On 10/3/06, phil henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I picked up last week's New Yorker to find one of it's thorough and insightful articles of the same name, in this case by Jim Holt on the demise of string theory, and the books by Smolin and Woit. What caught my attention was the apparent fact that what caused string theory to suddenly take over all of theoretical physics is that physics has run out of data! Apparently everything they've thought of trying to explain has been
Errrr...how to put this politely? Rubbish! The following lists are by by no means definitive but there's enough content to establish the falsity of "everything they've thought of trying to explain has been":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#Future_directions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
I think you may be reading more into Holt's comment about "the absence of data in physics" than is intended (BTW, article is still available at http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/ ). It seems to be a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment that occupies less than half a sentence and Holt does not expand on it. IMHO, Holt gives much more weight to the "sociology" explanation.
R
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
