Nyt: Randall Reviews Rovelli's Oversalted Book

Lisa Randall has argued inwards her review inwards The New York Times that

A Physicist’s Crash Course inwards Unpeeling the Universe

that reality isn't ever what it seems to those who read Carlo Rovelli's book, Reality Is Not What It Seems, a pop text that was successful inwards Europe, translated to English, together with that I discussed inwards January.

Randall says that the best pop books pick out something both to the beginners every bit good every bit the readers who already know something. However, Rovelli alone chose the audiences without whatever physics background together with adjusted his writing appropriately. He nicely communicated the grandiose revolutionary changes that took house inwards the recent century or so. Because of the adjustments together with other things, the outcome isn't great.




The master copy problem amongst the book, every bit Randall sees it, may live divided to several overlapping bullets:

1. Mistakes inwards established physics
2. Presenting some claims that are considered highly controversial fifty-fifty inside the controversial loop quantum gravity community every bit facts – to a greater extent than generally, the failure to classify scientific discipline together with speculation
3. Romanticization of physics – besides much verse inwards which the precision is beingness lost, together with it's hence analogous to an oversalted food
4. Inability to come across that centuries or millenniums ago, thinkers had unlike ideas (and fifty-fifty questions) than top 20th century physicists
5. Rovelli's implicit together with sometimes explicit claims that the same ingredients guarantee the same thing – his refusal to come across that the way how the ingredients are arranged is really the nub of physics

I recall it makes feel for Randall to receive got found at to the lowest degree i instance of Rovelli's lousy fact-checking together with she did succeed.




At some point, Rovelli discussed the large divergence betwixt the huge size of the Universe together with the tiny key length scale:

It is only about 10120 times greater than the Planck length, a number of times that is given past times a i followed past times 120 zeros. Between the Planck scale together with the cosmological one, then, at that spot is the mind-blowing separation of 120 orders of magnitude. Huge.

First, the web-based New York Times write 10120 together with 1060 instead of 10¹²⁰ together with 10⁶⁰. Many other newspapers receive got the same problem. It may live only a pathetic text conversion but the mistakes could receive got arisen because the journalists don't really empathize the concept of a might – or at to the lowest degree they believe that the exponent can't live greater than roughly 2 or three.

But let's focus on the Rovelli-vs-Randall issues here. Rovelli repeats that the size divergence is huge together with mind-blowing etc. together with to brand sure that you lot hear, he repeats that at that spot are 120 orders of magnitude betwixt the 2 scales at to the lowest degree thrice. The alone work is that at that spot are alone lx orders of magnitude inwards between,\[

R_{\rm universe} \sim 10^{60} \ell_{\rm Planck}.

\] You may acquire 10¹²⁰ if you lot foursquare this ratio – so the Planck together with cosmic-horizon areas receive got this ratio. Because of the proportionality of expanse together with entropy inwards quantum gravity, it also follows that the de Sitter entropy of the visible Universe is virtually 10¹²⁰. But Rovelli unambiguously talked virtually lengths together with his ratio is incorrect past times lx orders of magnitude. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 huge mistake. There's a feel inwards which the error is modest because none of the readers volition ever practise whatever calculation that would depend on whatever such number – so they only don't care.

Concerning the non-separation of speculations together with facts, Randall mentions Rovelli's declaration that the Big Bounce – a pre-Big-Bang shrinking of the Universe followed past times the Big Bang – follows from loop quantum gravity. This is presented every bit a fact. But the justification of this declaration is alone found inwards several vague speculative loop quantum gravity papers together with the percent of the people inwards loop quantum gravity who believe that the Big Bounce existed is similarly low. So it's bad that Rovelli sells these speculations if non pseudoscience every bit scientific discipline that is almost on par amongst full general relativity.

You know, I receive got read belike all Lisa's pop books earlier they were published together with I would maintain on annoying her if she wrote e.g. that "dinosaurs were killed past times a nighttime thing disk" every bit it were a declaration on par amongst some confirmed predictions of GR etc. (And similarly amongst warper extra dimensions together with other things.) The weakening of some statements may acquire far harder to sell millions of copies of a majority but it's even so critical if the author wants to save his or her picture every bit an honest scientist.

Randall comments that loop quantum gravity doesn't fifty-fifty overstep the try of explaining some ordinary gravitational phenomena. Even if it predicted something similar the Big Bounce, it would live rattling probable a prediction for a "completely unlike Universe", i that is inhospitable to life if non inconsistent. Just to live sure, Rovelli completely ignores string theory together with all related enquiry of quantum gravity that is some 10⁶⁰ times to a greater extent than justified together with solid than loop quantum gravity (and he would write the ratio every bit 10¹²⁰ if he weren't applying double standards).

Lisa thinks that Rovelli's majority is intellectually oversalted much similar nutrient inwards P.F. Chang's (I gauge that this metaphor should also live understood every bit Lisa's non so neat human relationship to the Asians LOL) – or similar nutrient of cooks who are smokers who tend to add together besides much tabular array salt for that ground (I gauge that smoking reduces your sensitivity to tastes). Note that she has previously mentioned that the text is also peppered amongst Einstein, Newton, Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, Galileo, Dante, together with Lucretius. So it makes feel to say that the nutrient is both oversalted together with overpeppered.

The large operate that these ancient thinkers together with writers play inwards the majority was clearly virtually every bit provoking for Lisa every bit it was for me. Ancient Greek or renaissance thinkers could receive got had large goals together with they could verbalize virtually some of the same objects every bit modern physicists together with some of the same most full general ideas that survived, but all the details how these ingredients were organized were completely unlike than e.g. inwards Einstein's papers. The lastly theory, similar soufflé or full general relativity, isn't the same every bit a generic mixture of the ingredients, similar egg together with flour.

The way how you lot process together with organize together with connect all the dots is really fifty-fifty much to a greater extent than of import inwards physics than it is inwards the kitchen. Rovelli's presentation of the ancient writers' thoughts every bit "being the same" every bit the ideas discovered past times Einstein is only pure demagogy. There is nada equivalent betwixt the two. It's really empty-headed to combine them into i majority because the progress has been long together with deep. Most of the ideas solved past times modern physicists at some 2d would alone live comprehensible to their colleagues who alive a few years or at most a few decades earlier them. It agency together with doesn't hateful that physics isn't solving "eternal problems". They're eternal except that centuries or millenniums ago, no human was able to fifty-fifty formulate most of these problems.

In effect, Rovelli is selling newly created kitsch (more precisely, a thousand-dollar couture adorned amongst beads together with feather) every bit if it were an actual object amongst truthful cultural together with historical relevance, Lisa crisply writes.

You know, at that spot are 2 completely unlike reasons why some people's ideas are considered "worth studying" today. Texts past times ancient philosophers are of import together with valuable because they came from the times when the top-level thinking was alone done past times a modest number of people, the number of intelligent texts is modest together with they're hence precious, together with inwards some way, these people's thoughts may live considered ancestors of many later on ideas inwards a tree of intellectual together with cultural evolution. We oft similar to worship our history, roots of our culture, together with ancestors together with that's really why most of these things proceed to live valuable. It's the importance rooted inwards humanities.

But theories inwards modern physics – including Einstein's theories etc. – are of import for a different, scientific reasons. We even so really accept many of these ideas rattling seriously. They're operating inside the engines nosotros even so exercise for driving. So they're of import because they're even so competitive. They work. The positive evaluation has nada to practise amongst humanities: it is all virtually the natural science, the logic, the cohesion of the arguments amongst themselves together with amongst the empirical data. It's only incorrect to confuse the "importance because of humanities together with history" together with "importance due to the scientific meritocracy" together with Rovelli is confusing them all the time. One could say that the whole concept of his majority – together with his life-long approach to popularization of scientific discipline – is mainly built on this confusion.

The lastly betoken – the whole is to a greater extent than than the total of the parts – was already discussed. But Lisa adds that the beauty of physics really hides inwards its precise statements. One tin alone live genuinely excited every bit a physicist – fifty-fifty excited virtually some uncomplicated or old finding of physics – if she formulates together with verifies some statements or patterns amongst a really high precision. If something "works" fifty-fifty at the verbal score without the appropriate, nearly professionally mathematical, precision, together with so it is only non physics.

So the destination to pick out the beauty of physics to millions of the laymen is noble, Randall praises Rovelli, but the destination would live amend served if Rovelli were to a greater extent than careful. I receive got serious doubts whether whatever of the genuinely set readers of such pop if non populist books – who avoid proper textbooks etc. – learns anything virtually the actual physics. The details together with precision are rattling of import inwards physics so if i is excited virtually something that boils downwards to ambitious words or links amongst the ancient thinkers, it's almost for sure not the same ground that makes physicists thrilled when they uncovering (or at to the lowest degree understand) some thought explaining the working of Nature.

Physics ultimately depends on the residue together with neverending grapple betwixt the hot together with ambitious, philosophically together with sometimes religiously sounding, speculations together with the mutual depression temperature difficult information that cruelly filter all the ideas. Populist books on physics – together with books linking physics to ancient philosophers, religions, together with other parts of humanities together with other human emotions – alone sell the former. There's only no tough challenger inwards betwixt the ideas, no precise tests that verify the predictions of a theory etc. So people next this "big mouth" schoolhouse aren't really doing physics together with they're non excited past times the same things every bit physicists because physicists are alone excited when some details are really found to work. Books they read may sometimes exercise some physical terminology but they're books inwards the humanities together with that's the instance of Rovelli's book, too.

Rovelli posted a response to Randall's review. I volition alone bring upwardly that it's a full-blown crackpot's rant based on obfuscation, advertizement hominem attacks, together with conspiracy theories, together with I won't accolade it amongst a longer reply.