UncommonGoods

search


Space

Have a Little Faith in Physics

Is string theory science for the intelligently designed?
by Joe Treen
07 March 2007 Comments 4 Comments

Have a Little Faith in Physics
Image: Lou Beach
Have a Little Faith in Physics   Print Have a Little Faith in Physics   Email Have a Little Faith in Physics   Digg

Joe Treen ponders the fairness of everybody jumping on evolution, when other perfectly respectable theories abound in science that remain unbruised. And when we say he ponders it, we mean to say, he muses on the subject in a fashion drier than the Sahel.

Some people would probably argue that the reason I never went into physics was that it is too hard, that I wasn’t smart enough, that I didn’t have what is sometimes called “brain power.” No doubt that is why I avoided chemistry, botany, mathematics, medicine and anything that ends in “ology.” But not physics. I passed it up for entirely different reasons. Physics, you see, is a red state science, embraced by Evangelicals and hard-line right-wing Republicans. I grasped that fact instinctively the first time my high school physics teacher, Mr. Polley, had us compute the frictional coefficient of the mass of the hypotenuse of the square of the other two sides. Steer clear of this, I said to myself. This has got red state written all over it.

I am, if nothing else, perceptive. And as nearly as I can tell, Big Physics has aligned itself with the Christian Right. This became abundantly clear during the flap over intelligent design. You may recall that the scientific world went ballistic when “Evolution is only a theory” stickers began appearing on public school textbooks in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania and Kansas. No, no, the biologists shouted. A theory is not some lame-brain opinion. A theory is something that has been observed and tested for years and years. A theory can predict what will happen with great certainty. A theory is one baby step away from being a law.

Biologists were so outraged they practically hired a PR person to promote the word “theory.” They got a story on the front page of the New York Times about the TRUE meaning of the word. They put up an elaborate exhibit at the Museum of Natural History in New York on Charles Darwin that included TV monitors of important scientists explaining what a theory is really all about. And when a federal judge, one appointed by G-Dub no less, wrote a gazillion-page opinion denouncing the intelligent designers, everyone assumed it was the coup de grace. No more nonsense about what “theory” really means.

But then came the rednecks, or, as they prefer to be known, the physicists. They started their own little campaign for something they call string theory. Their theory doesn’t have a lot to do with cellos or lutes or guitars, although they like to wheel those instruments out for demonstration purposes. Nor is string theory about balls of twine collected by nerdy boys. No, string theory, it turns out, merely holds that everything in the whole universe from the computer you are using to the gravity that is keeping you in your chair to the light you read by is made up of tiny little unseeable minuscule subatomic strings that vibrate. It is, the physicists claim, the unified theory that Einstein searched for his entire life, what he called “reading the mind of God.”

Amazing. A theory that explains everything. What could be better? But, oh-oh, get this. String theory has never been proven. It has never been tested. It has only been around since Gerald Ford was president. And it has never predicted a single thing. So what, say the physicists. That’s its beauty and charm. The very fact that it can’t be proven is proof that it is true.

So why didn’t they call it “string hypothesis”?

Okay, so maybe physicists have a strong belief in their own powers. No one has ever accused them of humility. But here’s a surprise: string theorists actually seem to believe in intelligent design. One of string theory’s founders, Leonard Susskind of Stanford University, asked in a recent book, “Can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence?”

In other words, he is saying, if the Big Bang hadn’t banged at just the right nanosecond, if this or that black hole didn’t have exactly the right gravity, if the temperatures hadn’t been just right, there wouldn’t have been a universe or an earth or a you or a me. Apparently there was an unseen hand making the whole thing work. Remind you of anything? Oh yeah. The argument of intelligent designers.

You’ve got to hand it to the physicists. They may be rednecks but they ain’t dumb. You can’t go wrong being an intelligent designer if you are lobbying the Bush Administration (and anyone else who will listen) to spend billions and billions of dollars on all sorts of expensive equipment – from particle accelerators to satellites – so you can try to prove that string theory is, well, a theory. In short, physicists are selling the possibility of scientific proof of the mind of God, science the right wing can get interested in – not like those fables the global warming crowd has been peddling. Of course, if they fail, they will have no choice but to move to Kansas. Another reason I didn’t go into physics.

Comments 4 Comments | Have a Little Faith in Physics   Print | Have a Little Faith in Physics   Email | Have a Little Faith in Physics   Digg



Comments

Very good blog. Thank you!!!

Oh, what fun! With tongue firmly planted in cheek, Treen manages to explain some fundamentals of physics, be funny, and make what I, as an experimental physicist (not a string theorist), think is a legitimate criticism: if it isn't yet tested it's just the string hypothesis, no matter how "beautiful". String physics does of course make predictions, we just haven't managed to test any yet. Science is defined as what is testable- that is why "Intelligent Design" is not science. It makes no predictions. It cannot be tested. (I don't think he meant to be taken literally with the "insinuation" that Susskind is pro-ID, Mr Regan, any more than when he wrote that physics was "red state").

Speaking as both a Christian and a scientist (Math/CS, actually), I have to point out that you've got Susskind's point wrong. His book's full title is The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the /Illusion/ of Intelligent Design (my emphasis added). His contention is that current String Theory and cosmological models permit---indeed, predict---the simultaneous existence of "10^500" different kinds of Universes, a number large enough to assure statistically that ones with the very rare combination of parameters needed for intelligent life will exist. I.e. some universes will "win the lottery twice"---and their residents will have the illusion that this was fore-ordained.

Mind-you, if you shift perspective from a single "pocket universe" to the "whole shebang", you can still pose the design questions. And those more versed in details of the theory than I am (NB: even my word "simultaneous" above is suspect in relativity) can ask: Do (nearly) all paths through the Landscape visit the layer with small cosmological constants and other conditions for life? Susskind's point, however, remains that one cannot use the parameters and coincidences for /this/ universe itself as evidence of purposed tuning.

I'm loving this article! A couple thoughts in response:

1. I actually recall intelligent design coming from the physics world as well. A big part of it was the Fritjov Capra crowd that noticed Eastern religion and Western science seemed to be converginng in places. In Capra's work, and others', this made a bit of sense. You don't get organization from chaos and the universe seems to be very organized, chaotic at very small scales, but otherwise pretty organized. Freeky stuff like the Fibonacci sequence and other 'magic/mysitc' numbers popping up all over the place. Whoever/whatever is behind such design - who knows! - but it does seem to have some consistent design across the board. The problem with the recent adoption of ID in the biology world is that it is by a group of people that think their particular God is responsible. The original intelligent design didn't point to any particular god being responsible, or even 'a' god being responsible, just that there were some consistent designs popping up. That was about as far as most would take it. Conservative Christians (and now some other groups) seem to think the Islamic/Judeo/Christian God is of course the designer that we're all referring to. What about the many hundreds of other religions around the world that have creation stories and ideas? Having traveled in Tibet and having close Native American friends I'd love to hear their thoughts on all this. To be honest, I think I grew the most as an individual, as a scientist, and as a person who considers himself a bit of a student of world religions and spirituality when I read Capra's Tao of Physics, Turning Point, etc.

2. Now, I grew up with a Christian background but then went off and got degrees in behavioral ecology and environmental studies so am all about the science side of things now. I tend to come from the Jane Goodall/Albert Einstein crowd on this topic, not really religious, but not willing to say that exloring our spirituality is a lost cause either. So there must be a middle ground somewhere. Einstein often said that art, science, and religion came from the same desire to explain the mysterious. Maybe we should consider the Native American philosphy on these sort of things more carefully: 1. obviously everything has been created at some point; 2. we owe a lot to whatever/whoever did it, and 3. whatever/whoever did create all this is way too complicated for us to understand so let's just honor the creative force/creator and leave it at that. Their take isn't quite that simple, but close. Call me crazy but I am constantly BLOWN AWAY at how complex things are in our world. I recall having the "I'm styding the mind of god" sensation in studying behavioral ecology too. The fact that a plant seed needs to travel through a host to germinate, the multiple sexual strategies in salmon, or optimal foraging in bees. Even if this stuff is all chance, we still have to respect systems that allow for and facilitate evolution. Another expereince I recall was when I went to a 'creationist' lecture back in college purely out of curiosity to hear what would be said. The next day I was severely chastized by folks in my lab, several people even questioned my interest in 'real' biology. The lecture was interesting, but certainly didn't change my mind on anything. But what it did do was make me realize how close-minded BOTH sides are on this topic. Yikes!

I really do hope a middle ground can be found on this stuff. I for one love hearing scientists talk and debate spirituality...the ones that aren't afraid to anyway.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.