Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray by Sabine Hossenfelder

Feb 11, 2018 Manny rated it really liked it

Recommends it for: Anyone who wants to know how science really works

Shelves: science, linguistics-and-philosophy, well-i-think-its-funny, received-free-copy

Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist, and she's pretty mad about the way her subject has gone over the last thirty years. She's written this book to tell you why she's mad, and what she's done to try and find out what went wrong. She's talked with a bunch of people, some of them major stars of the physics world. She's asked them questions and she reports their answers. Somehow, even though a fair amount of it is near-incomprehensible physics-speak, she makes it cool and funny. She's Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist, and she's pretty mad about the way her subject has gone over the last thirty years. She's written this book to tell you why she's mad, and what she's done to try and find out what went wrong. She's talked with a bunch of people, some of them major stars of the physics world. She's asked them questions and she reports their answers. Somehow, even though a fair amount of it is near-incomprehensible physics-speak, she makes it cool and funny. She's got a great voice, laid back and detached and deadpan. She reminds me a little bit of Jessica Chastain in Molly's Game. Jessica's talking about poker and Sabine's talking about physics, but the two subjects aren't as far apart as you first think. When you come down to it, they're both high-stakes gambling games.

Physics is on a losing streak. It went all-in with the Large Hadron Collider and bet fifteen billion dollars that it would find supersymmetric particles. (The Higgs was just the consolation prize; Sabine says that was pretty much a given). Most of the experts thought the supersymmetric particles were there, but they didn't show up. Physics tossed in a few billion more to upgrade the LHC to higher energies, and there were still no supersymmetric particles. Now it's sitting hunched over its cards as dawn begins to break, wondering what it's going to say to its wife.

The problem is that the stakes have gotten so high that the physics gambling syndicate can only afford to play a few hands. Most of the time, it has to fold. It needs to be very careful about the hands it does choose to play, the ideas that involve setting up a real experiment. They have an army of experts, the theoreticians, whose job it is to give them advice on which experiments might be worthwhile; Sabine is one of those experts. It's a frustrating life. Usually, you know you're developing an idea which will never be tested. In practice, the theoreticians now present their work mostly to each other. They judge it by aesthetic standards, and fashion also plays a large role. Fundamental physics has entered a decadent period.

The theoreticians deny that anything is wrong. Mathematical beauty is very important, they say. It's our only real guide to what distinguishes a promising theory from an unpromising one. Supersymmetry was so beautiful that it had to be true; Nature has so far refused to agree, but maybe they just need to build a larger collider. In contrast, the Standard Model, which is universally agreed to be hideously ugly, irritates the hell out of everyone by passing all the experimental tests they can throw at it. It is in fact rather confusing when you write it down.

Sabine is suspicious about the cult of beauty. She upsets theoreticians when she suggests that it might not be scientific to work this way. She points out that many ideas now considered brilliant and beautiful were called monstrosities when they first appeared. (Quantum mechanics was a bit of an ugly duckling). She thinks scientists should read more philosophy and sociology, and try to understand their real motivations. In case you're in any doubt, she gives plenty of details about just what isn't working. She tells you where the bodies are buried, with little sketch maps and instructions on how deep to dig. She says people tried to talk her out of writing Lost in Math, and that now she'll never get tenure.

It's pretty interesting to see someone telling the truth, and you realise how seldom that happens. I just couldn't put this book down. ...more

flag 218 likes · Like · see review

Jun 23, 2018 Manuel Antão rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2018

If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review.

Implausifiability in Physics: “Lost in Math - How Beauty Leads Physics Astray” by Sabine Hossenfelder

“The time it takes to test a new fundamental law of nature can be longer than a scientist’s career. This forces theorists to draw upon criteria other than empirical adequacy to decide which research avenues to pursue. Aesthetic appeal is one of them. In our search for new ideas, beauty plays many roles. It’s a guide, a reward, a ...more

flag 105 likes · Like · see review

Jun 23, 2018 Peter Tillman rated it it was amazing

Shelves: reread-list, sci-tech, favorites, at-bg-pa, friend-recos

I have no way to judge Dr. Hossenfelder’s qualifications as a theoretical physicist, but I can say up front, she’s one hell of a writer.

I have a bunch of notes, but you know what? If you just want a straight review, go to Steven Woit’s, linked below. My first impressions: theoretical physicists are supposed to come up with stuff that can be tested by experiment. If you can’t test the idea, or if it flunks the test, you move on (see Feynman). Physicists have been working away for *30 years* to I have no way to judge Dr. Hossenfelder’s qualifications as a theoretical physicist, but I can say up front, she’s one hell of a writer.

I have a bunch of notes, but you know what? If you just want a straight review, go to Steven Woit’s, linked below. My first impressions: theoretical physicists are supposed to come up with stuff that can be tested by experiment. If you can’t test the idea, or if it flunks the test, you move on (see Feynman). Physicists have been working away for *30 years* to try to improve the Standard Model. Basically, no recent progress. This should be a hint to the physics community. Instead, they’ve doubled down on untestable stuff like String Theory, that, to some physicists’ eyes, is beautiful.

But: “Who gives a fuck what you like or dislike? Nature doesn’t care”— this is hotshot physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Ar... , in a pungent interview with the author. Unlike the author, he’s a tenured physicist at Princeton, and says he’s found his dream job.

My outsider thoughts: just about all the physicists Hossenfelder talked to *hate* the Standard Model, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar..., mostly because it’s “ugly”, and incomplete. Well, so what? It works, and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? It’s not like there isn’t plenty of other cool stuff for physicists to work on. Such as, current physics only accounts for maybe 5% of the known universe. Dark Energy (68%) and Dark Matter (27%) supposedly are the rest, and we have NO CLUE what they are made of! C’mon, girls and boys, Nobel Prizes await you….

Hossenfelder has written a breezy catch-up text for modern physics, well suited for people like me, whose formal exposure to physics ended decades ago. And I can *almost* understand most of the stuff she’s talking about. This is a Big Deal, and very rare in popular science books. So, read it for that, and her cool interviews with top physicists, and her pungent remarks about her chosen field. I wish her well. It must get *really old* to be an eternal postdoc, which is how she’s spent the last 15 years. She has a new appointment now, but it's another short-term contract. She says she'll be fine when that runs out, https://backreaction.blogspot.com/201.... Go, Sabine!

Here’s a good, long, detailed review of the book by Peter Woit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit , a theoretical physicist who is also critical of String Theory. This is the review to read first. Woit says, “you should get the book and read the whole thing” Indeed.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wo...
Lots of links, too.

And here's a Reading Strategy for non-technical readers:
1. Read the first and last chapters
2. Read her end-of-chapter summaries for the rest.
3. Read the interviews! Some of the best stuff is here. Previews at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wo... Steven Weinberg!
4. Don't worry about the rest. ...more

flag 64 likes · Like · see review

Jan 10, 2019 Tara rated it really liked it

Shelves: stem-shelf-research

A quick summary of the book’s contents: Many physicists these days are inclined to believe that beautiful, elegant theories are the only ones truly worth pursuing. Hossenfelder argues that this is the main reason why there hasn’t been a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for over 40 years. She asserts that this often debilitating aesthetic criteria has become a rigidly adhered-to dogma, and that physicists are in fact beating themselves soundly with their own outworn yardstick. She A quick summary of the book’s contents: Many physicists these days are inclined to believe that beautiful, elegant theories are the only ones truly worth pursuing. Hossenfelder argues that this is the main reason why there hasn’t been a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for over 40 years. She asserts that this often debilitating aesthetic criteria has become a rigidly adhered-to dogma, and that physicists are in fact beating themselves soundly with their own outworn yardstick. She contends that this bias now interferes heavily with objectivity, which, believe it or not, is kind of an essential ingredient to any scientific discipline. This thought-provoking analysis of the limitations of beauty as a guideline is presented alongside several intriguing interviews of current physicists, which are interspersed throughout the text.

Topics examined in depth, or else merely touched on, poked fun at, ogled lasciviously (hey, physics can be pretty sexy!), or otherwise brought to the reader’s attention, include: a brief history of physics, the standard model of particle physics, supersymmetry, the notion of “naturalness,” string theory, the multiverse, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, grand unification, and issues with the basic structure and methodology of the scientific community which unfortunately tend to discourage innovation.

Pros: I agree wholeheartedly with her main thesis, which is essentially that dogma has no absolutely place in science, and that scientists should be wary of biases which may be coloring their perspective and influencing their methodology. (This is obviously a gross oversimplification of her case, and I would urge anyone interested in her exact arguments and supporting evidence, to read the book themselves. While it isn’t terribly long, it is terribly illuminating and informative.) Also, the interviews were quite fascinating; it was very helpful to hear what various big names in physics had to say on the matter at hand. And lastly, I couldn’t help but enjoy her snarky sense of humor. The book is full of unexpectedly sarcastic remarks, and I found this undeniably refreshing. For instance, here is her (humorous) rationale for studying history:

“While I was in school I hated history, but since then I have come to recognize the usefulness of quoting dead people to support my convictions.”

Very cute.

Cons: At times, it was a bit repetitive, and could have benefited from more rigorous editing and tighter overall organization. It is also heavier on Philosophy of Science than I was expecting it to be, though this is clearly a subjective preference—perhaps you’re a fervid devourer of that kind of thing, in which case the abundance of philosophical material will instead constitute a distinct advantage.

Bottom line: I am not a theoretical physicist, so I can’t really directly address any of the higher level physics Hossenfelder critiques. I will instead content myself here with reiterating what I thought was the strongest aspect of her principal argument: Dogma can be positively insidious. It can creep into areas, such as theoretical physics, you wouldn’t think would stand for it. The most important thing you can do is to be ever vigilant that your own thinking doesn’t become twisted, caged, or otherwise hindered by anything of that sort. Clearly, this is a truth applicable not only to modern physics, but to any field of science, and, more importantly, to life in general. Lost in Math serves as a powerful reminder of this fact, and furthermore discusses quite a few strange and interesting facets of modern physics along the way. As such, it packs a considerable punch, and is well worth reading. ...more

flag 55 likes · Like · see review

Aug 13, 2019 Jean rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, science, audio-book, physics

Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist. This is her first book written for the lay audience. The author is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany. The book is about the abuse of mathematics while pretending to do science. The book is a series of interviews with well-known physicists. She builds a case of how science fails to self-correct itself and set about proving a theory. Hossenfelder does some critical thinking that she outlines in the book. I ...more

flag 54 likes · Like · see review

Jun 17, 2018 G.R. Reader rated it it was amazing

I figured that if Luboš Motl hated the book this much, it had to be worth reading. It's usually a sound principle, and it didn't let me down this time either.

flag 29 likes · Like · see review

May 08, 2018 David Wineberg rated it it was amazing

The universe is unacceptable to physicists

Well back into history, Man has tried to force nature into symmetry. Some of our greatest scientists spent their lives trying to force the solar system and then the universe into spheres, cubes, cones and cylinders. Or to find superpartners for every particle so they fit the (newish) theory of supersymmetry. That it has never worked has deterred no one, it seems.

Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist whose very job it is to create new theories ...more

flag 28 likes · Like · see review

Jun 12, 2018 Brian Clegg rated it it was amazing

One of my favourite illustrations from a science title was in Fred Hoyle's book on his quasi-steady state theory. It shows a large flock of geese all following each other, which he likened to the state of theoretical physics. In the very readable Lost in Math, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder exposes the way that in certain areas of physics, this is all too realistic a picture. (Hossenfelder gives Hoyle's cosmological theory short shrift, incidentally, though, to be fair, it wasn't given anywhere One of my favourite illustrations from a science title was in Fred Hoyle's book on his quasi-steady state theory. It shows a large flock of geese all following each other, which he likened to the state of theoretical physics. In the very readable Lost in Math, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder exposes the way that in certain areas of physics, this is all too realistic a picture. (Hossenfelder gives Hoyle's cosmological theory short shrift, incidentally, though, to be fair, it wasn't given anywhere near as many opportunities to be patched up to match observations as the current version of big bang with inflation.)

Lost in Math is a very powerful analysis of what has gone wrong in the way that some aspects of physics are undertaken. Until the twentieth century, scientists made observations and experiments and theoreticians looked for theories which explained them, which could then be tested against further experiments and observations. Now, particularly in particle physics, it's more the case that physicists dream up whole rafts of theory supported only by mathematics, much of which can never be experimentally confirmed, and what can be checked is often so expensive to work on that only a very small number of possibilities can be examined.

It's the maths (if we're talking beauty, I have to confess I find 'math' a very ugly word) that is in the driving seat, which surely is wrong. As Hossenfelder points out, string theory works best if the cosmological constant value that reflects the expansion or contraction of the universe is negative. Unfortunately it's actually positive, but most string theorists spend their time working with a negative cosmological constant. It can make for beautiful mathematics - but has nothing to do with our universe.

It's also the case that the vast majority of theoretical advances in physics were made by individuals, where now most theoreticians work in teams - it's tempting to wonder, if a camel is a horse designed by committee, what is a theory developed by group consensus?

Hossenfelder repeatedly comes back to two measures used to test theories - beauty, which is inevitably a subjective phenomenon, even though there is some agreement of what is required for beauty - and naturalness, which appears more scientific as it involves numbers, but relies on a bizarre confidence that values in nature that are dimensionless (for example ratios of masses) should be Goldilocks-like in not being too big or two small, but should be around the value of 1. The physicists she speaks to through the book (nearly all male), often seem to cling onto these measures without being able to justify them, other than saying that everyone else likes them too. There are some attempts - one suggests the appeal to beauty is an evolutionary response to a successful theory, but that only shows a weak understanding of evolution (though evolutionary developments can, at least, probably explain the physicists' love of symmetry - and it's not because nature has to be that way, but because we find symmetrical faces attractive).

Vast amounts of physicist-hours are being put into theories such as string theory, which seems pretty much incapable of doing the main job it is supposed to (though does have some side benefits), or defending the extension of the standard model of particle physics called supersymmetry, even as more and more evidence suggests it is unlikely to be true. Hossenfelder shows that clinging to theories past their sell-by date is almost inevitable because physicists are people too. If you've spent half your career on a theory, you don't give it up easily, even though scientists are supposed to love falsification. And if hundreds of other people (remember the geese) are working on a particular theory, surely it must have some substance behind it? One thing the book doesn't mention, but may be worth thinking about, is perhaps there are too many theoretical physicists? Hossenfelder points out in a period of about a year when the LHC produced data that looked interesting but turned out to be a statistical fluctuation, 500 papers were published exploring this non-event theoretically, many published in top journals.

Relatively briefly, Hossenfelder also examines the aspects of modern academic scientific life that make it hard to give the amount of time to actually working on theory that should be the case, citing estimates of around 40% going to actual work (another 40% going to grant applications). The processes required to get funding also tend to work against original thinking and deviating from the goose flock - there seems little doubt that this structure makes a large negative contribution to the whole business, though no one seems to have an answer to the problem.

The only negative I have with the book is that Hossenfelder, like many practising physicists, struggles to explain some of the actual physics in a way that conveys any meaning to the general reader. Luckily, this is not essential here - this is not a book to learn about physics, but about the way modern physicists work. Interestingly, Hossenfelder complains that 'popular science books about special relativity are often full of rocket ships and satellites passing each other. But all of this is unnecessary decoration. Special relativity follows from the three symmetries [she lists] above, without twins in spaceships and laser clocks and all that.' While this is true, the way symmetries are used here is an argument that is near-impossible to follow for a non-mathematician. The twins paradox and light clocks make it much easier for the rest of us to get a grip on the subject (and, to be fair, my undergraduate special relativity textbook makes use of both, so it's not just popular science doing it).

Inevitably there will be a widespread negative reaction from the physics community (which has already started) - but this is not surprising when Hossenfelder is attempting to burst a self-reinforcing social bubble just as powerful as those that surround American political parties. The knee-jerk reaction is always to deny there's anything wrong - yet here it seems so obviously a case of the emperor's new clothes.

Some readers may take this book to be an anti-science one - but it really isn't. Hossenfelder is merely pointing out a deep problem in some parts of physics, but she in no way undermines the remarkable scientific discoveries that have come from centuries of physics (and applications we benefit from as a result of some of them). Rather, she is saying that people in her profession need to step back from the coalface and take stock of what they are really doing and whether this particular approach really makes sense. True creativity often requires this - but most of us find it difficult to do. And it's about time a physicist said this.

Highly recommended (and very brave). ...more

flag 18 likes · Like · see review

Oct 05, 2019 Claudia rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: science, netgalley

I never heard of Sabine Hossenfelder until I came across this book, but now I even follow her Facebook account. She’s one hell of a writer and her dry humor and down to earth principles made this book a joy to read.

In terms of scientific facts, the book doesn’t bring anything new in the field; there hadn’t been a major discovery in physics for quite some time but the approach on today theories is unique.

The book consists mostly in a series of interviews with today’s major physicists, but her ...more

flag 17 likes · Like · see review

Jul 04, 2018 Nick Black rated it it was ok

Recommended to Nick by: Manny

Shelves: snap-crackle-pop-science

reads like a Mary Roach book about particle physics -- altogether too many "human interest physics" elements, including descriptions of one interviewee's cats ("Astrokate", apparently a ...twitter authority). Woit already handled a lot of this in 2007 with [title: Not Even Wrong]. Hossenfelder makes no useful suggestions, instead just dumping on people when she's not flying to Hawaii. I couldn't disagree with her central thesis -- leaning hard on "beautiful math" is no substitute for testability ...more

flag 15 likes · Like · see review

Jun 27, 2018 Sebastian rated it it was amazing

It is reassuring to know that there are quite a few people out there not happy with how physics is going these days.

Reading, for example, Krauss’ half-assed pompous non-explanation for why there is something instead of nothing, or reading Tegmark’s incoherent ramblings about his mathematical universe as he pats himself on the back for being oh such a crazy maverick, or basically watching the entire string community pat their collective backs so hard they will break each other’s shoulder blades It is reassuring to know that there are quite a few people out there not happy with how physics is going these days.

Reading, for example, Krauss’ half-assed pompous non-explanation for why there is something instead of nothing, or reading Tegmark’s incoherent ramblings about his mathematical universe as he pats himself on the back for being oh such a crazy maverick, or basically watching the entire string community pat their collective backs so hard they will break each other’s shoulder blades despite having precisely bupkis to show for all their effort except some convoluted math they claim is real dang pretty though it has crap-all to do with the real world and then demand that we loosen up with that pesky scientific method because really what did that old thing ever do for us, and all this when even I, as an at my absolute best enthusiastic amateur can poke holes the size of ocean liners through their reasoning… well, the whole thing starts to look like a rather sad affair.

But then people like Hossenfelder come along and reassure me that yes, there are people with the relevant scientific training able to see beyond the blinkered view offered by the mainstream, people able to step back and do real meta-physics, in the sense of having an outside look at what physics is doing and asking some hard questions about where the whole thing is heading. It also helps that she is a pretty good writer with a sharp sense of humor, not afraid to go around asking some pretty big names about those same hard questions, exposing their faulty reasoning and certainty that, yes, generations before us people were pretty silly and thought that if a theory is beautiful and elegant it must be true, and they were wrong, but that totally can’t happen to us, because now we are real smart and our theory now is waaaay too beautiful and elegant, so it must be true.

Oh, and the reaction – well, just the butthurt incoherent misogynistic spittle-flinging trumpian response from a certain ~~Professor~~ Motl whose whole point seems to boil down to “what a dumb woman-creature, questioning me and my brilliant buddies who are brilliant because we think we are!” was worth the price of admission and serves as a clear double-thumbs-up recommendation for the book. ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Jul 02, 2019 Radiantflux rated it liked it

Shelves: physics-mathematics, audiobook, astrophysics

80th book for 2019.

Hossenfelder's central thesis—that physicists are are now obsessed by beauty (i.e., elegant mathematics), to the detriment of truth (i.e., hard data)—is certainly interesting.

The book contains a series of interviews with leading theoretical physicists, where she discusses the role of elegance/beauty/simplicity in theory assessment, but while these discussions are in themselves fascinating—Steve Weinberg's is hilarious—they are often colored by what seems to be a superior, ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Feb 13, 2019 Charlene rated it liked it

Shelves: physics

I honestly don't know how to rate this book. Some arguments were extremely worthwhile and needed a voice. In regard to those arguments, Hossenfelder's voice was razor sharp, clear, unafraid, questioning, critical, and informative. Other times though, it really felt as if she overshot -- a lot, which muddied the waters for her better arguments. Prior to this book, I watched talks given by Hossenfelder in which she picked apart my heroes. She criticized them for being guided by beauty. Watching I honestly don't know how to rate this book. Some arguments were extremely worthwhile and needed a voice. In regard to those arguments, Hossenfelder's voice was razor sharp, clear, unafraid, questioning, critical, and informative. Other times though, it really felt as if she overshot -- a lot, which muddied the waters for her better arguments. Prior to this book, I watched talks given by Hossenfelder in which she picked apart my heroes. She criticized them for being guided by beauty. Watching her tear apart the arguments of these men who I pretty much worship was shocking but very satisfying. I love having my beliefs challenged. So, Hossenfelder's work was appealing to me, even when she went after my idol Dirac. But, in . my opinion, this book takes the "beauty is not a good guide" argument too far.

I feel unsettled. I also feel less informed that Hossenfelder about many aspects of physics, which made it even more difficult to rate this book.

Is the LHC worth the money since SUSY has not made an appearance? I don't know. It's a concern, and one worth discussing. After all, it's a lot of money. But are all discussions of the multiverse bad science? I think suggesting so goes too far. You can imagine that our tools will only get better and better. Our ability to explain the universe in equations will only get better. Is Everett's Many Worlds the only way to understand our universe? Probably not. Prior to Everett, we could not have conceived of equations that suggest every possibility is real instead of the wave function collapse. It's extremely valuable to keep thinking about bubble universes, warped spacetime, the arrow of time, and other ideas that lead us to think about a multiverse. It seems extremely defeatist to think researchers should not suggest ideas that are untestable. How many testable hypotheses came into existence because people continued to wonder about things that were not testable? In thinking about the untestable, we might come up with certain aspects of the untestable situation that we *can* test.

I just feel like we should fight against people who turn physics into pseudoscience (the laws of attraction, crystal healing, etc) and stop trying to inhibit people who are trying to answer the big questions. Question their methods, their logic, and their findings. Science needs that. This book seems to go beyond that. ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Feb 03, 2019 Jose Moa rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, cosmology, physics

Before all Iwould like guve it six stars.

Since the 60s years in the past century ,when the Higgs machanism was proposed and so completed the standard model and the recent Discovery of the Higgs boson in the LHC giving to the standard model the final confirmation,,there has not been any breakthouht in theoretical physics,this is giving way to a great worry and stress in the theoreticl physicists comunity,more as they are in what they name the nightmare scenario,is to say,no new particle,no ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

May 02, 2019 Holly rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2019-reads

A good read after Adam Becker's What is Real, and for anyone who might have watched that giddy, over-earnest documentary, Particle Fever about the LHC and CERN and wondered what happened after the Higgs was found .... well: they are still waiting, and as the physics world waits, sitting in their ideological camps (supersymmetry, string theory, etc.), some physicists are entrenching themselves in the theories to which they have devoted their careers, even when there is no evidence. While others A good read after Adam Becker's What is Real, and for anyone who might have watched that giddy, over-earnest documentary, Particle Fever about the LHC and CERN and wondered what happened after the Higgs was found .... well: they are still waiting, and as the physics world waits, sitting in their ideological camps (supersymmetry, string theory, etc.), some physicists are entrenching themselves in the theories to which they have devoted their careers, even when there is no evidence. While others are beginning to panic (seeing the "nightmare scenario" in the lack of evidence) and then reach for unscientific explanations that fit their imagined aesthetic criteria (i.e., it must be beautiful) - perhaps even abandoning the scientific method in the process. But a few contrarians, like Hossenfelder, are daring to suggest that we are being misled by our human ideas of beauty and elegance. Maybe we need to back up and rethink it all sooner rather than later.....

I hadn't realized that physics was in such a state of crisis.

The book is a little disorienting to read because it's a combo of approaches (part overview of the subject, part personal chronicle, part polemic). If Hossenfelder was trying to write a Janna Levin-type book then she was not successful - Hossenfelder is a little surly and angsty, often blunt in her tone, so she is not as convivial a guide as Janna Levin (in Black Hole Blues, for example). But Hossenfelder seems to be truly upset and also fearless in indicting her colleagues , while at the same time willing to question herself and her motivations for being so contrarian:

Maybe I'm just here to find an excuse for leaving academia because I'm disillusioned, unable to stay motivated through all the null results. And what an amazing excuse I have come up with -- blaming a scientific community for misusing the scientific method.

I'm glad I read this. The book is a bit rough-going in the middle chapters for a non-physicist (me), but the final chapters re-summarize the arguments and are quite interesting (esp. an exploration of biases). Hossenfelder made me reconsider a lot of assumptions I had. ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Jun 05, 2018 Eric rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2018-reviews

TL;DR

Lost in Math by Sabine Hossenfelder is an important investigation into the current biases shared across the theoretical physics discipline. It asks hard questions about the current orthodoxy. Highly recommended.

Disclosure

Basic Books provided an advanced electronic copy in exchange for an honest review. Review cross-posted at my website: PrimmLife

Review

One thought experiment that I love is the Theseus Paradox, which asks the question that if a ship is repaired and all of its old parts ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Feb 15, 2018 Bob Schnapps added it

The author is someone who rates their own books on Goodreads...

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Apr 18, 2019 Venla rated it it was amazing

Shelves: non-fiction, 2019

Lost in Math is a great and well written summary about the way physics is represented in the modern days. The writer Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist whose job is to create new theories and leave the mathematical stuff to the mathematicians. In her book Hossenfelder talks about what has gone wrong with her subject in the last thirty years or so.

Now, especially in particle physics, the whole concept kind of circles around made up theories that are only supported by mathematicians. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

May 04, 2018 Jeremy rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science

Note: I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley.

This was a great book, and one I hope that many people (particularly within physics) choose to read. It's not the most uplifting book, but that's the point. I'm a student within physics, and I'm happy that someone is at least shedding some light on the less appealing aspects of physics at this time. It's great to be hopeful, but if everyone is sharing the same mass delusion about supersymmetry and beauty when there is no experimental evidence ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Oct 24, 2017 Kam Yung Soh marked it as to-read

Shelves: science, physics

Sabine Hossenfelder says the book description was not written by her. For a better idea of what the book is about, see her blog post on it.

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jul 02, 2018 Ben Babcock rated it liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, science, ebook, netgalley, 2018-read

Is truth beauty and beauty, truth? It can be hard to tell.

In Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, Sabine Hossenfelder argues that these two concepts are not equivalent. As the subtitle implies, Hossenfelder feels that theoretical physicists are too obsessed with creating “beautiful” theories, in the sense that the mathematics that underpins the theories (because these days, theories are basically math, even though, as Hossenfelder stresses, physics isn’t math) must be beautiful and use ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jul 06, 2018 Rod Van Meter rated it really liked it

A fascinating philosophical take on how philosophical physics has become. Physicists are hooked on various definitions of simplicity, involving fewer mathematical terms and especially fewer "magic constants" or "voodoo constants" (as we would call them computer systems).
The author is having deep existential doubts about how physics will peel back the next layer of reality. Many modern theories not only are not currently being tested, but *cannot* be tested, some because they would involve, oh, ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Dec 09, 2018 David rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science

Wow, great book!

My personality tends to distrust the air of broad, settled certainty when I encounter it; too many times it means the person I'm talking with has made a career or lifestyle out of rejecting competing evidences. If they know the deficiencies in their beliefs, they rarely acknowledge them as such. Examples:

- When I hit the vendor floor space at a computer security conference, no vendor will tell me the shortcomings in their systems; I have to ask competing vendors to find out those ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 30, 2019 Paperclippe rated it it was amazing

This was one of the funniest, snarkiest, most straight-forward books about what the future of physics is - and isn't - that I've ever read. The chapter headings had me in tears with laughter and I constantly kept reading snippets out loud to my less physics-drama inclined partner, which would then require an intense explanation of the history of the field (no pun intended), which then, of course, would cause the whole thing to cease to be funny, and left him with a "cool story bro" look on his ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 05, 2019 Alan Johnson rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: stem, reason-and-critical-thinking

This is a book about critical thinking. The author focuses on certain areas of theoretical physics, which is her specialty. However, she also extends the analysis to other fields, most notably to contemporary academic economics, which she clams is in even worse shape from a rational perspective than her own field (pp. 224-26).

The last chapter catalogs (pp. 230-31) some of the fallacies Hossenfelder elaborates throughout her book: confirmation bias, motivated cognition, the sunk cost fallacy, ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jan 24, 2019 Abhishek Kona rated it it was ok

I could not finish this book. The overall points in the book make sense to me. Physicists are looking for elegant theories to prove the real world instead of working backwards from the data. This is a problem as it causes us to design expensive experiments in non empirical way. The community has started to rely on elegance as a guiding principle.

But I am convinced there is not about 200 pages worth of stuff to be written about the topic. This book could have a 1000 word article. The author is ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 16, 2018 Gavin rated it really liked it

A look at high-energy particle physics* in its present nightmare (of deep inconsistency and vastly expensive new data). Her thesis is that the problem is sociological and aesthetic: in the absence of new data sources, we form cliques and regroup around incompatible, unempirical beauty intuitions.

it leads me to conjecture that the laws of nature are beautiful because physicists constantly tell each other those laws are beautiful.

experimentalists working with a detector developed to catch

A look at high-energy particle physics* in its present nightmare (of deep inconsistency and vastly expensive new data). Her thesis is that the problem is sociological and aesthetic: in the absence of new data sources, we form cliques and regroup around incompatible, unempirical beauty intuitions.

it leads me to conjecture that the laws of nature are beautiful because physicists constantly tell each other those laws are beautiful.

experimentalists working with a detector developed to catch neutrinos reported on the first “interesting bounds on galactic cold dark matter and on light bosons emitted from the sun.” In plain English, “interesting bounds” means they didn’t find anything. Various other neutrino experiments at the time also obtained interesting bounds.

Her prescription is that we should stop limiting the field so heavily with naturalness or geometric naturalness or symmetry or unification or anti-fine-tuning intuitions, which collectively she (following her field) calls "beauty". Since Physical beauty is quite distinct from natural-language "beauty", I think it'd be better if we left those five components under a different name.

Filled with interviews with some of the cleverest, deepest physicists of our time (Arkani-Harked, Wilczek, Weinberg, Lisi, Polchinski) and the several bandwagons they lead, blind, in different directions. Hossenfelder herself is funny, self-critical, scrupulously clear: the kind of curmudgeonly, unbiddable empiricist we always need.

“You ask, why do people still work on it?” Nima [Arkani-Harked] continues. “It’s in fact very funny. As I said, the best people had a pretty good idea what was going on—they were not sitting on their hands waiting for gluinos to pour out of the LHC. They also had a pretty level reaction to the data.”

But not one of those “best people” spoke up and called bullshit on the widely circulated story that the LHC had a good chance of seeing supersymmetry or dark matter particles. I’m not sure which I find worse, scientists who believe in arguments from beauty or scientists who deliberately mislead the public about prospects of costly experiments.

Nima continues: “The people who were sure it would be there are now positive it’s not there. There are people now who speak about being depressed or worried or scared. It drives me nuts. It’s ludicrously narcissistic. Who the fuck cares about you and your little life? Other than you yourself, of course.”

He isn’t speaking about me, but he might as well be, I think. Maybe I’m just here to find an excuse for leaving academia because I’m disillusioned, unable to stay motivated through all the null results. And what an amazing excuse I have come up with—blaming a scientific community for misusing the scientific method.

On the plane back to Frankfurt, bereft of Nima’s enthusiasm, I understand why he has become so influential. In contrast to me, he believes in what he does.

That sweet bitterness is telling; Hossenfelder is the broke-down hard-boiled P.I. of particle physics.

I shouldn’t be here, I should be at my desk, reading a paper, drafting a proposal, or at least writing a referee report. I shouldn’t psychoanalyze a community that neither needs nor wants therapy.

I hook onto the Wi-Fi. After a week of nonstop travel, my inbox is filling with urgent messages. There are two unhappy editors complaining about overdue reports, a journalist asking for comment, a student asking for advice. A form to be signed, a meeting to be rescheduled, two phone calls to be made, a conference invitation that needs to be politely declined. A collaborator returns the draft of a grant proposal for revision.

I remember reading biographies of last century’s heroes, picturing theoretical physicists as people puffing pipes in leather armchairs while thinking big thoughts.

Her exposition is impressively clear, covering the whole standard model (and quantum mechanics, and much of modern cosmology) in plain diagrams and terse language. (Though, as usual with pop science, one can't really spot where the simplifications are misleading unless you're already an insider.)

The heavies are in general very open and undogmatic about the state of things (they can afford to be, what with tenure). Weinberg:

I don’t know how much elementary particle physics can improve over what we have now. I just don’t know. I think it’s important to try and continue to do experiments, to continue to build large facilities… But where it will end up I don’t know. I hope it doesn’t just stop where it is now. Because I don’t find this entirely satisfying…

I don’t take seriously any negative conclusion that the fact that the LHC hasn’t seen anything beyond the standard model shows that there isn’t anything that will solve the naturalness problem… Supersymmetry hasn’t been ruled out because it’s too vague about what it predicts.

(There's a nice bit where Weinberg hears a new philosophical/historical theory of physics - that the revolutions always involve overthrowing an old aesthetic principle - and is immediately nerd-sniped and charmed by it. Also Wilczek:

According to McAllister, scientists don’t throw out everything during a revolution; they only throw out their conception of beauty. So whenever there is a revolution in science, they have to come up with a new idea of beauty. He lists some examples for this: the steady state universe, quantum mechanics, et cetera.
“If that was true,” I go on, “it would tell me that getting stuck on the ideas of beauty from the past is exactly the wrong thing to do.”
“Yes, right,” Frank says. “It’s normally a good guiding principle. But occasionally you have to introduce something new. In each of these examples you find, though, that the new ideas are beautiful too.”
“But people only found that new beauty after data forced them to look at it,” I point out. “And I’m worried we might not be able to get there. Because we are stuck on this old idea of beauty that we use to construct theories and to propose experiments to test them.”
“You might be right."
)

She even seeks out the ugliest theories, like Xiao-Gang Wen's string-net condensation, trying to find her own aesthetic limits:

I am skeptical, but I tell myself to be more open-minded. Isn’t this what I was looking for, something off the well-trodden path? Is it really any weirder to believe everything is made of qubits than of strings or loops or some 248-dimensional representation of a giant Lie algebra?

How patently absurd it must appear to someone who last had contact with physics in eleventh grade that people get paid for ideas like that. But then, I think, people also get paid for throwing balls through hoops.

This bit understates a real problem (it implies we don't use Solomonoff induction out of pique rather than incomputability):

A way to objectively quantify simplicity is by computational complexity, which is measured by the length of a computer program that executes a calculation. Computational complexity is in principle quantifiable for any theory that can be converted into computer code, which includes the type of theories we currently use in physics. We are not computers, however, and computational complexity is therefore not a measure we actually use. The human idea of simplicity is instead very much based on ease of applicability, which is closely tied to our ability to grasp an idea, hold it in mind, and push it around until a paper falls out.

Better than The Trouble with Physics which I also liked (though he was narrower and less balanced about string theory). Maybe 5/5 if I reread it. Her blog is extremely worthwhile and more technical and thus less untrue.

* OK, "high-energy particle physicists and also Grand Unified Theorists of whatever stripe including some cosmologists". But it is wrong to say that "physics" tout court has a crisis, nor indeed does Hossenfelder say this. (She didn't choose her own subtitle.) ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

May 09, 2019 Galen Weitkamp rated it really liked it

Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray by Sabine Hossenfelder.
Review by Galen Weitkamp.

The first thing that struck me when I opened this wonderfully perplexing book is the table of contents.

Chapter 1: The Hidden Rules of Physics
In which I realize I don’t understand physics anymore. I talk to friends and colleagues, see I’m not the only one confused, and set out to bring reason back to Earth.

Chapter 2: What a Wonderful World
In which I read a lot of books about dead people and find that Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray by Sabine Hossenfelder.
Review by Galen Weitkamp.

The first thing that struck me when I opened this wonderfully perplexing book is the table of contents.

Chapter 1: The Hidden Rules of Physics
In which I realize I don’t understand physics anymore. I talk to friends and colleagues, see I’m not the only one confused, and set out to bring reason back to Earth.

Chapter 2: What a Wonderful World
In which I read a lot of books about dead people and find that everyone likes pretty ideas but that pretty ideas sometimes work badly. At a conference I begin to worry that physicists are about to discard the scientific method.

I felt like I was reading Don Quixote again in which each chapter title is followed by an extended subtitle (introduced by the in-which trope) that humorously summarizes the adventure ahead.
The second subtitle above nicely introduces what is probably the main concern of Dr. Hossenfelder’s book.

The general reader may be surprised to learn that Mathematics and Physics can be pretty. Indeed they can be, but you don’t have to agree - after all, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” There are many reasons why a mathematician or a physicist might think an idea is pretty, or beautiful or natural. For example, if it unifies under one explanation two disparate phenomena; or it generalizes a previous technique or assumption thereby promising to extend the latter’s domain of application. But how could a pretty idea waylay and corrupt the scientific method?

To be regarded as a part of physics, an idea must have observable physical consequences. To be empirically distinct, it must have some observable consequences that distinguish it from other physical theories. To be acceptable it can’t have any consequences that contradict observation.
Some of these things can be checked at the blackboard; but checking the predictions of a theory against the real world cannot. Observational verification can require a lot of time, effort and money. Since the Standard Model (of Particle Physics) was worked out in the seventies newer particle theories have been proposed that either generalize its symmetries (to make it mathematically more palatable) or attempt to geometrically unify particle theory with general relativity. Over the decades experiments have consistently confirmed the Standard Theory. No experiment or particle accelerator to date has been able to verify any of the distinguishable consequences of Supersymmetry, String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity.
The issue for theorists is: what to do in the absence of experimental confirmation. What clues should one pursue, if observation provides none? What’s left other than one’s own prejudices about what’s natural, what’s pretty or what’s beautiful?

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder discusses these issues at length, and makes some suggestions. Physicists should be aware of confirmation bias and all the other kinds of bias to which humans are susceptible. She also suggests that physicists interested in foundational issues should focus on unraveling contradictions rather than on unification or prettifying the ugly. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Aug 13, 2018 Hind rated it it was amazing

Shelves: physics, non-fiction, 5-stars

Like Sabine writes and tries to address, physics has worked itself into a state where all our experiments result in null result after another, and our cutting edge theories are mere speculations of science fiction. The way she approaches this problem, trying to figure out how we got here, what we can do to fix it, and whether what we’re doing is justified in the first place, is wonderful. This is an excellent popular work on the cusp of physics and philosophy, but it comes with a little ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Apr 29, 2019 Richard Thompson rated it it was amazing

Shelves: physics

This is one of the best physics books that I have read in a while. It is in the heart of my Goldilocks range, not too hard and not too easy. And I really liked the author's point of view. She talks about the lack of progress in basic physics in the last 30 to 40 years, and she does her bit of string theory bashing, but she does so in an even handed way and acknowledges that string theory and multiverses may even be right and that we may find meaningful ways to test them with experiments, even if ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review