Philosophy for our times

https://iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-string-theory?utm_source=YouTube&utm_medium=pinned+comment&utm_campaign=we-need-a-scientific-revolution-eric-weinstein

The trouble with string theory - Roger Penrose, Brian Greene, Tasneem Husain, Er.mp4

经典句子

whether it's time to move on from the dominance of string theory in our account of the universe

在描述自然方面，是否是时候摆脱站主导地位的弦理论的束缚了

I would suggest at the outset that the framing of the question suggests a radically incomplete understanding of how science actually works. I mean, I'm happy to engage in these kinds of discussions. I think they can be illuminating for the general public and they're enjoyable to have. So I have nothing against them. But the idea that we would sit here and pronounce how science should or should not move on from this or that idea misses the point of how science actually works. Science is an endeavor carried out by scientists who generally have an enormous amount of training, an enormous amount of experience like Roger and others in the discussion here. And the choice of what to work on by design is left to the individual, what they find interesting, what they find exciting. So people will continue to work on any given subject so long as it continues to bear fruit and give interesting results that inspire yet other avenues of research. And that's what's happened in string theory and that's why people have continued to work on it.

是否应该放弃弦理论问题的出发点本身就是对科学的误解。但是我很高兴参与此类讨论。我认为它们可以为公众带来启发，公众也愿意谈论这个话题。所以我拒绝这种讨论。但我们会坐在这里说科学应该或不应该有这个或那个想法，是不懂科学实际上是如何运作的。科学是由通常受过大量训练的和经验的科学家（像罗杰及其他人）进行的一项事业。设计做什么的选择权留给个人，他们发现什么有趣，他们觉得令人兴奋的事情。对于任何特定的主题，只要能继续取得有趣成果，人们就会继续研究，激发更多研究。这就是发生在弦理论中发生，这就是为什么人们继续研究弦理论的原因。

And when the theory and the ideas begin to dry up and they're no longer bearing fruit, then individuals will move on. And certainly some string theorists of the past have moved on to other ideas because they lost interest in this or that avenue of research and they do other things. And that I applaud. That's a wonderful way in which science can be rich and self-propelling in order that the endeavor of trying to understand the universe will continue. When it comes to string theory itself, where have we gotten? I think that's a conversation that we will continue to pursue in our discussion here. But briefly put in 30 seconds, string theory is the most potent and powerful approach that we have discovered as a species for blending general relativity and quantum mechanics. And putting these two pillars of scientific understanding together is vital to understand things like black holes and the Big Bang. And indeed string theory has made its greatest mark in understanding black holes. So is it something that is worthy of pursuit? I think the answer is yes. Obviously, thousands of others around the world think the answer is yes, but it's not for us to pronounce. It's for the marketplace of ideas to decide and scientists will vote with the most precious resource they have, which is their time. And so as long as scientists think that it's worthwhile to work on string theory, they will. And when they don't think it's worthwhile, they won't. That's about it.

当理论和想法开始枯竭并且不再结出果实时，人们就会停止在这上面花时间。当然，过去的一些弦理论家已经转向其他想法，因为他们对这种或那种研究途径失去了兴趣，转而做其他事情。我对此表示赞赏。这是科学能够丰富和自我推进的奇妙方式，这样尝试了解宇宙的努力才能继续下去。就弦理论而言，我们应该如何选择是需要继续探讨的话题。在 30 秒的时间里，我只能说弦理论是最有效、最有力的方法将广义相对论和量子力学融合在一起。将科学中的这两个支柱融合一起对于理解像黑洞和大爆炸之类的东西至关重要。事实上，弦理论在理解黑洞方面取得了巨大的成就。那么弦理论是值得追求的东西吗？我认为答案是肯定的。显然，世界各地成千上万的人认为答案是肯定的，但这个答案不是我们给出的，而是由思想市决定的，科学家们会用他们的时间来投票。因此，只要科学家认为研究弦理论是值得的，他们就会将要继续研究。当他们认为不值得时，他们就不会。就是这样。

I feel like I'm almost taking up where Brian left off in the sense that I do think science is a self-correcting mechanism, and especially for theoretical physics, when all you're doing is you're sitting down and writing these equations and thinking about things in your head. It's very hard to put that kind of work into something if there's no pull in it for you. So there has to be something that appeals to you. And to that point, I just want to say that one of the criticisms that leveled at string theory is that it was supposed to be the theory of everything and it hasn't turned out to be that. And it's had 40 years and we don't have this one coherent theory of everything. To which I say it's been 40 years and the theory is still talking to us. It's very hard to explain what it feels like when you're doing math and the equations are talking to you. The closest I can get to it is saying it's like you wrote the theory, you wrote the equations, but they have consequences that seem to have an intelligence of their own. It's like if you programmed a computer, you would expect it to do calculations much faster than you, much more efficiently than you, which is probably why you built it. But you don't expect it to have this innate intelligence that is different to yours. The thing with string theory is that we may have misinterpreted in the beginning how much work was required, but the theory is still telling us things. Yes, it's been four decades, but it's built a lot in that time. It's a very robust, consistent mathematical framework. And I think it's very easy to underestimate what a feat that is, because something this huge and just structurally coherent, it doesn't collapse in on itself, that in itself is something worth looking at. And string theory has led to many new ideas along the way. Sometimes I feel like we criticize it because it's still called string theory, but that may just be an accident of history. It's not a theory of only strings anymore. Is it a theory if it doesn't have testable predictions? But then again, we call atoms atoms. We know they're not indivisible. So maybe it's just called that as a historical accident. But whatever this framework is that's developing, it's giving us a lot still. And while the equations are still talking to you, I think it's very hard to stop listening. It's telling us a lot of things.

我继续布莱恩的话题。科学，尤其是论物理，有一种自我纠正机制，当你坐下来写下这些方程式并在头脑中思考事情。如果没有动力，你就很难投入这样的工作。所以一定有一些东西能吸引你这样做。对弦理论的批评之一它是一个试图统一一切事物的理论，但事实并非如此。40 年过去了，我们还没有一个连贯的万事万物的统一理论。40 年过去了，这个理论仍然在与我们对话。

当数学和方程式与你对话时，很难解释你的感觉。就像理论和方程其自身的智慧。这就像如果你对计算机进行编程，你会期望它的计算速度更快比你更有效率，这就是你建造它的原因。但你不会指望它拥有与你不同的先天智力。我们始可能误解研究弦理论需要付出多大的工作量，但理论至今仍然能告诉我们一些事情。是的，已经过去了四十年，但在这段时间里弦理论已经给出了很多结果。它是一个稳定、一致的数学框架人们很容易低估弦理论。弦理论太伟大了，且自洽，它不会坍塌，它本身就是某种东西值得一看。弦理论一路走来引发了许多新想法。有时我觉得我们批评它是因为它仍然被称为弦理论，但是也许只是历史的一个偶然。它不再只是一个弦的理论。如果没有可检验的预测，它还是一个理论吗？但话又说回来，我们称原子为原子。但是原子并不是不可分割的。所以称为弦理论也许这只是一个历史意外。但无论这个框架怎样发展，它还在给我们带来更很多东西。公式仍然在与你对话，你很难停止倾听，它告诉我们很多。

英汉对照 （机器翻译）

String theory, heralded as a potential theory of everything, has been dominant in theoretical

弦理论被誉为万有万物的潜在理论，在理论界一直占据主导地位。

physics for 30 years with more scientific papers arising from it than any other theory.

物理学研究了 30 年，由此产生的科学论文比任何其他理论都多。

But critics argue the theory has held undue influence and it is an error to pursue it.

但批评者认为，该理论产生了不应有的影响，追求它是错误的。

String theory proposes 11 dimensions and a vast landscape of possible universes without

弦理论提出了 11 个维度和广阔的可能宇宙景观，而无需

any evidence.

任何证据。

Moreover, a theory of everything has not been forthcoming and predictions of supersymmetry

此外，万有理论尚未出现，超对称性的预测

have not been confirmed.

尚未得到证实。

Is it time to move on from string theory and recognize that the search for supersymmetry

是时候放弃弦理论并认识到寻找超对称性

has failed and seek alternative accounts of the universe that are supported by observation

失败了并寻求由观测支持的宇宙替代解释

and experiment?

和实验？

More fundamentally, should we see mathematics without a connection to the physical world

更根本的是，我们是否应该将数学与物理世界联系起来？

as little more than fantasy?

只不过是幻想而已？

Or is the continued dominance of string theory justified by its potential to unify our understanding

或者说弦理论持续占据主导地位是因为它有统一我们理解的潜力吗？

of the universe once and for all?

宇宙一劳永逸吗？

So on to our speakers.

接下来是我们的演讲者。

Roger Penrose is a world-renowned mathematician and Nobel Laureate in physics.

罗杰·彭罗斯是世界著名数学家、诺贝尔物理学奖获得者。

He's best known for his work on general relativity and sharing the Wolf Prize for physics with

他最出名的是他在广义相对论方面的工作，并与以下人分享了沃尔夫物理学奖：

Stephen Hawking for his work on black holes.

斯蒂芬·霍金对黑洞的研究。

Eric Weinstein is an American podcast host, managing director of Teal Capital and a doctor

埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）是美国播客主持人、Teal Capital 董事总经理、医生

of mathematical physics.

数学物理学。

Brian Green on the screen here is a professor of mathematics and physics at the University

屏幕上的布莱恩·格林是该大学的数学和物理学教授

of Columbia.

哥伦比亚的。

He's famous for his groundbreaking discoveries in superstring theory.

他因其在超弦理论方面的突破性发现而闻名。

Tasneem Hussain is a theoretical physicist, writer, educator, and author of Only the Longest

塔斯尼姆·侯赛因 (Tasneem Hussain) 是一位理论物理学家、作家、教育家，也是《只有最长》一书的作者

Threads.

线程。

We're first going to start off with Roger, who's going to tell us about his kind of three-minute

我们首先从罗杰开始，他将向我们讲述他的三分钟

pitch on whether it's time to move on from the dominance of string theory in our account

讨论是否是时候摆脱弦理论在我们账户中的主导地位

of the universe.

宇宙的。

Well, I wasn't sure it was still dominant.

好吧，我不确定它是否仍然占主导地位。

When I first heard about it in, I guess, the early 1980s, I found it a very exciting idea.

当我第一次听说这个想法时，我想是在 20 世纪 80 年代初，我发现这是一个非常令人兴奋的想法。

It looks as though you could use these sort of, well, these surfaces, Riemann surfaces,

看起来你可以使用这些曲面，黎曼曲面，

as a replacement for things like Feynman diagrams in talking about quantum field theory.

作为谈论量子场论时费曼图之类的东西的替代品。

And it looked very like an exciting idea to me.

对我来说，这看起来是一个令人兴奋的想法。

But then it rapidly became, well, if the story was, and I didn't understand it well enough

但后来它很快就变成了，好吧，如果这个故事是的话，我还不太理解它

to see why it had to be like this, that it only worked originally in 26 dimensions.

看看为什么它必须是这样的，它最初只能在 26 维中工作。

So it meant that space had 25 dimensions and time had one dimension.

所以这意味着空间有 25 个维度，而时间只有一维。

My reaction was, OK, well, that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned, because space

我的反应是，好吧，就我而言，这就是结束，因为空间

doesn't have that many dimensions.

没有那么多维度。

Of course, I understood that the idea somehow that several of these dimensions are tied

当然，我理解这个想法在某种程度上是这些维度中的几个维度是相互联系的

up into little knots and things like this.

变成小结之类的东西。

But it just never struck me that this worked, because, well, the argument was somehow you

但我从来没有想到这会起作用，因为，好吧，争论的焦点是你

could never excite the degrees of freedom which are involved in these tiny little extra

永远无法激发这些微小额外的自由度

dimensions.

方面。

It just didn't seem to me that was correct, because even though it would take a lot of

在我看来这是不正确的，因为即使这需要很多时间

energy to excite these degrees of freedom, that amount of energy was as far as the whole

激发这些自由度的能量，该能量的量与整个自由度一样

universe was concerned.

宇宙很关心。

You don't just do it locally.

您不只是在本地进行。

It would affect the whole universe.

它将影响整个宇宙。

And the amount of energy that here over the whole universe, which amounts to, say, a Planck

整个宇宙的能量，相当于普朗克

scale energy, which is the sort of thing they were talking about, is ridiculously small.

他们所说的尺度能量小得离谱。

So I didn't see why you wouldn't notice that the number of space dimensions was wrong.

所以我不明白为什么你不会注意到空间维度的数量是错误的。

I just never took it seriously for that reason.

因为这个原因我从来没有认真对待过它。

But then it became very much an in thing.

但后来它变得非常流行。

And so I had to pay some attention to it and make critical remarks, which are probably

所以我不得不对此给予一些关注并发表批评性的言论，这可能是

too naive, I expect, in my various books.

我想，在我的各种书中，这都太天真了。

But I've never been a fan of the idea.

但我从来不喜欢这个想法。

As I said, initially I thought it was a very beautiful idea.

正如我所说，最初我认为这是一个非常美好的想法。

But since it seemed to require all these unreasonable extra degrees of freedom, it's not just extra

但由于它似乎需要所有这些不合理的额外自由度，所以它不仅仅是额外的

dimensions.

方面。

There's all this stuff which you can't get hold of and doesn't affect the physics.

这些东西你无法掌握，也不会影响物理。

So it didn't make too much sense to me, I'm afraid.

所以恐怕这对我来说没有太大意义。

The trouble with string theory .docx