- #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
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around John Baez's commentary in his Week246 post, particularly regarding the state of physics and the need for new approaches. Participants reflect on Baez's insights and their implications for theoretical physics, touching on concepts related to the Theory of Everything, string theory, and loop quantum gravity.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express admiration for John Baez's ability to explain complex ideas in accessible terms.
- One participant notes Baez's unusual commentary suggesting that physics is in trouble and requires a new approach, though the specifics of this approach remain unclear.
- There is a sentiment that theories lacking clear explanations for laypeople may not represent final solutions, echoing a famous quote attributed to Einstein about understanding theories.
- Another participant highlights Baez's reasonable observations regarding the perception of physics and the challenges faced by current theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity.
- Concerns are raised about the risks of pursuing a singular theoretical approach in physics, with a suggestion that diversifying efforts may increase the chances of success.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally agree on the value of Baez's insights and the challenges facing theoretical physics, but there is no consensus on the specifics of the new approaches needed or the implications of current theories.
Contextual Notes
Participants reference various theories and the ongoing debates surrounding them, indicating a complex landscape of ideas without resolving the uncertainties or disagreements present.
- #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
- 14,694
- 7,298
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 ·