Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

Lee Smolin

The Trouble with Physics

String theory is a controversial subject at the moment - some people think that it has drifted too far from experimentally testable results. One such person is Lee Smolin, and in The Trouble with Physics he presents his case. As the book proceeds it includes quite a bit of modern physics, but Smolin manages to do this without technicalities, and so the book can be read by those without much experience of the subject. Not everyone will agree with what Smolin is saying, but he presents some well thought out arguments ant the book is definitely worth reading.

The first chapter looks at the 'Five great problems of theoretical physics' and the book goes on to look at the history of physics, showing how unification has become a highly desirable goal. Smolin then introduces string theory, showing how several revolutions have given it the status it has today, but he also describes the many problems he sees with the theory. He goes on to examine the experiments which will be able to test string theory over the next few years, and has plenty of suggestions for what might replace it if/when it is found wanting. The last part of the book shows that Smolin sees the problem as going beyond string theory and extending to the whole of academic science and in particular how it is funded. He tells of some of the things which influenced his career, and suggests what might be done in future to avoid the increasing rigidity of scientific research.

Amazon.com info

Hardcover 416 pages
ISBN: 0618551050
Salesrank: 195042
Weight:1.4 lbs

Published: 2006 Houghton Mifflin

Amazon price $14.68

Marketplace:New from $9.25:Used from $7.94

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Hardcover 416 pages
ISBN: 0713997990
Salesrank: 161432
Weight:1.68 lbs

Published: 2007 Allen Lane

Amazon price £18.99

Marketplace:New from £12.99:Used from £16.76

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Hardcover 416 pages
ISBN: 0618551050
Salesrank: 26164
Weight:1.4 lbs

Published: 2006 Houghton Mifflin

Amazon price CDN$ 18.87

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 12.00:Used from CDN$ 16.18

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
In this groundbreaking book, the renowned theoretical physicist Lee Smolin argues that physics — the basis for all other sciences — has lost its way. For more than two centuries, our understanding of the laws of nature expanded rapidly. But today, despite our best efforts, we know nothing more about these laws than we knew in the 1970s. Why is physics suddenly in trouble? And what can we do about it? One of the major problems, according to Smolin, is string theory: an ambitious attempt to formulate a "theory of everything" that explains all the particles and forces of nature and how the universe came to be. With its exotic new particles and parallel universes, string theory has captured the public's imagination and seduced many physicists. But as Smolin reveals, there's a deep flaw in the theory: no part of it has been tested, and no one knows how to test it. In fact, the theory appears to come in an infinite number of versions, meaning that no experiment will ever be able to prove it false. As a scientific theory, it fails. And because it has soaked up the lion's share of funding, attracted some of the best minds, and effectively penalized young physicists for pursuing other avenues, it is dragging the rest of physics down with it. With clarity, passion, and authority, Smolin charts the rise and fall of string theory and takes a fascinating look at what will replace it. A group of young theorists has begun to develop exciting ideas that, unlike string theory, are testable. Smolin not only tells us who and what to watch for in the coming years, he offers novel solutions for seeking out and nurturing the best new talent—giving us a chance, at long last, of finding the next Einstein.

Product Description

In this groundbreaking book, the renowned theoretical physicist Lee Smolin argues that physics — the basis for all other sciences — has lost its way. For more than two centuries, our understanding of the laws of nature expanded rapidly. But today, despite our best efforts, we know nothing more about these laws than we knew in the 1970s. Why is physics suddenly in trouble? And what can we do about it?

One of the major problems, according to Smolin, is string theory: an ambitious attempt to formulate a "theory of everything" that explains all the particles and forces of nature and how the universe came to be. With its exotic new particles and parallel universes, string theory has captured the public's imagination and seduced many physicists.

But as Smolin reveals, there's a deep flaw in the theory: no part of it has been tested, and no one knows how to test it. In fact, the theory appears to come in an infinite number of versions, meaning that no experiment will ever be able to prove it false. As a scientific theory, it fails. And because it has soaked up the lion's share of funding, attracted some of the best minds, and effectively penalized young physicists for pursuing other avenues, it is dragging the rest of physics down with it.

With clarity, passion, and authority, Smolin charts the rise and fall of string theory and takes a fascinating look at what will replace it. A group of young theorists has begun to develop exciting ideas that, unlike string theory, are testable. Smolin not only tells us who and what to watch for in the coming years, he offers novel solutions for seeking out and nurturing the best new talent—giving us a chance, at long last, of finding the next Einstein.

Good Book, Alternative View *****
Lee Smolin presents his case not for why string theory should be dropped, but why other theories should be pursued more vigorously. Rather than demonizing string theory, Smolin looks at the theory's successes and failures and then moves beyond that to discussing the sociology of science in general, and this is his main issue. Smolin says the system is set up to keep alternative theories out, while the fashionable theories get all the attention, and that this system is perhaps the reason why theoretical physics has been stuck for so long. Great book.

Good Book, Alternative View *****

Lee Smolin presents his case not for why string theory should be dropped, but why other theories should be pursued more vigorously. Rather than demonizing string theory, Smolin looks at the theory's successes and failures and then moves beyond that to discussing the sociology of science in general, and this is his main issue. Smolin says the system is set up to keep alternative theories out, while the fashionable theories get all the attention, and that this system is perhaps the reason why theoretical physics has been stuck for so long. Great book.

Absolutely superb... *****
So many reviewers have said so many things, let me just add this: During the past thirty years, we have seen the rise of religious ideology and its disastrous effects on our political system, not to mention our national finances and national reputation. How interesting that science has experienced the same things, the same disasters born of the same focus on ideology rather than factuality, in the same time period. This book is the first BIG public demonstration that this period may be coming to an end. The disaster of string theory, and the Irag war, both prove the same thing: ignoring the dictates of reason, and setting aside facts for fantasy, always leads us to the same place: nowhere we want to be! Thank you Lee Smolin. A must-have for anyone interested in their world. And an instant classic.

Absolutely superb... *****

So many reviewers have said so many things, let me just add this: During the past thirty years, we have seen the rise of religious ideology and its disastrous effects on our political system, not to mention our national finances and national reputation.

How interesting that science has experienced the same things, the same disasters born of the same focus on ideology rather than factuality, in the same time period.

This book is the first BIG public demonstration that this period may be coming to an end.

The disaster of string theory, and the Irag war, both prove the same thing: ignoring the dictates of reason, and setting aside facts for fantasy, always leads us to the same place: nowhere we want to be!

Thank you Lee Smolin.

A must-have for anyone interested in their world. And an instant classic.

Excellent book - Must add a point other reviews have missed... *****
Peter Shor provides an excellent summarizing review of the first half to three-quarters of the book. But he largely skimped on what I think Smolin's main focus was, based on reading Smolin's website and the author's notes in the book, when he began the book. The last few chapters are concerning the role of academia in maintaining integrity throughout their ranks. If Smolin is correct, and this book provides excellent support to believe so, this has not been done with string theory, regardless of whether it is a correct theory or not. It is an extremely volatile subject that is likely to explode in the next few decades, and not only in physics but all academic fields. I feel the situations is complicated, but can be roughly simplified as the selfishness and fear of a group of highly respected (and sometimes also highly paid, but not always) individuals who perceived that they were not making any progress and seek to protect their respected status through manipulation. They are essentially echoing an everyday experience - even the most ignorant person can seem quite capable if they merely exude enough self confidence. Well, according to the accounts by Smolin and many others, the string theorists are doing exactly that - holding onto excessive and unfounded confidence. Unfortunately, the first step in gaining knowledge is to admit that you already possess none. Smolin takes a much less accusational stance than I do here, but he spends a significant amount of time in his book discussing this issue and it should not be left out of the reviews. --G. Hill

Excellent book - Must add a point other reviews have missed... *****

Peter Shor provides an excellent summarizing review of the first half to three-quarters of the book. But he largely skimped on what I think Smolin's main focus was, based on reading Smolin's website and the author's notes in the book, when he began the book. The last few chapters are concerning the role of academia in maintaining integrity throughout their ranks. If Smolin is correct, and this book provides excellent support to believe so, this has not been done with string theory, regardless of whether it is a correct theory or not. It is an extremely volatile subject that is likely to explode in the next few decades, and not only in physics but all academic fields.

I feel the situations is complicated, but can be roughly simplified as the selfishness and fear of a group of highly respected (and sometimes also highly paid, but not always) individuals who perceived that they were not making any progress and seek to protect their respected status through manipulation. They are essentially echoing an everyday experience - even the most ignorant person can seem quite capable if they merely exude enough self confidence. Well, according to the accounts by Smolin and many others, the string theorists are doing exactly that - holding onto excessive and unfounded confidence. Unfortunately, the first step in gaining knowledge is to admit that you already possess none.

Smolin takes a much less accusational stance than I do here, but he spends a significant amount of time in his book discussing this issue and it should not be left out of the reviews.

--G. Hill

The String Snapped ***
Lee Smolin, a fair-to-middling popularizer of physics vents his anger at himself and others for pursuing the chimera of an 11 (or more) dimensional universe and a "theory" that produces 10^500 distinct theories. Unfortunately for the reader, Smolin manages not to define his terms, and gives no clue to how this number of 10^500 was arrived at, nor even what a distinct theory means. The book is almost solely interesting for its treatment of the sociology of string theory and the way its practitioners monopolized high energy particle theory for much more than a decade.

The String Snapped ***

Lee Smolin, a fair-to-middling popularizer of physics vents his anger at himself and others for pursuing the chimera of an 11 (or more) dimensional universe and a "theory" that produces 10^500 distinct theories. Unfortunately for the reader, Smolin manages not to define his terms, and gives no clue to how this number of 10^500 was arrived at, nor even what a distinct theory means.

The book is almost solely interesting for its treatment of the sociology of string theory and the way its practitioners monopolized high energy particle theory for much more than a decade.

No Strings Attached ****
I jumped at this title when I saw it among my Amazon recommendations (Sometimes they do get these things right.) thinking to myself, "Ah, finally somebody out there (besides Feynman) has had the courage to state the obvious and actually write a book about it." And this Smolin does here in language I think most people with a basic science education can understand. Good show Lee! But I do have a couple of somewhat minor problems with it. The first problem is, as far as I'm concerned, Smolin IS stating what has always seemed obvious to me. Indeed, ever since viewing the PBS special on String Theory and reading Brian Greene's book regarding it, I've been saying to myself: "What a lot of twaddle! This isn't science. It's more like some terribly bad mixture of mathematics and philosophy, making for bad theories in both fields." Actually, Smolin states as much here: "Nevertheless, it seems to me that any fair-minded person not irrationally committed to a belief in string theory would see this situation clearly. A theory has failed to make any predictions by which it can be tested, and some of its proponents, rather than admitting that, are seeking to change the rules so that their theory will not need to pass the usual tests we impose on scientific ideas." P.170 Exactly! It truly baffled me that PBS would spend all this money on what was obviously a scientific farce. One might as well watch a rerun of Jeeves and Wooster. It's much more entertaining and Wodehouse, unlike Greene et al., knows himself to be a farceur. Anyway, the minor problem is that for me the above quote is all that need be really said about it (One might throw Feynman's in for good measure.). A whole book would seem to be unnecessary. But, obviously, there are scads of others who don't see that what Charlie Rose in his interview with Greene rhapsodized about as "The Theory of Everything" is not even a Theory of Nothing. It's not even a theory. But Smolin did write this book, which brings me to my second problem here. Smolin is what I suppose I'll call an Einsteinian, but with a twist (no String Theory pun intended). As another reviewer has pointed out, this book has two parts. The first debunks String Theory. The second rails against "group think" and the state of current academia, in the States, anyway - All good and well, so far - But the last chapters are a bit odd for a book about physics, methinks. Here, Smolin reveals himself to be, for lack of a better word, a Romantic. He loves citing examples of people whom he calls "seers" rather than "craftsmen", of which Einstein is the best exemplar. People who hole themselves up alone and work things out based on some mystical insight. In particular, he cites one particular physicist who, during a hike in the mountains, had a vision that "time is unreal" and has spent the rest of his life working things out to prove that this is so. Exactly what it would mean for time to be unreal he does not elucidate. This brings to mind Bertrand Russell's famous essay, "Mysticism and Logic" where he notes that the unreality of time is key to almost all mystical systems and philosophies. It is not confined to physicists; indeed, it is more associated with poets. Avers Yeats: "For one moment While on that grey stone I sat I knew the One is animate Mankind inanimate phantasy." Russell, in his essay, concurs with Smolin, as I understand Smolin anyway; pointing out that almost all great ideas start out with some sort of mystical insight of this sort. But the way the book concludes, citing all these lone anchorite physicists, toiling away in their cottages and flats, is just a tad odd for a book debunking a notion because it's unfalsifiable and lacks empirical verification. Smolin seems to concur with Thoreau here, "No one ever followed his genius until it misled him." To sum up, Smolin, in these latter chapters, seems to be a sort of Thomas Carlyle of 21st Century physics. He's an admirer of the Great Man/Great Idea interpretation of the history of science. This view certainly has its attractions. And, certainly, we associate all scientific revolutions with particular names: Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman etc. I suppose they all qualify as "seers" in Smolin's view. Still, it doesn't quite square with the empirical approach, and this view of history in general has peculiar consequences. I can't get out of my mind the image of Goring reading a German translation of Carlyle's account of Frederick the Great to the Fuhrer as the Soviets close in on Berlin. True story.

No Strings Attached ****

I jumped at this title when I saw it among my Amazon recommendations (Sometimes they do get these things right.) thinking to myself, "Ah, finally somebody out there (besides Feynman) has had the courage to state the obvious and actually write a book about it." And this Smolin does here in language I think most people with a basic science education can understand. Good show Lee!

But I do have a couple of somewhat minor problems with it. The first problem is, as far as I'm concerned, Smolin IS stating what has always seemed obvious to me. Indeed, ever since viewing the PBS special on String Theory and reading Brian Greene's book regarding it, I've been saying to myself: "What a lot of twaddle! This isn't science. It's more like some terribly bad mixture of mathematics and philosophy, making for bad theories in both fields." Actually, Smolin states as much here:

"Nevertheless, it seems to me that any fair-minded person not irrationally committed to a belief in string theory would see this situation clearly. A theory has failed to make any predictions by which it can be tested, and some of its proponents, rather than admitting that, are seeking to change the rules so that their theory will not need to pass the usual tests we impose on scientific ideas." P.170

Exactly! It truly baffled me that PBS would spend all this money on what was obviously a scientific farce. One might as well watch a rerun of Jeeves and Wooster. It's much more entertaining and Wodehouse, unlike Greene et al., knows himself to be a farceur. Anyway, the minor problem is that for me the above quote is all that need be really said about it (One might throw Feynman's in for good measure.). A whole book would seem to be unnecessary. But, obviously, there are scads of others who don't see that what Charlie Rose in his interview with Greene rhapsodized about as "The Theory of Everything" is not even a Theory of Nothing. It's not even a theory.

But Smolin did write this book, which brings me to my second problem here. Smolin is what I suppose I'll call an Einsteinian, but with a twist (no String Theory pun intended). As another reviewer has pointed out, this book has two parts. The first debunks String Theory. The second rails against "group think" and the state of current academia, in the States, anyway - All good and well, so far - But the last chapters are a bit odd for a book about physics, methinks. Here, Smolin reveals himself to be, for lack of a better word, a Romantic. He loves citing examples of people whom he calls "seers" rather than "craftsmen", of which Einstein is the best exemplar. People who hole themselves up alone and work things out based on some mystical insight. In particular, he cites one particular physicist who, during a hike in the mountains, had a vision that "time is unreal" and has spent the rest of his life working things out to prove that this is so. Exactly what it would mean for time to be unreal he does not elucidate.

This brings to mind Bertrand Russell's famous essay, "Mysticism and Logic" where he notes that the unreality of time is key to almost all mystical systems and philosophies. It is not confined to physicists; indeed, it is more associated with poets. Avers Yeats:

"For one moment
While on that grey stone I sat
I knew the One is animate
Mankind inanimate phantasy."

Russell, in his essay, concurs with Smolin, as I understand Smolin anyway; pointing out that almost all great ideas start out with some sort of mystical insight of this sort. But the way the book concludes, citing all these lone anchorite physicists, toiling away in their cottages and flats, is just a tad odd for a book debunking a notion because it's unfalsifiable and lacks empirical verification. Smolin seems to concur with Thoreau here, "No one ever followed his genius until it misled him."

To sum up, Smolin, in these latter chapters, seems to be a sort of Thomas Carlyle of 21st Century physics. He's an admirer of the Great Man/Great Idea interpretation of the history of science. This view certainly has its attractions. And, certainly, we associate all scientific revolutions with particular names: Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman etc. I suppose they all qualify as "seers" in Smolin's view. Still, it doesn't quite square with the empirical approach, and this view of history in general has peculiar consequences. I can't get out of my mind the image of Goring reading a German translation of Carlyle's account of Frederick the Great to the Fuhrer as the Soviets close in on Berlin.

True story.

Excellent stuff until the final third ***
Hard work at times, off on a crusade at others, but always worth the effort because there were real insights into a fascinating, if alien, world. The last section was a bit of a rant about the state of modern science, which I didn't really warm to, but the earlier discussion of string theory was top-notch. Where the book was best was when it tried to nail exactly where modern physics currently is and where it should be going. The sadness (make that anger) Smolin feels at the time currently being wasted by the physics establishment was an eye-opener but not really what I wanted to read about for half a dozen chapters. I was after the nitty-gritty of what the boffins are up to and only got this for half of the book...that half was excellent, however.

Excellent stuff until the final third ***

Hard work at times, off on a crusade at others, but always worth the effort because there were real insights into a fascinating, if alien, world. The last section was a bit of a rant about the state of modern science, which I didn't really warm to, but the earlier discussion of string theory was top-notch.

Where the book was best was when it tried to nail exactly where modern physics currently is and where it should be going. The sadness (make that anger) Smolin feels at the time currently being wasted by the physics establishment was an eye-opener but not really what I wanted to read about for half a dozen chapters. I was after the nitty-gritty of what the boffins are up to and only got this for half of the book...that half was excellent, however.

Stringent attack on string theory *****
Lee Smolin perceives 5 big problems in today's physics: quantum gravity, the foundations of quantum mechanics, the unification of particles and laws, the values of the free constants and dark matter and dark energy. Of those 5 problems string theory proposes a solution for only one of them: the unification of particles and laws. However, the theory cannot be tested with our current technology. For the author it is a dead end, because a theory which is not subject to experiment can never fail, but can never succeed either. Into the bargain, string theory is background-dependent and not background independent like Einstein's general theory of relativity, where the geometry of space is not part of the laws of nature. Lee Smolin launches a frontal attack on the dictatorship of string theorists in universities, because they are grabbing nearly all funds for fundamental research and are making a laughing stock of its opponents. He proposes 3 basic ideas for a successful approach of quantum gravity: space is emergent, everything in the universe is discrete and causality is fundamental for its description. A far better theory than superstrings is loop (formed by field lines) quantum gravity, which is background-independent. The theory could mean that the universe existed before the Big Bang. But, its main problem is to find a way to unfreeze time (to represent time without turning it into space). Lee Smolin's book is a goldmine for those wanting to know more about the current state of physics. Making us more humble, he tells us that we only know 4 % of the universe, because 26 % of it is dark matter and 70 % dark energy. He explains clearly the gauge theory (all properties of a force can be determined by symmetries) or the importance of spontaneous symmetry breaking, proving that the properties of the elementary particles depend in part on history and environment. This book is a must read for all those interested in the world we live in.

Stringent attack on string theory *****

Lee Smolin perceives 5 big problems in today's physics: quantum gravity, the foundations of quantum mechanics, the unification of particles and laws, the values of the free constants and dark matter and dark energy.
Of those 5 problems string theory proposes a solution for only one of them: the unification of particles and laws. However, the theory cannot be tested with our current technology. For the author it is a dead end, because a theory which is not subject to experiment can never fail, but can never succeed either. Into the bargain, string theory is background-dependent and not background independent like Einstein's general theory of relativity, where the geometry of space is not part of the laws of nature.
Lee Smolin launches a frontal attack on the dictatorship of string theorists in universities, because they are grabbing nearly all funds for fundamental research and are making a laughing stock of its opponents.

He proposes 3 basic ideas for a successful approach of quantum gravity: space is emergent, everything in the universe is discrete and causality is fundamental for its description.
A far better theory than superstrings is loop (formed by field lines) quantum gravity, which is background-independent. The theory could mean that the universe existed before the Big Bang. But, its main problem is to find a way to unfreeze time (to represent time without turning it into space).

Lee Smolin's book is a goldmine for those wanting to know more about the current state of physics.
Making us more humble, he tells us that we only know 4 % of the universe, because 26 % of it is dark matter and 70 % dark energy.
He explains clearly the gauge theory (all properties of a force can be determined by symmetries) or the importance of spontaneous symmetry breaking, proving that the properties of the elementary particles depend in part on history and environment.

This book is a must read for all those interested in the world we live in.

Not for the layman **
Do you know what a Higgs Boson is? Do you have a thorough grounding in Gauge Theory? Me neither. I have to admit, here and now, that I'm not clever enough to understand 60% of this book. Now maybe I'm a fool for buying a book which is unashamedly about theoretical physics and then complaining that it contains a lot of complicated things about physics, but the problem is that I think I should be able to enjoy a read like this. To give you some background I have a physics A-level (circa 1991), I read Biological Sciences at University and I have several 'pop' science titles on my bookshelves. If a book like this is to have any mass market appeal then someone like me should be able to find it accessible. Instead, I couldn't recommend this book to you unless you have a very good and current knowledge of at least degree level physics. In fact, I'd guess that the number of people world wide who could truly grasp the entirety of this book wouldn't be more than a few thousand. I also think there is a severe case of 'the emporer's new clothes' going on with all the folk who have given this book rave reviews. If Lee Smolin really wanted to write a popular science book that would bring his thoughts on this arcane subject to a wider audience then I think he should have employed a science author/journalist to ghost write for him. The results of Smolin's efforts feel more like a long open letter to his colleagues working at the cutting edge of his field rather than a proper attempt at writing for the layman. In fact, the whole precept of this book, namely that anyone not working in academia should or does care that the string theory boffins have been wasting their time for 3 decades, is a bit odd. It might engender a nice feeling of schadenfreude from us thickies, but to suggest that it is important in a 'wider world' context is plainly wrong. When the book moves away from the theories Smolin proves himself to be an interesting and confident writer. Stories of hubris amongst members of the scientific community never fail to amuse and there are a few anecdotes thrown in too. However, this isn't reason enough to hand over your cash. I'll now precis the main points of the book. Please either stop reading this review or send me ten pounds which is part of the money you will save by no longer having to buy this book. For the last 30 years theoretical physicists have postulated little that can be verified by experiment. To make their equations work they have had to invent extra dimensions that are so small their existence cannot be proved (or disproved). While the theorists have been busy contriving models that cannot be tested, the experimentalists and astronomers have been discovering plenty of phenomena that cannot be explained by the current theories. The theorist's solution? To keep extending the theories so they are even less predictive and then use disingenuous logic arguments that rely on the existence of a vast numbers of other universes (even though we only have experience of one) to make them seem probable. Consequently what the theorists have come up with could be a profound understanding of the nature of our world or it could just be a way to ensure they all retain their jobs as well paid professors. Theories about our existence that can be neither proved or disproved have been around for millennia, they're called religion. And clever well paid people who pretend to give the rest of us a route to this sacred knowledge have been around just as long, we call them high priests. Or theoretical physicists.

Not for the layman **

Do you know what a Higgs Boson is? Do you have a thorough grounding in Gauge Theory? Me neither. I have to admit, here and now, that I'm not clever enough to understand 60% of this book.

Now maybe I'm a fool for buying a book which is unashamedly about theoretical physics and then complaining that it contains a lot of complicated things about physics, but the problem is that I think I should be able to enjoy a read like this. To give you some background I have a physics A-level (circa 1991), I read Biological Sciences at University and I have several 'pop' science titles on my bookshelves. If a book like this is to have any mass market appeal then someone like me should be able to find it accessible. Instead, I couldn't recommend this book to you unless you have a very good and current knowledge of at least degree level physics. In fact, I'd guess that the number of people world wide who could truly grasp the entirety of this book wouldn't be more than a few thousand. I also think there is a severe case of 'the emporer's new clothes' going on with all the folk who have given this book rave reviews.

If Lee Smolin really wanted to write a popular science book that would bring his thoughts on this arcane subject to a wider audience then I think he should have employed a science author/journalist to ghost write for him. The results of Smolin's efforts feel more like a long open letter to his colleagues working at the cutting edge of his field rather than a proper attempt at writing for the layman. In fact, the whole precept of this book, namely that anyone not working in academia should or does care that the string theory boffins have been wasting their time for 3 decades, is a bit odd. It might engender a nice feeling of schadenfreude from us thickies, but to suggest that it is important in a 'wider world' context is plainly wrong.

When the book moves away from the theories Smolin proves himself to be an interesting and confident writer. Stories of hubris amongst members of the scientific community never fail to amuse and there are a few anecdotes thrown in too. However, this isn't reason enough to hand over your cash.

I'll now precis the main points of the book. Please either stop reading this review or send me ten pounds which is part of the money you will save by no longer having to buy this book.

For the last 30 years theoretical physicists have postulated little that can be verified by experiment. To make their equations work they have had to invent extra dimensions that are so small their existence cannot be proved (or disproved). While the theorists have been busy contriving models that cannot be tested, the experimentalists and astronomers have been discovering plenty of phenomena that cannot be explained by the current theories. The theorist's solution? To keep extending the theories so they are even less predictive and then use disingenuous logic arguments that rely on the existence of a vast numbers of other universes (even though we only have experience of one) to make them seem probable.

Consequently what the theorists have come up with could be a profound understanding of the nature of our world or it could just be a way to ensure they all retain their jobs as well paid professors. Theories about our existence that can be neither proved or disproved have been around for millennia, they're called religion. And clever well paid people who pretend to give the rest of us a route to this sacred knowledge have been around just as long, we call them high priests. Or theoretical physicists.

Fresh air *****
A very amusing read. The book is divided clearly in two parts. In the first and longest, the current status of basic physical sciences is described, of course with the aim to emphasize that the string theory has made it go into a blind alley. The experiment data that are still unexplained are presented, since they should provide the basis for verification or falsification of the new theories. Even only for this, the book is worth the read, since this kind of up to date information is not easy to find. In the second and shorter part, the status of the academic institutions and the social aspects of the research in basic physics are presented, from the point of view of the author. Both parts are very subjective. Smolin opinions are certainly not mainstream, and the reader should go for counter-opinions from the other side. But this subjectivity is the real value of the book. In my humble opinion, it has been very important that somebody has dared to say out loud what many people are thinking now about physics: they've come to a dead end. I don't know whether it is because physicist took the wrong way, or because most of what can be experimented has already got a theoretical framework, and doing science without experimenting is not possible. Smolin argues this is not the case: doable experiments can show us the way, and he also argues against the antrophic principle. I wouldn't be so sure...

Fresh air *****

A very amusing read.

The book is divided clearly in two parts. In the first and longest, the current status of basic physical sciences is described, of course with the aim to emphasize that the string theory has made it go into a blind alley. The experiment data that are still unexplained are presented, since they should provide the basis for verification or falsification of the new theories. Even only for this, the book is worth the read, since this kind of up to date information is not easy to find.

In the second and shorter part, the status of the academic institutions and the social aspects of the research in basic physics are presented, from the point of view of the author.

Both parts are very subjective. Smolin opinions are certainly not mainstream, and the reader should go for counter-opinions from the other side. But this subjectivity is the real value of the book.

In my humble opinion, it has been very important that somebody has dared to say out loud what many people are thinking now about physics: they've come to a dead end. I don't know whether it is because physicist took the wrong way, or because most of what can be experimented has already got a theoretical framework, and doing science without experimenting is not possible. Smolin argues this is not the case: doable experiments can show us the way, and he also argues against the antrophic principle. I wouldn't be so sure...

Unspinning the web of hubris - an honest view of theoretical physics *****
For anyone interested in the new mysteries of dark energy and dark matter etc. which have unsettled the attitude of "nearly finished" complacency exhibited by many spokesmen for theoretical physics, this book is a refreshing eye-opener for the interested layman. A new approach, String Theory, which promised a lot twenty five years ago has failed to deliver on its promises yet the aggressive promotion of this research programme and the tribal "groupthink" mentality of its adherents has led to it gaining the dominant position in terms of monopolizing grants and tenures at elite institutions normally reserved for a proven paradigm which has made successful predictions confirmed by experiment. A failed revolution has become the new "normal science" paradigm although it is unsuited to tackling most of the fundamental problems. Most popular science books and TV programmes follow the unquestioning hype approach with infantile sci-fi style visuals and narrators rehashing hubris about pet theories unlocking the keys to supposedly the greatest mysteries of existence. Smolin, once an active participant in the String story, lists the 5 major problems facing theoretical physics and shows that very little progress has been made in resolving these over the last 30 years. Unlike most physicists (excepting Bohm and Peat)Smolin dares to confront the sociological issues which result in the exclusion of freethinkers who question fundamental assumptions and put forward new ideas. Twenty years ago Rubinstein et al. wrote Science as Cognitive Process showing how a "paradigm" resembles a mode of cognition/perception and how "sciencing" resembles tribal rituals and taboos etc. Such "us and them" attitudes and the hostility to any questioning of basic assumptions means that the philosophically-minded young physicists, interested in the foundations of Quantum Theory etc., are denied career opportunities. The rise of String Theory also smacks of the "one true faith" zealotry prevalent in Western culture. Smolin recognises that the fact that String "theories" assume a particular Space-Time background rather than attempt to explain the emergence of Space-Time from a deeper quantum reality means that background-dependent string "theories" cannot be the final or ultimate theories. Smolin refers to "seers" and "craftspeople" in regard to the philosophically-minded questioners and the glorified technicians of mainstream science. Smolin, now free to work on the foundations of QT at a new institute funded by a wealthy patron, lists the philosophically-minded founders of QT such as Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrodinger amongst his heroes. However, unlike them he remains a realist assuming that physical theories can actually apprehend Reality as it is. As part of the philosophical questioning necessary to re-examine near-universal assumptions, Smolin fails to recognise the errors in Galileo's notion of primary and secondary qualities. As Schrodinger and Husserl etc. recognised, primary measurable qualities actually presuppose a conscious observer to determine them. Thus Galileo began the "despiritualization" of Nature by abstraction of measurable quantities. Whereas Smolin points to the Cartesian representation of Time as a frozen dimension as possibly the big mistaken assumption of physics, the likes of Heisenberg and Schrodinger were far more philosophically profound than would-be "seer" Smolin. So too was David Bohm whom Smolin's greatest hero Einstein befriended at Princeton. Smolin would do well to ask why Schrodinger was an advocate of Vedanta (Brahmanism), why Heisenberg said that Indian philosophy subconsciously influenced his physics ideas, why Bohm was a friend of Krishnamurti, and Pauli with Carl Jung. As Heisenberg said, it came as a great help to him to discover than an entire civilisation already subscribed to a view that resembled that of the new Quantum Mechanics which had so shocked the Western Mind (from Capra: Uncommon Wisdom). Heisenberg even checked the chapter on QM in "The Philosophy of Space and Time and the Inner Constitution of Nature" by mathematical physicist and Sanskrit-literate mystic Michael Whiteman in which Whiteman argued for a Universal Consciousness. All these mathematical theories simply explore the realm of possibilities or archetypes well known to mystics. The true Reality lies beyond such ideational realms in the distinctionless Ground of Universal Consciousness whose energetic vibrations manifest the phenomenal universe. Physics cannot even account for the most basic fact of our existence, our consciousness! Sutapas Bhattacharya

Unspinning the web of hubris - an honest view of theoretical physics *****

For anyone interested in the new mysteries of dark energy and dark matter etc. which have unsettled the attitude of "nearly finished" complacency exhibited by many spokesmen for theoretical physics, this book is a refreshing eye-opener for the interested layman. A new approach, String Theory, which promised a lot twenty five years ago has failed to deliver on its promises yet the aggressive promotion of this research programme and the tribal "groupthink" mentality of its adherents has led to it gaining the dominant position in terms of monopolizing grants and tenures at elite institutions normally reserved for a proven paradigm which has made successful predictions confirmed by experiment. A failed revolution has become the new "normal science" paradigm although it is unsuited to tackling most of the fundamental problems.
Most popular science books and TV programmes follow the unquestioning hype approach with infantile sci-fi style visuals and narrators rehashing hubris about pet theories unlocking the keys to supposedly the greatest mysteries of existence. Smolin, once an active participant in the String story, lists the 5 major problems facing theoretical physics and shows that very little progress has been made in resolving these over the last 30 years.
Unlike most physicists (excepting Bohm and Peat)Smolin dares to confront the sociological issues which result in the exclusion of freethinkers who question fundamental assumptions and put forward new ideas. Twenty years ago Rubinstein et al. wrote Science as Cognitive Process showing how a "paradigm" resembles a mode of cognition/perception and how "sciencing" resembles tribal rituals and taboos etc. Such "us and them" attitudes and the hostility to any questioning of basic assumptions means that the philosophically-minded young physicists, interested in the foundations of Quantum Theory etc., are denied career opportunities. The rise of String Theory also smacks of the "one true faith" zealotry prevalent in Western culture.
Smolin recognises that the fact that String "theories" assume a particular Space-Time background rather than attempt to explain the emergence of Space-Time from a deeper quantum reality means that background-dependent string "theories" cannot be the final or ultimate theories.
Smolin refers to "seers" and "craftspeople" in regard to the philosophically-minded questioners and the glorified technicians of mainstream science. Smolin, now free to work on the foundations of QT at a new institute funded by a wealthy patron, lists the philosophically-minded founders of QT such as Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrodinger amongst his heroes. However, unlike them he remains a realist assuming that physical theories can actually apprehend Reality as it is. As part of the philosophical questioning necessary to re-examine near-universal assumptions, Smolin fails to recognise the errors in Galileo's notion of primary and secondary qualities. As Schrodinger and Husserl etc. recognised, primary measurable qualities actually presuppose a conscious observer to determine them. Thus Galileo began the "despiritualization" of Nature by abstraction of measurable quantities.
Whereas Smolin points to the Cartesian representation of Time as a frozen dimension as possibly the big mistaken assumption of physics, the likes of Heisenberg and Schrodinger were far more philosophically profound than would-be "seer" Smolin. So too was David Bohm whom Smolin's greatest hero Einstein befriended at Princeton. Smolin would do well to ask why Schrodinger was an advocate of Vedanta (Brahmanism), why Heisenberg said that Indian philosophy subconsciously influenced his physics ideas, why Bohm was a friend of Krishnamurti, and Pauli with Carl Jung. As Heisenberg said, it came as a great help to him to discover than an entire civilisation already subscribed to a view that resembled that of the new Quantum Mechanics which had so shocked the Western Mind (from Capra: Uncommon Wisdom). Heisenberg even checked the chapter on QM in "The Philosophy of Space and Time and the Inner Constitution of Nature" by mathematical physicist and Sanskrit-literate mystic Michael Whiteman in which Whiteman argued for a Universal Consciousness. All these mathematical theories simply explore the realm of possibilities or archetypes well known to mystics. The true Reality lies beyond such ideational realms in the distinctionless Ground of Universal Consciousness whose energetic vibrations manifest the phenomenal universe. Physics cannot even account for the most basic fact of our existence, our consciousness!
Sutapas Bhattacharya

A real must for people who want to make revolution in physics *****
The Trouble with Physics give an overview of theoretical physics from last 30th years. Smolin return to the basic definition of physics: The only goals of physics is to build theories which agree with the experiment! Smolin show that the most popular theory of this decade, the String Theory, is not able to agree with this basic definition of physics, the agreement with the experience! In front of this fact, we must start to seek an alternative theory of string theory. It's on this fact that Smolin go against string theory. Smolin never say that string theory is false, he just say that we must to seek other approach to the problem of quantum gravity. And on this point, I realy agree with him and I dont understand why the string theorist are so affraid about that? Perhaps string theorist knows problems in string theory that we dont know? The science is not the art of hiding problems in a theory, science is the art of solving those problems. Thanks Lee for this great book!

A real must for people who want to make revolution in physics *****

The Trouble with Physics give an overview of theoretical physics from last 30th years.

Smolin return to the basic definition of physics: The only goals of physics is to build theories which agree with the experiment!

Smolin show that the most popular theory of this decade, the String Theory, is not able to agree with this basic definition of physics, the agreement with the experience!

In front of this fact, we must start to seek an alternative theory of string theory. It's on this fact that Smolin go against string theory. Smolin never say that string theory is false, he just say that we must to seek other approach to the problem of quantum gravity. And on this point, I realy agree with him and I dont understand why the string theorist are so affraid about that? Perhaps string theorist knows problems in string theory that we dont know?

The science is not the art of hiding problems in a theory, science is the art of solving those problems.

Thanks Lee for this great book!

Back To Basics *****
Smolin's book, in very short summary, is a plea to get a few more people working on more fundamental questions. How we're in a bit of a mess where despite twenty years of massive, parallel effort on string theory, it still barely dips its toes into the waters of testability. If the LHC fails to find signs of supersymmetry, string theory can simply chop that energy range out of its predictions, but we will hardly be further ahead in that case. One thing Lee's book conveys is why string theory was so attractive in the first place, once the establishment figured out what it could do for them. It really promised to unify everything, and have the forces of the universe pop out of their equations. Nobody could really fault anyone for finding beauty in the equations, and it's hard to now. The devil's in the details of the work, though, since it takes a lot of math and technique to play around with ten dimensions, infinite series that may not converge, and pieces that are so complex that you have to approximate to survive. Trying to make string theory background independent is, from the sounds of it, beyond the pale. At the end of the day, however, Nature has to corroborate your findings, and you ought to be able to produce the numbers Nature will give you, not tune your own numbers to fit, and string theory cannot do that yet. If it does so all of a sudden over the next few years, with other predictions to boot, we will be ecstatic. There's still the daunting possibility that string theory is wrong, and we don't really have a backup plan. We have no other food in the house, apart from what's cooking in the oven - it's not done yet, we have no idea how long it will take, and the guests are hungry. Questions on the nature of time itself have yet to be resolved, and the statistical nature of quantum mechanics teases one with the possibility of a behind-the-scenes (though necessarily non-local) reality where the statistics emerge. The take-away from the sociology section of the book is that physics of today is not set up to get itself out of ruts where everyone is backing the same horse. Grant worries make administrators bet on sure things, and the mild-to-medium rebels aren't part of the equation any more. It's an intriguing book, depressing on the large, but a little bit hopeful. I think it will garner more than its fair share of mudslinging, though; if you have an image of academics as mild-mannered and meek, you may never been to a conference and seen how hair-trigger some of those nerves are.

Back To Basics *****

Smolin's book, in very short summary, is a plea to get a few more people working on more fundamental questions. How we're in a bit of a mess where despite twenty years of massive, parallel effort on string theory, it still barely dips its toes into the waters of testability. If the LHC fails to find signs of supersymmetry, string theory can simply chop that energy range out of its predictions, but we will hardly be further ahead in that case.

One thing Lee's book conveys is why string theory was so attractive in the first place, once the establishment figured out what it could do for them. It really promised to unify everything, and have the forces of the universe pop out of their equations. Nobody could really fault anyone for finding beauty in the equations, and it's hard to now. The devil's in the details of the work, though, since it takes a lot of math and technique to play around with ten dimensions, infinite series that may not converge, and pieces that are so complex that you have to approximate to survive. Trying to make string theory background independent is, from the sounds of it, beyond the pale.

At the end of the day, however, Nature has to corroborate your findings, and you ought to be able to produce the numbers Nature will give you, not tune your own numbers to fit, and string theory cannot do that yet. If it does so all of a sudden over the next few years, with other predictions to boot, we will be ecstatic.

There's still the daunting possibility that string theory is wrong, and we don't really have a backup plan. We have no other food in the house, apart from what's cooking in the oven - it's not done yet, we have no idea how long it will take, and the guests are hungry.

Questions on the nature of time itself have yet to be resolved, and the statistical nature of quantum mechanics teases one with the possibility of a behind-the-scenes (though necessarily non-local) reality where the statistics emerge.

The take-away from the sociology section of the book is that physics of today is not set up to get itself out of ruts where everyone is backing the same horse. Grant worries make administrators bet on sure things, and the mild-to-medium rebels aren't part of the equation any more.

It's an intriguing book, depressing on the large, but a little bit hopeful. I think it will garner more than its fair share of mudslinging, though; if you have an image of academics as mild-mannered and meek, you may never been to a conference and seen how hair-trigger some of those nerves are.

Another postmodern diatribe against modern physics and scientific method *
The interactions between Lee Smolin and mainstream physicists are interesting. Lee often visits serious physics departments. Everyone smiles at each other and Lee is being politely explained why his newest theories can't really work. Lee says that he understands these arguments. Then he returns to a conference or a journalist and repeats that all of his theories have been perfectly proven, while offering even more unusual theories. The newest theory says that the neutrinos are octopi swimming in the spin network. Believe me, we like him but it is not always easy to take him seriously. A few months ago, I had to promise Lee that I would read the whole book before saying anything about it. So I did so. It was tough because the concentration of irrational statements and anti-scientific sentiments has exceeded my expectations. The book is primarily filled with the suicidal and absurd sentiment that all of modern physics of the last 30 years - the era of Lee's career - is a failure. The first part of the book tries to focus on technical aspects of string theory. The second part of the book offers a postmodern view on the scientific community and some radical proposals how to fix the "problems" that the author has identified. As far as I can say, everything that tries to go beyond the existing popular books is unreasonable with one possible exception, namely some of Lee's general ideas about the anthropic principle. What are the problems with Lee's appraisal of physics? First of all, Lee reveals his intense hostility against all of modern physics, not just string theory. He believes that quantum mechanics must be wrong at some fundamental level and many people should try to prove it. He also believes that the attempts to falsify the theory of relativity are among the most important topics to work on. In the context of string theory, he literally floods the pages of his book with undefendable speculations about some basic results of string theory. Because these statements are of mathematical nature, we are sure that Lee is wrong even in the absence of any experiments. For example, he dedicates dozens of pages to speculations about the divergent amplitudes at finite orders of the perturbation theory - amplitudes that have been proven to be finite. He also proposes that the AdS/CFT correspondence and various other dualities are wrong. In doing so, he ignores thousands of papers that lead to the opposite conclusion. Instead, he applies the methods of creationists and invents a "strong" and "weak" version of Maldacena's equivalence. There are also frequently repeated speculations that string theory and M-theory don't exist and many other similar "ideas", together with the most popular myth that string theory can't be experimentally tested. Neither of these things is supported by any results in the scientific literature, not even Lee's own results, and most of them contradict what we know. I am afraid that it is fair to say that Lee is trying to sell things that could never be bought by the experts because he knows that his lay readers won't be able to tell the difference between a result and a nonsense. More generally, Lee proposes a truly radical thesis that it is wrong for mathematics to play a crucial role in theoretical physics. This meme is repeated at many places and it is later used as a criterion to hire physicists. He also blames the "failures" on the culture of particle physics that has already existed before string theory. For example, we learn that when Lee Smolin studied at Harvard, he was disappointed by Coleman, Glashow, and Weinberg who were "nothing like his heroes". Wow. The reason why they were nothing like his heroes was that they preferred calculations over philosophical speculations. Needless to say, Smolin would be disappointed by Einstein and Bohr, too, because they couldn't stand scientifically unjustifiable philosophical speculations either. No real physicist can. Two decades ago or so, Lee was also disappointed by his peers who were excited by calculations in supergravity. He also denies the difference between renormalizable field theories and the rest, and so forth. In the sociological part of this book, Smolin complains that no one takes him seriously and tries to paint the mainstream physics community as a group of evil people. Also, he proposes "cures" for the things that he views as "problems". This includes new ethical standards of the science community. For example, one of his rules says that the conclusions must be accepted by everyone if their author is a person of good faith. Another rule, apparently applied to the other theories of the "infidels", says that they must first present a full rigorous proof. These and other proposals are clearly meant to transform the scientific community to a dogmatic, non-mathematical, and irrational institution with double standards that is similar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. He realizes that what he has defined is a church or a sect, so he tries to correct this problem by enumerating a few features in which science and religion are supposed to differ. In my opinion, neither of these things has anything to do with the main differences between science and religion. The main difference between religion and science is that science will never accept Smolin's ideas about the scientific method. Science will never introduce Lee's proposal of affirmative action for those who are not able to fully learn the current picture of reality as painted by physics - people whom Lee Smolin misleadingly and automaticaly promotes as "original thinkers", without any rational arguments. In reality, gaps in mathematics are something very different from originality; in fact, these two things are negatively correlated, not positively. Lee doesn't want to see the difference. Also, science will never give up the principle that falsified conjectures (even those from the people of good faith) must be abandoned - a principle that also strikingly contradicts Smolin's thoughts about the democracy of ideas. Science will never abandon solid and quantitative arguments and it will never replace them by vague linguistic games that Lee Smolin prefers. And it will never accept Lee's recommendation that the scientists' opinion should be manipulated by the ideological goals such as Lee's "diversity of ideas" by which he really means the narrow-mindedness of those who lack the imagination to learn the diverse insights offered by string theory. The postmodern attack against science has had many forms. Evelyn Fox Keller, a professional feminist critic of science and the key supporter of this book, was at the beginning. If you want to see how serious threats the very basic principles of science will probably have to face from within, read this strange book that I rated by 2 stars because of its unquestionable ability to make you angry (and make young science fans frustrated). Unless science is going to be destroyed, it will continue to ignore Smolin's hints, despite the alternating good years and bad years. It will build on results that work and not on those that don't work, hire people who know what they're doing and not those who don't, and allow them to reach their own conclusions instead of telling them which opinions are sufficiently "diverse". Also, the role of mathematics and string theory is bound to increase, regardless whether Lee Smolin will convince his readers otherwise.

Another postmodern diatribe against modern physics and scientific method *

The interactions between Lee Smolin and mainstream physicists are interesting. Lee often visits serious physics departments. Everyone smiles at each other and Lee is being politely explained why his newest theories can't really work. Lee says that he understands these arguments. Then he returns to a conference or a journalist and repeats that all of his theories have been perfectly proven, while offering even more unusual theories. The newest theory says that the neutrinos are octopi swimming in the spin network. Believe me, we like him but it is not always easy to take him seriously.

A few months ago, I had to promise Lee that I would read the whole book before saying anything about it. So I did so. It was tough because the concentration of irrational statements and anti-scientific sentiments has exceeded my expectations. The book is primarily filled with the suicidal and absurd sentiment that all of modern physics of the last 30 years - the era of Lee's career - is a failure. The first part of the book tries to focus on technical aspects of string theory. The second part of the book offers a postmodern view on the scientific community and some radical proposals how to fix the "problems" that the author has identified.

As far as I can say, everything that tries to go beyond the existing popular books is unreasonable with one possible exception, namely some of Lee's general ideas about the anthropic principle.

What are the problems with Lee's appraisal of physics? First of all, Lee reveals his intense hostility against all of modern physics, not just string theory. He believes that quantum mechanics must be wrong at some fundamental level and many people should try to prove it. He also believes that the attempts to falsify the theory of relativity are among the most important topics to work on. In the context of string theory, he literally floods the pages of his book with undefendable speculations about some basic results of string theory. Because these statements are of mathematical nature, we are sure that Lee is wrong even in the absence of any experiments.

For example, he dedicates dozens of pages to speculations about the divergent amplitudes at finite orders of the perturbation theory - amplitudes that have been proven to be finite. He also proposes that the AdS/CFT correspondence and various other dualities are wrong. In doing so, he ignores thousands of papers that lead to the opposite conclusion. Instead, he applies the methods of creationists and invents a "strong" and "weak" version of Maldacena's equivalence. There are also frequently repeated speculations that string theory and M-theory don't exist and many other similar "ideas", together with the most popular myth that string theory can't be experimentally tested. Neither of these things is supported by any results in the scientific literature, not even Lee's own results, and most of them contradict what we know. I am afraid that it is fair to say that Lee is trying to sell things that could never be bought by the experts because he knows that his lay readers won't be able to tell the difference between a result and a nonsense.

More generally, Lee proposes a truly radical thesis that it is wrong for mathematics to play a crucial role in theoretical physics. This meme is repeated at many places and it is later used as a criterion to hire physicists. He also blames the "failures" on the culture of particle physics that has already existed before string theory. For example, we learn that when Lee Smolin studied at Harvard, he was disappointed by Coleman, Glashow, and Weinberg who were "nothing like his heroes". Wow. The reason why they were nothing like his heroes was that they preferred calculations over philosophical speculations. Needless to say, Smolin would be disappointed by Einstein and Bohr, too, because they couldn't stand scientifically unjustifiable philosophical speculations either. No real physicist can.

Two decades ago or so, Lee was also disappointed by his peers who were excited by calculations in supergravity. He also denies the difference between renormalizable field theories and the rest, and so forth.

In the sociological part of this book, Smolin complains that no one takes him seriously and tries to paint the mainstream physics community as a group of evil people. Also, he proposes "cures" for the things that he views as "problems". This includes new ethical standards of the science community. For example, one of his rules says that the conclusions must be accepted by everyone if their author is a person of good faith. Another rule, apparently applied to the other theories of the "infidels", says that they must first present a full rigorous proof.

These and other proposals are clearly meant to transform the scientific community to a dogmatic, non-mathematical, and irrational institution with double standards that is similar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. He realizes that what he has defined is a church or a sect, so he tries to correct this problem by enumerating a few features in which science and religion are supposed to differ. In my opinion, neither of these things has anything to do with the main differences between science and religion.

The main difference between religion and science is that science will never accept Smolin's ideas about the scientific method. Science will never introduce Lee's proposal of affirmative action for those who are not able to fully learn the current picture of reality as painted by physics - people whom Lee Smolin misleadingly and automaticaly promotes as "original thinkers", without any rational arguments. In reality, gaps in mathematics are something very different from originality; in fact, these two things are negatively correlated, not positively. Lee doesn't want to see the difference.

Also, science will never give up the principle that falsified conjectures (even those from the people of good faith) must be abandoned - a principle that also strikingly contradicts Smolin's thoughts about the democracy of ideas. Science will never abandon solid and quantitative arguments and it will never replace them by vague linguistic games that Lee Smolin prefers. And it will never accept Lee's recommendation that the scientists' opinion should be manipulated by the ideological goals such as Lee's "diversity of ideas" by which he really means the narrow-mindedness of those who lack the imagination to learn the diverse insights offered by string theory.

The postmodern attack against science has had many forms. Evelyn Fox Keller, a professional feminist critic of science and the key supporter of this book, was at the beginning. If you want to see how serious threats the very basic principles of science will probably have to face from within, read this strange book that I rated by 2 stars because of its unquestionable ability to make you angry (and make young science fans frustrated). Unless science is going to be destroyed, it will continue to ignore Smolin's hints, despite the alternating good years and bad years. It will build on results that work and not on those that don't work, hire people who know what they're doing and not those who don't, and allow them to reach their own conclusions instead of telling them which opinions are sufficiently "diverse". Also, the role of mathematics and string theory is bound to increase, regardless whether Lee Smolin will convince his readers otherwise.