Disagreeing On Everything
As theoretical physicists, we deplore the publication of A. Garrett Lisi and James Owen Weatherall’s “A Geometric Theory of Everything,” as well as of Zeeya Merali’s “Rummaging for a Final Theory” [News Scan] in the September issue, which was PR-level praise of Lisi’s research that presented him as struggling against an entrenched establishment.

As you surely knew Lisi’s views to be, to say the least, controversial, basic editorial precaution would have required first consulting a reputable particle physicist. You would have learned that duly refereed and published work of Jacques Distler of the University of Texas at Austin and Skip Garibaldi of Emory University has shown that Lisi’s model cannot even reproduce parity violation.

This effect, experimentally verified more than 50 years ago, is a basic element of the overwhelmingly successful Standard Model of particle physics. Instead Lisi predicts a host of particles that have not been detected and fails to account for the existence of other particles that do exist. His model simply fails to provide any correct physics.
Stanley Deser, Albion Lawrence and Howard J. Schnitzer
Brandeis University

THE EDITORS REPLY: Merali’s article covered a scientific meeting on new algebraic approaches to unifying physics, one of which is Lisi’s. She acknowledged his theory to be controversial, mentioning the work by Distler and Garibaldi, even quoting Garibaldi himself. She also quoted Lisi’s response, in which he said his ideas are still works in progress and sketched a possible solution to the criticism.

Separately, we had invited Lisi and Weatherall to describe Lisi’s work for the benefit of readers who may have been ­­curious about it after seeing its geometric beauty hinted at elsewhere. We did so in the spirit of presenting fresh ideas that are illuminating if admittedly tentative—one notable example being Scientific American’s articles on string theory in its early days. That decision was made after consultation with experts, most of whom were indeed skeptical about Lisi’s theory, but some of whom still thought it promising.

SKEPTICAL ABOUT FLUORIDE
I was saddened to see the inclusion of water fluoridation in Michael Shermer’s “The Conspiracy Theory Detector.” Perhaps Sher­mer should go back and look at Scientific American’s own coverage of fluo­ride [see “Second Thoughts about Fluoride,” by Dan Fagin; January 2008] or, better still, read the science in the 2006 National Research Council report “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.”

I have seen and read the science, and I no longer drink and cook with my city’s fluoridated water supply. I wish I could afford to not be forced to wash in it. Incidentally, carbon filters such as Brita’s do not remove fluoride from the water, and boiling it makes the fluoride more concentrated. Infants exposed to fluoride could have reduced IQ. Can our society really afford to take that chance?
Greg Warchol
Oakville, Ontario

GOOD AND BAD TRIPS
In “Hallucinogens as Medicine,” Roland R. Griffiths and Charles S. Grob describe the therapeutic benefits of hallucinogens such as psilocybin and LSD, as well as some of their risks. I was surprised, however, to see no discussion of perhaps the largest risk: causing patients to form false beliefs. Patients in the studies they cite emerge from their hallucinogenic experience believing that “all is One,” that “God asks nothing of us except to receive love,” and having a “peculiar disregard for ... their impending death.”

5 Comments

1. 1. GreenD 10:34 AM 4/8/11

   Although I did not read the article about psychodelics as medicine, I am very pleased to hear one was published in such an established source as S.A.
   
   I am an avid explorer of such sciences, and strongly believe they need to be approached in an ethically sound, safe, and scientific manner. I've had my experiences, and to say that psilocybin and LSD simply place "false" beliefs is a bit premature.
   
   The thought that you had to eat your own fingers, Mr.Haller, is somewhat common in those unexperienced and uneducated on the subject. As you stated, this WAS caused by over stimulation in a specific brain area - an area probably not very stimulated by you before, hence the 'psychotic' thoughts.
   
   To end this briefly, and without employing many references and controversial beliefs, I will say that the use of psychodelics as medicine must be approached, and to prevent the fear and often limited-psychosis that can potentially accompany their use - education is essential. Our youth are showered with tall tales and informal beliefs about psychodelics and this most certainly affects their use, but also their experience. Having a child overhear "LSD rots your brain" and 3 years later finds himself wondering if he should eat his own fingers will not bode well for the young & curious.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Dr.d 06:21 PM 4/8/11

   When I read this comment: "I have seen and read the science, and I no longer drink and cook with my city’s fluoridated water supply." I immediately thought not of protective fluoride but natural contaminants in city waters (cadmium?). Moving from N.Y.'s and P.R.'s crystalline waters to Florida's brackish soupy 'water' would force anyone to convert to 'holy' beer or wine drinking if you are of German or Spanish descent respectively... at least during lent... :-)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. joseph2237 10:52 AM 4/10/11

   Find it slightly disappointing that after 50 years the "overwhelmingly successful Standard Model of particle physics" is still the standard model. Then again Einstein did say Physist do suffer from lack ofr imagination except when it comes to multi-verses. Verifiable proof through experiments is ok except the experiment are conducted with "known" paraments and the outcome is anticapated any unexpected result is regarded as invalid. Why are physist proud that basic fundimental knowledge has not been advanced in 50 years. We are still trying to finish up relativity after a hundred years. I'm for a little less critism and a litte more presistance and encouragement.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Didonai 05:10 PM 4/12/11

   Actually, JD's are not the only kind of doctor really good at screwing people with the facts. Truth is no kind of ignorance is so pervasive as professional opinion that just refuses to consider the shape of knowledge is really nothing quite like the expert would prefer.
   
   Now, go screw yourself with the facts and then wonder at the failure of scientific discovery...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. drelliot 10:19 AM 5/9/11

   Garrett Lisi is now scoffing at the wisdom of the likes of Einstein, Bohr, Newton, and Feynman in the comments here:
   
   scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=garrett-lisi-responds-to-criticisms-2011-05-04&posted=1#comments
   
   And he is stating that anonymously editing wikipages is superior to peer-reviewed science:
   
   Garret writes, "Old-school scientists have dismissed E8 Theory for not being peer reviewed and published. Personally, I am not climbing an academic ladder and I enjoy an open exchange of ideas, so I did not feel the need to submit my original 2007 paper to a traditional journal, although I was invited to do so."
   
   Which journal invited you to submit the 2007 paper? Please do share!
   
   Also, if peer-reviewed journals are only for "old shcool" scientists, should "new school" scientists abandon the peer-review process and instead edit their wikipedia pages?
   
   The following is from:
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything
   
   "The Greater Goal of The Smolin-Lisi Enterprise?
   
   Reading through the above discussion, I am quite amazed that scientryst (lisi?) is actively trying to define peer-reviewed and published scientific articles as untrustworthy and unreliable, while trying to define popular articles and blogs and well-funded hype as trusted and reliable. Is this really happening? Really? Please discuss."
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this