Manny's Reviews > The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
by
by
![1713956](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p2/1713956.jpg)
[Original review, written December 2008]
When I read this book, I remember thinking it was pretty interesting, but I am surprised how few insights I have retained... to be honest, hardly any. Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, which I read much more recently, suggests that string theory is in big trouble, and right now I am more tempted to side with Smolin.
There's this old Nasrudin story, where he's somehow ended up as judge in a court case. The D.A. really makes a good case, and Nasrudin can't restrain himself. "Yes, you're right!" he shouts. Then the defense lawyer gets up and makes his pitch, and Nasrudin is equally impressed. "Yes, you're right!" he shouts again. The court recorder clears his throat and leans over towards Nasrudin. "Your honor," he says respectfully, "they can't both be right!". Nasrudin shakes his head. "Yes, you're right!" he agrees.
Well, between Greene and Smolin I feel a bit like Nasrudin, but luckily I am not the judge here. Am I just agreeing with Smolin because I heard him most recently? Maybe. But trying to correct for that, I still think that there is a reason why Smolin seems more convincing and memorable, and why very little of what Greene says has stuck. String theory has become so divorced from experimental reality that it rarely if ever gives you that feeling you get from good science, of suddenly grasping a real physical phenomenon that you have known about for a while, but not understood.
I guess the example that makes me least happy is supersymmetry, according to which every particle has a supersymmetric partner. Compare this with the discovery of the periodic table in the late 19th century, or the development of the Standard Theory in the 60s and 70s. There, insightful people gradually realized that objects (atoms in the first case, subatomic particles in the second) were related in a complicated pattern. Most of the time the pattern fit, but there were a few holes, and they were later able to find the things (new elements, new particles) that filled in the holes! I was astonished to read that there is not one single particle which has a known supersymmetric partner - so far, it's all hypothesis, and perhaps none of these "selectrons", "photinos" etc actually exist. I'm not saying that this means supersymmetry is wrong; I'm just saying it means I don't find it exciting.
Maybe next year they will get the LHC working, discover a whole slew of supersymmetric partners (even one would be a lot), and put string theory on a proper experimental footing. If that happens, I'm sure I'll go back to reading books on this subject; I won't be able to stop myself. But until then, well, it may be beautiful math, but I feel no emotional connection to it. I'd love to hear from people who disagree, and can explain to me just what it is I'm missing out on.
__________________________________
[Update, May 2011]
We had another particle physicist over for dinner last night. He'd come mainly to play chess, but when I found out that he was involved in looking for supersymmetric particles I took the opportunity to ask how it was going. Well: assuming he's to be trusted, and he sounded pretty knowledgeable on the subject, we should know pretty soon. The LHC is now up to high enough energies. They're collecting data. If supersymmetric particles exist, there is every reason to suppose that we'll have clear evidence of them within a year or two.
I wondered what would happen if they didn't find any supersymmetric particles? Would the theoreticians just retreat into saying that they needed a more powerful collider? Not so, said my informant; if the particles can't be found at the current range of energies, the predictions were wrong. Sounds like we're finally getting a straight up-or-down vote.
String theory, you can run but you can't hide!
__________________________________
[Update, September 2011]
I knew it was too good to be true. We had yet another particle physicist over, whose PhD topic had been something to do with searching for a supersymmetric quark. I asked her if it really was the case that we'd soon know if supersymmetric particles existed.
Alas, it turns out that, although the energies they're now reaching in the LHC are indeed sufficient to find supersymmetric particle according to the mainstream versions of string theory, there are other versions which predict higher energies - energies which are outside the LHC's range.
"Of course," she added, "the mainstream version is the one that contains the original motivation for supersymmetry. If they retreat to one of the other versions, then most of the rationale disappears. But people have a lot riding on string theory."
"That's terrible!" I said indignantly. She just shrugged her shoulders.
__________________________________
[Update, May 2015]
Browsing the physics section at the South Australian State Library earlier this week, I picked up a copy of Becker, Becker and Schwarz's String Theory and M-Theory (2007). The introduction says clearly that supersymmetry is essential to string theory/M-theory, and moreover that the LHC should be able to reach high enough energies to produce supersymmetric particles, if they do in fact exist. Consulting Google Scholar, my impression is that the book is highly respected: I see 661 citations.
Eight years later, no supersymmetric particles have been observed. But no doubt string theorists have an explanation for this inconvenient fact.
__________________________________
[Update, Dec 2015]
Hey, if you think I'm being mean to those poor string theorists, just look at what Randall Munroe said the other day!
![](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1451167079i/17513197._SX540_.png)
__________________________________
[Update, August 2017]
It struck me today that the people who are criticising CERN for spending so much money finding the Higgs boson are wrong on at least two counts. First, $13B isn't actually such a large price tag for making a fundamental discovery about the laws of the universe, the truth of which is obvious only in retrospect; many physicists were unsure that the Higgs existed. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, there's the dog that didn't bark in the night. Many physicists were also expecting to find supersymmetric particles, but none have been detected. This greatly weakens the plausibility of string theory and shifts attention to competing theories for unifying quantum mechanics and gravity, of which by far the most attractive is Loop Quantum Gravity.
Speaking as someone who used to work for NASA and was involved with the International Space Station project ($150B and counting), I would say CERN has given the taxpayer value for money and then some. It's a pity that all research funding isn't allocated in such a responsible manner.
__________________________________
[Update, March 2018]
On pages 368-9 of Leonard Susskind's 2008 book The Black Hole War, I find the following passage:
When I read this book, I remember thinking it was pretty interesting, but I am surprised how few insights I have retained... to be honest, hardly any. Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, which I read much more recently, suggests that string theory is in big trouble, and right now I am more tempted to side with Smolin.
There's this old Nasrudin story, where he's somehow ended up as judge in a court case. The D.A. really makes a good case, and Nasrudin can't restrain himself. "Yes, you're right!" he shouts. Then the defense lawyer gets up and makes his pitch, and Nasrudin is equally impressed. "Yes, you're right!" he shouts again. The court recorder clears his throat and leans over towards Nasrudin. "Your honor," he says respectfully, "they can't both be right!". Nasrudin shakes his head. "Yes, you're right!" he agrees.
Well, between Greene and Smolin I feel a bit like Nasrudin, but luckily I am not the judge here. Am I just agreeing with Smolin because I heard him most recently? Maybe. But trying to correct for that, I still think that there is a reason why Smolin seems more convincing and memorable, and why very little of what Greene says has stuck. String theory has become so divorced from experimental reality that it rarely if ever gives you that feeling you get from good science, of suddenly grasping a real physical phenomenon that you have known about for a while, but not understood.
I guess the example that makes me least happy is supersymmetry, according to which every particle has a supersymmetric partner. Compare this with the discovery of the periodic table in the late 19th century, or the development of the Standard Theory in the 60s and 70s. There, insightful people gradually realized that objects (atoms in the first case, subatomic particles in the second) were related in a complicated pattern. Most of the time the pattern fit, but there were a few holes, and they were later able to find the things (new elements, new particles) that filled in the holes! I was astonished to read that there is not one single particle which has a known supersymmetric partner - so far, it's all hypothesis, and perhaps none of these "selectrons", "photinos" etc actually exist. I'm not saying that this means supersymmetry is wrong; I'm just saying it means I don't find it exciting.
Maybe next year they will get the LHC working, discover a whole slew of supersymmetric partners (even one would be a lot), and put string theory on a proper experimental footing. If that happens, I'm sure I'll go back to reading books on this subject; I won't be able to stop myself. But until then, well, it may be beautiful math, but I feel no emotional connection to it. I'd love to hear from people who disagree, and can explain to me just what it is I'm missing out on.
__________________________________
[Update, May 2011]
We had another particle physicist over for dinner last night. He'd come mainly to play chess, but when I found out that he was involved in looking for supersymmetric particles I took the opportunity to ask how it was going. Well: assuming he's to be trusted, and he sounded pretty knowledgeable on the subject, we should know pretty soon. The LHC is now up to high enough energies. They're collecting data. If supersymmetric particles exist, there is every reason to suppose that we'll have clear evidence of them within a year or two.
I wondered what would happen if they didn't find any supersymmetric particles? Would the theoreticians just retreat into saying that they needed a more powerful collider? Not so, said my informant; if the particles can't be found at the current range of energies, the predictions were wrong. Sounds like we're finally getting a straight up-or-down vote.
String theory, you can run but you can't hide!
__________________________________
[Update, September 2011]
I knew it was too good to be true. We had yet another particle physicist over, whose PhD topic had been something to do with searching for a supersymmetric quark. I asked her if it really was the case that we'd soon know if supersymmetric particles existed.
Alas, it turns out that, although the energies they're now reaching in the LHC are indeed sufficient to find supersymmetric particle according to the mainstream versions of string theory, there are other versions which predict higher energies - energies which are outside the LHC's range.
"Of course," she added, "the mainstream version is the one that contains the original motivation for supersymmetry. If they retreat to one of the other versions, then most of the rationale disappears. But people have a lot riding on string theory."
"That's terrible!" I said indignantly. She just shrugged her shoulders.
__________________________________
[Update, May 2015]
Browsing the physics section at the South Australian State Library earlier this week, I picked up a copy of Becker, Becker and Schwarz's String Theory and M-Theory (2007). The introduction says clearly that supersymmetry is essential to string theory/M-theory, and moreover that the LHC should be able to reach high enough energies to produce supersymmetric particles, if they do in fact exist. Consulting Google Scholar, my impression is that the book is highly respected: I see 661 citations.
Eight years later, no supersymmetric particles have been observed. But no doubt string theorists have an explanation for this inconvenient fact.
__________________________________
[Update, Dec 2015]
Hey, if you think I'm being mean to those poor string theorists, just look at what Randall Munroe said the other day!
![](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1451167079i/17513197._SX540_.png)
__________________________________
[Update, August 2017]
It struck me today that the people who are criticising CERN for spending so much money finding the Higgs boson are wrong on at least two counts. First, $13B isn't actually such a large price tag for making a fundamental discovery about the laws of the universe, the truth of which is obvious only in retrospect; many physicists were unsure that the Higgs existed. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, there's the dog that didn't bark in the night. Many physicists were also expecting to find supersymmetric particles, but none have been detected. This greatly weakens the plausibility of string theory and shifts attention to competing theories for unifying quantum mechanics and gravity, of which by far the most attractive is Loop Quantum Gravity.
Speaking as someone who used to work for NASA and was involved with the International Space Station project ($150B and counting), I would say CERN has given the taxpayer value for money and then some. It's a pity that all research funding isn't allocated in such a responsible manner.
__________________________________
[Update, March 2018]
On pages 368-9 of Leonard Susskind's 2008 book The Black Hole War, I find the following passage:
... there is a whole collection of particles whose existence is only conjectural, but a lot of physicists (including me) think they may exist*. For reasons that are not important to us here, these hypothetical particles are called superpartners.Well, there it is again. Susskind, one of the foremost proponents of string theory and a world-renowned expert on fundamental physics in general, said ten years ago that the LHC would soon find the superpartners/supersymmetric particles if they were there. It hasn't found them. Ergo...
* We will know within a few years, when the European accelerator called the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) starts operating.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Elegant Universe.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 2001
–
Finished Reading
December 16, 2008
– Shelved
December 16, 2008
– Shelved as:
science
Comments Showing 1-50 of 119 (119 new)
message 1:
by
Rob
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
May 06, 2009 04:56AM
![Rob](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1643162978p1/156533.jpg)
reply
|
flag
I too read both books. I value both, but for different reasons. Greene is an excellent explainer, expositor and stylist, and for me, laid out both the general and special theories of relativity more clearly than any other that I have run across. Also he did a good job giving a basic view of string theory.
Smolin, on the other hand, was less of a stylist, a little less polished as a teacher, perhaps, but much more interesting in writing about the 'sociology' of the physics community, and his passion for the alternate ideas to string theory. Seems as though the superstring community has reached a limit in its ability to push the envelope, and Smolin's attitude of openess to other approaches is exactly what is needed. Thanks for your excellent review.
Smolin, on the other hand, was less of a stylist, a little less polished as a teacher, perhaps, but much more interesting in writing about the 'sociology' of the physics community, and his passion for the alternate ideas to string theory. Seems as though the superstring community has reached a limit in its ability to push the envelope, and Smolin's attitude of openess to other approaches is exactly what is needed. Thanks for your excellent review.
![Katrina](https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/f_25x33-d79c46f9428d2aea1444d67c091766a6.png)
nevertheless, if you are interested in corroboration, checkout greene on ted.com. to me, it is really an exciting time in physics. again.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Ian](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1324174664p1/2465351.jpg)
How many particle physicists do you have over for dinner in a typical week or month?
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Ian](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1324174664p1/2465351.jpg)
![Whitaker](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1410926609p1/1415047.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
I think it is no accident that Lee Smolin, one of the main slaughterers of sacred cows in theoretical physics, has in recent years become rather interested in economics.
![Whitaker](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1410926609p1/1415047.jpg)
Thanks for that reference. I hope he writes a populist book on his work some time in the future (a google search having turned up only dense academic articles). I need to finish my review of Economyths, but that book quite lucidly demonstrates how advances in scientific theory and computing ability make mincemeat of classical economics. Essentially, it seems to me that assumptions necessitated by the limits of math and lack of computing power in the 19th century ossified into immutable foundational "truths". Math, science, and computing have moved on. Economics is only now starting to slowly absorb these ideas, but popular understanding seems to still be wedded to Copernican economics.
![Gert-Jan](https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_25x33-8a3530ed95c3dbef8bf215b080559b09.png)
A former physicist, I agree with the view that String Theory is in big trouble.
I did like Greene's book in general, but many times I had the distinct feeling he was being too optimistic about things. Or, in other words: not completely truthful and objective towards his lay readers. This I dislike.
I still have to read Lee Smolin's book. Would be interesting...
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
Smolin's book is indeed well worth reading. It's also interesting to compare Greene with Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape, written just seven or eight years later. The author has abandoned supersymmetry, and argues that since the structure of physics seems to be inelegant (inexplicable particle masses, etc), what is needed is an inelegant theory. To me, it came across as quite desperate.
![Jusztina](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1366249608p1/19521316.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Kyle](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1362814696p1/11665678.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
Apart from Smolin, you can find stern criticisms in Woit's Not Even Wrong and Penrose's The Road to Reality.
![Jim](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1614704501p1/6020795.jpg)
"Supersymmetric Particles: My dinners with particle physicists"
Could be marketed as complex ideas from physics for the lay person. Similar to S.J. Gould, Lewis Thomas, or Michael Pollan in tone. Please add me to the acknowledgements if the book becomes a best seller...
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Jim](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1614704501p1/6020795.jpg)
Great news! Be careful of Britney if the project is greenlighted. When she says she wants to exchange ideas, what she really means is she wants to exchange fluids...*
(*stole that line from Woody Allen's 'Crimes and Misdemeanors')
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Karl-O](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1587934193p1/1257629.jpg)
I'm seeing poetry here, Sir. Wonderful review.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
If there were anything that looked like empirical evidence supporting it, I have a feeling I'd have heard, living as we do on CERN's doorstep. And without empirical evidence, why should I believe it? What make string theory so special that it's magically freed from all the normal criteria used to judge scientific work?
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
People like Smolin, Woit and Kragh - hardly light-weights - give some rather specific reasons to question the legitimacy of string theory. What's wrong with their arguments? "String theorists publish a lot of stuff" is not going to convince me.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
Is there a recent book from the string theory camp which offers a sensible rebuttal in at worst semi-technical terms? If so, I promise I'll read it. I'm very curious about these things. But I'm sorry, I can't read hardcore string theory papers.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
As I said, I'd welcome a suggestion from Rob on the opposite side. I would really like to understand this stuff better.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
And yes, before you ask, I found The Emperor's New Mind rather annoying. But Penrose knows very little about AI while Smolin is a physicist.
I take you are a physicist? Do you actually work in string theory?
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
There are no very solid theories in computational linguistics - it's a developing field. If you want to get an idea of the basic methods, take a look at Jurafsky and Martin.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
Anthropogenic global warming seems like the best interpretation of the data. I read what was supposed to be the best climate change skeptic book (this one), but most of the scientific arguments were unconvincing when I checked them out further.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
With string theory, I am quite selective about distinguishing between different people's criticisms. For example, compare my reviews of Woit's Not Even Wrong and Unzicker's Bankrupting Physics.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
The answer to your question, needless to say, is that you'd prefer the book which refers to peer-reviewed literature. But I do not see that this is a reasonable parallel to the case we have here. Someone like Unzicker may indeed be ranting and refusing to look at the peer-reviewed literature - he claims he is looking at it, but I think one is permitted to have some doubts. When you take people like Smolin, Woit and Penrose, it seems completely unfair to say that they are ignoring the literature. They give every appearance of knowing it very well. They just happen to disagree with the conclusions, and they explain pretty exactly what it is that they disagree with, and why.
I would say the ball is in the string theorists' court. They are the mainstream. There are plenty of them. Why can't someone produce a (semi-)popular book clearly stating why Smolin, Woit, Penrose, Baggott etc are giving a false picture of modern physics? I don't buy the argument that Smolin et al are so insignificant that they aren't worth refuting. Smolin is a respected member of the academic community, and The Trouble with Physics was a non-fiction bestseller. There is a plausible-sounding rumor that Barack Obama was seen reading it, for crying out loud.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
In climate change, I do not see that the dissenters have a strong case. In string theory, I find the dissenting case very troubling. It all depends on the specifics.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
Bottom line: until I see decent answers to the questions posed by Smolin et al, I see no reason why I should believe in a highly speculative theory which has no empirical support, even if it is fashionable in some circles.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
And why do I need to follow all the intricacies of the supporting math to be able to understand the obvious point that it lacks empirical support? This is the main thing that's bothering the critics. It doesn't matter how elegant and beautiful the math is: you simply don't prove the validity of a scientific theory that way. Saying "I know homology theory and you don't, so it doesn't matter whether I have experimental evidence"... well, that's just nonsense.
As a matter of fact, I have read a few books on homology theory. But it's irrelevant. If string theorists make predictions that experimentalists are able to test, I'll be convinced. If they can't, I'm skeptical. I'd say the same about any other subject.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
This is in fact exactly the point that Smolin makes: the string theory community have set up a fantastically complex theoretical framework that only a handful of people understand. For some mysterious reason, they claim that this gives them the right to suspend all the normal procedural rules of science. When outsiders question them, they reply with abuse.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
You haven't answered any of my points, except to say that you don't think I am qualified to comment, and to make insulting comparisons with Intelligent Design and climate change skepticism. There is no reason why you should agree with me. All I'm saying is that you might want to read Smolin, an acknowledged expert who makes a good case for distrusting current enthusiasm about string theory. I have suggested some arguments as to why this is an interesting and worthwhile book.
If you don't want to read him, then don't! It's not like your immortal soul is at stake or anything.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
If you've written a review explaining what you think might be wrong with their arguments, then I'd be curious to look at it. I know they are in the minority. What else?
I think I've answered all of your points. Please tell me which one I've ignored.
Why should string theorists be exempt from the usual requirement that a scientific theory needs empirical support? And please don't say "some cosmologists do it too".
Why do they keep changing the story with regard to supersymmetry?
Has any string theorist come up with a reasonable rebuttal of The Trouble with Physics? If not, why not?
And btw, you keep saying string theory is half a century old:
a) Was it around in 1963?! What are you referring to?
b) If it is that old, isn't it rather startling that we still don't have any empirical reason to believe it?
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
And as for Smolin, a) he publishes a good deal of technical stuff, and b) his criticisms of string theory are largely sociological: what objective reasons are there for considering it the only worthwhile direction to explore? Remember that he started off wanting to write a sociology-of-science book. And it is surely ridiculous to compare him with Deepak Chopra.
I don't know why they "keep changing the story with supersymmetry." I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
Compare the treatment of supersymmetry in The Elegant Universe with that in Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape. There's a complete switch in between, which is somehow glossed over, and this is not the only such case.
But I am not sure this is a productive discussion. If you haven't read Woit and Kragh, who are far more convincing than I'm ever going to be, why don't you look at them? Kragh, in particular, is one of the world's most eminent living experts on the history of science, and approaches the subject from a historical perspective. Maybe you'll like him more than Smolin.
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
![Manny](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1442491692p1/1713956.jpg)
This was indeed an interesting, if somewhat exhausting discussion. I've been trying to decide whether I think your comparisons are reasonable. Evidently there is something in them - but it is always easy to push a comparison too far.
With regard to evolution versus ID, you can compare people who are skeptical of string theory with supporters of ID. But it seems to me that there's an important difference, namely that there is abundant empirical evidence supporting evolution. Suppose there weren't any: no fossils, no easily visible mechanism of inheritance, no islands with unusual species that existed nowhere else, no examples from embryology. Even if evolution still happened to be true, I wouldn't regard ID as an absurd position.
You'd have people outlining this wonderful theory based on DNA, and it would make perfect sense to the few scientists who understood it. But then they'd say that there was no way of actually looking at DNA, which was a purely theoretical substance, and that huge efforts had been made to find fossils, without any success, and no islands appeared isolated enough for new species to develop.
Well... I don't know what you would think. I wouldn't believe it until something more had turned up, even if DNA theory was very popular among theoretical biologists.