ETHICS REVISED
The Greatest Lie Told: String Theory and the problem with science communication
By Armen Poghosyan
You’re watching some science fiction movie about space pirates, and in the heat of the moment where they need to make a light year’s worth of jump, one of the crew members pokes a pencil through a piece of folded paper and says, “We can go THROUGH space!”. This hypothetical scenario is the overdramatization of the hypothetical object called the Einstein-Rosen bridge, otherwise known as a "wormhole.” Very similarly to how people love watching voodoo science stuff happen in movies, they also love hearing about sensational and groundbreaking theories, which urges science communicators to profit on this by making really bold statements about theories. This misinformation not only misrepresents the work of thousands of scientists, but it also takes the spotlight away from theories that might not sound so grandiose. This lack of communication can be seen in the most clear way in what is probably known as the biggest idea of the transitional period of physics, String Theory.
String Theory is only right within its conjecture. To give you an idea of what a “conjecture” is, it is a statement or theory within some assumed parameters. So it is nothing but a pretty formalism that aims to unify all of physics and the standard model under one umbrella. The reason why it’s wrong is simple: because it is not testable.² The String Theorists jumped ship on this great new idea in the 1970’s, after which it went through an extensive revision process. With each revision, it would seem that String Theory was able to now uniquely predict the workings of our universe and nature, and then something would collapse, like it would give us predictions of particles or forces that don’t exist in nature. With each revision, the string theorists would reassure the public that great things were ahead of our understanding of the nature of reality. This rhetoric is pushed by popular scientists and science communicators to the general public by telling exciting stories of the existence of the multiverse and extra dimensions. Or how there is a possibility for a person to exist on infinitely many earths and in infinitely many universes, each one different from the last. In short, it dramatizes physics with exciting and sensational phrases.
This is the problem: the general public was taken advantage of by people such as Brian Greene and Ed Witten (considered the smartest physicist of our generation) who have presented String Theory as an already well-established thing. Brian Greene actually wrote the introduction to the world-renowned book by Albert Einstein called “The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field” where he shamelessly plugged String Theory. In this version of the renowned book, which was published in 2014, Brian Greene made an effort to go through the timeline of physics and the discovery of relativity and its effects, in which he presents one of those effects as String Theory: “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics... Moreover, not only does superstring theory merge general relativity with quantum mechanics, but it also has the capacity to embrace—on an equal footing—the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force.”¹ These bold statements coupled with unnecessary jargon have not only enforced the lie that is String Theory, but they have taken away the public’s desire to listen to actual physics research with actual experimental data and, most importantly, experimental suggestions (which String Theory lacks heavily!).
Let us take a look at a video where one of the most prominent string theorists and science communicators to date, Dr. Michio Kaku, endows his wisdom unto us.
The GOD EQUATION?! Right off, Einstein never searched for the GOD EQUATION; he, just like everyone else, was trying to unite the different theories in such a way that gravity came out as a natural consequence. This didn’t happen, and most importantly, String Theory is neither the leading nor the only candidate for this idea.
As you saw, in a matter of 57 seconds, DR., PhD, GENIUS PHYSICIST, Michio Kaku, spewed a bunch of nonsense that had no sliver of truth in it, only sensationalism. But guess what? The other reporters who were taught in their fancy universities to always listen to the ethos will take these ideas and sprint with them. Oh, and sprint they do...
I don't even want to blame these reporters because they don’t know any better, just like the general public doesn't know any better. But all this only hinders the advancement and funding of actual science that might not be as groundbreaking and sensationalist.
In an effort to see what this debacle was like from an actual physicist’s standpoint who did experimental research, I talked to Vazgen Harutyunyan, a former PhD candidate who turned down academia for an engineering position at the National Instruments software and hardware company. In the long discussion of why he stopped researching, he brought up that “many of us who do research are simply interested in it, not for monetary reasons or being famous, but at times it’s like we can’t even get funding to cover the research, and if we do get funding, it is barely enough to sustain ourselves.”. When I asked why he thought this was the issue, he explained that “in my opinion, physics [has become an elitist field within the sciences], and if you are not part of an [elite organization], your ideas are essentially neglected.”³.
So not only is the work of Brian Greene and other pop scientist’s an unethical way to communicate with the public, but it has extended beyond that, and the consequences of these actions have infiltrated other physicist’s livelihoods, ESPECIALLY in countries where funding is already a problem to begin with.
Let me be clear: it isn’t that Brian Greene and his colleagues are bad scientists; far from it. But they are not good science communicators. It’s like you can be a good scientist, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you are a good teacher or communicator of science, and this applies to every single field.
Obviously, there is a problem; we don’t have a standard to which these science communicators can be held accountable. Oh! But here is the thing: we do have a standard; it’s just that it isn’t as sensational and easy to sell as it is to listen to how String Theory predicts the multiverse. One such standard is PBS Spacetime, a science channel that focuses on science communication in an exciting way without making sensationalist claims about the nature of reality.
These scientists have to stop preaching to the public as if they are not smart enough to understand scientific ideas. People are smart enough to deal with different concepts within their line of work, so what makes it different when it comes to physics? I concede to Vazgen’s opinion that physics has become an elitist field and that people with Dr. in front of their names just try to sound smart.
If someone cannot explain something in plain English, then we should question whether they really do themselves understand what they profess. If the person in question is communicating ostensibly to a non-specialist audience using specialist terms out of context, the first question on our lips should be: ‘Why?’ — Richard Feynman
Let us bring back effective science communication, the type that explains concepts without using unnecessary jargon or dumbed-down phrases. The type that doesn’t lie about the validity of theories and makes an effort to stay true to the work that has been done by hard-working physicists. Let us eradicate sensationalism and support every physicist’s effort to better our understanding of nature by learning about their work, however small it might seem.
Citations
- Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity. Princeton UP, 2014, books.google.ie/books?id=cw3rAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=meaning+of+relativity+Einstein&hl=&cd=3&source=gbs_api.
2.Smolin, Lee, and Professor Of Physics At The Center For Gravitional Physics And Geometry Lee Smolin. The Trouble With Physics. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006, books.google.ie/books?id=UVzdfHF_phIC&dq=Trouble+with+physics&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api.
3. Harutyunyan, Vazgen. Personal interview. 26 January 2024.
