String Theory Smackdown: The New Yorker does it nicely once again

With all the debate going on around the validity of the current world of theoretical physics, the New Yorker, in a recent issue, weighs in as eloquent as ever:

(By Jim Holt)

It is the best of times in physics. Physicists are on the verge of obtaining the long-sought Theory of Everything. In a few elegant equations, perhaps concise enough to be emblazoned on a T-shirt, this theory will reveal how the universe began and how it will end. The key insight is that the smallest constituents of the world are not particles, as had been supposed since ancient times but "strings"--tiny strands of energy. By vibrating in different ways, these strings produce the essential phenomena of nature, the way violin strings produce musical notes. String theory isn't jus powerful; it's also mathematically beautiful. All that remains to be done is to write down the actual equations. This is taking a little longer than expected. But, with almost the entire theoretical-physics community working on the problem--presided over by a sage in Princeton, New Jersey--the millennia-old dream of a final theory is sure to be realized before long

It is the worst of times in physics. For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o'-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far--just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing. Yet the physics establishment promotes string theory with irrational fervor, ruthlessly weeding dissenting physicists from the profession. Meanwhile, physics is stuck in a paradigm doomed to barrenness.

So which is it: the best of times or the worst of times? This is, after all, theoretical physics, not a Victorian novel. If you are a casual reader of science articles in the newspaper, you are probably more familiar with the optimistic view. But string theory has always had a few vocal skeptics. Almost two decades ago, Richard Feynman dismissed it as "crazy," "nonsense," and "the wrong direction" for physics. Sheldon Glashow, who won a Nobel Prize for making one of the last great advances in physics before the beginning of the string-theory era, has likened string theory to a "new version of medieval theology," and campaigned to keep string theorists out of his own department at Harvard. (He failed.)

and so on.

Of course, the burning question I have (and please inform us if you know the answer) is: how exactly does one breach the hallowed halls of the New Yorker? Excellent writing skills? Remarkable network? Decent SAT scores? Free muffins sent to appropriate personnel? Publication record which happens to include involvement in a book that happens to have a unicorn on the front cover?