The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of

String Theory, the Fall of a Science and

What Comes Next
Manifesto Challenge: Developing a Capable Population

Speakers Professor Lee Smolin

Theoretical Physicist

Professor Michael Duff

Abdus Salam Professor of Theoretical Physics

Professor Nancy Cartwright

Philosopher of Science and Sociology

Chaired by: Professor Chris Isham

Professor of Theoretical Physics, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College

Date: 5th March 2007

Venue: RSA, 8 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6EZ

NB
This is an unedited transcript of the event. Whilst every effort is made to ensure accuracy there
may be phonetic or other errors depending on inevitable variations in recording quality. Please do
contact us to point out any errors, which we will endeavour to correct.
To reproduce any part of this transcript in any form please contact RSA Lectures Office at
[email protected] or +44(0)20 7451 6868

The views expressed are not necessarily those of the RSA or its Trustees.

www.theRSA.org

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 1
 Matthew Taylor: Good evening. I’m I’ve been asked to tell you also that
Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the RSA this particular meeting runs on a bit later
and I’d like to welcome you to the RSA this than usual so it finishes at 7.45. So don’t get
evening. I’m the boring speaker before all the worried if you think we’re over running
interesting speakers. because we may be.
At the end of the event, if you could So let me start by saying that 40 years
complete your feedback questionnaire and ago (I hate to say it, but it’s true) I was a PhD
hand it back to a member of RSA staff or student at Imperial College doing Theoretical
reception, we’d be very grateful to you. Physics. And in those days the whole
Like most RSA events this session is structure of the subject was very different to
being broadcast live on our website. An edited what it does today. There basically were two
audio file and a transcript will be available on different types of Theoretical Physics; people
our website in a few days’ time. did two groups. The bigger group by far were
people doing Particle Physics to which all
This evening’s lecture has been three of us belonged actually, and then there
organised by the RSA with the Royal Institution was a much smaller group of people who
and in association with Penguin Books. We were doing general relativity; Einstein’s
have an expert panel to discuss ‘The Trouble Theory of Curve, Space and Time.
with Physics – The Rise of String Theory, the
Fall of the Science and what comes next.’ These are two quite different subjects
and by and large the people who worked in
Professor Lee Smolin’s book is these fields had quite different educations,
published today by Penguin UK. It will be on they didn’t talk to each other very much. And
sale after the lecture and Professor Smolin has that’s fine because everybody did what they
kindly agreed to sign copies. had to do. They got funded for it.
Our Chair for this evening who will But then a very small number of
introduce Lee and other speakers more fully, is people started to ask how could these two
Professor Chris Isham, Professor of things be brought together? When I was a
Theoretical Physics at the Blackett Laboratory, student I got very interested in this, but it
Imperial College. was a long time ago, and very few people
So will you please join me in welcoming then did this subject. And in fact it was totally
Chris, Lee, and our distinguished panel. Thank and completely unjustified because there was
you. no data whatsoever. It was impossible either
to falsify or verify the theory or do anything.
Professor Chris Isham: Well ladies There was no justification whatsoever except
and gentlemen, good evening. The organisers it was a fascinating problem, and that’s why
have asked me to just give a little bit of the people began to work on it.
scientific background to the debate this
evening. But first so you know who’s who, let Now because of this division, the
me introduce briefly the people on the training even theoretical physicists had in
platform. those days, very rapidly the subject split into
two schools. There was the school who came
Nearest to me in the red corner is Lee from a particles physics background, like we
Smolin who’ll be presenting the case. And then did, who basically worked in four dimensions,
next to him on the right is Mike Duff, who’ll be that’s called the (inaudible). And then the
in the blue corner, who’s defending the case. relativists preferred to work in three
Right at the very end will be Nancy Cartwright dimensions, and that’s called the (inaudible).
who’s a Philosopher of Science and Sociology. formism.
So that’s how we’re going to do things.
Now you might think, well, four or
three dimensions, what’s the difference. But

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 2
in fact, the bifurcation was enormous between their philosophical and scientific prejudices;
these schools, and there used to be terrible it’s more or less true.
arguments. Now as I got older and I get more
I was a very young and impressionable senior because I began to sit on selection
academic in 1970. The first time ever we had a panels for things. An interesting question
conference where I was then working on arises. How do you judge whether the piece
quantum gravity, and there were relativists of work in quantum gravity is good or bad?
there and particle physicists there. And at one Because if there is no data, if you can’t falsify
point one of the four dimensional people who it, if there’s no good justification for doing it,
was a very distinguished man, went up to one it sets a fascinating problem. Why is it good?
three dimensional person, like this (inaudible).. Why is it bad?
So I hope that doesn’t happen this evening! But I decided that really, it’s like a
like I said before, don’t be too bland either composer who writes a piece of music. If it’s
because people (inaudible). . a nice tune, everybody likes it. They all sing
So these two schools developed and the same tune for a while and you become
evolved over the years. And the four known. And to some extent, I think Lee will
dimensional people became ten dimensional perhaps pick up this point, is that I saw what
people … and the ten dimensional people again was happening on the gravity studies.
– and that’s now a school of superstring, the Now for people like Mike or Lee and
M-theory, the subject really we’re talking about I who are well established in our careers, it
this evening. doesn’t matter. But for young people actually
That was a big major development and this can be a big problem. Because if one
is the major part of theoretical physics in the particular tune becomes so popular that
subject. everybody sings nothing but that, the people
The other half, the (inaudible) people, who sing the discord, as it were, may
evolved into what’s now become called loop eventually be run out of funding, which I think
quantum gravity. Lee was one of the founders is one aspect Lee’s going to say. And this is a
of that subject, and Mike has made some very real problem in my opinion. It’s a problem in
major contributions to string theories, so you any science if this happens.
have the two different people here. Now this evening’s debate is not
Now in the course of my career, which actually about physics. I don’t imagine we’re
does go back a long way I have to admit now, I going to have an in-depth discussion of string
often used to wonder what we were doing. theory. It’s really about the sociology of
We were doing quantum gravity because science and how it works.
ordinary physics, you have three things really. So let me start off by introducing Lee
At least I was thinking this way. You’ve got the Smolin. Each speaker will speak for exactly 20
data from the real world. You’ve got the minutes, and I shall cut them off. So Lee
mathematics and you had the philosophy. And Smolin will speak first to the title of his book,
these three things stayed kind of locked which is The Trouble with Physics. Lee.
together. Professor Lee Smolin: Well, thank
If one of them is missing, the whole you very much Chris. I also want to thank
thing becomes a bit haywire and this is in fact very much Michael Duff for doing this, which
what happened because we had all the is a very generous and courageous thing to
mathematics and the concepts but no data. do. Not everybody said yes to this invitation.
Now under those circumstances you I’m very happy and honoured that he did.
might think, well, what do scientists actually And I’m very honoured that Nancy
do. And the answer, they simply give vent to Cartwright who is a very eminent and

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 3
influential philosopher agreed to do this. I hope in the questions of interested theoretical
we live up to the expectations. physicists now, but it’s always been the case.
As Chris said, this is not about physics, There are diverging points of view. Different
but it is about physics both, and that’s part of experts, different well-trained people think
the lesson. I want to start off in saying this different parts of the question are more
book has been read. It came out first in the important. They ask the question in different
United States and it’s been mis-read and not ways. They’re influenced by different
read, and it’s been characterised. For example, philosophical traditions and ideas and there
as being, ‘against string theory’ almost always are divergent approaches, and that’s healthy.
by people who when they’re asked, turn out That’s the main message of the book. In fact
not to have read it. The book is not against that’s why I asked to make these
string theory. It’s not for or against any presentations in England of the book. I asked
particular development. to have them in the form of discussion and
debate because that’s the point of the book,
What is the book really about? The key is the discussion and disagreement amongst
to the book for me is a quotation from a experts is essential. Because nobody knows
Brazilian American philosopher, Roberto what is the right thing.
Mangabeira Unger who starts his latest book,
and I’m just going to quote it and then focus in However what’s different about
from it by saying ‘In what kind of world and for science is that when you become a scientist,
what kind of thought is time real, history open you sign on to an ethic and an ethic that (this
and novelty possible? In what kind of world and is my view now) in which you acknowledge
for what kind of thought does it make sense that the community and not yourself is the
for a human being to look for trouble rather ultimate judge of what’s correct. And that the
than to try to stay out of trouble?’ community consisting of individuals who are
sure of themselves and confident will still
So that’s what the book is about. And come to agree when they’re forced to it,
let me start – there are really three key points kicking and screaming by the evidence. And
or three key steps. what you agree to by becoming a scientist is
First, the concern is how science works to be governed by rational argument from
and there is a view of what science is and how the evidence. You agree to be open to
science works, which I present. And the key changing your mind. And from time to time
question that I’m interested in is, the role of consensus does form around a new idea, a
disagreement and controversy and how it is new theory, when the evidence and rational
that in any important step forward in science, argument from the evidence forces us to
there is a period of disagreement, controversy, that. And almost always that has to do with
debate, sometimes friendly, sometimes not experiment.
friendly. Of course that’s like every domain of This view of science requires that in
human life and endeavour, but in science the absence of being forced to consensus, we
there’s something unusual which is there is should encourage the widest possible among
some process by which we go from that state – and I’m not talking about amateurs and
of debate and controversy, to a state of quacks and so forth who really don’t play a
consensus. And how does that happen? I’m role. I’m talking about in the scientific
interested in that. I’m not a professional community of well trained credential people,
philosopher or sociologist, but that was the we should do whatever we can to encourage
concern that I started with and that really is the intellectual freedom, independence, in the
what the book is about. widest range. Even if I think if I’m sure that
The view that I develop is that we face my research programme is right, it helps my
the unknown in science. There are for any research programme to have very good
interesting question, as Chris explained, there people who have contrary views and

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 4
research programmes. And we should only But none has fully succeeded to do
come to consensus when we’re forced to it. two things that any theory must do. One of
But that happens often enough because not them is make precise falsifiable predictions
only are theorists clever, but experimentalists and this is the legacy of Karl Popper from
are even cleverer. That’s the first thesis. London, falsifiability, by which the theory
Now in this light, what is our situation confronts experiment and confronts it
in fundamental physics? Well, Chris outlined it. directly. That is if the prediction that’s on the
Let me very quickly say because part of this table is not obtained in the experiment, that
book is an examination into our present theory must be wrong. And it’s very
strange situation in fundamental physics, so interesting why that hasn’t happened.
this’ll be very telegraphic. The second is also none has a
First we face severe unsolved problems completely coherent and convincing
completing the unification, the revolution that formulation starting from a principle and then
Einstein started at the beginning of the 20th expressing itself in elegant mathematics the
century. Some of the questions are to make way that general relativity has.
sense of quantum mechanics, to bring together Broadly speaking, some approaches
gravity and relativity in quantum mechanics, take developments from particle physics
which is the problem of quantum gravity. more seriously as a starting point and use the
There’s a problem of explaining the structure ways of thinking in methods and string theory
of the laws that we have already, that we is one of them. And others take the great
understand. For example, there’s a standard lesson of general relativity as the starting
model of particle physics and there are point. To my mind, and this will come up, the
annoying, incomprehensible so far, clues from great lesson of general relativity is an idea we
experiments like the dark matter and the dark call background independence. That is there
energy. is first of all the geometry of space as was
Now in response to these problems, all long thought; is not fixed, is not absolute, is
of which have been there since before I was an not eternal. It’s just something that evolves
under-graduate student with the exception of along with everything else. There’s nothing in
the dark energy, there are diverse research the formulation of the laws of physics that
programmes and ideas being investigated and should be fixed and absolute and not be part
that’s good. And string theory is one of them, of a network of relations which is dynamical.
but only one of them. This view that I’m expounding, we learn from
general relativity and we call it background
One thing that probably will come up independence. Philosophers call it
which is about science – we don’t have time to relationalism.
go into the different research programmes
probably and their relative successes and The opposing tradition is called
failures – it can be said of string theory and it background dependence, and it’s that you set
can be said of other research programmes, off what is the geometry and which one
that it partly has succeeded. There have been wants to study things moving. What is the
great achievements. There have been great history of the universe and which one then
discoveries mathematically. There have been wants to study things against that
great achievements that I admire very much background. And for better or worse, so far
and we all admire in the development of string string theory is formulated that way although
theory, of (inaudible)) models, of Topos theory, I have spent many years, and other people
of loop quantum gravity, of dynamical have spent many years trying to transfer
triangulations, of cause or set theory and string theory to the first kind of theory. But
Technicolor, etc; the list goes on. there’s this disjunction between background
independence and background dependence
and that’s related to the disjunction that

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 5
Chris talked about between three dimensions people like Chris have, and I don’t have, but
and four dimensions. I’m going to try. In some sense the book is an
Now so far there is no direct contact attempt to realise the ambition of that
with experiment for any of these quotation from Roberto Unger that I read.
developments. Some of these developments do That’s hovering there always in the
make general expectations not from background (I hope it stays there) about the
predictions of the kind I talked about, but desire for a world that’s open in which time
general expectations for upcoming is real and progress is real. But this is not
experiments. There is the large Hadron post-modernism. This is post post-
collider coming online in Geneva, and if you modernism.
believe that string theory is a deep insight into But what’s the device? Some of it is
nature, then there’s a package deal that comes obvious. If after many years of exploration an
along with that which includes a constraint on idea has been very deeply explored by
the theory called super symmetry, and includes hundreds of very good people (and this
a belief in six or seven extra dimensions. And if applies not just to string theory but also
you’re very optimistic, you believe that some of the other research programmes I’ve
evidence for that, for either one or both of worked on) and it has failed in the two
those things will be seen at the large Hadron aspects that I’ve said, to either have a
collider. And it may be. But since string theory complete coherent formulation or to make
nor any of the other programmes makes a up and down predictions. We haven’t wasted
specific prediction for exactly where and how our time. Let nobody say that we’ve wasted
these features will be realised, the outcome our time or the work has not been brilliant
will be crucial for the development of science or interesting or compelling. But most likely
but it will not tell us whether string theory is it’s not the complete truth. Maybe even it’s
true or not, whether (inaudible) models are completely off track.
true or not, etc. So therefore the most important
There are other experiments also thing, and to mirror again some things Chris
coming online which really probe whether the says, is to organise science in the academy in
principles of the special theory of relativity are such a way that the audacity and the
true or need modification when quantum independence and the courage of a young
mechanics and gravity meet. And these are also person who will come and propose the right
very important experiments. They’ve been direction and the right idea, whether it grows
going on actually for billions of years and these out of string theory or grows out of the loop
are experiments where light may be quantum gravity or does not, there will be
propagating for billions of years in very small (I’m confident) some person maybe one of us
effects from quantum geometry; quantum older people, but if history is a guide, more
gravity may be accumulating in the passages likely somebody younger, who will propose
and interactions of these particles which then what turns out to be the right route. And the
can be teased out when they’re detected by most important thing is to work in a field
satellites in orbit on earth or by detectors on which is open to that and which invites that.
earth. And there’s several very important That’s the key thing. Everything else that is in
experiments that test crucial principles there. way of advice is to enable that. One way to
But we may learn. We will learn something say that, there is a metaphor that I heard
important from those experiments. But none about from an economist, Eric Weinberg,
of the theories we have in front of us will be after I wrote the book or it would be in the
tested up or down from them. book, but I’ll close with this.
So that was my second point. That’s a We may talk about a problem in
rough sketch of the situation. The rest is string theory and other theories called the
wisdom, good judgements, things that eminent

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 6
landscape, and this is the way he proposes to gravity has been, as wonderful and as
think of this. admirable as the work on string theory and
Imagine that all the different ideas, good other approaches has been, what we seem to
ideas that people could have, are hills in a have discovered is a bunch of hills. And what
complicated mountainous landscape. And the we have is a bunch of communities of people
closer an idea is to working, the higher the hill. camped out on the top of the hills saying, ‘My
What we’re seeking is maybe not the summit, hill is better than your hill’ reasons. What we
maybe there isn’t a summit. But we’re seeking need in that situation is to open up science
the best hill, the highest mountain that we can and make sure (it’s not going to be many
get to. And I don’t need to be committed to people) there’s room for those rare people
whether there’s an absolute best theory or who go down, cross the valleys and find the
final theory. That’s irrelevant. But there are right hill. And I’ll stop there. Thank you.
higher and lower summits. And the whole Professor Chris Isham: Well, thank
scene is shrouded in fog, so we can’t look and you very much Lee. That’s perfect timing too.
see how where we are compares to other Our next speaker is Mike Duff from
places on the landscape. Imperial College, a colleague of mine for
So then there are different kinds of many years. He’s the Abdus Salam Professor
scientists. Most of us, and mostly I include there, of Theoretical Physics. As I said earlier,
myself in this, are hill climbers. We’re well he’s made a number of contributions to the
trained. We’re clever. We got advanced field of string theory.
because we were clever kids. You put us down Now I asked him for his title just
on a slope, we figure out which way is up and beforehand of this meeting. His title of his
we go there. And that’s what most of talk is ‘What Trouble?’
professional science is and that’s what most of
it should be because most professional science Professor Michael Duff: The
is not trying to solve these deep foundational trouble with physics, ladies and gentlemen is
issues such as the nature of space and time or that there is not one Lee Smolin, but two.
quantum theory. On the one hand there is the ‘reasonable’
Lee Smolin who has just spoken to you and
Unaccountably there are a few who go with whom I hope to share a drink later this
down when the rest of us go up, and these Eric evening.
Weinberg calls ‘valley crossers’. They will go
down on their own to get away from Who can dispute that the ultimate
everybody else simply because they have a goal of a scientific theory is to make
mirage in their mind. Many of them get lost, experimentally testable predictions? Who will
but what they do for science is they find the challenge the need to keep an open mind and
other hills and they find new ways up. Of listen to unorthodox views? Who can
course, this is a metaphor that comes also disagree with the assertion that our current
from evolutionary biology where the metaphor understanding’s only partial and that the
of the landscape in physics comes originally. ultimate truth is yet to be uncovered?
So the message is most of us are hill What he has said is so
climbers. I’m a hill climber. Sometimes I jump uncontroversial that there’s really very little
around and help climb one hill and then I jump to object to. So were I to respond only to
around to another hill, but I’m basically a hill the ‘reasonable’ Lee Smolin, there’s the
climber. The hills that I climb were not danger that this debate would degenerate
discovered by me. They were discovered by into a bland exchange of truisms.
people with the audacity and the verve and the Unfortunately for physics, but
spark to find new hills. And the message is, as fortunate perhaps for those of you who’ve
wonderful as the work on loop quantum come along expecting a vigorous debate this

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 7
evening, there is the Lee Smolin who wrote provable conjecture’ claim is equally
the book The Trouble with Physics which is after misleading. Conjecture and reputation is a
all the reason why we’re all here this evening. time honoured way to proceed in scientific
And this Lee Smolin is far from reasonable. He research. And string theory is no different.
has some very unpleasant and more Sometimes our conjectures are proved.
importantly very inaccurate things to say about Sometimes disproved. Sometimes no proof is
both string theory as a science and about string forthcoming but such a vast amount of
theorists as scientists. circumstantial evidence is accumulated that
Let’s start with the book cover and I we adopt the conjectures of working
quote ‘As a scientific theory, string theory has hypothesis until such time as a proof comes
been a colossal failure and is dragging down the along.
rest of physics’ and that’s just for starters. And by the way how does Harry
In fact many of my string theory Ritchie know that the conjectures so far
colleagues found the book so offensive, unproved or un-provable. Perhaps he’d care
believing it to be a gross perversion of the to lend me his crystal ball.
truth that they urged me to dissociate myself Finally a couple of phone calls would
from it and refuse to take part in this debate. easily have refuted the ‘only three
As Lee acknowledged, not everyone wanted to appointments’ claim. I spent the years 1999
take part. And part of it is because they view to 2005 at the University of Michigan and the
Lee and Peter Woit the author of a similar last two permanent faculty appointments in
book attacking string theory, as both making a theoretical physics were both to non string
living off the backs of those who are doing all theorist. Multiply that by the dozens of
the hard work. similar departments in the US, and you begin
I think it was Yates who said, ‘There to see what a flagrant misrepresentation the
never was a dog that praised its fleas’ but in my three out of hundreds really is.
opinion eventually there comes a time when I might add that it’s unequally untrue
the dog has to scratch and that’s why I agreed in the UK. My own department is in Imperial
to speak this evening. College for example, seven out of the last ten
Moreover these distortions have by faculty reappointments since 1990 were to
now received quite a wide publicity. For non string theorists.
example in last week’s Mail on Sunday someone Of course the Mail on Sunday has
called Harry Ritchie reviewed The Trouble with never been a paper to allow facts to get in
Physics and repeated without qualification some the way of a good story. Where I do agree
of the more outrageous claims in the book. with Harry Ritchie and indeed with every
And I quote, ‘String theory has made no other reviewer of the book is that it is a
discernible progress after 20 years. Just a huge venomous attack on string theory, not
amount of un-provable conjecture.’ Of the withstanding the claims of the ‘reasonable’
hundreds, and let me repeat this carefully, ‘Of Lee Smolin, that it isn’t.
the hundreds of research appointments in Now don’t get me wrong, if Lee had
American universities since 1990, only three confined his sociological criticisms to saying
have gone to non-stringies.’ that some theorists are arrogant, exclusive,
Now I don’t mind that journalists like unwilling to listen to orthodox views, then
Harry Ritchie are ignorant about string theory. that’s fair game. In fact there’s probably some
Most people are. What’s irksome however is truth in there. In fact I'm reminded of the one
their propensity to pontificate about it without about the philandering string theorist who
bothering to check the facts. The ‘no progress’ when confronted by his wife said, “But
claim is simply silly and I’ll be describing some darling I can explain everything.” So that’s fair
progress in just a few minutes. The ‘un- enough. But when Lee conflates sociology

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 8
with science and accuses the string theorists of be a (inaudible). this note, a (inaudible). and
being bad scientists, that’s fighting talk. so on.
Let me say a little bit about string Now one strange feature of
theory and its successor M-theory. Theoretical superstrings is they live in a universe with
physicists like to ask the big questions, how did nine space and one time dimensions. Since
the universe begin. What are its fundamental the world around us appears to have only
constituents. What are the laws of nature that three space dimensions, the extra six must
govern those constituents. And the situation somehow be curled up to an unobservably
we faced at the end of the last century small size. Or else rendered invisible in some
notwithstanding the great success of the other way if the theory is to be at all realistic.
standard model of particle physics, and the Fortunately, the equations of string
standard cosmological model in providing theory admits solutions where that actually
partial answers to these questions, was that happens. And the main reason why theorists
the two main pillars of 20th century physics, are so excited about string theory is that it
quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general seems at long last to provide the long
theory of relativity were mutually incompatible. dreamed of, consistent quantum theory of
Quantum theory deals with the very small gravity. And holds promise of incorporating
atoms, sub atomic particles and the forces and extending the standard models of particle
between them. General relativity deals with physics and cosmology.
the very large stars, galaxies and gravity, the
driving force of the cosmos as a whole. And Now string theorists are the first to
the dilemma we faced was that on the admit that the theory’s by no means
microscopic scale, Einstein’s theory failed to complete. But it’s constantly undergoing
comply with the quantum rules that govern the improvement in the light of new discoveries.
behaviour of the elementary particles. While For example, one of the problems
on the macroscopic scale, black holes are with the form of a theory developed in the
threatening the very foundations of quantum 1980s was that there was not one superstring
mechanics. So something big has to give. And theory, but five. Five mathematically
this is perhaps a new scientific revolution. consistent superstrings. Now if one is looking
But no one said it was going to be easy. for a unique theory of everything, five
Constructing an all embracing theory that theories of everything seems like an
unifies gravity and quantum mechanics and embarrassment of riches.
goes onto to describe all physical phenomena In 1995, the theory underwent a
is probably the most ambitious challenge in the revolution when it was realised that these
history of science. Finding ways in such a five strings were not different after all, but
theory, finding ways in which such a theory rather just five corners of a deeper and more
could be tested empirically will be equally profound theory that we now call M-theory.
difficult given the fact that the gravitational M-theory involves membrane like objects
force is 40 orders of magnitude weaker than which live not in ten, but eleven spacetime
the other forces. dimensions.
Nevertheless many physicists believe For the purposes of tonight’s debate,
that this revolution is already under way with I’ll often use the word ‘string theory’ but
the theory of superstrings. As their name they’re meant to incorporate M-theory as
suggests, they’re one dimensional string like well.
objects which just like violin strings can vibrate.
And each mode of vibration, each note if you String and M-theory continue to make
like, represents a different elementary particle. remarkable theoretical progress. For
So that note would be a cork. That note would example, by providing the first microscopic
derivation of the black hole entropy formula

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 9
first proposed by Stephen Hawking in the mid stopped working on string theory tomorrow.
70s. And solving long outstanding theoretical Started with a clean sheet of paper,
problems such as these, gives us an indication sharpened our pencils and say what do we do
that we’re on the right track. now.
But as so often happens in science, M- The landscape problem would not
theory presented new problems of its own. have gone away. The problem of how to
Not least of which is that its equations admit choose one physical universe out of a large
even more solutions than string theory does. possibly infinite number of mathematically
And at the moment, we have no idea which possible universes, is a problem that any
one, if any, nature should pick to describe our attempt to provide a final theory is going to
universe. have to confront.
Theorists are divided on this issue. Why do we appear to live in just four
Some think that when we understand the spacetime dimensions? Why is the number of
theory better, we will understand why one fundamental forces for gravity,
unique universe is singled out, thus answering electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear
in the negative, Einstein’s question, “Did God force? Why are the elementary particles
have any choice in creating the universe?” arranged in three families of (inaudible).
Others think that there are indeed These riddles are not unique to string theory.
many, possibly infinitely many different And at the moment, none of the alternative
universes, and we just happen to be living in theories has any answer to them.
one of them. But this is perhaps a good time to
The problem of how to choose one pause and ask about the relation between
universe out of a large possibly infinite number theory and experiment in physics. The image
of mathematically possible universes, is held by many people go something like this.
sometimes called ‘the landscape problem’. And Some theoretical genius thinks up a bright
lacking in answers to this problem, the theory idea in his or her armchair and shouts
is as yet unable to give a definitive smoking gun ‘eureka’. The next day they write a paper
experimental prediction that would render the summarising the theory and suggesting ways
theory falsifiable. of testing it in the laboratory. Shortly
afterwards, an experimental colleague
Of course there are some generic performs the experiment, confirms the
features of string theory like super symmetric theory, and the following October, both go
particles, extra dimensions, microscopic black to Stockholm to collect their Nobel Prizes.
holes, cosmic strings. And if we’re lucky, some
of these maybe confirmed at the large Hadron Alas the reality is usually completely
collider due to be switched on in Geneva later different. Theories rarely spring fully formed
this year, or perhaps in the next generation of from the minds of their discoverers. They
astrophysical observations. usually begin with the germ of an idea that
needs to be nurtured and nourished and then
But like Lee, I think (one thing we agree gradually improved upon by others. And I’d
on) I'm doubtful whether the kind of issues we like to consider a couple of examples. Let’s
are debating tonight will be resolved anytime take black holes. The existence of black
soon. holes, objects so dense that not even light
Now critics like Lee and Peter Woit can escape, is now well supported by
say that since you’ve been working on M- astronomical observation. Particularly from
theory since 1995, it’s time to give up. Others x-ray omission from binary stars. But the
like myself say it’s still early days. And there’s theory of black holes goes back to John
an important point here that I’d like to stress. Mitchell in 1784, and Pierre Le Plas in 1786.
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument, we all They reasoned that there was a critical radius

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 10
below which a massive body would have an There are lots of other examples in
escape velocity that exceeds the velocity of the history of physics that I have cut short.
light. And that body therefore would be But there are two morals I think to be drawn
invisible. And this idea was basically correct. from these examples. The first more obvious
But it did not reach theoretical maturity until one is that we frequently have to wait for
the arrival of Einstein’s general relativity in technology to catch up with the theory. Many
1916 and the discovery of what we now call theoretical predictions were not confirmed
the (inaudible) black hole solution. And this until the arrival of more sophisticated
solution was still not taken seriously even by hardware, more powerful telescopes or
Einstein. particle accelerators.
Some years pass and then in 1939, The second moral, harder perhaps to
Oppenheimer of Manhattan fame, and grasp but one of vital importance for this
Schneider showed that after burning up their evening’s debate. Is that it frequently takes a
nuclear fuel, sufficiently massive stars would long time for an original theoretical idea to
undergo gravitational collapse and form black mature to the stage where it can be cast into
holes. But even this work was largely ignored a smoking gun prediction, that they can test it
until the observational evidence for black holes experimentally.
started to accumulate in the 1970s. So I find Many confused critics of string theory
myself in disagreement with Lee when he says have declared that unless you’re making false
in his book, and I quote, “When you look back viable predictions, you are not doing science.
at the history of physics, one thing sticks out. Well, were Mitchell, Le Plas, Einstein,
When the right theory is finally proposed, it Padolski, Rosen, Oppenheimer, Schneider,
triumphs quickly. not therefore doing science? Well of course
Second example would be quantum they were. Their only problem is that they
entanglement. One of the strangest and the were ahead of their time.
most fascinating physical phenomena is So let me finally then return to the
quantum entanglement. The basic problem was book and why so many string theorists are
set forth in 1935 by Einstein, Padolski and upset about it.
Rosen who pointed out that there was a
conflict between quantum theory and local In the chapter ‘Seers versus
reality, or what Einstein called ‘spooky action Craftspeople’ Lee Smolin divided scientists
at a distance.’ But it wasn’t until 1964, that into two camps. There are the craftspeople
(inaudible) theorist John Bell came up with an who though competent at doing tedious
empirically falsifiable prediction. And it was not calculations, are merely unimaginative drones
until 1982 that experimentalist Alan ((Aspey?)) doing what others have told them to do. And
was able to conduct Bell’s suggested then there are the seers who have all the real
experiment. vision and creative genius. Needless to say
Lee consigns the entire string community to
He verified empirically by the way, that the dustbin of craftspeople. Page 287, “Why
quantum mechanics is right, Einstein was are string theorists not seers?” Page 290, “I
wrong. And local realism has to go out of the can think of no mainstream string theories to
window. us, proposed an original idea about the
So once again I find myself in foundations of quantum theory or the nature
disagreement with Lee when he says in his of time.” Page 287, “It does not take much
book, “Before the 1970s, theory and foresight or courage to think about strings.”
experiment had developed hand in hand.” New So when Nobel Laureates Murray
ideas were tested within a few years – ten at Gell-Mann, Abdus Salam, Stephen Weinberg,
most. David Gross, all gave up what they were
doing in order to study string theory. When

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 11
Fields medallist Michael Ateer and Edward your team is not by writing popular books,
Witten established deep connections between but by playing the game.
pure mathematics and string theory, and when And so it is in theoretical physics. The
Stephen Hawking devoted his latest book to battle for the correct theory will not be won
M-theory, they were all, according to Lee on the bookshelves of WH Smith. Nor even
Smolin, lacking foresight. in the debating chamber of the Royal Society
“So little fulfilment is exactly what you for the Arts. The battle will be won on the
get when a lot of highly trained master pages of the scholarly scientific journals or in
craftspeople try to do the work of the seer. their modern guise, on the electronic
Who then are the seers? It’s not Gell- archives on the internet.
Mann or Weinberg, Hawking. Well, Lee leaves The way to persuade your scientific
us in no doubt with a toe curling display of self- colleagues that you have a good theory that
aggrandisement, he announces, “I think of is worthy of support is to publish your
myself as a seer.” findings and present the most convincing case
To make matters worse, at the end of you can. If you don’t like string theory, the
his book, he devotes some time to condemning answer is simple. Come up with a better one.
racism and sexism and higher education. And The trouble with physics ladies and
when this is all mixed up with attacks on string gentlemen is that Lee Smolin and Peter Woit
theory, the reader is left with the impression having lost their case in the court of science,
that practically all the ails of society are to be are now trying desperately to win it in the
laid at the feet of string theory. court of popular opinion. Thank you.
How should one react to such a book? Professor Chris Isham: Well thank
My own reaction is best summed up by an you Mike. I had actually worried before we
analogy with football. Let’s suppose the started this meeting, it might be a little bit
manager of a football club, I don’t know, bland, everybody agreeing with each other. A
Watford were to write a book called The great mistake on my part.
Trouble with Football whose cover announces Now I have great pleasure in
that another club, let’s say Manchester United, introducing our next speaker who I think
are as a football team a colossal failure who are must have been smiling ironically to herself
dragging down the rest of football. Why? throughout these two talks. It is Professor
Because although those United players may be Nancy Cartwright, London School of
scoring all the goals, winning all the trophies, Economics. She works professionally in the
garnering generous sponsorship, they’re philosophy and sociology of science. And she
merely super fit craftspeople. All the players is surely better equipped than anybody to
with real vision and creative genius, the seers, comment on what’s going on here. Nancy.
are playing for Watford. And the reason why
most of the upcoming young talent wants to Professor Nancy Cartwright: Ah,
play for United rather than Watford is because thank you. Chris asked for a title and insisted
they’re deluded. How would such a book be he would make one up if I didn’t give it to
received? Well it might sell a few copies as a him. And then he didn’t like my title, so he
novelty item. Perhaps the Mail on Sunday would failed to tell it to you, which is: Physics is
endorse it because they never liked United conflict. And I’ll explain that.
anyway. But would it persuade discerning The trouble with physics, Lee Smolin
football fans? I think the answer is no for the tells us is the hegemony of string theory.
obvious reason. They would say that the only Young theorists he says, studying the most
way to get more people to support your club fundamental laws of nature cannot get a job
and fewer to support your rivals, and the only unless they join the string theory movement.
way to persuade young talented players to join And should they have a job, they cannot get

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 12
tenure. This was the unreasonable Lee Smolin, physics. We don’t know what the alternatives
as he was described. are, and any option to be a genuine option in
Those who believe in alternative physics, must be detailed. Must be worked
approaches are upgraded, even ridiculed by out. And that won’t happen unless physicists
those in the movement for being foolish, even are encouraged to work on alternatives. This
for being stupid. Alternative work is not argument of course rests on the assumption
discussed nor understood within the string that we don’t know what option is best.
camp. And for the most part, most of the Now according to Smolin, string
money as well as the bright ambitious young theorists often descent, they know string
theorists, go to string theory. theory is best. Indeed more than one of them
What’s wrong with that? Well, two (this is know is true) … more than once have
things Smolin tells us. First, we’ve just had the prophesised that the end of physics is in view
discussion of string theory is not all that it is with string theory.
touted to be – Smolin claims. Many of its Now we don’t need anymore
important punitive successes are promises, not experiments in living. We know how to live.
fact. Well now that’s a physics, and we’ve got a All we have to do is polish off a few details.
physics discussion going on … I was asked to Now in ordinary life, we have a name
supply philosophical context. And the second for this kind of attitude – hubris - and most
problem with physics that Smolin talks about is of us dislike it. Indeed, distrust it.
one which is right up the alley of philosophers, Philosophers of science have a complicated
something we work on all the time, and that’s name for a very simple argument as to why it
this that, even if string theory were all it’s is a bad idea in physics. The argument is
touted to be, this is no way to do physics. called ‘The pessimistic meta-induction’. And
Now philosophers with viewpoints like it’s this. Our all best, most successful, most
Smolin’s, argue that physics should be open, lovely basic theories in the past have been
there should be a variety of approaches. These shown to be wrong. Any good method of
are the truisms I think, but important truisms. reasoning from past to future tells us that our
It should be critical. The approaches should current best, most successful, most lovely
engage with each other’s advantages and basic theory will be wrong as well.
disadvantages. And it should be responsive. All Now I mentioned Mills “On Liberty”,
sides should be heard. Really heard. as a central source for the structure of an
Now why should physics be open, argument in favour of an open physics critical
critical and responsive? May be a truism but and responsive. Political theory provides a
we’re in the game of asking for explanations. model for yet another kind of argument for
So why should it be open, critical and the same conclusion. Mills pointed out that
responsive? we don’t know what the alternatives for a
The primary arguments among good or just life are.
philosophers are modelled on JS Mills Our The second argument points out that
Liberty. We need to allow as much liberty as even if we had all the alternative somehow
possible for people in designing their lives on the table in front of us, we have no good
because we don’t know what is the best way grounded criteria for choice among them.
to live. And that’s in part because we don’t Philosophers like Stuart Hampshire
know what are all the good alternatives to and Bernard Williams, philosophers who are
choose from. And the only way to get a full set sometimes labelled ‘The Oxford pessimists’
of options is to encourage experiments in argue that there is no well argued and well
living. To encourage people to go out and do evidenced theory of what constitutes justice
the hard detailed labour it takes to figure out a or the good life that can and should
genuine option for how to live. So too with

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 13
command responsible universal consent. There point in physics denying that they are decisive
is no universally acceptable substantive theory, universal criteria for theory choice.
of justice or morality. Mathematical insight matters, so they say, as
Now my title, ‘Physics is conflict’ is an does consistency. Matters a lot. And so does
echo of Hampshire’s title, ‘Justice is conflict’ in consistency – consistency with other theories
which he argues these points. And what and with certain intricate mathematical
Hampshire concludes is that at best, so we structures already in place.
have no substantive universally acceptable Now philosophers of science call
substantive of theory of justice and morality. features like these (and there’s a long list we
At best, what can be hoped for in its stead, are usually come up) empirical adequacy,
reasonable procedures for managing conflict. surprising successful prediction, physical
Which may include procedures for how to insight, consistency, simplicity, mathematical
choose, when choice is necessary, which is insight, etc etc. We call these features
often not the case. And how to live together epistemic virtues. The virtue part is
when it is not. suggestive. Like virtues of character, we
Philosophers of science have paralleled cannot be assured that they will all come
the ‘Oxford pessimists’ for the most part, together in one package. So that you’ll have
unwittingly. So we have these two bits of all the good virtues with one theory and
philosophy marching along, making very much none with the other. And where they don’t
structurally similar arguments without we have no assurance that there is a
recognising it. But philosophers of science have universally correct ranking among them. One
paralleled the use of the ‘Oxford pessimists’ in virtue more important than the other in all
a moral and political theory in arguing that cases. Nor a universally correct procedure
there is no substant of theory of what for weighing up various bundles.
constitutes the best theory that can and should Further, even had we a rule for how
command universal responsible assent. At best to weigh the virtues against one another,
what we can hope for are reasonable these virtues are all far too vague to be of
procedures for managing disagreement, serious help. If you really want to decide
procedures that tell us how to choose, when whether to go to graduate school and pursue
choice is necessary as for instance, in a certain kind of string theory or study with
constructing lasers for eye surgery where we Lee, the looking to see, you know, holding up
do well to choose quantum mechanics and not this list of empirical virtues and then saying,
rely just on Newton’s and Maxwell’s theories. well let’s see which of these two theories
So we want procedures that tell us how to does better. That’s going to be absolutely
choose when choice is necessary. But equally useless to you because the terms in the list
importantly, how to live together when you are so abstract and so vague.
don’t actually have to force a choice. And that So you could try to improve by
includes procedures for how to nurture introducing context specific virtues as Smolin
productive dissent and how to allocate scarce himself does when he … At the beginning of
resources among competing points of view. his book, he’s got five problems that he
Consider the disagreement between thinks any good fundamental theory now
Smolin and the string theorists about the should be solving, so that’s a context specific
substantive theory, of theory choice. Or at set of criteria for theory choice for how well
least as Smolin pictures it. Smolin demands that you’re doing on these very much more
acceptable theories produce new physical concrete things. Those include as we heard,
insights, not mathematical, but physical insights they have virtues such as the unification of
and new successful empirical predictions – old forces in particles, explaining dark matter and
(inaudible) demands. Many string theorists on cleaning up the foundations of quantum
his view, want to jettison these demands at this mechanics.

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 14
 Now these two though are too vague in particular that’s essential to Smolin and
to bite as witnessed by the different also to … unification. It’s so essential that
assessments. By Smolin versus string theorists Smolin doesn’t even defend it. In his book,
on the achievements and promise of string the unification is the name of the game. But
theory itself, on five problems. why? It is in no better state than any of the
So the lesson from that is that other so-called epistemic virtues when it
epistemic virtues don’t help us, don’t provide comes to claims to truth conduciveness.
for us a substantive theory of theory choice. Pessimistic meta-induction yet again, we have
zillions of failed attempts at unifications. Not
Well now, so far in talking about the ones that Lee’s interested in but when I
epistemic virtues I focused on the virtue-like studied physics, worked on a lot more
nature of epistemic virtues. But the epistemic practical things like quantum optics to see
is equally important to pessimism about how lasers worked. There were thousands of
substant of theories, of theory choice. failed attempts at unifications. And hosts of
Epistemic virtues should be knowledge previously successful unifications we have
conducive. And knowledge must be true or at now discarded. So pessimistic meta-induction
least true as we can get. So how can we defend shows that in the past unification hasn’t been
that these virtues are truth conducive. truth conducive – no reason to think it is
Smolin defends the one he stresses in a particularly in the future. And a handful of
production of physical insight and of new unifications that we still accept do not much
successful predictions. He defends those counter the weight for making the inductive
choices by an appeal to the history of science. argument.
Good theories have always done this before. Of course if you like unity … I myself
Pessimistic philosophers will cite in response, don’t. My aesthetic ideal is that of Gerard
the simple argument with a complicated name Manley Hopkins, Glory be to God for dappled
– the pessimistic meta-induction. We now take things. If you like unity, unification would be
most of our great theories of the past to be nice to have, if it’s there to be had. Well if
fundamentally mistaken. But we touted them as there’s a pot of gold in my garden, given my
great, just because they did so well in all the expensive tastes, it would be a good idea for
usual epistemic virtues. So epistemic virtue has me to start a digging campaign. But I am
shown itself not to be a good guide to truth. without very strong evidence that the gold is
We are then without a reliable, well there. I have just a wish and a prayer as well
grounded substantive theory, of theory choice. as an ungrounded belief that the world is
We have no account of what virtues a theory nice, in just the way I think of nice being. And
should have to justify accepting it. that’s based on a few pieces of good luck that
have gone my way.
In parallel with a case of justice and
morality, procedure then is the best we have So in light of that, probably I had
left. Procedures that can nurture new theories better not give up my day job at LSE to put
and can manage conflict. more effort into digging. But this is just what
the theoretical physics seems to me to be
If procedure is all we have left, then doing in this hunt for a unified fundamental
Smolin’s worry about the hegemony of string theory.
theory are all the more worrying if they’re
true. Physics must be open, critical and Now I am a great beneficiary of many
responsive if its theories are to have any claim advances in physics like laser surgery and
to rational acceptability. As in my title, physics, magnetic resonance. Advances that are made
good physics is conflict. at the sharp end where physics is really
messy, far from the nice mathematical 10 or
Now before closing, I would like to 11 dimensional spaces, where the unification
return briefly to epistemic virtues and to one projects live. And as a beneficiary of this

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 15
physics at the sharp end, I'm not happy entirely my summary, to summarise on the basis of
about the costs of digging for the grail of unity. page 191, “Of current results we cannot
As my daughters urge me, I would like to urge confidently assert the string theory solves the
physics, please don’t give up your day job. problem of quantum gravity. The evidence is
Professor Chris Isham: Well thank mixed. To a certain approximation, it does
you Nancy. I must say so far, the timing of the seem to consistently unify quantum theory
speakers is absolutely immaculate. Nice to be a and gravity and give sensible and finite
chairperson when this sort of thing happens. answers. But it is hard to decide if this is true
of the whole theory.
Now at this stage we’re supposed to be
going to questions from the floor, but I What we can say, skipping after some
thought that first perhaps, in light of some of more of such, is that within these limitations,
the comments that Mike made, it would be there is some good evidence that string
reasonable to ask the utterly ‘unreasonable Lee theory points to the existence of a consistent
Smolin to respond briefly to the refreshingly unification of gravity and quantum theory. But
reasonable Mike Duff’. is string theory itself that consistent,
unification? In the absence of a solution to
Professor Lee Smolin: Thank you, problems which were mentioned in the
and thank you Michael and Nancy. paragraph I skipped, it seems unlikely. It
I am the ‘reasonable Lee Smolin’ and seems to me this is balanced, measured and a
my book is a product of that person. result of the careful argument which weighs
the positives and the negatives and the pros
The ‘unreasonable’ Lee Smolin is a and the cons, and that’s the book that I
construction rather like Wikipedia by many wrote and that’s the book that has not always
people, journalists, some unfortunate been reviewed, but that I think serious
publicists, but not in the UK thank God. And I people should read and respond to. And as I
think also perhaps some people who would said, part of the intention of the book is to
prefer to reduce the argument of this book examine the role that disagreement and
because this book is structured on argument argument play in the processes of science. So
to caricature so it could be easily dismissed. I welcome strongly argument and
And it’s strange to have a book misread but let disagreement, but to the actual case made in
me give an example. As I’ve already mentioned the book.
this to Michael. What about me? I think of
myself as a would-be seer who fortunately was And I would like also to respond to
good enough at my craft to contribute Professor Cartwright’s remarks about
occasionally to problem solving. That’s very unification which I would hope to try to
different than what Michael quoted, page 311. explain why in spite of the good things she
said, I remain committed to the search for
And the cover copy that Michael unification. But that unfortunately, I don’t
quoted at the beginning was inconsistent with have time for, but I take those comments
the judgement of the book and was removed in seriously.
the UK edition. And therefore you will not find
it in the UK edition. I was not completely The landscape problem, there’s some
happy with either the journalism or the things that Mike Duff and I agree about. The
writings of publicists. But when one writes a landscape problem is a serious problem and it
serious book, and this is a serious book – it’s was the subject of my first book going back
not a popularisation. It’s an engagement in a now to 1997. We’re not here to debate that
crisis, one expects to be read seriously and but I'm glad people have caught up with the
responded to seriously. view that the landscape problem is a serious
problem.
I think for example, I don’t want to take
very much time, but if one reads for example,

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 16
 What you hear behind these, what’s discussion open to everybody. It doesn’t stop
really going on? What’s really going on I think the speakers having a go at each other if they
on reflection, which is discussed in this book, want, but you can join in now.
but I think even more so seeing the response Professor Michael Duff: May I just
and the discussions being carried out is, that quickly respond?
there really are different styles of approaching
difficult scientific questions. And Mike Duff Professor Chris Isham: Yes
objects to my distinction between seers and quickly.
craftspeople (inaudible) here between hill Professor Michael Duff: Your book
climbers and valley crossers. But it’s not Lee, has so many different versions and
disrespectful. And as I said, I see myself as a hill editions, it’s a bit like the (inaudible) universal
climber and a craftsperson. But I know who interpretation of quantum mechanics.
the seers are who are living now and I pay Because each time I criticise something you
attention to them. But I certainly don’t claim to wrote, you’ll tell me there’s some version or
be one. I certainly don’t disrespect the craft some edition where you didn’t write it! For
that most of us work on. But nonetheless, example, “I think of myself” the words, “I
there are different traditions. And I think think of myself as a seer” are here on page
what’s going on is that there is a tradition of 287 of the version that…
search for answers to foundational questions
which was dominant in the early part of the Professor Lee Smolin: On the
century of which Einstein and (inaudible) and proofs on which … if they did their job here,
(inaudible). and Heisenberg and others were there came a warning not to quote without
exponents of, which was closely informed by checking the final copy. These were the
the philosophical tradition. These people knew original American proofs and that was a
where they stood in that tradition of European mistake of the copy editor that was
philosophy and saw what they were doing with corrected and is not in the reading … The
respect to it. And there is then a more phrase as I read it, is the phrases I wrote it,
pragmatic tradition which took over when that and as appeared in all the published editions.
tradition failed, because that tradition did fail in And every time I review a book, I take heed
the 1930s because they got bogged down in so of the warning to check the final copy with
far, unresolved disputes about the meaning of the publisher before I quote directly.
quantum mechanics when there was real Professor Michael Duff: The other
science to be done by pushing quantum physics point I would just ... one final point I would
forward and a more pragmatic tradition took make is that the fact that some of the insults
over, epitomised by people like (inaudible) and have been taken out of the British edition
so forth. And pushed science forward and the may be cold comfort to the international
standard model of particle physics in all of the community.
great progress in cosmology is the result of
their work. And if I could put my view in one Professor Chris Isham: You see
sentence, both traditions are essential for the what fun it is that we have theoretical
progress of science. But the apparent difficulty physicists. Okay, let’s have some questions
of resolving the key foundational questions from the floor.
which Einstein left us over, now a full century Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
after their initiation or their discovery, tells me I'm very struck by the facts that the starting
that we need more of the kind of foundational point for both Michael and Lee in their
philosophical reflective thinking and searching overall view of what constitutes good
that that earlier tradition represented. practice in physics is a Popperian view of the
Professor Chris Isham: Thank you progress of science, of trying to falsify a
very much Lee. Okay so we’ll throw the theory against experiment. Lee’s underlying
argument is essentially you could say, string

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 17
theory has failed to make test experimental seers in your view, happen to go down the
predictions at this stage. And Michael’s right route and then 20 years down the line,
argument seems to be that it’s very young, it’s attract in a large number of craftspeople
early days, it took years if you look at … Like towards a view that may be right? This is
you gave the example of EPR and then the Alan according to your view. Whereas from string
(inaudible) experiments only taking place 40 theory point of view, it hardly matters if a lot
years after, 50 years after that. My question of people go towards … I mean, how is it a
therefore is for Nancy, this Popperian view of bad thing if a large number of young
how physics should be done from the physicists go towards a particular theory if 20
perspective of a philosopher of science is 50/60 or 30 years down the line, the right theory
years out of date. And I would just like Nancy will win in the end.
to comment upon that and how that impacts Professor Lee Smolin: It’s not a
upon this debate. bad thing and people should, including
Professor Nancy Cartwright: Thank students, should work on those things they
you. Well, I think it impacts very much in the think are more promising. The most
way I was trying to describe, falsifiability is in important thing we do as scientists is invest
the traditional list of epistemic virtues, our time towards directions where we think
different people put different things in and take are most promising and where we can have
them out. And I really do want to (a) currently an effect.
well-argued view is that none of the epistemic The only thing I believe is that the
virtues are epistemic or can be defended as evaluation of young people should be done
epistemic. And it’s not so much that on the basis of their individual merit. And I
Popperianism is 50 years out of date and then include in that their intellectual
there was Lakatosianism, then there was independence, their leadership, their ability to
(inaudible) and then there was Bayesianism and invent and follow their own research
so forth – it’s that we have this serious programmes without regard to whether they
problem of not being able to come up with a follow a research programme which is large,
grounded theory of theory choice. And pre existing or not, and I think that it’s not
Popperianism is just one in a sense, failure – a difficult. It’s a question … I agree with Nancy
careful, thoughtful failure. about the difficulty of theory choice but
Unidentified speaker: My question is nonetheless, these are issues that are easily
to Lee really. It’s about a point he raised recognised and dealt with and implemented.
regarding young students or young PhD Unidentified speaker: I don’t want
researchers, who might be embarking on their to add injury to insult, but I think that what
studies into physics. And one of the points he the trouble with this is that it’s (inaudible)
mentioned is that lots of young students are This is seriously misrepresented basically
possibly seduced by the glamour attached to (inaudible). There is this official view that basic
string theory and are being shifted or directed aim is to improve and basic method is to
towards string theory as he put it. Sorry to assess contributions to knowledge (inaudible).
paraphrase you but that’s the general And this is the problem with string theories
impression I get. (inaudible) that method of assessment and
Now at another level you also claim the other (inaudible). This view is really
that most physicists are craftspeople or hill nonsensical. (inaudible) the theories (inaudible)
climbers as you put it. And there is a very small are always unified theories, are more
number of seers or valley divers or whatever (inaudible) one could always concoct
you call them. And so my question is really, endlessly many horribly dis-unified theories
does it really matter if a large number of (inaudible) which never (inaudible) precisely
students are perhaps going towards string what they like (inaudible) of being unified.
theory which you view like a bad thing, if a few And what that means to me is that there is

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 18
this big interest by some (inaudible) but the suggest to you what the trouble with physics
universe is more or less unified. But it’s such is. When people first started to knock this
(inaudible). It’s true but considered. If one was out of atoms, I think about 1870 for about
more honest about the basic aims of this the next three decades, the assumption was
(inaudible) acknowledges a highly problematic that space and time are the same in an atom
metaphysical and (inaudible) sort of basis from as outside an atom. Also that everything
the developer basis, for objectively assessing inside an atom was like everything outside an
ideas (inaudible) before they reached the atom but smaller. That is space is space, time
possibility of them being pessimist (inaudible) . is time, particles are particles and waves are
Professor Chris Isham: So you’re waves. By the 1920s and 30s it had become
saying the trouble with physics is done by very obvious that space and time were very
physicists really, is it? different inside atoms and outside atoms, but
those facts have never been incorporated
Unidentified speaker: It’s swallowed into quantum theory. And I think if they
a (inaudible) is taken for granted. If time were, all the problems would disappear and
physicists adopted somewhat more Einstein relativity and quantum theory would unite
(inaudible). I mean one of the things that into one theory. I could tell you a lot more
Einstein (inaudible) about the universe is that about space and time…
(inaudible). I think that was actually quite basic.
He even said (inaudible) he couldn’t really Professor Chris Isham: Another
believe in (inaudible) . time!

Professor Chris Isham: Thank you. Unidentified speaker: But I'm not
Nancy, do you want to say something? prepared to monopolise Professor Smolin’s
time because he is trying to sell a book. But I
Professor Nancy Cartwright: I would be pleased to talk…
always welcome comments that point out that
unity is really a very important aim in physics Professor Lee Smolin: Not
and it is more … What actually happens is particularly. I'm trying to … This is serious.
more directed towards unification than I'm trying to have a discussion in the context
towards getting it right for just the reasons of the tradition if you like, of natural
that were just stated. And I find that philosophy of serious writing about issues
problematic, and the questioner has the and problems that science faces. And time
opposite … But it seems to me that it’s an and time again, when science has been at a
important point about the structure of how turning point, scientists have written in a way
physics is done. that the public could read, if you like, look
over our shoulders as we argue with each
Professor Michael Duff: Well I just other. But I'm engaged (and this is not
say thank God Maxwell didn’t question the publicity, this is not popularisation) and we all
need to unify electricity. Thank God Maxwell in our field are engaged in a discussion and
from the other century didn’t’ question the argument because we don’t know, we’re
need to unify electricity and magnetism when puzzled, we’re deeply puzzled by the turn
he did. Thank goodness that Weinberg, that our science has taken. And this book is
Sheldon Glashow didn’t stop to question one of half a dozen books to come out in the
whether they should unify the weakened last several years which engage this issue.
electromagnetic interactions. So I'm going to Others for example, are by Lisa Randall,
stick with the winning team. Lenny Susskind, Lawrence (inaudible). Peter
Unidentified speaker: There’s a Woit. There are still others coming by other
question implicit in the first clause of the title, people – Alex Lincoln. There is a beautiful
‘The trouble with physics’ and I would like very opportunity for the public to look over our
briefly to put a spanner in the works and shoulders as we debate the most puzzling

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 19
issues in our science. And that’s what this is. take on. And he said, “If more than 10% of
It’s a moving and ongoing debate. the companies we fund are still in business
Unidentified speaker: Question after five years, we’re not taking enough risk
mainly directed at Michael’s comments about and won’t be making as much money as we
the length of time that various developments could be if we took on more risk. And I'm
have taken to emerge. And I think you perfectly happy to say that a number of the
mentioned entanglement taking a long time. research programmes that I’ve contributed
When I was doing my PhD in particle physics, I to, the way that I envisioned they would
vaguely remember there’s probably one or work out are by now dead. And the young
perhaps two people working one entanglement people who carry them on are doing
which might explain why it took rather a long something which has different names and is
time for much progress to be made. My mate envisioned differently than what my friends
Mike Green used to tell me about this strange and I envisioned 20, 25 years ago. And what
thing he was working on called string theory I'm doing now is different. And I don’t mind
and I used to think, well he’s a bit mad working them calling those earlier things failures,
on that but there’s just him doing it and a probably even over exaggerating, because I
couple of his mates. I'm now professor of the think … I wish that when we report to the
business school and I have to look at Funding Councils, there was a place in the
investment proposals. I gather that there’s application for a new funding, for renewed
rather a lot of people working on string theory funding to say, explain how your previous
today. And I was intrigued by the comments ideas failed and what your new departures
that Michael made that, “Well, maybe we are. Another thing this venture capitalist told
won’t make progress this year or this decade me is that they don’t mind if they find
or beyond”. And I just wondered if you were somebody in their company fails. If it’s the
pitching to a politician, how many people and right person or the right mix of people,
how many years would you suggest the they’ll fund them again for a different idea.
Government funds this research before they But granting that they came back honestly
pull the plug on it? and said, “Our idea failed” whether it’s
biotech or software or something like that, if
Professor Michael Duff: Well the they honestly can be trusted to self evaluate
short answer would be, for as long as smart in a high risk situation, then they can be
physicists are working on it. But you raised a trusted again, after failure. And I wish that we
very good point. There are many more people had not perhaps all of science, but those of us
working on string theory than there were on who do this high risk payoff stuff that we had
these other subjects that you mentioned. But the kind of interaction with our funders that
so is the difficulty of the problem that they’re people in high tech business have with the
setting themselves. They’re not trying to venture capitalists.
explain just one tiny corner of physics. They
have a much more ambitious goal of an all- Professor Nancy Cartwright: I’d
embracing theory that will explain all physical like to see physics doing a bit more theory of
phenomena. And that’s not going to happen everything. Not a single theory of everything
overnight. Theories of everything don’t fall off but spreading the resources to do theories of
trees. So you were right, that there are many all the things that physics can profitably
more people working on it but I would say that address. And so I do worry about the
the challenge is also commensurable with it. resource allocation problem.

Professor Lee Smolin: I have found Professor Chris Isham: I’ve been
talking with people in investment, especially thinking, would you like to endow a chair and
high tech investment, very very instructive. (inaudible) a few more comments! See me
One venture capitalist I spoke with, I asked afterwards!
him how do you judge the degree of risk to

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 20
 Unidentified speaker: Going back to Professor Michael Duff: I think it
the analogy of the hills, the landscape with the isn’t true. In fact most … I think the simple
various heights of hills in it. I wonder if you fact is that it isn’t true. With the switching on
could correct me. I think I may have it wrong, of the large Hadron collider in Geneva, most
but I thought I understood that when you were of the jobs in the last year or so, or going
talking about evolution in biology, that nothing back a couple of years, are going actually to
went downhill in evolution, that you were particle physics phenomenologists. Perhaps
extinct if you tried to go downhill. But rightly so given that the machine to that can
evolution only went uphill. And I wonder if be switched on. They’re not going to string
that’s related at all (inaudible). It’s a waste of theorists particularly.
time trying to change scientists’ mind. You just Professor Lee Smolin: If I may,
have to wait for the old guards to die out. So because here we agree. What I precisely said
that’s how you get scientific revolution, you was nothing like that and wrote. What I
wait for the old guard to die out rather than precisely wrote was comparing people who
expect them to go downhill and up the other work on different approaches to the problem
side. of quantum gravity. And in that context, the
Professor Lee Smolin: I'm not an statement that might criticise me for – of the
expert in theoretical biology but I have studied only three positions, it was only three junior
it and I have had an excursion where I tried to faculty positions going to people working on
work in it. And one of the great problems in approaches to quantum gravity which are not
theoretical biology is, if you have a situation string theory in the United States since 1991.
where you’re trying to optimise some quantity And that’s a correct fact. One has to be
and it has many hills, what you would call many careful of exaggeration. It’s clear and I would
(inaudible) but only one optimum. How do you ask you really to try to quote me correctly.
find the optimum and how do you not get Michael is absolutely right and the journalist
trapped in the small hills? And to do that you that he quoted, I haven’t read that piece, but
have to go down and there’s a large literature if you quoted the journalist correctly, which I
by people like Stuart Kauffman but he’s only assume he did, that journalist has gotten a
one of a whole community of people, exactly wildly exaggerated claim from something that
trying to understand how a natural selection I formulated very precisely and very carefully.
… One can go down a little bit before going up And it’s very frustrating to try to write
again and I'm not an expert on it and I don’t something which is carefully worded and to
know if all of it is finished science, but you can have it over and over again being misquoted
find lively discussions of speciations and so by journalists … I should say the majority of
forth, exactly in the terms of going down journalists and reviewers have not misquoted
before you go up. the book, but a number have and it’s very
Professor Chris Isham: Okay thank frustrating when one is on very contested
you. Another question at the back. Oh! My ground where my colleagues and I, we have
PhD student who’s not a string theorist! as you see, very strong views and feelings.

Unidentified speaker: Hello. I would Unidentified speaker: (inaudible) I

like to address Michael Duff. In my opinion he should perhaps declare my bias because I am
failed to address the most important point of also a string theorist (inaudible). But the point
Lee’s book which is that regardless of the I would like to make is this. If you wish to
quality of their ideas, if a young scientist stimulate this kind of scientific debate, you
decides not to study string theory, they say that it is frustrating that the journalists
damage their career, plain and simple. I’d like take it on board and they misquote you and
to know what you think about that and how so forth. But there are structures in place in
you think, if that’s a good thing, whether you which you can have this debate. Okay, we
think that could be changed. have our (inaudible). We have peer-reviewed

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 21
journals. Three weeks ago I was in Athens and “Why are you here?” And I could multiply
I was speaking to somebody who knows no that endlessly, but I think that … So first of
English whatsoever, no theoretical physics all, I agree with your first point. And I was
whatsoever, but she knows the (inaudible) scrupulous that every issue, scientific issue in
string theorist. And she said to me, “is there the book was several years to a full year
not this man, his name is Smolin. He’s just before the finishing of the book, in the
written a book that’s disproved your theory. scientific literature so that I could take into
“Okay, sure you were misrepresented but if account the responses. In fact quite
you choose to write a book such as this, you deliberately, if you look at a few papers, they
bear the responsibility for the consequences of were designed to do that. And as far as the
it. question of responsibility is concerned,
Professor Lee Smolin: So if I may, there’s a long discussion of our relationship
because I think that is directed at me. Every to our friends, in journalism and so forth. My
substantial part, every part of the critique of sense, and I want to make myself clear, most
string theory as well as all the other science of the people who practice scientific
here, was presented in detail (inaudible) first on journalism do it very well and are very
the archive. And I'm happy to give you the scrupulous and are very aware of what’s
archive numbers later but they’re all going on. The reviews which have misquoted
referenced there. And some people did the book, which have been a minority of
respond. Where I work at Perimeter Institute them, have not been people whose speciality
where there are very good people across the was scientific journalism. I have nothing but
board in these different approaches, including the highest respect. Most people in scientific
string theory. We have lively friendly journalism do a very difficult job, carefully and
discussions. I think that the discussion has been scrupulously and well. One can speculate
going on inside the community. If I may about why, you know, these books have
however, I don’t think that enough of it goes gotten (because this is one of a number of
on. So for example, when we have conferences books) attention and that’s an interesting
in non-string quantum gravity, which we do conversation. But with respect, it’s not the
more or less annually, we make sure of two conversation that I would prefer to have. The
things. We make sure the different active conversation that I would prefer to have is
approaches are all represented, including string about the science and both, where to go as
theory. We always invite two string theorists, scientists, what to do, what do we believe,
at least, for a week programme. And we make why, formulate arguments, argue with each
sure that there’s always a critic, somebody other – that’s the discussion that I prefer to
who comes and whose role is to stand up and have and that’s the substantial part of the
tell us what we’re all doing wrong. discussion of the book. The secondary, the
framework that that’s put in is a discussion
These things are not the practice in the about the nature of science and how science
major string theory conferences. works. And that’s also an intellectual
Unidentified speaker: I agree. discussion which is nothing to do with
publicity. It’s an attempt, very humble
Professor Lee Smolin: Okay. And as attempt to make a contribution to the work
somebody who has worked both in string of people like Nancy Cartwright, that is, why
theory and not in string theory, it has been it is that science works and how.
extremely frustrating to be … You know,
because I’ve written some papers on Professor Chris Isham: We’ve
something which is not string theory, when I almost run out of time but somebody was
go to (it doesn’t always happen) as I’ve done a waving at me somewhere there, yeah. Just
number of times, to the annual String Theory one quick question please.
conferences, people will approach me and say,

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 22
 John Taylor: I think there’s a question that is either a deep insight into nature or it’s
here that I’d like to ask both Lee and Mike as a wrong turn. And indeed that issue of what
to the nature of (inaudible) virtue (inaudible). to do about unification through higher
From what I’ve heard, and what I did when I dimensions, and the geometry and the
worked in (inaudible) very many years ago, I got stability of the extra dimensions, has been in
the impression that string theory had a play since 1920/22/23 and I don’t have time
richness to it that came from the traditional to quote it, to find it. But I found some very
(inaudible) Einstein, through (inaudible) and so interesting letters by Einstein discussing these
on. It was a richness that doesn’t maybe, at issues already in the early 1920s. If you
least in my view, (inaudible) in what Lee was develop that same idea which I think is the
talking about, the (inaudible). And I'm deep idea behind string theory, in the
wondering if (inaudible) as to what they see and background, in dependent context, without
the true reasons that they’ve got young people the picture of strings moving in a classical
flowing into (inaudible). geometry, but taking the whole geometry,
Professor Chris Isham: Thank you quantum mechanically as the degrees of
John. Lee. freedom that arise out of the dynamics of
these extended objects and to the people –
Professor Lee Smolin: Thank you. excuse me for the slightly technical word,
Well, first of all, as Chris just said to me sort you get loop quantum gravity in (inaudible)
of (inaudible) unless you were going to say it … models, precisely on the nose. That’s what
Anyway, those of us who work on mostly they are.
things other than string theory foundational
approaches to quantum mechanics and So one possibility is that these are
quantum gravity, get plenty of student interest different … And this is what I advocated in
as well. So we don’t want to give the my second book, that string theory in loop
impression that somehow the student interest quantum gravity are merely different
is going only one way. We turn away most of manifestations, different ways with different
the student interest as I'm sure our friends in mathematical techniques to explore a
string theory do. fundamental and possibly deep and
fundamental idea which is the role of one
The richness of string theory, the idea dimensional objects, strings in the unification
of string theory, the basic idea of unification of physics.
through extended objects do, if I can speak a
technical word once, (inaudible) theories has Professor Chris Isham: Mike?
tremendous motivation and I think is true. My Professor Michael Duff: As Chris
judgment is probably true. That’s the core idea. mentioned at the beginning in the early 70s, I
For me, the disjunction between the was one of … Chris and I were
approaches that I'm willing to bet my time on contemporaries then, believe it or not. The
and those that I'm not, has to do with the issue great question then was how do you unify
of background independence that I mentioned. gravity and quantum mechanics. They seem
As a consequence of that, the attempt to work to be completely irreconcilable. And string
out that idea of duality, of gauge theories and theory came along and in our opinion and in
string theories in a background, in dependent the opinion of string theorists, has solved
context, leads us to the necessity of nine or that problem. And that cannot be
ten spatial dimensions and super symmetry. underestimated, that it’s incorporated the
Now that is either correct about nature or best of quantum theory and of Einstein’s
incorrect. That’s the big bet. And it leads to general relativity into one unified whole. And
tremendous richness because there are so in contrast to most of the alternative
many possibilities for treating the geometry theories, it not only does that but it provides
and the topology of the extra dimensions. And a way, we think, of explaining the structure of
the elementary particles. And it’s this

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 23
cohesion that I think impresses the young
minds and persuades them that their future lies
in string theory.
Professor Chris Isham: Well thank
you. I'm afraid we have to stop at this point.
One thing you may be thinking is how
incredibly lucky we are to be theoretical
physicists – enormous privilege actually. We’re
allowed to earn a modest income doing this
for our careers.
Anyway, I hope you’ve all enjoyed this
evening’s discussion. It’s certainly been lively.
And I’d like to thank all three of our speakers,
very much indeed for their contribution.
Matthew Taylor: There’s such a sort
of intellectual energy in the room and I'm going
to invite you all to go for a drink in a second,
so I thought how can I sort of lower the tone. I
thought a pathetic joke would come in handy,
so I was thinking of asking the question, can
you tell me what a string is. Because of course
the answer to that would be, ‘a frayed’ knot.
Sorry!
Tonight’s event forms part of the
world’s largest free nature programme. This
programme is made possible by the support of
our network of RSA Fellows. So those of you
who are here in London who are not yet
Fellows, you can make a donation as you go
out or possibly more importantly, you could
think about joining the RSA Fellowship. You
can pick up a pack. You can email us. Or you
can speak to any member of staff here this
evening.
But then finally, once again on your
behalf, I’d like to offer my formal thanks to the
panel. It’s been an absolutely fantastic
discussion, and to ask you to join me in
thanking them and our Chair this evening,
Professor Chris Isham.

RSA | The Trouble with Physics - The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next | 5th March 2007
Page 24