August 21st, 2024

The Elegant Universe: 25th Anniversary Edition

Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" is reissued for its 25th anniversary, addressing string theory's challenges and ongoing debates about its validity, while acknowledging its lack of predictive power and research vitality.

Read original articleLink Icon
The Elegant Universe: 25th Anniversary Edition

Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" has been reissued in a 25th anniversary edition, maintaining the original text while adding a preface and epilogue. The book, which popularized string theory and M-theory upon its initial release in 1999, has sold around 2 million copies and inspired a PBS special. However, the excitement surrounding string theory has waned since the early 1990s due to its inability to deliver a unified theory as initially promised. Critics argue that the field has become tribal, with proponents reluctant to voice dissenting opinions for fear of retribution. The new edition's epilogue addresses string theory's challenges, including the lack of evidence for supersymmetry and the anthropic multiverse concept. Greene acknowledges that string theory currently lacks predictive power but asserts that it remains a vibrant area of research. He claims that recent developments suggest a connection between string theory and quantum field theory, although he gives string theory an incomplete grade for experimental validation. Critics, including Peter Woit, argue that Greene's responses to criticisms are inadequate and misrepresent the concerns raised by detractors. The ongoing debate highlights the tension between the promotion of string theory and the skepticism it faces within the scientific community.

- "The Elegant Universe" celebrates its 25th anniversary with a new edition.

- The book has sold approximately 2 million copies and inspired a PBS special.

- Critics argue that string theory has not fulfilled its promises and has become a tribal field.

- Greene acknowledges string theory's lack of predictive power but defends its research vitality.

- The debate continues over the validity and future of string theory in fundamental physics.

Link Icon 5 comments
By @johnkpaul - 8 months
I’ve found this explainer by Angela Collier super helpful in understanding the current state of string theory.

https://youtu.be/kya_LXa_y1E?si=wjHwG0p3J4HWRKs7

I was a gigantic pop science fan and read The Elegant Universe when I was approximately 13 and am excited it’s still being read even if it’s not necessarily true about our universe. It’s got the inspiration and excitement part that’s all I really needed as a kid.

By @rootbear - 8 months
At one point, I considered going into theoretical physics (this would have been in the late 70s to early 80s), but got seduced by computers instead. If I had stuck with physics, I might have jumped on the string theory bandwagon and now, in retirement, find myself regretting that I'd wasted my life on it. You never know.

I will say that when I read "The Elegant Universe" I really enjoyed the early chapters that explain relativity and quantum mechanics and why they are incompatible. I don't think I ever finished the later parts of the book, nor did I read any of the "sequels". I was not very impressed with the NOVA adaptation. Too much glitz, too much Greene.

By @AlbertCory - 8 months
I don't pretend to understand modern physics. However, I did buy "The Elegant Universe" and got most of the way through it, until I got tired of the hype: especially, phrases like "It turns out that ..." when nothing has "turned out."

If you can't test it, it's not science. If it's just "beautiful mathematics" it should be in the Math Department. I don't find anything offensive about Woit's article. Disagreement is part of what everyone signed up for.

By @cvoss - 8 months
Greene and Woit are colleagues in the same department (Greene is in two departments) of the same university. This kind of public airing of grievances (at one point Woit calls something Greene writes "highly offensive") seems like not the appropriate mechanism for hashing out academic disagreements? Unclear to me.

I'm also having a hard time understanding Woit's position given that he's a math department guy. Sure, string theory doesn't look exciting from an experimentalist's perspective. But from a mathematical perspective it is an incredible achievement and valuable even if it turns out to not actually describe our universe.