
Lost in Math
How Beauty Leads Physics Astray
Failed to add items
Add to basket failed.
Add to wishlist failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
Buy Now for £18.99
No valid payment method on file.
We are sorry. We are not allowed to sell this product with the selected payment method
-
Narrated by:
-
Laura Jennings
About this listen
A contrarian argues that modern physicists' obsession with beauty has given us wonderful math but bad science
Whether pondering black holes or predicting discoveries at CERN, physicists believe the best theories are beautiful, natural, and elegant, and this standard separates popular theories from disposable ones. This is why, Sabine Hossenfelder argues, we have not seen a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for more than four decades. The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these "too good to not be true" theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.
©2018 Sabine Hossenfelder (P)2018 Brilliance Publishing, Inc., all rights reserved.Insightful and hard hitting critique of the state
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Very clear analysis of the need for metaphysics
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
A much needed critique of current science practice
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Very interesting insight in modern physiscs
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Interesting perspective for a hopeful physicist
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Had I a better understanding of physics, I am sure there would have been far more meaning for me with respect to the physics discussed. However, that did not detract from the my enjoyment or the primary objective of the book, which I took to be an attempt to raise an awareness within the world of physics that, based on Sabine's own experience and opinion, a lot of time, effort and money is actually being wasted by research physicists in the pursuit of ideas that are conceived as needing to be 'beautiful' in mathematical terms, simple, at the expense of failing to actually search for truth. Fundamentally a culture has developed within the community of physicists and associated mathematicians that has lost sight of their intended goals through a process driven by a range of biases (e.g. cognitive bias; belief bias; shared information bias) that end up promoting ‘popular’ beliefs and ideas at the expense of investigation that might be of greater value. The fact that researchers are in need of funding to pursue their interests and that supporting, funding organisations tend to have a bias towards supporting popular, topical areas of investigation, has a potentially harmful effect on those areas of potential interest that lack high profile status with the result that they tend to be ignored or overlooked.
George Soros might describe such pursuits as Rational Fallacies or in simpler terms the following of paths that appear to offer value, truth and meaning but are in fact wrong. He would also argue that such fallacies have a tendency to be ‘fertile’, they have a tendency to grow wings.
The study of Physics is a classic example of the human process of investigation, learning, evaluation, understanding, theorising and deduction; the search for truth through the scientific process. A process that seeks an understanding of the physical, error free world through man's only current means understanding, his own brain. Unfortunately the brain derives its understanding on the unavoidable process of interpretation of sensory data, not fact, only impressions created by the sensory organs of the body on the cells of the brain causing modification of its prevailing state. The brain's ability not only to interpret its own current state but to modify its state as a result of that process of interpretation, a process based on its previous evaluation of past states, actual and derived experience, makes it highly likely, indeed inevitably, prone to error. As a consequence of which, it is hardly surprising that apparently sound ideas are frequently actually in error, a fact that should be taken into account when pursuing any particular line of thought!
Recognising what are seen as the potentially harmful tendencies in the current approach to research into sub atomic physics, the book seeks to bring these to the attention of those involved and to encourage a greater degree of cooperation between the various disciplines in the world of physics and with other fields of knowledge with a view to broadening the somewhat blinkered approach that is seen as currently existing. Sabine Hossenfelder seeks to demonstrate and validate her ideas and feelings through a number of interviews with eminent researchers in the field of physics.
An interesting, informative and thought provoking read.
Interesting, informative & thought provoking read
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sabine Hossenfelder is a working physicist, prepared to blow the whistle on the chronic lack of progress for the past 50 years: the failure of the LHC to find any evidence of Supersymmetry, the lack of progress in String Theory, the failure to identify Dark Matter, resolve the contradictions between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity or develop a fundamental explanation beyond the Standard Model. Meanwhile, physicists continue to churn out untestable hypotheses and hypothetical new particles with curious names. Why? The attraction to beautiful theories, and elegant maths is seductive, but may be misleading us... Beauty may not necessarily be “Truth”, but may, like music, be culturally inculcated ie. in the eye of the beholder. Hossenfelder raises the alarm that we may be drifting towards ‘post empirical science’ where rather than being led by empirical discovery, a theory’s “beauty” defined as simplicity, naturalness and elegance become the dominant criteria used to decide where to invest in research. We may be looking in the wrong places.
Throughout the book, ideas and explanations are interwoven with sometimes confrontational interviews with the likes of Stephen Weinberg (who abruptly walks out on her), Frank Wilczek, George F.R. Ellis, Nima Arkani-Hamed and Joe Polchinski among others. She asks intriguing questions such as how, in a Multiverse of all possibilities, we can know which phenomena demand explanation, and what are just brute fact. Do we need a meta theory to determine the probabilities? Naturalness confounds simplicity.
This is an important book. If you are interested in Physics, and have a fair understanding of M-Theory, SUSY, QM, Relativity and the Standard Model, you should find it interesting, even if you disagree. It is narrated clearly and enjoyably. “Lost in Math” feels like the realisation of Horgan’s “The End of Science” at a time when Science, and especially Physics has never been more popular, or more widely perceived as successful.
Exciting, Challenging and Controversial.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
One hell of a book
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
I’m a big fan of Sabine
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
A fearless and needed remedy
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.