Talk:The Trouble with Physics

Untitled
I have read this book and it seems to me that the final sentence in this stub is inaccurate: Smolin does not suggest that science has entered a postmodern age in which a unified theory may be scientifically unknowable, and it is not his objective to call into question the limits of scientific knowledge. Instead, he is critical of physical theories that do not lend themselves to experimental verification, and emphasizes that alternative theories, with direct experimental implications, should be given more attention. Whether or not you agree with his views, I think that the current description of his book is inaccurrate and should be corrected.

KleinGordon (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro
Wondering what happened to the intro. Now it looks like a note in a libary catalogue and not such a hook into the rest of the article. It reads like: this book is a book; rather than: this box is notable because... (don't see the reason here, so anyone mind if it revert it? ) Just saying, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Later development
More and more experts feel that Smolin is right. LHC shows not sign of SUSY or strings, but these theories are not yet dead. Maybe Green, Witten and others will stop overselling string theory and tell the truth. It is a highly speculative theory and nobody knows if it get anything right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicceg (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In what sense is or was Lubos Motl a prominent physicist? he's another worker bee in the mathematical part of building M theory at best. you check out your portion of the analytical project, you check in your solution, rinse, repeat. his actual prominence is as someone who believed you could do science by McCarthyism, actually. in his own discipline his claims were rather moderate - he wasn't pushing the landscape for instance - but outside his narrow field he went all in on rabid science denialism supporting an uneducated crank, Steven Goddard - http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/05/very-dry-very-adiabatic-lapse-rate.html and ironically, raising questions settled in the era of the early work of Carl Sagan and Van Allen protege James Hansen on Venus in the 50s and 60s. Anyway, i would leave out molt's review, and I would leave out the nonsense that he's a prominent physicist. The number of prominent string theorist physicists is in the hundreds, at least. there's no possible justification for including molt among them. it's a purely ideological inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.252.172.14 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Moti's blog
I am constantly being told that an edit I've made is inadmissible because the source quoted is a blog. Why therefore is something included here based on Moti's blog (http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/10/lee-smolin-trouble-with-physics-review.html)? This is something self-published, not something published in a RS. I personally have no problem with this reference being cited; it is the blanket use of the 'no blogs' principle elsewhere, to block a PoV that someone doesn't want to appear in an article, that I find objectionable. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)