Modern Theoretical Physics and Religion – the Same Thing?

(This article was originally posted on blogger.com on Oct 13, 2005)

At least this is the impression you could get by reading a  recent article by the science columnist Margaret Wertheim, working at the L.A. Weekly. Margaret is also writing a book about ‘the role of imagination in theoretical physics’. Commenting on the present status of theoretical physics, she says, that:

THERE HAS BEEN much talk of late about the scientific method, which usually takes place in the context of distinguishing science from other “less rational” practices, such as religion and magic. But in recent years science itself has been showing increasingly magical tendencies. In the field of theoretical physics, it is now common practice to talk about other dimensions of reality, entire landscapes of universes for which there is no empirical evidence whatever.

I’m not sure what she means by ‘other dimensions of reality’, but if she’s thinking about the idea, that our universe could have more than four dimensions (three spatial and one time), then it’s an idea, which is almost 90 years old. (Thanks to Klein, who in the 1920s tried to unify gravity and electromagnetism in a five-dimensional extension of our universe). She also comments on Prof. Lisa Randall’s new book, Warped Passages, as:

[…] According to general relativity, the universe we live in has four dimensions: three of space and one of time. Randall’s work extends this framework and posits the existence of a fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is the bulk, and within its immeasurably expanded space, there is no reason to assume that ours is the only cosmos.

How I understand it, special relativity – and so much more for general relativity – did not teach us, that our universe has four dimensions. It’s more, that ‘space’ and ‘time’ are not separate quantities, and we should instead talk about ‘space-time’ (since any motion is space involves a motion in time and vice versa). A less important detail is, that the fifth dimension is not the bulk, but rather the bulk is the five dimensional space-time, which includes our (presently) observed universe and an extra fifth dimension.

According to this picture we live on a braneworld, which you can think of as an infinite plane to which the fifth dimension in transverse. It is possible, that there could be other universes ‘next to’ ours, like a stack of loafs of bread, but this possibility can to some extend actually be tested experimentally with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), being built at CERN, which starts operating in 2007. Clever tests can also limit the number of extra transverse dimensions, and the ‘distance’ between our braneworld and other braneworlds in the fifth dimension.

As Margaret correctly says, the “evidence for this new dimension is nonexistent”. But I would only call Prof. Randall’s ideas as much religion as physics, if it in principle was impossible to test them (and most likely, this test could be carried out in the next decade or so, when LHC has collected enough data). Incidentally, one ‘theory’ of biology, which belongs to this class, is the idea of Intelligent Design. Margaret also wrongly claims, that:

IN MANY WAYS, string theorists’ extension of the universe is just one more step in a historical chain of cosmic expansions. […]. The difference here is that the prior extensions were prompted by observations of distant phenomenon. The extra dimensions […] have never been observed and, in principle, they may not be observable, at least not directly. […]. String theory is so fecund in its descriptive power that one physicist has estimated there may be as many as 10 to the power of 100 different versions of its equations!

and finally,

Once upon a time, the sine qua non of scientific practice was supposed to be empirical verification. […]. In truth, the picture has always been more complex. Science is also an engine of the imagination, leading our minds beyond the mundane realm of what is to the enchanted regions of what might be. Nowhere is the speculative dimension of science more prominent than theoretical physics, which has given us such magical possibilities as time machines made from spinning black holes, wormholes that become portals to the far ends of the universe and the “parallel worlds” of quantum mechanics, which, in theory, make every possible version of history a realized physical fact. […]. Unchained by the fetters of verification, string theorists are free to dream, articulating through their equations vast imagined domains in which almost anything that is mathematically possible is deemed to be happening “somewhere.”

There are many places here, where Margaret misinterprets the history of physics. Much of the early research in physics were not guided by experiment (but of course she is correct in saying, that the picture is more complex). Einstein’s theories of relativity were not directly prompted by observations of distant phenomena. The special theory of relativity, for example, originated from Einstein’s ingenious ideas about the nature of light and matter – only years later could Einstein see his general theory of relativity being supported by experiments, like the non-Newtonian periapsis precession, which was confirmed for Mercury and later observed in several binary pulsars. Also, the deflection of light by the Sun, observed in 1919, helped to cement the status of general relativity. The idea of black holes started as pure speculation in 1783, while they where found as solutions of general relativity in 1915 (by Karl Schwarzschild). Another point is, that I disagree with the statement, that “almost anything that is mathematically possible is deemed to be happening “somewhere”. One things is that even though there are about 10^500 vacua, only one of them should describe our universe – I don’t think anybody believes, that there are 10^500 – 1 other ‘universes’. So, there are basically an infinite number of solutions to string theory, but virtually all of them are inconsistent. The job is to find out, what solutions are relevant for us, and not as much for mathematics.

Advertisements

21 Responses to Modern Theoretical Physics and Religion – the Same Thing?

  1. pregnancy miracle book review…

    […]Modern Theoretical Physics and Religion – the Same Thing? « Thoughts on science and life[…]…

  2. I have been surfing online more than three hours today, yet I never
    found any interesting article like yours. It is pretty worth enough for me.
    Personally, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the
    net will be much more useful than ever before.

    Our weblog regarding modern technology: stereo speaker

  3. When someone writes an article he/she keeps the plan
    of a user in his/her mind that how a user can be aware of it.
    Therefore that’s why this post is amazing. Thanks!

  4. My family members every time say that I am wasting my time here at net, but I know I am
    getting experience everyday by reading such fastidious
    posts.

  5. Marilynn says:

    It’s nearly impossible to find well-informed people in this particular topic, but you seem like you know what you’re
    talking about! Thanks

  6. Susanna says:

    hello there and thank you for your information – I have certainly picked up something new
    from right here. I did however expertise a few technical points using this web
    site, since I experienced to reload the website a lot of times previous
    to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your hosting
    is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and could damage your high-quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for a lot more of your respective interesting content. Make sure you update this again soon.

  7. Pretty component to content. I simply stumbled upon your
    site and in accession capital to say that I get actually enjoyed account your weblog posts.
    Any way I’ll be subscribing in your feeds or even I success you access constantly fast.

  8. I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own blog and was wondering what all is needed to get set up? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would
    cost a pretty penny? I’m not very web savvy so I’m not 100% positive.
    Any recommendations or advice would be greatly appreciated.
    Thank you

  9. I was curious if you ever thought of changing the structure of your website?
    Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more
    in the way of content so people could connect with it better.
    Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or 2 images.
    Maybe you could space it out better?

  10. I have fun with, lead to I found exactly what I was looking for.
    You have ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man.
    Have a great day. Bye

  11. I just couldn’t depart your web site prior to suggesting that I really loved the usual info an individual supply for your guests? Is gonna be back regularly in order to check up on new posts

  12. I was suggested this blog by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him
    as nobody else know such detailed about my difficulty.
    You’re wonderful! Thanks!

  13. Hello, yup this post is in fact good and I have learned lot of things from it on the topic of blogging.
    thanks.

  14. I am truly grateful to the owner of this site who has shared this fantastic article at at this place.

  15. I don’t know if it’s just me or if perhaps everybody else encountering issues
    with your site. It appears like some of the text on your posts are
    running off the screen. Can someone else please comment and let me know if this is happening to them as well?
    This could be a issue with my internet browser because I’ve had this happen before. Thank you

  16. Kristina says:

    Nice post. I used to be checking continuously this weblog and I’m inspired! Very helpful information specifically the closing part 🙂 I handle such info much. I used to be looking for this certain info for a long time. Thanks and good luck.

  17. Emmanuel says:

    It’s going to be ending of mine day, except before finish I am reading this fantastic piece of writing to increase my know-how.

  18. Michel says:

    Awesome issues here. I am very glad to peer your
    article. Thanks so much and I’m taking a look ahead to touch you. Will you please drop me a e-mail?

  19. Whats up! I’ve been checking this blog for some time and I think it truly is very well-written. I’m always
    looking towards seeing a brand new post.

  20. You’ve got a true talent for the right words.

  21. Alethea says:

    Since too many cooks spoil the soup, it is usually most productive to ask one or two bridesmaids
    to help pick out the dress rather than trying to get the entire bridal party to choose one together.
    He is an ardent fan of personalized pop art canvas and other modern art forms.
    Nathaniel Brown is an artist that appreciate the uniqueness of photo to pop art.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: