everyone pursues the same approach, we'll all succeed or fail together - and chances are we'll fail. The reason for backing some risk takers is that it "diversifies our portfolio". It reduces overall risk by increasing the chance that someone will succeed."
These are the main messages of the books by Smolin and, as far as I can tell, by Woit (I didn't read the latter). All this has been said and debated endlessly elsewhere, but it's nice to read them from John Baez, who has this great capacity of explaining things so that anyone can understand.
Christine
One thing that I also found out is that he is a very patient and attentive person. I've been drawing figures for his quantization and cohomology course and from this process I have learned a lot from him.
Yes, I also think this particular TWF unusual. A lot has been said and written about these books for a while now and I believe it is the first time he openly writes something about them.
I think all that he wrote is reasonable, mainly:
- "(...) casual observers must have gotten the impression that physics was always on the brink of a Theory of Everything... but mysteriously never reaching it. These books correct that impression."
- "It's true there's no obviously better theory than string theory. Loop quantum gravity, in particular, has problems that are just as serious as string theory. But, the "only game in town" argument is still flawed."
- "If everyone pursues the same approach, we'll all succeed or fail together - and chances are we'll fail. The reason for backing some risk takers is that it "diversifies our portfolio". It reduces overall risk by increasing the chance that someone will succeed."
These are the main messages of the books by Smolin and, as far as I can tell, by Woit (I didn't read the latter). All this has been said and debated endlessly elsewhere, but it's nice to read them from John Baez, who has this great capacity of explaining things so that anyone can understand.
Christine
Similar threads
- · Replies 10 ·
- · Replies 61 ·
- · Replies 19 ·
- · Replies 5 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 8 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 14 ·