*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
________________________________________________________________________
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 2 (V)
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 2 (V)
________________________________________________________________________
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.**************You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Conclusion
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
In this essay we have seen why the string theorists’ metaphor of the violin string has been so successful. This analogy has helped them to be firmly identified, by both scientific colleagues and the lay public, with the very best of twentieth-century physics — and physicists! In addition, thanks to the metaphor their fundamental research is currently associated with the modern mystical belief, which assigns to the harmony of the universe the most sublime music, that is, classical music. The first association can be summarized as follows. Many physicists know that the contributions of German scientists to twentieth-century physics were of fundamental importance. Planck, Einstein and Heisenberg are well-known physicists even for the first semester physics student. Most of them are also familiar with the fact that these great physicists were also passionate musicians. This link between twentieth-century physics and classical music is present in many professional and amateur histories of modern physics. Let us consider, for example, William Cropper’s history of physics: Great Physicists. This history, and many others written by non-professional contemporary historians of science, is developed through its main breakthroughs and contributors.[source] In Cropper’s book we discover that the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, the founding father of statistical mechanics, was a talented musician: “an accomplished pianist.” (p. 181) Another physicist-musician was Max Planck, the German aristocrat who triggered the quantum revolution: “an excellent pianist; he had even considered a musical career.” (p. 240) Quantum mechanics had its musicians too: “At first, he [Heisenberg] considered a career as a pianist, but Einstein’s creation seemed nearer and more exciting than those of Mozart.” (p. 264) The profound affection felt by the creator of the theory of relativity for music is well known. In previous sections I observed that most of these precursors of modern theoretical physics were Austrians or Germans, and, moreover, were members of the upper middle-class. Due to their social stratum, sensitivity for music was part of their standard education. I then argued that in the context of popular accounts of string theory, where string theorists are likened to modern Plancks and Einsteins, the metaphor of the violin string brings us naturally to the music played by these prominent physicists.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
The second connection between string theory and classical music, though related to the former, is of mystical origin.
From Jeans’s The Mysterious Universe (1930) to Sagan’s Cosmos (1980), and from Hawking’s A Brief history of Time (1988) to Greene’s The Elegant Universe (1999), the orderly cosmos has been a preferred topic of popular science writers. The great success of these titles shows that throughout the twentieth century the subject enjoyed a large and enthusiastic readership. In this essay I have argued that even though the idea of a musical universe has been around for centuries, and was employed by Sagan with some success, only Brian Green’s best-selling book fully exploited it with utmost effectiveness. This was a cogent idea: the beautiful symphony of the universe produced by the harmonious concord of tiny vibrating superstrings. I must mention that in order to be effective, this reference to music required the mystic-religious feeling typical of Western societies. In the context of the end of the millennium, a period dominated by uncertainty and growing mysticism, this is a non-negligible fact (see essay 7).
The reader will have certainly noticed that the role of popular science in all this has not been slight. In effect, recently, popular science has been converted into a battle field where contenders fight for the monopoly of future scientific research. Dorothy Nelkin acutely remarked on this tendency: “As research founds decline in the 1990s, scientists are increasingly using rhetorical strategies to attract attention. We read of chaos and quarks, big bangs and black holes, bucky balls and superstrings, master molecules and medical crystal balls. The assumption is that media interest will influence those who control the purse.”[source] (Italics added.) Those controlling the budget will eventually decide on the physicists to be hired, the young researchers to be supported financially, and the conferences to be organized. It is better to have them on ones own side if one wants to pursue a field of research. Moreover, popular science and media coverage works as a magnet to attract fresh minds to the domain. In this sense, the simple but powerful metaphor of the violin string has had a direct effect on contemporary theoretical physics. It should come as no surprise that thanks to strategies of this sort, string theorists have annihilated any possible contender claiming an alternative quantized theory of gravity or the unification of the fundamental forces of nature. “The only game in town,” as some involved in the dispute used to say.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Before concluding, I would like to pose a question that until now has not been answered: why have string theorists chosen the violin rather than a more popular instrument such as the guitar? If the role of a metaphor is simply to elucidate a difficult subject, as some claim, why is the guitar string analogy scarcely used by string theorists? At this point the answer should be obvious to the reader. The secrets of the universe cannot be revealed nor understood by the uneducated person. And this extends to their musical tastes. To make this point clear, imagine the following scenario: substitute the graceful girl playing the cello in the above-mentioned episode of The Elegant Universe with a contemporary guitarist playing a rock song. How could we then rewrite the following observation made by the narrator?
With this substitution the meaning of the commentary is completely lost, because we associate with the music of the universe a “symphony,” not rock music. The music of the universe is a Bach Concerto, not Hendrix’s “Purple Haze.” This is why classical music is also sometimes called “serious music”; to distinguish it from the music listened to by the uneducated crowd. German musicologist Carl Dahlhaus dubbed “absolute music” what we currently know as classical music. [source] With this terminology he tried to convey the idea that German classical music is generally considered the purest and most sublime music. Listening to absolute music is a quasi-religious experience. And, like the secrets of the universe, it is not apt for everyone. Hence, returning to our question, if you change the violin to the guitar, superstring theorists would be horrified; they would ask, as Erasmus did some five hundred years ago: “What would Plato have said to the noisiness of modern music.”[source] André Malraux once said about this elitist view of classical music that there was a music oriented to the masses, but understandably not a Bach or Beethoven oriented to them.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Metaphors are powerful rhetorical tools. But, at the same time, they are much more than that. Indeed, when used astutely, that is, when anchored in deep shared meanings and aspirations, they can create an enthusiastic army of supporters to the discourse displayed. This has been one of the strongest weapons of string theorists in the battle for the control of future research in high energy theoretical physics.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.**************You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
The second connection between string theory and classical music, though related to the former, is of mystical origin.
From Jeans’s The Mysterious Universe (1930) to Sagan’s Cosmos (1980), and from Hawking’s A Brief history of Time (1988) to Greene’s The Elegant Universe (1999), the orderly cosmos has been a preferred topic of popular science writers. The great success of these titles shows that throughout the twentieth century the subject enjoyed a large and enthusiastic readership. In this essay I have argued that even though the idea of a musical universe has been around for centuries, and was employed by Sagan with some success, only Brian Green’s best-selling book fully exploited it with utmost effectiveness. This was a cogent idea: the beautiful symphony of the universe produced by the harmonious concord of tiny vibrating superstrings. I must mention that in order to be effective, this reference to music required the mystic-religious feeling typical of Western societies. In the context of the end of the millennium, a period dominated by uncertainty and growing mysticism, this is a non-negligible fact (see essay 7).
The reader will have certainly noticed that the role of popular science in all this has not been slight. In effect, recently, popular science has been converted into a battle field where contenders fight for the monopoly of future scientific research. Dorothy Nelkin acutely remarked on this tendency: “As research founds decline in the 1990s, scientists are increasingly using rhetorical strategies to attract attention. We read of chaos and quarks, big bangs and black holes, bucky balls and superstrings, master molecules and medical crystal balls. The assumption is that media interest will influence those who control the purse.”[source] (Italics added.) Those controlling the budget will eventually decide on the physicists to be hired, the young researchers to be supported financially, and the conferences to be organized. It is better to have them on ones own side if one wants to pursue a field of research. Moreover, popular science and media coverage works as a magnet to attract fresh minds to the domain. In this sense, the simple but powerful metaphor of the violin string has had a direct effect on contemporary theoretical physics. It should come as no surprise that thanks to strategies of this sort, string theorists have annihilated any possible contender claiming an alternative quantized theory of gravity or the unification of the fundamental forces of nature. “The only game in town,” as some involved in the dispute used to say.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Before concluding, I would like to pose a question that until now has not been answered: why have string theorists chosen the violin rather than a more popular instrument such as the guitar? If the role of a metaphor is simply to elucidate a difficult subject, as some claim, why is the guitar string analogy scarcely used by string theorists? At this point the answer should be obvious to the reader. The secrets of the universe cannot be revealed nor understood by the uneducated person. And this extends to their musical tastes. To make this point clear, imagine the following scenario: substitute the graceful girl playing the cello in the above-mentioned episode of The Elegant Universe with a contemporary guitarist playing a rock song. How could we then rewrite the following observation made by the narrator?
Just as the strings of a cello [guitar] can give rise to a rich variety of musical notes, the tiny strings in string theory vibrate in a multitude of different ways making up all the constituents of nature. In other words, the universe is like a grand cosmic symphony [rock song] resonating with all the various notes these tiny vibrating strands of energy can play.[source]
With this substitution the meaning of the commentary is completely lost, because we associate with the music of the universe a “symphony,” not rock music. The music of the universe is a Bach Concerto, not Hendrix’s “Purple Haze.” This is why classical music is also sometimes called “serious music”; to distinguish it from the music listened to by the uneducated crowd. German musicologist Carl Dahlhaus dubbed “absolute music” what we currently know as classical music. [source] With this terminology he tried to convey the idea that German classical music is generally considered the purest and most sublime music. Listening to absolute music is a quasi-religious experience. And, like the secrets of the universe, it is not apt for everyone. Hence, returning to our question, if you change the violin to the guitar, superstring theorists would be horrified; they would ask, as Erasmus did some five hundred years ago: “What would Plato have said to the noisiness of modern music.”[source] André Malraux once said about this elitist view of classical music that there was a music oriented to the masses, but understandably not a Bach or Beethoven oriented to them.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Metaphors are powerful rhetorical tools. But, at the same time, they are much more than that. Indeed, when used astutely, that is, when anchored in deep shared meanings and aspirations, they can create an enthusiastic army of supporters to the discourse displayed. This has been one of the strongest weapons of string theorists in the battle for the control of future research in high energy theoretical physics.
________________________________________________________________________
SHARE THIS BLOG
Tell your friends and colleagues about Spinning the superweb.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
