The full title of the book is Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. She wrote this back in 2016-2017, and it was published in 2018. She interviewed about a dozen researchers to get their takes on the concept of beauty in physics. In 2020, she provided an update to the book as it was going to paperback. She has current blog posts – essentially daily! Peter Woit also wrote a good overview/review of the book.

She feels that physics is losing its way, because it is becoming too dependent upon supposedly beautiful mathematical concepts, and less upon data derived from experiment. Physicists are not following the scientific method. At the small end of the physics spectrum where subatomic particles are being researched, physicists are starting to hit a wall where the energies needed to break apart protons and neutrons are getting to be too high.

There are problems where supersymmetry (SUSY) and string theory just cannot be verified with physical experiments. While the mathematics of the theories may look good, it is extremely difficult to verify with experimental data.

She is also not a fan of the multiverse idea, since that is near-impossible to verify — right now anyway.

I really like the subtitles of each chapter, such as Chapter 2 What a Wonderful World In which I read a lot of books about dead people and find that everyone likes pretty ideas but that pretty ideas sometimes work badly. At a conference I begin to worry that physicists are about to discard the scientific method. Or, Chapter 4 Cracks in the Foundations In which I meet with Nima Arkani-Hamed and do my best to accept that nature isn’t natural, everything we learn is awesome, and that nobody gives a fuck what I think. Other chapter titles can be found here. Most of the chapters had three or four bullet points at the end as nice summaries to tie things up.

In any case, I highly enjoyed the book. I am looking forward to reading her newer book, Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions.

Some of my favorite quotes are:

“Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed. And they’re not even good at that. In the Multiverse, you can’t explain the value of parameters; at best you can estimate their likelihood. But there are many ways to not explain something.” (page 108)

“The canary isn’t doing well. You’d think that scientists, with the professional task of being objective, would protect their creative freedom and rebel against the need to please colleagues in order to secure continued funding. They don’t.” (Page 197)

While talking with Katie Mack (future author of The End of Everything: (Astrophysically Speaking)), Sabine said “I think nature has more beauty in store for us. But beauty, like happiness, can’t be found by complaining about its absence.” (Page 209)

“But even with good problems and clearly stated assumptions, there can still be many mathematically possible solutions. In the end the only way to find out which theory is correct is to check whether it describes nature; non-empirical theory assessment will not do. In the search for a theory of quantum gravity and for a better formalism of quantum physics, the only way forward is to derive and test different predictions. And so, my third and final lesson is this: Observational guidance is necessary. Physics isn’t math. It’s choosing the right math.” (Page 234)