Can't stop blogging about book reviews!

My last post commented further about book reviews in the physics community.  An announcement today that the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) has appointed a new editor for its MAA Reviews has reminded me that the mathematical community is doing relatively better on the book review front than the physics community is.  I don't read MAA Reviews regularly, but I see that it is a professional-society sponsored source of curated book reviews.  They also feature a Basic Library List, a downloadable spreadsheet which includes books they recommend for college and university libraries.  The list is annotated with a star system, with 3 stars for books considered essential, 2 stars for strongly recommended, 1 star for "recommended", and zero stars for "suggested".  I haven't examined the list in detail, but conceptually this seems to be a good idea, and quite useful for students and self-learners as well.

More broadly, I can't speak to the quality of MAA Reviews, as I'm not a regular reader, but the concept seems like exactly what I think is missing in the physics community.  As a bonus, all the content seems to be freely available online.  Unfortunately, using the search feature I was able to find only a single reviewed book in the field of fluid mechanics, and only 3 under physics.  Its coverage of statistics is not at all comprehensive, with only 6 books showing up in the search feature for statistics, 6 more for probability, with 3 more under probability theory, two under "Statistics and Probability", one more under Bayesian statistics, one each under classification and clustering, one more under data visualization, and one more under data analysis.

The Basic Library List has much better coverage, but no reviews are attached to the entries.  Looking at the fluid mechanics sections of the list, I count only 13 titles included, of which only two are rated at 3 stars (essential), both by James Lighthill:  his Waves in Fluids and Informal Introduction to Theoretical Fluid Mechanics.  Both are excellent choices that I would agree with.  There are no 2 star recommendations, but earning a single star are Acheson's Elementary Fluid Mechanics, Lamb's Hydrodynamics, Courant and Friedrichs' Supersonic Flow and Shock Waves, Stoker's Water Waves, and a book I'd not heard of until now, Gary Sod's Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics.  Aside from that last one, I would consider the rest as classics.  A 14th book, Batchelor's Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, also a classic, appears under "Mathematical Physics:  Fluid Mechanics".  However there are quite a few other classics that should have been included, many of which were written by physicists or engineers.  So, in execution the list might not live up to my expectations, but I suppose opinions about books are always subjective, so that no such list would make everyone happy.

In addition to MAA, I am a member of SIAM (the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics), and their SIAM Review (a journal sent to all members) maintains a healthy book review section.

Anyway, perhaps the physics community needs a source of free, online, curated book reviews in the spirit of MAA Reviews, to replace the fallen books section of Physics Today.  A professional society might be a good central place to host one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On book reviews

Not long ago, I lamented on this blog about the termination of Physics Today's book reviews section.  I mentioned that book reviews are pretty rate at the American Journal of Physics these days too.  However, I am pleased to see that the March issue of AJP does include a book review, of a recent text on soft matter physics.

The Atlantic recently had an article by Adam Kirsch about the termination of the Washington Post's book review section, the second time it has been terminated.  There is a good discussion there about disaggregation, that is, separating book reviews from other content.  It reflects a rethinking of the role of a general publication and how we no longer expect it to cultivate all areas of our culture.  This may indeed explain the loss of book reviews in Physics Today as well.

There may not be a single place to go to find authoritative reviews of physics books in the English language.  Perhaps a google search will find blogs or "booktok" videos that provide reviews, from actual users of these books.  But somehow this does not seem to me to replace the curated reviews from selected experts that might have been found in Physics Today, and perhaps can still be found at AJP and Contemporary Physics.  There are very few publications read across the community:  Physics Today and Physics World are the main ones I can think of in the English language.  I don't subscribe to Physics World, so I'm not sure if they even have, or have ever had, a book reviews section.

"The Grand Design" by Hawking and Mlodinow

I have just finished reading The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (New York:  Random House).  The book was originally published in 2010, and I acquired a glossy-paged edition in 2013, but it sat on my shelf unread, until a few months ago.  I have been meaning to read it for a long time.  Hawking died in 2018, so this book belongs to the final decade of his career, and I regret not getting to it until long after his passing.

Sadly, since the book was published, both authors (as well as many, many top physicists) have been associated with Jeffrey Epstein.  However as far as can be determined at this time, any allegations of improper or illegal conduct by either Hawking or Mlodinow have not been substantiated.  

On to the book itself.  Much of it is science popularization, and though I am conversant in the more familiar parts of physics exposited, the book did clarify a couple things for me, which I appreciated.  For example, I have often been confused by the use of the term "effective theory" in physics, and the book explained it in layman's terms.

The important point made by the book is a strong endorsement of supersymmetry and M-theory.  On the final page, the authors write that "M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe"(italics original).  They also advocate the multiverse concept, and the strong anthropic principle.  Along with these, they present a metaphysical principle, "model-dependent realism", which superficially appears to be a hybrid of instrumentalism and realism.  However, I'm not sure if you can really eat your cake and have it too.  The principle appears to be crafted specifically to accommodate M-theory, which is actually an infinite number of theories, each with its own domain of applicability, though where the domains overlap, the theories make the same predictions.  I don't see what is realist about "model-dependent realism"; it appears to me to be a variant of instrumentalism.

A key passage is this (p. 58):

Regarding the laws that govern the universe, what we can say is this:  There seems to be no single mathematical model or theory that can describe every aspect of the universe.  Instead...there seems to be the network of theories called M-theory.  Each theory in the M-theory network is good at describing phenomena within a certain range.  Wherever their ranges overlap, the various theories in the network agree, so they can all be said to be parts of the same theory.  But no single theory within the network can describe every aspect of the universe--all the forces of nature, the particles that feel those forces, and the framework of space and time in which it all plays out.  Though this situation does not fulfill the traditional physicist's dream of a single unified theory, it is acceptable within the framework of model-dependent realism.

Later, they write (p. 143):  "We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable". 

I am glad that I read this book after I read Jim Baggott's Farewell to Reality, which was published in 2013 (by Pegasus Books), and which I acquired less than a year after acquiring The Grand Design.  I read it within a year, and reviewed it on this blog in 2014.  In the decade since, I think it is fair to say that empirical evidence for supersymmetry has not yet been found, though back then, expectations were high that such evidence would be found within a decade.  This has weakened the case for The Grand Design and strengthened the critique given by Baggott.  Indeed, Baggott uses the phrase "Grand Delusion", which sounds like direct mockery of The Grand Design.  

On balance, reading The Grand Design was not a waste of my time.  It was important for me to know the views of one of the greatest physicists of my lifetime, and I did learn a few things.  However I am doubtful about its main conclusions, though I have a benefit of hindsight -- 15 years of physics progress since the book was published -- to reinforce my doubts.  If you're interested, don't let me stop you from reading The Grand Design, but if you do, do yourself the favor of also reading Baggott's Farewell to Reality in conjunction, to get a more balanced perspective.

 

 

 

Book review: The Five Ages of the Universe, by F. Adams and G. Laughlin

Adams and Laughlin (1999) propose that the history of the Universe (past and future) be classified into five periods, not unlike geologic eras, based on what we've learned from physics and cosmology so far. These eras include the primordial era, the stelliferous era (in which we now live), the degenerate era, the black hole era, and the dark era. Much of this is an extrapolation of our physics into the far future of the Universe, and is thus somewhat speculative. The authors propose a Copernican time principle, which states that the era in which we humans find ourselves is not a privileged one in the history of the Universe. (Copernicus earlier showed the our location (Earth) is not a special one in the solar system.)

Reference

Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin, 1999: The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity. New York: Free Press.

Book review: The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin

This controversial book (Smolin, 2006) is an attack on string theory and its dominance in theoretical physics. The author has worked in string theory himself, as well as in a major competing approach, loop quantum gravity. He argues that string theory has led nowhere despite being the dominant approach in the field for a long time. His scientific criticisms of string theory are heavily disputed in the community, and he may have overstated the case. However, he also makes a sociological criticism, that (in the U.S.) string theory has suffocated funding and employment opportunities for physicists who pursue alternative theories. Here Smolin's case seems more compelling.

The book has four parts. The first, "The Unfinished Revolution", is an enjoyable capsule history of unification in theoretical physics. Here the author proposes his list of the five great unsolved problems in physics: (1) Combining quantum theory with general relativity, (2) Resolving the difficulties in the foundations of quantum theory, perhaps by replacing it, (3) finding a theory unifying particles and forces, (4) explain the values of the free constants in the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and (5) explain dark matter and dark energy; alternatively explain the values of the constants in the Standard Model of Cosmology. The second part of the book, "A Brief History of String Theory", is precisely that. Here is where Smolin presents his assessment of the successes and alleged failures of string theory. I found this to be the toughest going and least enjoyable part of the book. The third part, "Beyond String Theory", has three chapters. The first discusses experimental and observational anomalies--for me, this was the most exciting part of the book. The other two chapters discuss speculative theories of physics, alternatives to both currently established theory and string theory. The final part of the book, "Learning from Experience", delves into the philosophy and sociology of physics. This is perhaps the most important part of the book. He feels that theoretical physics has run aground and is ripe for a paradigm shift. The "shut up and calculate" mentality that has been successful for the last 60 years has run its course, and it may be time for radical new ideas. The structure and sociology of the physics community is currently an obstacle to any such radicalism. Although I cannot go all the way along with Smolin in this section, I too am a critic of the academic tenure system and the funding mechanisms for science in the U.S.

Smolin has thought a great deal about the history, philosophy, and sociology of the physics profession. This is unusual for a physicist nowadays. His book presents an opportunity for the rest of us to do so too.

Reference

Lee Smolin, 2006: The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Houghton Mifflin.

Book review: Calculated Risks, by Gerd Gigerenzer

Gigerenzer (2003) addresses statistical thinking, and the lack thereof, in medical and legal contexts, focusing on handling probabilities (risks). He identifies several issues and correctives:

• The illusion of certainty. For instance, most patients are not told that diagnostic medical tests can make mistakes, and are not informed of the error rates (false positive and false negatives).
• Ignorance of risk. Even if uncertainty is acknowledged, laymen and experts often do not know how great the level of risk is.
• Miscommunication of risk. Because of the peculiarities of human psychology, the way that risk information is usually communicated (using probabilities expressed as frequencies) can be misleading. For instance, absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and number needed to treat are all mathematically equivalent ways to express the efficacy of a treatment. However, relative risk reduction is usually the way to communicate the results that leaves the best impression on the untutored mind.
• Clouded thinking. Even when risks are communicated properly, both experts and laypeople may not know how to reason with them. Expressing probabilities as natural frequencies forces us to focus on the reference class, and it allows people with little training to carry out Bayes Rule calculations easily.

The book provides a number of interesting case studies: the cases of breast cancer screening and AIDS counseling are particularly dramatic, and should be required reading for anyone taking a diagnostic medical test. Several other decision making heuristics that can result in misleading results are discussed, such as the "category effect". In general though, the book is not a complete discussion of the psychology of judgment and decision making applied to statistical thinking. Nonetheless, the author identifies a number of sub-optimal medical and legal practices in every day life.

Reference

Gerd Gigerenzer, 2003: Calculated Risks: How to Know When the Numbers Deceive You. Simon & Schuster.

Book Review: Stephen Stigler's "The Seven Pillars of Statistical Wisdom"

The Seven Pillars of Statistical Wisdom, by Stephen M. Stigler (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2016).

The book presents seven principles that the author believes support the core of statistics as a unified science of data, “the original and still preeminent data science” (p. 195).  It is intended for both professional statisticians and the “interested layperson,” though I suspect the latter would struggle a bit, as the author does not shy from formulae, calculations, and even name-drops of advanced statistical methods and concepts.  The author is a distinguished professor of statistics at the University of Chicago, and a leading historian of the field.  Each of the seven main chapters discusses one of the “pillars,” illustrated with historical examples (as opposed to contemporary ones) and often accompanied by discussions of the pitfalls involved with each principle.  The author states that “I will try to convince you that each of these was revolutionary when introduced, and each remains a deep and important conceptual advance” (p. 2).

The first principle is titled “Aggregation” or “the combination of observations,” of which the arithmetic mean is the chief example discussed.  The author implies that the method of least squares, and more general smoothing methods, also falls under aggregation, broadly understood.  The concept of aggregation is radical because the principle implies that individual observations can be discarded in favor of sufficient statistics.  Prior to a general acceptance of averages, scientists would often simply choose the “best” of a set of observations, or perhaps take a midrange (average of the highest and lowest values).  The concept offers other dangers, as the author illustrates with Quetelet’s notion of the Average Man.

The second principle is titled “Information:  its measurement and rate of change”, which focuses on the Central Limit Theorem and the root-N law (which roughly states that the gain in precision of an estimate increases with only the square root of the amount of data used to calculate it).  The author acknowledges the contrast of statisticians’ usage of the term “Information” (specifically, Fisher Information) with its more general use in signal processing and information theory (specifically, Shannon information).  Again, pitfalls are discussed, including a case where randomly selecting one of two data points is better than using their average.  This is a case where cannonballs of two calibers are reported by different spies.  A cannon whose caliber equals their average would not exist.  “The measurement of information clearly required attention to the goal of the investigation” (p. 59).  (In my view, one could write an entire chapter on that last point, and it would be more important than most of the 7 principles selected by the author for this book.)

The third principle is titled “Likelihood:  Calibration on a Probability Scale”.  Here the concept of a statistical significance test is introduced, along with p-values, Bayesian induction, and the theory of maximum likelihood.  The fourth principle is titled “Intercomparison:  within-sample variation as the standard.”  He illustrates it with Student’s distribution and t-test, and the analysis of variance.  Pitfalls are illustrated with an example of data dredging in the hands of economist William Stanley Jevons.  The author acknowledges further pitfalls, “for the lack of appeal to an outside standard can remove our conclusions from all relevance” (p. 198). (In my view this concern is understated:  statisticians are fond of standardizing data, but this prevents multiple data sets from being compared using an external standard.  Dimensional analysis offers an alternate approach.)

The fifth principle is titled “Regression:  Multivariate Analysis, Bayesian Inference, and Causal Inference”.  This principle warrants the longest chapter of the book, and begins by focusing on regression to the mean, a discovery made by Francis Galton.  This discovery resolved a paradox Galton had noticed in Darwin’s theory of evolution:  if each generation produced heritable variation of traits to its offspring, why was the aggregate variation in those traits stable over time?  Later in the chapter, Stein’s paradox is discussed, and shrinkage estimation is presented as a version of regression.  The correlation-causation fallacy is also discussed, including spurious correlation and Austin Bradford Hill’s principles for epidemiological inference.  The chapter also covers multivariate analysis, Bayesian statistics, and path analysis-- a real hodge podge.

The sixth principle is “Design:  Experimental Planning and the Role of Randomization”.  Fisher’s demolishment of one-factor-at-a-time experimentation is discussed, as is Pierce’s innovation of using randomization in experimental psychology studies, and later Neyman’s discussion of random sampling in social science.  The chapter ends with a brief discussion of clinical trials and a lengthier discussion of the French lottery of the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

The seventh principle is titled “Residual”, by which the author means both residual analysis, a commonly used approach for statistical model criticism, as well as formal model comparison for nested models, using a significance test.  The author also detours into the history of data graphics.  The chapter is marred by infelicities in its history of physics and astronomy.  At one point the author states that “We are still looking for that [lumineferous] aether” (p. 172).  Rest assured, most physicists are not worried about that.  The author then describes Laplace’s approach to resolving an apparent discrepancy in the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn; Laplace was able to show that the motions could be explained using a mutual 3-body problem with the sun.  Using an exaggeration worthy of our current Presidential candidates, the author observes that “A residual analysis had saved the solar system.”  Finally, in the Conclusion, the author speculates about the possibility of an (as yet unknown) eighth pillar to accommodate the era of big data.

At this point, readers should be warned that I have an unconventional and dissident view of statistical ideology.  For instance, where the author states about statistical significance tests, “misleading uses have been paraded as if they were evidence to damn the entire enterprise rather than the particular use” (p. 197), I would number myself among those who would damn the entire enterprise.  (This is a topic of current controversy, as evidenced by Wasserstein, 2016.)  There is some value in distilling the ideas of statistics into a set of principles; similar exercises are commonly embarked on, and Kass et. al (2016) is another example published in the same year.  Were I to write such an account, it would differ from both Stigler’s and others’, and present my own statistical ideology.  This will have to wait for another day.  Suffice it to say that my selection of pillars would differ, and any discussion I'd offer of Stigler's would dwell far more on the pitfalls and hazards than he has.

In my view, this book’s chapter on “Design” is the best (except for the digression on the French lottery), while the topics discussed in the other chapters are so fraught with difficulties that the concepts described might be as potentially harmful as they are helpful to the serious data analyst.  I found the book disappointing and less enlightening than I had hoped. While not as bad as Salsburg's The Lady Tasting Tea, I would find it difficult to recommend this book to readers of any level of statistical sophistication.

References

Kass, R.E., et al., 2016:  Ten simple rules for effective statistical practice.  PLoS Computational Biology, vol. 12 (6), e1004961.

Wasserstein, R. L. (ed.), 2016:  ASA statement on statistical significance and P-values.  The American Statistician, vol. 70, pp. 129-133.

A Review of Abrahm Lustgarten's "Run to Failure"

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform was completing the task of drilling a pipe into BP's Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico.  The pipe experienced a blowout, and the blowout preventer failed, resulting in an explosion and eventual sinking of the platform.  Eleven workers were killed, and seventeen were seriously injured.  The rupture of the pipe resulted in a massive oil spill event that lasted 86 days.

The disaster was eminently preventable.  Investigation of its causes has focused on a number of technical and engineering issues; however the larger context was BP's corporate culture.  Understanding that culture requires a deeper study of BP's checkered history of operations management and industrial safety.  The book Run to Failure, by Abrahm Lustgarten (2012), provides just that.  Written in conjunction with the Frontline documentary, The Spill, it provides an in-depth examination of BP's history in North America, beginning in 1989 when John Browne was named head of worldwide exploration and production.  Browne would later become BP's chief executive, and on his watch there were major disasters at two of BP's legacy assets:  its Texas City refinery and its operations on Alaska's north slope, site of its Prudhoe Bay oil fields, as well as an extensive pipeline network.  These legacy assets were considered sources of revenue to be milked as much as possible, but they were not opportunities for growth, and thus infrastructure investments were minimized.

After the prologue, which describes the Deepwater Horizon accident and introduces the book, the next fourteen chapters are dedicated to events prior to that accident.  We observe a corporate culture where site managers were frequently rotated, while being pressured to produce financial results.  This produced a short term mentality, perpetual cost cutting, and an avoidance of investing in infrastructure maintenance, even where safety and the environment were at risk.  Safety management focued on the less expensive "slips and trips" rather than the vastly more expensive process safety.  Workers who raised concerns were ignored, and whistleblowers were blacklisted.  An attitude of "run to failure" pervaded at BP's legacy assets.  However, even BP's preferred areas for investment, such as the Gulf of Mexico, provided an example of corner-cutting in the rush to start making money.  The near sinking of BP's Thunder Horse platform during Hurricane Dennis in 2005 was caused by the mistakenly backward installation of several check valves in the platform's pontoons.

BP's poor safety record is compared unfavorably with those of other major oil companies, particularly Exxon, which seems to have taken to heart the lessons of the notorious Exxon Valdez oil spill.  The rate of spills and other process accidents for BP was usually several times higher than that of its competitors.

The last two chapters, and the epilogue, return to the Macondo well and the Deepwater Horizon accident.  The exposition of events reveals a series of poor decisions as well as equipment failures that all point to a culture of corner cutting in the rush to get results.  It provides a case study of engineering and business decision analysis and ethics.  The book ends with evidence that BP hasn't really changed its corporate culture, and implies that the company's next disaster will occur on Alaska's north slope.  A post from earlier this year in the Columbia Journalism Review, by Alexis Sobel Fitts, shows that BP is even now aggressively trying to influence public perception of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

One issue that arises is the role of federal and state government regulators.  The author discusses this issue, including a number of agencies, though the primary emphasis is on the Environmental Protection Agency.  This is perhaps due to his access to very candid sources from that agency.  There is relatively little discussion of the US Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS); fortunately you can read more about the role of this obscure agency in a May, 2010, Rolling Stone article by Tim Dickinson.  I wish that Lustgarten had incorporated more discussion of other regulators, including Dickinson's findings.

Run to Failure has been reviewed in a number of scientific journals such as Nature (Mascarelli, 2012).  The most useful reviews in my view are those by Peter Dykstra at Enivonmental Health News (here), and Matthew T. Huber (2013) in Contemporary Sociology.  I strongly recommend this book for those interested in engineering and business ethics, corporate culture, and the energy industry.

References

Matthew T. Huber, 2013:  Review of Lustgarten (2012).  Contemporary Sociology, 42:  400-401.

Abrahm Lustgarten, 2012:   Run to Failure:  BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster (W. W. Norton, New York).

Amanda Mascarelli, 2012:  Plumbing the depths.  Nature, 483:  154-155.

A review of "Farewell to Reality" by Jim Baggott

Farewell to Reality:  How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth, by Jim Baggott (Pegasus Books, 2013).

The author has an axe to grind with modern physics.  On television and in books about contemporary physics intended for general audiences, established knowledge is seamlessly presented along with speculation and theories (like string theory) which do not, and possibly cannot, have experimental or observational support.  Baggott makes a distinction between what he calls the “authorized version” (theories of physics with well-established empirical support) and “fairy-tale physics” (theories that lack such support).  Moreover, according to him, some physicists have advocated a “post-empirical” re-defining of the scientific method, which would cut science loose from its empirical grounding.

The book begins with a chapter on some amateur philosophy of science, where Baggott sets out the six principles that he thinks demarcate science from metaphysics.  The first is the “reality principle” which is a statement of metaphysical realism – the real world is “out there” independent of our perception of it – tempered by acknowledging that we only have access to “things as they are measured”, not “things in themselves”.  Moreover, “reality is rational, predictable and accessible to human reason.”  Second is the “fact principle” which states that facts are not theory-neutral:  “Observation and experiment are simply not possible without reference to a supporting theory of some kind.”  Third is the “theory principle” which states that any creative process used to develop a theory is acceptable as long as the resulting theory works.  How we define whether a theory works leads to the fourth principle, the “testability principle”, which states that scientific theories must be empirically testable, and for this to be possible auxiliary assumptions are required.  Moreover, no single test is decisive, since either the theory or an auxiliary assumption may be responsible for any discrepancy.  The fifth principle is the “veracity principle” which states that theories can at best be tentatively accepted, while absolute certainty is beyond reach.  The final principle is the “Copernican principle” which states that we are not privileged observers (discussed in a different context by Adams and Laughlin, 1999).  The rest of the book is divided into two parts.  The first is an exposition of the “authorized version”, and the second is titled “The Grand Delusion”, where he outlines “fairy-tale physics” and his problems with it.

Part One begins with a chapter on quantum theory, including the foundational questions.  This is followed by a chapter on quantum field theory and the standard model of particle physics, up to and including the discovery of the Higgs boson.  The next chapter tackles special and general relativity.  Then follows a chapter on the standard model of big bang cosmology, including the inflation model and the unknown nature of dark matter and dark energy.  The final chapter of Part One is about the gaps and flaws of the authorized version.  These include puzzles about quantum measurement, difficulties with the standard models of particle physics and cosmology, and the lack of a theory of quantum gravity.  Efforts to address these issues, such as dark matter searches, are discussed.  Finally, the “fine-tuning problem” is introduced:  this states that the free parameters of the universe seem unusually fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life forms to observe it.

Part Two begins with a chapter on supersymmetry (SUSY).  Baggott feels that SUSY is at least a testable theory and that we can expect experimental elucidation in the next few years.  On the other hand, he is a skeptic of SUSY because he thinks it creates just as many problems as the ones it solves.  He also points to the lack of experimental or observational evidence for supersymmetry thus far, although in my view this judgment is premature.  The next chapter takes on the numerous flaws of string theory (including superstrings and M-theory), ground previously trodden most famously by Smolin (2006) and Woit (2007).  The next chapter tackles various versions of the multiverse concept, from the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum theory, to the inflationary multiverse.  All of these are dangerous, in Baggott’s view, as they violate the testability principle.  The next chapter, “Source Code of the Cosmos,” tackles a hodge podge of ideas.  The first is Max Tegmark’s claim that the universe is a mathematical structure.  Next, he presents quantum information theory and quantum computing, in a more non-committal way.  (I assume he believes these fields do fall into the legitimate side of science, though not yet part of the authorized version, since much remains to be worked out in those fields.)  He then discusses the “black hole war” (involving ideas from general relativity, quantum theory, thermodynamics, and quantum information) which was resolved by Juan Maldacena’s holographic principle.  The fact that the “black hole war” between Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind was finally resolved shows that progress can be made here, but it is not the kind of progress Baggott would prefer.  The resolution of the “war” was based entirely on theoretical developments, without grounding in observational or experimental data.

The book’s penultimate chapter takes on the anthropic cosmological principle, which directly contradicts the Copernican principle that Baggott develops at the start of the book.  He also takes a swipe at the John Templeton Foundation in this chapter.  In the concluding chapter, Baggott tries to answer six questions.  First, “If fairy-tale physics isn’t science, what is it?”  Baggott’s answer is that the stuff isn’t even metaphysics, but rather “nothing but sophistry and illusion” (quoting philosopher David Hume).  Second, “But aren’t theoretical physicists supposed to be really smart people?”  He answers affirmative but gives an analogy with the financial crisis of 2008, which was partly the result of very intelligent financial engineers who nonetheless fell under a “grand delusion”.  Third, “Okay, but in the grand scheme of things is there any real harm done?”  Baggott’s answer is that the “integrity of the scientific enterprise” is being harmed.  This is where he trots out Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind apparently defending a post-empirical redefinition of the scientific method.  Fourth, “What do the philosophers have to say about it?”  Baggott cites only a commentary by philosophers Cartwright and Frigg (2007), but otherwise would like to hear more from philosophers.  Baggott states that “the guardianship of science and the scientific method should not be left solely in the hands of scientists, particularly those scientists with intellectual agendas of their own.”  Fifth, “Are we witnessing the end of physics?”  Baggott cites Horgan (1996) but offers that the list of unanswered questions in physics is still quite lengthy.  The real problem is impatience, which Baggott feels is a factor driving the development of fairy-tale physics.  The final question is “So, what do you want me to do about it?”  Baggott’s answer is to maintain a healthy skepticism when reading about contemporary physics.

So, what to make of the book?  Baggott focuses on particle physics, cosmology, and quantum information theory.  He makes no reference at all to the largest field in physics, condensed matter, not to mention all the other subfields of physics.  Smolin (2006) does the same but at least explains that he does; Baggott never explains that there are vast areas of physics untouched by the “fairy tale” issue he rants about.  Baggott also fails to explore the sociological reasons why “fairy tale” physics persists, an issue that Smolin (2006) does address in some detail.  Thus in comparing the two books, Baggott tackles a broader set of issues (whereas Smolin is mainly concerned about string theory) but Smolin gives a much more thorough account of his topic.

Personally I think Baggott is mostly right (though his dismissal of SUSY due to lack of evidence is far too premature).  However I think Smolin does a better job of convincing us that fairy-tale physics is actually damaging—how funding and hiring is being dominated by less than worthy theoretical efforts.  Baggott is clearly ticked off, but is not articulate enough about the damage and why we should care.  I am not as prepared to completely dismiss string theory as Baggott and Smolin are, but I certainly agree that in their current form they offer little in the way of scientific progress.  Nonetheless, it’s about time someone wrote a book like Baggott’s.

References

Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin, 1999:  The Five Ages of the Universe:  Inside the Physics of Eternity.  Free Press.

Nancy Cartwright and Roman Frigg, 2007:  String theory under scrutiny.  Physics World, Sept. 2007, p. 15.

John Horgan, 1997:  The End of Science:  Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age.  Little, Brown.

Lee Smolin, 2006:  The Trouble with Physics:  The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next.  Penguin.

Peter Woit, 2007:  Not Even Wrong:  The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics.  Vintage.