Skip to main content

The best theoretical physics from the last 30 years?

Image by Thomas T from Unsplash
I recently reviewed a book called Fantastic Numbers and Where to Find Them by Antonio Padilla. In my review, I was dubious about the way that Dr Padillia referred to the highly speculative holographic principle as 'the holographic truth'.

Something many publishers drum into their authors is that it is not a good idea to respond to reviews. If anything, it can reinforce any negative comments in the review. But Dr Padilla replied on Twitter 'thanks for your thoughts. You may be interested to see this perspective on importance of the holographic principle, which obviously I share.’ He then quotes Caltech physicist John Preskill, who had tweeted: ‘Someone asked: What are the most important ideas in physics over the past 30 years? Three immediately came to mind: The holographic principle, topological order, quantum error correction.’

Now, this seemed to me to be a depressing statement if true. What we've got with those three is firstly a principle that is largely self-referential maths that has no current way of being tested. Then there's something quite interesting if not giving huge insights or new experimental directions, but that actually predates the last thirty years. And finally there's a very important and useful mechanism that is an important contribution to physics-based engineering - but can it really be so significant in the annals of theoretical physics?

Bear in mind the last thirty years has seen a whole host of experimental breakthroughs, from the detection of the Higgs boson to gravitational waves. Could it be that major developments in theoretical physics have been so sparse? I asked theoretical physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder whether she agreed with those three ideas. She pointed out that one problem is that many scientists measure the importance of an idea by the number of people who work on it or the number of papers that have been written about it.

This clearly isn't a useful measure of the significance of a piece of theory. After all, vast numbers of people have worked on theories such as string/M theory which seem to have run out of steam. Similarly, many papers have been written on the existence of dark matter, which has as a theory been tested by large numbers of experiments that have failed to detect it - increasingly it seems likely that alternative theories, such as variants of modified gravity, have more potential. 

Dr Hossenfelder highlights two potential big developments in relatively recent theory - topological phases of matter and phase transitions (see the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2016 for more detail) and chaos control, which she noted was highly valuable both in robotics and nuclear fusion. 

Of course any attempt to do a 'best of' list is subjective - and that wasn't my aim here. Relying on either number of papers produced or an individual's hits list is not a good way to give support to a theory. I may be biassed, but for me theories can only be considered to have proved their worth once they can be directly supported by experiment or observation. For the moment, I'd suggest, the holographic principle remains a mathematical curiosity rather than truly valuable physics.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou