Skip to main content

The God Equation - Michio Kaku ***

When physicist Leon Lederman wanted to  call his book on the elusive Higgs boson 'The Goddam Particle' his publisher objected and instead made it The God Particle. This usage has cropped up a couple of times since in popular science, notably The God Effect on quantum entanglement, and now Michio Kaku is applying it to the concept of a so-called Theory of Everything - a mechanism that pulls together the fundamental forces of nature including gravity. There is no certainty that such a theory is possible, but if it did exist, it would provide the foundation of physics. Even so, it seems unlikely that it would honour the claim in the book's publicity that it would 'fulfil that most ancient and basic of human desires - to understand the meaning of our lives'.

Kaku has worked on string theory - the theory he believes will give us that theory of everything - since the 1960s and is strongly invested in it. He promises us a 'balanced, objective analysis of string theory's breakthroughs and limitations' - but given this comes after him saying that it is the 'leading (and to my mind, only) candidate' for a theory of everything, it's not totally surprising that this feels quite a subjective view. For example, at one point we are told that a concern about string theory is the lack of evidence for the required 10 or 11 dimensions. Kaku points out that, if they exist, they should have a small impact on the force of gravity over small distances. He describes an experiment... where the results are negative. But rather than see this as more indication of the doubtful nature of the theory, he gives it the throwaway line 'But this means only that there are no added dimensions in Colorado.'

When Kaku gets onto what string theory actually is (which doesn't occur until page 141 out of 198), he gives a good high level overview before plunging into some very hand-waving attempts to show why it actually matters (certainly there is no suggestion it gives us a chance to understand the meaning of our lives). What I find disappointing is that there is no attempt to put string theory into context of rival approaches. I know loop quantum gravity, for example, is not a theory of everything, but they can't both hold - yet it never gets a mention. On the plus side, Kaku is honest about the problems of string theory and the lack of supporting evidence - but when, for example, he says that the discovery of supersymmetric particles would support it, but they haven't been found yet, he doesn't say that string theory enthusiasts had expected them to be found by the Large Hadron Collider.

It is also a shame how little detail there is of the development of string theory, what it says and why it, for instance, requires so many dimensions. For a book about a theory of everything, we seem to have almost everything but the theory itself. The reason we don't get into string theory until page 141 is that the majority of the book is pretty much a summary of the history of physics. In his usual flamboyant style, Kaku breezes through the history of science leading up to the development of string theory. Unfortunately, he adopts an approach that would worry historians of science, cherry picking and sometimes inaccurate.

We start with a very old fashioned presentation of the now-dismissed dark ages concept, when classical scientific 'philosophical discussions and debates were lost… Darkness spread over the Western world and scientific inquiry was largely replaced by belief in superstition, magic, and sorcery.' Kaku trots out the familiar myth that the 'chief crime' in Giordano Bruno's heresy trial was 'Declaring that life may exist on planets circling other stars', implies Galileo invented the telescope and blames 'the church' for standard Aristotelean theories such as the unchanging heavens and movement caused by natural tendencies.

When we get onto quantum physics, there are some real oddities. Kaku tells us that quantum effects are rarely seen directly 'because Planck's constant is a very small number and only affects the universe on the subatomic level' - but then trots out the Schrödinger's cat experiment as if it was significant. He gives unchallenged the idea that the Copenhagen interpretation involves 'observation (which requires consciousness)'. He also says Copenhagen has fallen in to disfavour, with the many worlds interpretation now 'more popular' - something that isn't borne out by surveys of physicists.

Overall, then, this is a book that gives a fast, light, readable, but somewhat limited, introduction to physics. As always, Kaku writes with energy, clear enthusiasm and a delight in the wonders that science uncovers. But the book fails to convince either that string theory is valid or that it can deliver anything of the sort of significance Kaku promises by comparing it to the innovation that arose from understanding Newtonian physics, electromagnetism and quantum theory. 

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

How to Keep a Plane in the Sky - Alex Davies ****

If there's one big gap in the science writing sphere, it's popular engineering (you can quibble over whether engineering is science, but where else would you put popular engineering?). Alex Davies does the field a real service with this insightful introduction to the world of test engineering. The concept is simple. If we build something and sell it, we need to test it to make sure that it won't fail in a way that's dangerous to the consumer. The most obvious example is airliners, which feature at some length, but this applies to everything from cuddly toys to hair straighteners: someone needs to predict what could go wrong and to put the product through its paces to see if it will survive under any reasonable circumstances. When Davies is telling a story of test engineering in action, the book is a delight. He opens with the way that real bears are used to test if bears can get into coolers and trash cans - and the impressive ways these animals can  circumvent human in...

On the Equality of All Things - Carlo Rovelli ****

There is a wide gulf between the worldviews of physicists and philosophers. Many physicists present a rather sweetly naive, child-like view of the world, where philosophers bring a distinctly more adult, cynical tone. This being the case, it can be a little worrying when a physicist dips a toe into the philosophical mire. Infamously, in The Grand Design , Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow told us that philosophy was now dead because science could deal with anything it had previously been needed for. Thankfully, Carlo Rovelli is not trying to do away with philosophy, though it has to be said that when he veers into the topic that physicist's naivety can make it feel like the philosophising of an earnest eighteen-year-old. Take the opening paragraph, which tells us 'electrons and minds, stones and laws, judgements and galaxies do not essentially differ in nature from one another. They are notions that illuminate each other'. I almost expected a Pink Floyd soundtr...