Skip to main content

Book review: Lost in math - How beauty leads Physics astray

Sabine's book surrounded by beauty.

Backreaction blog

In May 2017, I ran across an intriguing Physics paper1 that claimed to explain the observed value of the cosmological constant using ingredients drawn from the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. This paper had garnered a large amount of public attention, and I thought it would be fun to read through it and then report back on the paper's main findings to the "Club d'astronomie de Rimouski", of which I am a member. This paper was outside my field of expertise (physical oceanography), filled with mathematical notations that I was not familiar with, so that I quickly felt the need to look for a critical assessment of it by a physicist specialized in cosmology. Google searches eventually led me to a Backreaction blog post2 by Sabine Hossenfelder. Her post contained a healthy mixture of positive and more critical comments about this 'hot off the press' paper proposing an explanation for the cosmological constant. I immediately liked Sabine's direct, funny, honest writing style and began following her on Twitter.

Now fast forward one year, and I end up purchasing a copy of Sabine's very first book3, in which she explores some of the difficulties encountered in contemporary theoretical physics, especially in the areas of elementary particle physics and cosmology.

The standard model of particle physics

In 2012, the joint discovery of the Higgs boson by two teams of experimental physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva provided conclusive evidence for the 25th of the 25 particles of the standard model of particle physics, whose development began in the 1960s and was largely completed in the 1970s. In the standard model, the Higgs boson's task is to give mass to some (but not all) of the 24 other standard model particles. Physicists were confident they would eventually find the Higgs boson, but were lacking theoretical guidance as to what its mass (and energy, through Einstein's E = mc2) should be.

Ever since the LHC was built, many physicists were also hoping to discover new physics and observe new types of particles beyond the 25 particles of the standard model. In fact, several physicists were so confident that new supersymmetry particles would soon be found at LHC that they placed a bet on it. But in 2016, those who won the bet (a bottle of cognac was at stake) were the ones who predicted the absence of supersymmetry particles at the LHC4.

One the main reasons for which so many physicists were convinced the LHC would reveal new particles beyond the standard model comes from the current "state-of-the-art" mass and energy budget of the observable Universe.


The best fit of observations of the cosmos to the mathematics of Einstein's general relativity are consistent with a worldview in which 'dark energy' constitutes 68.3% of the total matter-energy budget of the Universe. Astronomers' measurements indicate that the remaining 31.7% is made up of matter, which physicists further break down into two categories: 'dark matter' (26.8%) and ordinary matter (4.9%). While ordinary matter is made up of the 25 particles of the standard model of physics, the fundamental nature of dark matter remains a mystery, though theories abound as to possible candidates that would only very weakly interact with ordinary matter. And some of those theories predict that we should already have seen dark matter particle candidates at the collision energies that have been achieved at the LHC, but we have not. So what gives? Sabine largely blames theoretical physicists' biases and preferences for mathematical theories that they find simple, elegant and beautiful.

Beauty - not always a good guide in physics

Beauty is an acquired taste that involves cultural values as well as one's lifelong training and interests. Throughout their professional careers, most theoretical physicists have acquired a sense of beauty for mathematics that they find elegant, simple, and, well, beautiful...

Trouble is, simplicity does not always win. Planets' orbits around the sun would be simpler if they were perfectly circular, but observations show they are rather elliptical. 

I am a physicist, but am not a specialist in either particle physics or cosmology. I specialized in the physics of Earth's ocean and atmosphere. Consequently, I am in no position to judge on the adequacy of supersymmetry or string theory, of which I frequently hear about or read about in popular science TV shows or magazines. 

As we read "Lost in Math", we follow globetrotter Sabine as she goes from place to place to discuss about cutting-edge fundamental physics with renowned physicists, including a few Nobel prize winners. She interacts with them, asking for their views as to why we have not yet seen evidence of particles beyond the standard model at the LHC and other ongoing experiments. She also asks questions that help clarify what each physicist personally considers beautiful. To which Steven Weinberg famously replied that a good horse breeder can immediately recognize a beautiful horse when he sees one!

Large experiments such as the LHC are very expensive, and generally require many years to plan and build. Therefore, the time lag between developing and testing hypotheses has grown very large over the past 30 to 40 years. In the absence of experimental data, how are we then supposed to decide which theoretical predictions are most worthy of eventually being tested in often expensive experimental setups? On which criteria should we judge untested theories? Sabine leaves this question unanswered, but opines that the beauty and elegance of mathematical theories can be a very poor guide and often has no connection whatsoever with physical reality.

I recommend "Lost in Math" to anyone interested in fundamental science and epistemology, because many of the issues raised in the book go much beyond physics. Sabine calls for a renewed dialogue between scientists and philosophers, and recalls us that physics is not math. Physics is choosing the right math. And for that to happen, observational guidance remains necessary.


  1. Wang, Q., Zhu, Z., Unruh, W.G. 2017 How the huge energy of quantum vacuum gravitates to drive the slow accelerating expansion of the Universe. Phys. Rev. D 95:103504. Arxiv:1703.00543 [gr-qc]
  2. Hossenfelder, S. 2017. Does parametric resonance solve the cosmological constant problem? Backreaction, May 31, 2017. 
  3. Hossenfelder, S. 2018. Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. Basic Books. New York, USA. 291p.
  4. Wolchover, N. 2016. Supersymmetry bet settled with cognac. Quanta Magazine, August 22, 2016.


Popular posts from this blog

Climate projections to 2100 for Toronto (Ontario, Canada)

U pdated 2020-02-10.   In June 2019,  Environment and Climate Change Canada ( ECCC ) launched a new Canadian climate data portal: . Through this portal, decision makers in the private sector, municipalities, provincial and federal departments are now better equipped to make informed decisions about future development options all across Canada, taking into account projections of future climate change. In this post, my goal is simply to illustrate the types of climate data that are available for thousands of municipalities by taking the example of Canada's largest city: Toronto. A second example is provided for the city that I live in: Rimouski (in French) . I encourage decision makers to explore what information has in store for the communities they live in. Are there any takers of this challenge for Vancouver, Halifax, Calgary or Tuktoyaktuk? For the City of Toronto (43.7417°N, 79.3733°W), I present plots of historical ( 1950-2005) and plaus

The War on Science - lessons for democracy in 2016, 2020 and beyond

Updated 2020-07-21. Four years ago, the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries were characterized by a contest in which it had become necessary to express antiscience and anti-expertise opinions on climate change in order to have any chance of winning the Republican nomination for president of the United States of America.  How did the Republican Party arrive at such a low moral and intellectual point? A uthor Shawn Otto tells this story and many other antiscience stories in his book  The War on Science .  Otto's book was officially published in May 2016, but he had finished writing it before voting began in any of the 2016 caucuses and primaries. At the time of writing, Donald Trump was just one of several candidates campaigning in the Republican Party's presidential primaries , alongside Ted Cruz,  Marco Rubio,  John Kasich, Ben Carson,   Jeb Bush and many others. When Otto's book came out in May 2016, we were six months away from the November 2016 Presidential el

CO2 emissions from all-electric, plug-in hybrid, hybrid and conventional vehicles in the USA

Updated 2019-06-02.  One of the main reasons explaining the rise in popularity of electric vehicles (EVs) is that they do not directly require the burning of fossil fuels in order to take us from point A to point B. In other words, EVs have the potential of helping us reduce CO2 emissions that are responsible for human-caused global heating. However, if the power grid from which we charge EVs requires the burning of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) in order to generate electricity, are we better off in terms of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere?  It depends. Online tool to estimate annual CO2 emissions Using grid electricity is not always the only choice for EVs; a growing number of people install solar panels on their house's roof and store excess energy in home battery storage systems. This enables them to recharge their electric cars with 100% renewable energy regardless of which state they live in. But for those who must rely on grid electricity, the U.S. Department