How much funding/resources are spent in string theory research?

[pines-demon]

It is common to hear in popular sources (at least from the people that like to rant) that string theory has taken over real physics, that physics has been lost since the development of the string theory program, that much effort has gone into string theory with no results, and so on...

I would like to know if any of you have any estimates on how much resources go into string theory? How many universities have a string theory group? Is it big compared to other groups?

Clearly string theory is cheap in the sense that it does not need big experiments, mostly pen and paper, and hiring a few string theorists is ok if done proportionally to other groups. It would seem that these critiques about string theory taking the stage are only due to 90's popular science documentaries (Brian Greene docs come to mind).

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would guesstimate 1% of the US HEP budget, possibly less. You quickly run into the question of what is "string" and what is merely "stringy".

 

[Frabjous]

I would guesstimate 1% of the US HEP budget, possibly less. You quickly run into the question of what is "string" and what is merely "stringy".

Is that research budget or total budget? What percentage of the research budget is theoretical?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Total DOE HEP Budget, estimated to scale similarly at NSF. But I didn't give an estimate expecting it to be audited,

 

[berkeman]

But I didn't give an estimate guesstimate expecting it to be audited,

(Fixed that for you)

 

[berkeman]

It is common to hear in popular sources

Thread is closed because OP did not do any homework to try to answer their own question, and did not supply reasonable reference links to start this discussion.

 

[berkeman]

Update -- after a PM conversation, the OP has better reference links and questions to improve this thread start. Thread is reopened for discussion.

 

[Frabjous]

Update -- after a PM conversation, the OP has better reference links and questions to improve this thread start. Thread is reopened for discussion.

Post 2 should have been V50 saying around 1% of HEP budget. Post 3 was me asking if that was total, research or theory budget. The current post 2 should be post 4.

 

[Frabjous]

Total DOE HEP Budget, estimated to scale similarly at NSF. But I didn't give an estimate expecting it to be audited,

So 5-10% of amount dedicated to HEP theory? Which seems reasonable if it is to remain an ongoing area of research.

 

[berkeman]

Post 2 should have been V50 saying around 1% of HEP budget. Post 3 was me asking if that was total, research or theory budget. The current post 2 should be post 4.

Good point; I've undeleted those 2 posts.

 

[pines-demon]

After PM conversation, I will showcase here what I got so far (not much, it seems that meta-statistics of research are scarce).

I was looking for some data similar to this (high energy physics [hep] distribution per subfields):

Source: https://particle.physics.ucdavis.edu/rumor/doku.php?id=statistics
The problem is that these data is from Erich Poppitz publishing in the Particle Physics Rumors Mill (blog from UC Davis physics faculty) with no disclosing on where the data came from.

I tried previous threads in PF like:

• How much money has been invested in ST & LQG (2006)
• Is String Theory worth the resources it's taking? (2012)

but there was no much numbers aside from a few inferences from National Science Foundation (NSF) search results. Some of those links seem broken, I am not sure what are they pointing at and even if that gave a number it is not being compared to other areas of physics.

I also tried American Physical Society (APS) statistics but it seems these are focused PhD careers and not on faculty distribution statistics.

Finally I can compare papers but it can be quite misleading as different fields publish at different rates. I tried going to arXiv for that but string theory is part of hep-th (theory). If I include everything in hep-th, I get that the number of pre-prints in arXiv is comparable with the rest of fields:

source: arXiv usage statistics.

What else can I try? Does somebody know of a better source to get a bit more precise? I hope that there is research dedicated to make statistics per physics field. It would help funding/hiring/management of resources.

 

[Frabjous]

After PM conversation, I will showcase here what I got so far (not much, it seems that meta-statistics of research are scarce).

I was looking for some data similar to this (high energy physics [hep] distribution per subfields):
View attachment 350965

One would also be interested if the conversion to tenure rates were similar.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm not going to be audited. As I said, it will quickly get mired in what is "string" and what is "stringy". Is the work done by people like Lance Dixon and Zvi Bern "string"? I would say "no, but its string inspired." But other people might feel differently, and PF being PF, will merely throw stones.

The Federal budget is public. The list of grants is public, but may not be well-indexed on the web and one might have to <shudder>write an actual letter to get that information.

DOE HEP spends ~$1B/year. This goes to building and operating facilities, research and technology, and small programs like SBIR and STTR. Research and Technology is divided into 3 large "frontiers" and some smaller areas (detectors, advanced accelerators, theory). At this point, theory is maybe 3%.

Now theory has to be divided into phenomenology and formal theory, so formal theory is around 1%. But not all formal theory is string theory. And now the question I posed in #2 comes into play.

This thread got off to a very bad start. "A bunch of guys say" is not an adequate thread start. Neither is "here's a pile of data that isn't what I want". Not much to go on besides the Potter Stewart" I know it when I see it. Finally, and most annoyingly, there are ~160 universities who offer a PhD in physics, and every one of them has a web page saying who is doing what.

Going through all that is too much work for the OP to do himself, but apparently not too much for us to do. Lordy.

 

[jedishrfu]

Concerning string theory's take over physics at universities:

I analyzed it not by budget but by the percentage of faculty who were string theorists in the department. I don't have those numbers, but in the past, for some major physics departments, it was sizable, like 25-30% of the faculty.

But again, I didn't compare the other physics disciplines in the department or whether a professor who identified as a string theorist was also a particle physicist, relativist, or cosmologist...

 

[jedishrfu]

The thread has run its course. There's no way to get accurate numbers, and no reference source has appeared that provides that information. It's fruitless to continue the discussion, so it's a good time to close the thread.

Thank you all for participating in the discussion.

Jedi