I haven't read many of Carlo Rovelli's works, but I did enjoy an essay he published this month in Nature. "There is a healthy sense of crisis in fundamental physics" he says, but he is dismayed by commonly seen demands for physics "beyond" the standard model, conventional quantum theory, and general relativity. He thinks this is because of "bad philosophy" or mis-readings of philosophers of science such as Kuhn and Popper, who he claims are understood to endorse radical "overthrows" of existing theories and treating all speculative theories equally seriously until they've been falsified. He argues that previous "paradigm shifts" are actually more "conservative" than commonly understood, and that despite this, radical new theories are driven primarily by confronting data not currently understood, as well as apparent contradictions among different pieces of knowledge.
It is a good and thought-provoking essay. I basically agree with his point that the history of science is far more methodologically valuable to study than philosophy of science. However I surmise that he's overthought the explanation for the craze for "physics beyond the standard model" (such as supersymmetry and string theory). I think the more radical alternatives just have greater potential for scientific glory than more "conservative" approaches (such as loop quantum gravity, a field he worked in and seems to think is a "proof of concept" for an approach more closely tied to existing quantum theory and gravitational theories, though he points out some of its "radical" features). Thus, the appeal of following the wilder approaches is the chance to attain heroic status.
I haven't summarized Rovelli's essay very eloquently; he writes very well and I recommend reading it. Even though his should not be the final word (I'm certainly not convinced that the wilder speculative theories should be completely abandoned) but it's a good counterpoint to much of what we read, especially in accounts of popular physics.
No comments:
Post a Comment