What Woit could never explain properly was why some of the very best theoretical physicists, who were entirely free to work on whatever they wanted, continued working on string theory for so long.
I am pretty sure that all these people simply kept thinking that string theory was the most promising way to understand quantum gravity and even (to some extent) 'just' quantum field theory.
So why do people decide to trust the opinions of Peter Woit over those of, say, Edward Witten?
I don't know if Woit explained it, but there are multiple attempts at explanation by other people who have been pointing out the self-serving nature of string theory publicity. Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" mentions access to funding and the absence of experimental pressure to divulge of unproductive theories: by dint of the hype in the 80s and 90s, many theoretical physics departments were staffed mainly with string theorists. This means that if you want to earn money doing theoretical physics, there are many people who won't complain too loudly if you choose string theory, and many people advising grants be written for string theory research. Other fundamental theories don't have this lobby, not because they are in any measurable way more wrong than string theory, but by historical happenstance and perhaps pure mathematical sexiness (as opposed to actual physical reasons). Usually, in a natural science, we can fall back on empirical data to correct such "intellectually nepotistic" networks that all humans are wont to fall into, but since the standard model is so frigging successful, this is missing.
But no matter the actual reason, I think anyone with a post-graduate science education can agree that it's a pretty big howler to call string theory an A+++ physical theory, when it so far hasn't predicted a single thing. That's a clear sign that the people talking are engaged in empty PR, not in informing the public in any meaningful way.
For those that have the time and interest, Angela Collier is a somewhat newer science communicator, and covers everything described in this reply (and more) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kya_LXa_y1E. I don't have the knowledge needed to criticize or defend Dr. Collier's arguments, but Woit linked to her video at https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13482, so he at least seems to appreciate it.
Thank you for your reply but I do not think you really engaged with my reasoning?
First, I was explicitly talking about the handful of brilliant people who literally no longer have to apply to grants, or, if they do so, they are all but guaranteed to get funding for whatever topic they want to work on.
And in your second paragraph you repeat the usual talking point. But why do you think it did not convince those people?
> why some of the very best theoretical physicists, who were entirely free to work on whatever they wanted, continued working on string theory
Historically, it is not unusual for intellectual wrong turns to persist for decades or centuries. On the flip side, brilliant insights can also be abandoned too early.
The problem here is that data has dried up and cannot guide us. Some future tech will open up new data and then progress will resume. Without data, physics becomes theology.
__________________________________________
Feynman's talk "Seeking New Laws" excerpt:
"But the age that we live in is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature. And that day will never come again. I don’t mean we’re finished. I mean, we’re right in the process of making such discoveries. It’s very exciting and marvelous, but this excitement will have to go.
Of course, in the future there will be other interests. There will be interests on the connection of one level of phenomena to another, phenomena in biology and so on, all kinds of things. Or if you’re talking about explorations, exploring planets and other things. But there will not still be the same thing as we’re doing now. It will be just different interests.
Another thing that will happen is that if all is known– ultimately, if it turns out all is known, it gets very dull– the biggest philosophy and the careful attention to all these things that I’ve been talking about will have gradually disappeared. The philosophers, who are always on the outside, making stupid remarks, will be able to close in. Because we can’t push them away by saying, well, if you were right, you’d be able to guess all the rest of the laws. Because when they’re all there, they’ll have an explanation for it.
For instance, there are always explanations as to why the world is three dimensional. Well, there’s only one world. And it’s hard to tell if that explanation is right or not. So if everything were known, there will be some explanation about why those are the right laws.
But that explanation will be in a frame that we can’t criticize by arguing that that type of reasoning will not permit us to go further. So there will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel occurs when tourists begin moving in on their territory."
Without getting into what it means to "trust" Woit or anyone else, whether we're talking about specialists or domain outsiders like myself: if experts disagree, it's up to them to explain why. I can't guess why their superior knowledge has led them to reject the line of argument unless they tell me.
What I meant by "trust" is evidenced by this entire comment section, which is full of laypeople who appear convinced by Woit's arguments but seemingly do not wonder why the physicists in question were never swayed.
Witten has given quite a lot of interviews over the years, but his more mainstream views are unlikely to make it to the front page.
I think mainstream views would deserve attention if they're directly answering these criticisms. If such point by point responses exist, and if they're compelling, then that's what we should be talking about right now.
No one is ever free to work on whatever they want unless they can support themselves with their own funds. Researchers, even theoretical ones, apply for grants to pay for labor and resources to conduct research. Grants have specific scopes and objectives.
> What Woit could never explain properly was why some of the very best theoretical physicists, who were entirely free to work on whatever they wanted, continued working on string theory for so long.
As I understand it, they have stopped working on a string theory of quantum gravity or theory of everything, and instead shifted to trying to apply string theory to other areas such as cosmology. Which, frankly, looks to me a lot like researchers whose research didn't pan out trying to salvage their research rather than admit that decades of work didn't pan out.
It should also be pointed out that string theory has had a fairly hefty juggernaut of popular science PR behind it. That means being honest about your failures--especially towards a popular press, to whom your allies have been touting that you are the most important discoveries ever made--is going to invite a popular press backlash, up to and including accusations of fraud.
I am pretty sure that all these people simply kept thinking that string theory was the most promising way to understand quantum gravity and even (to some extent) 'just' quantum field theory.
So why do people decide to trust the opinions of Peter Woit over those of, say, Edward Witten?