To me, the criticism of the Science review that this book offers no alternative paths forward is very strong. This is because when blundering around in the darkness to find truth, there are no good algorithms.
If you could tell a high energy theorist a better algorithm to find good problems to work on, they would listen. But if all you can do is point out that their algorithm is suboptimal: well, sure. Of course it's suboptimal: we know, we just have no better search algorithms in physics-theory-space.
Woit and company seem really invested in smearing high energy theory in front of popular audiences. A book-long `look at the fact that this algorithm is really slow!!!' is a sigh-worthy addition.
It's well acknowledged in the field that SUSY, string theory, etc. are very incomplete ideas. No one is saying they have the full story, and I don't think anyone expects to have the full story anytime soon.
So what have people been doing?
1) People have been expositing our `best guess' theory, which /is/ string theory. We have really good tests of quantum field theory, and really good reasons to think that `the most natural' generalisation is string theory. We're not cocky enough to claim that string theory /is/ the generalisation, just that it's a really good candidate and isn't it worth spending a vanishing fraction of GDP to explore it and see how good of a candidate it really is?
Like, an incredibly larger amount of money is spent on innovating ways to get people to look at advertisements. It doesn't seem like there is a high bar to pass to justify the existence of studying this stuff.
Of course, a lot of effort goes into finding better guesses. Supersymmetry has been under the gun since the LHC turned on, and tons of effort has been and is spent thinking about the alternatives.
Supersymmetry just remains a strong enough idea in comparison to the alternatives people have proposed that people think it's the best idea to explore. And as time goes on and supersymmetry looks weaker and weaker, more people do spend time looking for good alternatives.
2) People have been using tools from string theory to tell us about ordinary quantum field theories. Dualities like ADS/CFT are huge right now.
Lots of really good ideas have come from high energy theory in recent years. ADS/CFT is a string-theoretic duality which teaches us a lot about statistical mechanical systems, things that definitely are testable. So string theory has been testably productive, as applied to the study of quantum field theories and statistical mechanics.
3) Also, the idea of topological quantum field theory is a recent innovation of high energy theory, hardly fully explored, and has been hugely important for modern mathematics.
I disagree that that is a fair criticism, that a person shouldn’t criticize the state of “physics” as a professional practice if they don’t have better solutions.
I read Lee Smolin’s “The Trouble With Physics,” covering similar terrain, and his book was not presented as a work of science: it was rather a book about the sociology of science, and how the structures in place controlling the resources for research were going astray, by continuing to support, professionally, work in areas that were not proving fruitful, and limiting resources that might go towards finding new solutions.
Lost In Math sounds very interesting, as the author has decided to speak with leading researchers about their work, at a time when the validity of that work is being questioned.
Woit and company seem really invested in smearing high energy theory in front of popular audiences. A book-long `look at the fact that this algorithm is really slow!!!' is a sigh-worthy addition.
It's well acknowledged in the field that SUSY, string theory, etc. are very incomplete ideas. No one is saying they have the full story, and I don't think anyone expects to have the full story anytime soon.
So what have people been doing?
1) People have been expositing our `best guess' theory, which /is/ string theory. We have really good tests of quantum field theory, and really good reasons to think that `the most natural' generalisation is string theory. We're not cocky enough to claim that string theory /is/ the generalisation, just that it's a really good candidate and isn't it worth spending a vanishing fraction of GDP to explore it and see how good of a candidate it really is? Like, an incredibly larger amount of money is spent on innovating ways to get people to look at advertisements. It doesn't seem like there is a high bar to pass to justify the existence of studying this stuff.
Of course, a lot of effort goes into finding better guesses. Supersymmetry has been under the gun since the LHC turned on, and tons of effort has been and is spent thinking about the alternatives. Supersymmetry just remains a strong enough idea in comparison to the alternatives people have proposed that people think it's the best idea to explore. And as time goes on and supersymmetry looks weaker and weaker, more people do spend time looking for good alternatives.
2) People have been using tools from string theory to tell us about ordinary quantum field theories. Dualities like ADS/CFT are huge right now. Lots of really good ideas have come from high energy theory in recent years. ADS/CFT is a string-theoretic duality which teaches us a lot about statistical mechanical systems, things that definitely are testable. So string theory has been testably productive, as applied to the study of quantum field theories and statistical mechanics.
3) Also, the idea of topological quantum field theory is a recent innovation of high energy theory, hardly fully explored, and has been hugely important for modern mathematics.
I think these activities are pretty reasonable.