Causes of loss of interest in String program

[yoda jedi]

I don't know if String models incorporate what you call the epistemic view.

I would like if someone could show me how the Program does this. If it does not then this could be one of the root reasons for what has happened to the program. Something clearly has happened. People get emotional and squabble about what words to use to describe it but the bickering is not so important.

What I hear in this thread is that the Program does not offer a single handle on the world, but rather has broken into a tribe of different models.

The sophisticated view is that none of these models represents reality. However they are all interesting to examine and find relations between.

I would not say that this dispersion and this sophisticated view is inherently wrong! However these two things may help to understand the decline in citations (and possible other measures of direction and vitality.)

In any case I would be glad to be contradicted by anyone who thinks they know that this sophisticated proliferation is NOT a factor, or even that it does not exist. I might learn something from a counterargument.
=======================

Yoda, about the epistemic view. It's one of the things I look for. An "information-oriented" theory of geometry. I want our geometric measurements of the world to be incorporated in the theory---present mathematically. Perhaps as tangible operators on a tangible Hilbertspace, or in some other concrete mathematical form.
Because "not about what the world IS, but about how it responds when we measure" and that includes the measurements corresponding to preparation of experiment and subsequent predictions.
For me it is pragmatic/operational. I don't myself say "epistemic" but I think you understand very well what I am trying to say.

Since there is one world (that all observers share) why is there not one "string theory" that describes how that world responds to each observer's measurements of it? And in particular to geometrical measurements, since everything else rests in and on the geometry.

And what has one done, if one gives up the goal of such a theory and adopts a more sophisticated view? Do you understand my viewpoint?

regardless of epistemic and ontic schemes, maybe string and loop theory can not do the job.
and there are some hints that naure is nonlinear.
and the string and loop theories are linear.



.

 

[fzero]

I guess it should be done something like this, a Boolean search like "N=1" OR "N=2" OR "N=4" OR "N=8". It would give a better picture.

I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Plenty of papers on N=1,2,4 SYM don't directly use string techniques, or at least build off a result derived from string techniques in another paper, without directly using string techniques themselves. It's not clear that we should call any of those "string" papers. Most of the scattering amplitude papers in the twistor arena should probably be called non-string for the type of analysis marcus is doing. Of course, the mere fact that a string theorist is working in that area is not evidence that she has lost interest in string theory.

 

[marcus]

What I am measuring here is number of papers that DESY classifies as "string model" and "membrane model". The interesting thing, which I would like explained, is why (from this informal sample of people) there used to be a lot of papers in that category and now are less. Maybe there is a very simple explanation.

I felt I should redo the table in part because Suprised suggested I look at younger theorist's output in the same light as I did the others earlier. The table is not especially important to the discussion. Since we are on a new page, here it is:

          2003-2004      2005-2006      2007-2008      2009-2010
Gaiotto         5              9              5              4
Alday           1              5              4              0
Neitzke         3              2              1              0
Nekrasov        4              3              1              2  
Strominger     15              7              4              0
Dijkgraaf       4              5              3              4
Polchinski      8              3              2              2
Maldacena      17              7              5              4 
Gibbons,G       6              5              1              1
Harvey,J        4              5              2              0
Ooguri          7              6              3              4
Silverstein,E   9              7              5              5

In connection with this table I am not asking some other question which you or others may have in mind. As I said this tabulation is not about "interest in string theory" broadly interpreted. Nor is it about "string techniques" etc etc. or what "should" be classified as string.

What I think it may have to do with is what I called "increased sophistication".

 

[fzero]

What I am measuring here is number of papers that DESY classifies as "string model" and "brane model". The interesting thing, which I would like explained, is why there used to be a lot of papers in that category and now are less.

I am not asking some other question which Fzero or others may have in mind. As I said this tabulation is not about "interest" in "real" this or that. "string techniques" etc etc.

You seem to trying to find some result in sociology or anthropology rather than in physics. Experts have explained to you that the DESY keywords are incomplete. I'm sure that 99.99% of active physicists never use the keywords when searching the literature. It's far more efficient to track through the references and citations of important papers.

To follow through a bit more, you're not trying to measure the level of interest by experts in string theory, you're measuring what some librarians believe string theory is. These are two completely different topics and the latter would be more appropriately discussed in the Social Sciences forum. It's insincere and misleading to keep posting those tables in a discussion that you've been claiming to be about interest in the string program. The "string program" is ultimately decided by its participants and not librarians.

The table is not especially important to the discussion.

Is this why you've posted it so many times in the thread? Whether or not you feel the table is important to the discussion is actually irrelevant. We've explained to you that the table cannot be relevant to the discussion referred to in the title of the thread. This was argued early in the thread and you've probably gone on to post twenty more variations of the table in the meantime.

 

[marcus]

I think you are mistaken. I think there probably is an explanation and that the table relates to a real change in the character of research over the years 2003-2010.

I would like to hear what some others have to say about how the program has changed. i can only guess or give my own personal impression, but I think it has become more sophisticated and abstract.

More split up into a variety of different models and lines of investigation. I sense that there is less conviction now (than in 2003 for example) that the world is actually made of real strings and branes. Less conviction that one is working towards a unique theory of everything.

I do not call that increased sophistication a loss of interest. For the purposes of this thread, interest can be measured by current citations to the recent papers. That does not involve DESY keywords.

What a sample of individual theorists are doing is not all that important. Here is what I would like to understand better, if you or anyone can explain it:

Spires top cited articles during odd years 2001-2009
(with number of recent string papers making the top fifty shown in parenthesis)
2001:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2001/annual.shtml (twelve)
2003:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/annual.shtml (six)
2005:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2005/annual.shtml (two)
2007:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/annual.shtml (one)
2009:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/annual.shtml (one)

A paper is counted as recent here if it appeared in the past five years.

Why is it that in 2001 twelve recent papers made the list of most-cited HEP research and in 2009 only one recent paper made the list?

I think there are some reasons that have to do with physics and I'm curious to find out what people can suggest.

 

[marcus]

Here are some ideas. Maybe someone can correct me on these: they are just suggested reasons for the above decline in current cites.

1. the program has not incorporated a math representation of measurement/information. (It seems more concerned with notions of what nature IS rather than with how it responds to measurement).

2. the program doesn't incorporate the geometry of the universe. (Unless you count borrowing second-hand classical geometries.)

3. it hasn't worked out a resolution of the cosmological singularity.

4. it has fragmented into studying a multitude of different models none of which anyone seems to seriously believe in.

About declining citations, I looked at the "hep-th" annual top 50 for the past four years and saw that recent string papers constituted a declining portion:

Recent string papers in the "hep-th" top 50:
2007 18
2008 23
2009 19
2010 13

Recent being the preceding 5 years including the year in question.

This is worrisome because hep-th is string home territory, where most string research is posted. And the hep-th top 50 is normally totally dominated by the string program.

I would be glad if anyone would care to check the numbers. The links are:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/eprints/to_hep-th_annual.shtml
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2008/eprints/to_hep-th_annual.shtml
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/eprints/to_hep-th_annual.shtml
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2010/eprints/to_hep-th_annual.shtml

 

[negru]

I'm sorry but this is getting very boring. Is learning how to count your most important academic achievement, and that's why keep counting random things?
I just glossed over 2010 and noticed that out of top 10 papers 8 of them are string theory. Same as in 2007.

Either you find a statistically rigorous method of counting, or please just shut up already.

 

[negru]

And find something meaningful to count too. Number of papers is highly irrelevant. The least you could do was count each new idea put forward in each paper. That's probably too hard though, but you could for example count the number of pages of each paper, and compare total number of pages.

 

[Haelfix]

Marcus, you have made the same point 100 times, with barely any difference between posts.

You have not even attempted to debate any of this in a reasonable manner and I don't think anyone actually agrees with you. Please stop spamming the forum with the same thing over and over again.. Its boring, has absolutely nothing to do with physics, and frankly is pretty far removed from reality.

Why don't you do us all a favor, and email the 10 or 15 'string leaders' who you think have changed their mind, ask them what they think of the state of the field/extra dimensions/background independance/quantum cosmology/measurement information (whatever that means) and then post what they tell you. Ok?

Now if you want to ask a physics question, then sure i'd be glad to help, but if its more thinly veiled sociology crap then sorry no.

 

[marcus]

I'm sorry but this is getting very boring. Is learning how to count your most important academic achievement, and that's why keep counting random things?
I just glossed over 2010 and noticed that out of top 10 papers 8 of them are string theory. Same as in 2007.

Either you find a statistically rigorous method of counting, or please just shut up already.

There is no reason to be impolite or ad hom. We are counting recent papers in the case of 2007 that would be arxiv 2003-2007.
You say there are 8 in the first 10, but there are actually 2.

They are numbers 5 and 6 on the list, I define string very broadly and inclusively so I included the Copeland paper (mainly cosmology) because it discussed some string ideas of dark energy, among others.

For 2010 you say there are 8 out of the first 10, but there is only one. Again it is the cosmology paper by Copeland et al, which mentions some string ideas among others.

You aren't reading very carefully. Like a lot of criticism on this thread, what you say is irrelevant.

 

[marcus]

.
...Why don't you do us all a favor, and email the 10 or 15 'string leaders' who you think have changed their mind, ask them what they think of the state of the field/extra dimensions/background independance/quantum cosmology/measurement information (whatever that means) and then post what they tell you. Ok?
...

Your post is not relevant to the thread or to the questions I've raised. I am not suggesting some bunch of leaders has changed their mind.
What I mean by interest here is probably best measured by current citations to recent research. (And conference attendance).

Cites indicate how string theorists value their own colleagues' output.

Current cites to recent work show a decline.

I just posted some new data on that (see post #181), at least new for me:I hadn't looked at the hep-th listing before.

The question is why this decline.

Personally I don't think it's "sociology" or boring. There are a lot of intellectual resources invested in this program. i'd like to know why it doesn't seem to be panning out, and if it isn't what can be done.

When this question is raised I get a lot of squawking, denial, vituperation, ad hom, and misinterpretative spin.

To me this indicates that the decline in current cites, and other indications of direction and vitality, is a sore point. It proves it's real.

 

[marcus]

Since we have a new page, and it helps us stay on topic to have in view the main thing we are trying to understand, I will recopy:

Spires top cited articles during odd years 2001-2009
with number of recent string papers making the top fifty shown in parentheses.
2001:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2001/annual.shtml (twelve)
2003:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/annual.shtml (six)
2005:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2005/annual.shtml (two)
2007:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/annual.shtml (one)
2009:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/annual.shtml (one)

A paper is counted as recent here if it appeared in the past five years.

Why is it that in 2001 twelve recent papers made the list of most-cited HEP research and in 2009 only one recent paper made the list?

I think there are some physics reasons and I'm curious to find out what people can suggest.

I think the reasonable thing to do is not to deny this but unemotionally and constructively try to see if there are any deficiencies contributing to this decline, and any remedies. A lot of intellectual resources have been invested in the program and we all have an interest in its success.

As an encouragement to other people to offer their ideas, I'll toss out a few ideas of mine (but I don't expect they'll necessarily be the most insightful we can come up with if we make the effort.)

 

[marcus]

Keep in mind that we are looking for correctible deficiencies in the research program. There is a lot of great string mathematics with applications to various stuff unrelated to unification (condensed matter, superconductivity, QCD...). Hurrah for applied mathematics. It is the program we are looking at, not string math.

I wish I had more to offer, and would be glad if others would contribute ideas.1. the program has not incorporated a math representation of measurement/information. (It seems more concerned with notions of what nature IS rather than with how it responds to measurement).

2. the program doesn't incorporate the geometry of the universe. (Unless you count borrowing second-hand classical geometries.)

3. it hasn't worked out a resolution of the cosmological singularity.

4. it has fragmented into studying a multitude of different models none of which carry conviction.

 

[negru]

In that case, are you proposing that we LIE to them? Should we tell them there has NOT been a decline in current citation standings?

What purpose do you imagine that would that serve?

No, let's instead over emphasize a research program that no serious physicists ever look at..

I propose that the most useful and moral purpose this forum can serve (with regards to sociology) is to present an accurate description of how various research programs are viewed in academia. From experience I can tell you that the numbers you're showing have no connection to reality, because either way:
1. they do not represent a meaningful quantity
2. even if they did they are not statistically significant

You are not doing anyone a favor with the hyping of LQG and downplaying of strings. What will happen is that students will come from this forum believing that string theory and LQG are somehow two competing theories, and that the winner remains to be established. Well in the real world, this is not at all true. The significance of LQG has measure zero in all research being done. The physicists doing LQG have absolutely no credibility. Of course this is not something you can learn by watching the arxiv and counting citations and papers. If you go to a good university and tell people you're doing LQG, they will laugh at you, and that's it. Whether they're doing string theory or astronomy. I visited some just a while ago, that was the unique reaction I saw when people asked about opinions on lqg. If you're so interested about where various fields are going, you should be more concerned that smolin writes papers with lisi, rather than by how many papers witten puts out. I'm terribly sorry, I've nothing against lisi, but if you write papers with him you'll never be taken seriously for the rest of your life.


So if you want to discuss the physics of LQG that's perfectly fine, everyone should figure it out for themselves whether it makes sense or not - assuming they have the required expertise. But over hyping a field which virtually does not exist is totally different, and is very damaging, both to the students and academia in general.

 

[fzero]

You might want to count the number of non-string recent papers on the hep-th top 50 lists. I looked at 2008-2010 and found that in the top 50 we have:

non-string:
2008: 2
2009: 5
2010: 11

The bulk of the 5 and 11 papers are on Horava-Lifschitz theories. So H-L is pretty much a huge reason for string papers dropping off of those lists.

It would be useful to see the numbers of recent non-string papers for the SPIRES topcite lists. I think that it would be necessary to further split these into theoretical and experimental papers. That would tell you some of the theory research areas that have been blossoming recently. Looking at the 2010 list, we have a bunch of cosmology experiment papers and a handful of theory papers, including the Copeland et al Dark Energy paper, Horava and a modified gravity paper. It looks like observational cosmology has pushed string papers off of the SPIRES topcite lists, not any competing theory.

 

[negru]

The mere fact that we're counting Horava cites shows how useless this whole exercise is...

Btw I also saw verlinde give a talk, and he said that the biggest motivation he has is string theory. so i guess you should count him too marcus ...

oops i meant horava not verlinde...always get my crackpots confused..

 

[atyy]

The mere fact that we're counting Horava cites shows how useless this whole exercise is...

Probably not any more than Randall-Sundrum. (I mean the idea is interesting, but for a while if you looked at cites, you'd think it as important as AdS/CFT, which I think is on a different plane?)

 

[negru]

Well I never said I considered cites to be relevant in any way. As far as I'm concerned the most important paper of the near future (imo of course) has about 20-30 cites or so. If you really need to count something, I'd say look at h-index. Most cites come from garbage papers, especially in the case of verlinde and horava. Many garbage papers cite string theory stuff of course, so i don't think it's reliable.

 

[atyy]

Well I never said I considered cites to be relevant in any way. As far as I'm concerned the most important paper of the near future (imo of course) has about 20-30 cites or so. If you really need to count something, I'd say look at h-index. Most cites come from garbage papers, especially in the case of verlinde and horava. Many garbage papers cite string theory stuff of course, so i don't think it's reliable.

Out of curiosity, which is the paper you're most excited about?

 

[Haelfix]

I agree with Negru, citations are important but not that important. In fact in modern times, it takes awhile for a good paper to start racking up citations b/c it takes awhile to absorb the technical details. That's a symptom of an advanced research field.

The best paper of the past 2 years in pure theory is probably one of Nima's recent papers (arXiv:1012.6032) or the work by Seiberg et al (arXiv:1002.2228) as well as on general gauge mediation.

They represent important technical steps, and while they are not necessarily revolutionary, they will be textbook material within 10 years.

 

[marcus]

...students will come from this forum believing that string theory and LQG are somehow two competing theories, and that the winner remains to be established. Well in the real world, this is not at all true. The significance of LQG has measure zero in all research being done. The physicists doing LQG have absolutely no credibility. Of course this is not something you can learn by watching the arxiv and counting citations and papers. If you go to a good university and tell people you're doing LQG, they will laugh at you, and that's it...

That is not quite accurate. Although retired, I occasionally attend seminars and colloquia at the physics and math departments here. UC Berkeley physics department is not second rate. LQG does not have measure zero here. And what people laugh at in a university setting depends a lot on who you talk to.

Back in March I talked with someone at the UC physics department who is doing his PhD in Loop, should be finished by the end of the summer. My guess is he will postdoc at Marseille.

The advisor has two other students who are likely prospects for doing Loop thesis, but I don't know that either has chosen a topic yet. I think it's earlier stages.

Two people from UC physics will be attending Loops 2011 conference in May, one of whom will be giving a paper.

 

[unusualname]

This thread has become messy, and the arguments that it is just poorly argued sociological nonsense are not too unfair

However, the naysayers have consistently refused to address any points hinting at deeper problems, which have been posted, ie string theory may not quite be correct, has struggled to address fundamental issues in an elegant manner, and may just be plain over-convoluted epicycles for the 21st century.

I don't think too many people think this structure will survive in all its complexity come the final theory, I mean, nature ain't that bad surely? ;-)

 

[Sardano]

This thread have ended with the usual monologue of Marcus saying nosenses. I will say what is in everybodys mind: Marcus, you are not a physicist, you are not a researcher in ST nor LG, you have never been, so please, shut up!

 

[MTd2]

may just be plain over-convoluted epicycles for the 21st century.

Maybe better comparison is that string theory is the aristotelian physics of the 21st century. epicycles fitted quite well experimental data, which is not true, yet, for string theory. So, it is still on the stage of aristotelian physics. It might be promoted to epicycles if any sign of supersymmetry is found, but still it is aristotelian physics.

 

[unusualname]

Maybe better comparison is that string theory is the aristotelian physics of the 21st century. epicycles fitted quite well experimental data, which is not true, yet, for string theory. So, it is still on the stage of aristotelian physics. It might be promoted to epicycles if any sign of supersymmetry is found, but still it is aristotelian physics.

haha, that's clever, I was just thinking that a load of uber-intelligent people allowed their brilliant mathematical imaginations to run wild in the absence of the true natural constraining ideas. The results of the rampage are undoubtedly incredible constructions, but without the correct prior constraining ideas might just be not very close to true nature

Maybe if Feynman had 20 years after his interview in Davis & Brown book, he would still have same opinion of string theory

Just sayin' (maybe that's the reason for (some) loss of interest in strings)

 

[marcus]

...
However, the naysayers have consistently refused to address any points hinting at deeper problems, which have been posted, ie string theory may not quite be correct, has struggled to address fundamental issues in an elegant manner, and may just be plain over-convoluted epicycles for the 21st century.

I don't think too many people think this structure will survive in all its complexity come the final theory, I mean, nature ain't that bad surely? ;-)

There's some truth in this. I think the main breakthrough is going to be in the area of a quantum geometry that is faithful to GR in the sense of imposing no prior geometry.
A fully interactive geometry.

Once that is achieved I suspect the rest will fall into place. And it may be unexpectedly simple and elegant, as you suggest.

Check out the new paper on a dual theory to GR. I posted about it here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=494789
Very new stuff.

It may be easier to quantize or to determine if it is recovered from QG in the appropriate limit.

 

[atyy]

This thread has become messy, and the arguments that it is just poorly argued sociological nonsense are not too unfair

However, the naysayers have consistently refused to address any points hinting at deeper problems, which have been posted, ie string theory may not quite be correct, has struggled to address fundamental issues in an elegant manner, and may just be plain over-convoluted epicycles for the 21st century.

I don't think too many people think this structure will survive in all its complexity come the final theory, I mean, nature ain't that bad surely? ;-)

I feel that one of the achievements of string theory is to rebut the idea that things will be simple. I know this is not what Weinberg and many others were hoping for, but the proliferation of epicycles in string theory is an organic outgrowth of having no epicycles (it's said string theory has no non-dynamical free parameters). Even Newtonian physics is not simple. It has lots of "epicycles" like the "coefficient of friction" that is taught to freshmen.

No one is saying that string theory is the correct description of nature. My particular view, as a non-physicist, is that string theory is the best and only view of quantum gravity we have at the moment. So it should be intensely studied to see why it works, and if it can be formulated more coherently, and if it points the way to other theories of quantum gravity.

I believe it is analogous to Nordstrom's second theory, which was the first relativistic theory of gravitation. It is not as background independent as GR, and can be formulated as a field on flat space time. However, it also has an alternative formulation as the dynamics of the metric being determined by the stress-energy tensor - very similar to GR. Now guess who discovered the reformulation of Nordstrom's theory in GR form - Einstein (and some condensed matter physicist)! And he did that before, not after, he formulated GR.

 

[MTd2]

My particular view, as a non-physicist, is that string theory is the best and only view of quantum gravity we have at the moment.

There are dozens of views every month out on arxiv, and I am not even talking about the papers on gen-ph, with new views on quantum gravity. As for being the best, I cannot say anything about it without experimental data.

 

[atyy]

There are dozens of views every month out on arxiv, and I am not even talking about the papers on gen-ph, with new views on quantum gravity. As for being the best, I cannot say anything about it without experimental data.

Well, even without new experimental data, it has to at least match old data - the Einstein equations! Any approach that doesn't get this cannot be said to be quantum gravity. As far as I know, string theory is the only approach to quantum gravity that gets this at the moment.

 

[MTd2]

Well, even without new experimental data, it has to at least match old data - the Einstein equations!

So, you are OK if it gets the wrong number of dimensions and whatever is done to find the correct low limit, even if it means a lot of unseen phenomena.

 

[atyy]

So, you are OK if it gets the wrong number of dimensions and whatever is done to find the correct low limit, even if it means a lot of unseen phenomena.

I would say it is a theory of quantum gravity for some universes. Just like the Levin-Wen models contain a theory of QED for some universes (probably not ours). But I would not say that the Levin-Wen models are theories of quantum gravity in any universe (not yet, neither do Levin and Wen claim them to be). Similarly, the reason I don't think any other approach at the moment has a view on quantum gravity is that they aren't yet known to describe gravity in any universe. Of course, there are other definitions of "view", but that's what I meant.

 

[marcus]

Well, even without new experimental data, it has to at least match old data - the Einstein equations!

You are talking "should", Atyy. An alternative stance would be that to be called QG a theory should at least resolve the cosmo singularity and make predictions about ancient light. Resolving the bb singularity is what has always been expected of QG, one of the central motives (otherwise it's hard to say why one would want to quantize geometry).

Maybe a QG theory "should" do both things.

I think if the String Program came out with a fully interactive quantum geometry of the universe that (a) resolved the bb, and (b) made predictions of features to look for in the CMB---if it did that--it would be a big stimulus.

If interest in the program is flagging, and I think a lot of people perceive that it is, that would be sure to cure the doldrums. Instead of "should, in order to be called QG" or some such pronouncement, I'm groping for constructive ideas of what might be missing and could re-energize the Program.

There's a lot of defensiveness about this, but things actually don't look so good for String at the moment.

 

[atyy]

Defensiveness? Things actually don't look so good for String at the moment? There's so much excitement and progress in string theory at the moment, there's no need to defend the programme. One may as well accuse people who provide evidence that the sky is blue of being defensive!

 

[MTd2]

There's so much excitement and progress in string theory at the moment, there's no need to defend the programme.

There has never been so much defensiveness towards string theory as it is now. The reason it is that there has been no progress on it. No experimental data for it. No blue sky.

 

[atyy]

There has never been so much defensiveness towards string theory as it is now. The reason it is that there has been no progress on it. No experimental data for it. No blue sky.

Ha, ha, I won't argue with you. I don't think you engage in string bashing.