Sociology of Physics: comment and indices

[marcus]

Ordinarily at least once a year we check string citations, to detect any trend. For any given year, I focus on recent publications---appearing in the last 5 years---and look at citations occurring in that year. The Spires listing for 2009 could appear any time now, but we don't have it yet. Here for comparison is the listing for 2008, which appeared in January 2009.

I have removed non-string papers and papers which appeared before 2004. We are looking at a five-year window 2004-2008. The original Spires list contained 50 papers, many were string from the 1990s and many of the more recent papers were in non-string areas such as astrophysics. After eliminating non-recent and non-string, four papers remained.

The first number given is the number of citations the article received during 2008.
When the list for 2009 appears we will be able to compare.

193
Gauge symmetry and supersymmetry of multiple M2-branes
By Jonathan Bagger (Johns Hopkins U.), Neil Lambert (King’s Coll. London, Dept. Math).
Published in:Phys.Rev.D77:065008,2008
(arXiv:0711.0955)
[195 Total citations in HEP]

178
Algebraic structures on parallel M2-branes
By Andreas Gustavsson (Goteborg, ITP).
HEP Record
(arXiv:0709.1260)
[181 Total citations in HEP]

174
N=6 superconformal Chern-Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals
By Ofer Aharony (Weizmann Inst.), Oren Bergman (Princeton, Inst. Advanced Study & Technion), Daniel Louis Jafferis (Rutgers U., Piscataway), Juan Maldacena (Pri
nceton, Inst. Advanced Study).
Published in:JHEP 0810:091,2008
(arXiv:0806.1218)
[176 Total citations in HEP]

173
Modeling Multiple M2’s
By Jonathan Bagger (Johns Hopkins U.), Neil Lambert (King’s Coll. London, Dept. Math).
Published in:Phys.Rev.D75:045020,2007
(arXiv:hep-th/0611108)
[184 Total citations in HEP]

This is from the SLAC-Stanford "Symmetry-Breaking" article called
"Top-cited high-energy physics articles during 2008", dated January 14, 2009.
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...ited-high-energy-physics-articles-during-2008

 

[marcus]

Updates as of 11 Jan.

Trouble with Physics, Amazon.com salesrank compared with five most popular string titles.

1 January 0.6 (2009)
1 February 0.7
1 March 0.5
1 April 0.6
1 May 0.6
1 June 0.7
1 July 1.9
1 August 0.6
1 September 0.6
1 October 0.4
1 November 0.5
1 December 0.5
1 January 0.3 (2010)
...
11 January 0.6

Readings taken at noon Pacific, averaged around the first of the month to reduce random fluctuation.

To illustrate at noon 11 January Smolin ranked 20623 and string top five (elegant, parallel, fabric, hyperspace, idiot guide) ranked 3535, 4564, 5541, 21007, 23241, for an average of 11577.6 and a ratio of 0.56. Trouble with Physics was doing a bit over half as well as the five most popular string books.

===========

String publication for three successive years, measured using the Harvard abstracts database with keywords superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, heterotic, compactification.

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

As of 11 January 2010, the full year figures (still preliminary) were 5100, 4929, 4584. I would expect the last number, for 2009, to increase as the librarians catch up with their yearend work load---maybe to near 4800. Not sure about this, just that it looks surprisingly low.

============

Zurück vor den Urknall Amazon.de salesrank relative to stringy benchmark at 6PM Berlin time.

1 December 0.9
1 January 0.5
...
11 January 1.3

http://www.amazon.com/dp/3100039106/?tag=pfamazon01-20

To illustrate, on 11 January at 6 PM Central Europe time, Bojo's book ranked 10805 and the top three stringies in the German market (stoff, elegante, and hardbound elegante) ranked 6718, 6830, 29898, for an average of 14482 and a ratio of 1.34.
So Züruck vor den Urknall was doing somewhat better than the top three stringy average that we're using for a benchmark. It fluctuates around a lot. Came out in April 2009.

===============

Loop publication index uses the Spires base with DESY keywords "spin, foam", "field theory, group", "quantum gravity, loop space", and "quantum cosmology, loop space". Figures seem to have stabilized.

2005 40
2006 82
2007 122
2008 137
2009 141 (as of 11 January)

Link for 2008 papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2008&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2009 papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2009&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

=====

"Top-cited high-energy physics articles during 2008", dated January 14, 2009,
from SLAC-Stanford's Symmetry-Breaking
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...ited-high-energy-physics-articles-during-2008

Restricting to recent (past five years: 2004-2008) string papers we see that 4 recent string papers made the topcite 50 list. String citation standing has dropped. In the early 2000s it used to be that more like 12/50 of the top fifty were recent string. And the rankings were often near the top of the 50 list.
This year the four recent string papers that made the top 50 list had average citecount of just under 180, which put them down near the bottom of the list. Their ranks were 37, 44, 48, 49.

That was the 2008 list that came out in January of 2009. Now it is one year later. I suppose we may expect a similar list. Top 50 HEP papers for 2009. Hopefully it will come out soon so we can compare and inspect for change.

 

[marcus]

String publication for three successive years, measured using the Harvard abstracts database with keywords superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, heterotic, compactification.

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

On 18 January 2010, the full year figures (still preliminary) were 5100, 4929, 4854. As the librarians catch up with their yearend work load the figure for 2009 has moved up into the expected range, close to what we saw for the previous two years.

============

Zurück vor den Urknall Amazon.de salesrank relative to stringy benchmark at 6PM Berlin time.

1 December 0.9
1 January 0.5
...
11 January 1.3
...
18 January 2.8

http://www.amazon.com/dp/3100039106/?tag=pfamazon01-20

To illustrate, on 18 January at 6 PM Central Europe time, Bojowald's book ranked 7367 and the top three stringies in the German market (elegante, stoff, and verborgene) ranked 3601, 6389, and 52337, for an average of 20775.7 and a ratio of 2.82.
So Züruck vor den Urknall was doing somewhat better than twice as well as the top three stringy average that we're using for a benchmark.

===============

Loop publication index uses the Spires base with DESY keywords "spin, foam", "field theory, group", "quantum gravity, loop space", and "quantum cosmology, loop space". Figures seem nearly stable.

2005 40
2006 82
2007 122
2008 137
2009 142 (as of 18 January)

Link for 2008 papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2008&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2009 papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2009&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

=====

"Top-cited high-energy physics articles during 2008", dated January 14, 2009,
from SLAC-Stanford's Symmetry-Breaking
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...ited-high-energy-physics-articles-during-2008

String citation standing in the Spires top 50 HEP has dropped. In the early 2000s it used to be that more like 12/50: around twelve out of the top fifty would be recent string. And the rankings of those twelve were often near the top of the 50 list. By recent, I mean papers that appeared in the past five years, counting back from the year in question. For the year 2008, it would be 2004-2008.

In 2008 four of the top-cited HEP papers were recent string. And the four recent string papers that made the top 50 list had average citecount of just under 180, which put them down near the bottom of the list. Their ranks were 37, 44, 48, 49.

That was the 2008 list that came out in January of 2009. Now it is one year later and I suppose we may expect a similar list to appear: the Top 50 HEP papers for 2009. However as of now SLAC-Stanford has not yet published the list of
"Top-cited high-energy physics articles during 2009".

 

[marcus]

String publication for three successive years, measured using the Harvard abstracts database with keywords superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, heterotic, compactification.

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

On 31 January 2010, the full year figures were 5310, 5181, 5041.

============

Zurück vor den Urknall Amazon.de salesrank relative to stringy benchmark at 6PM Berlin time.

1 December 0.9
1 January 0.5
...
11 January 1.3
...
18 January 2.8
...
30 January 1.66
31 January 1.57

http://www.amazon.com/dp/3100039106/?tag=pfamazon01-20

To illustrate, on 18 January at 6 PM Central Europe time, Bojowald's book ranked 7367 and the top three stringies in the German market (elegante, stoff, and verborgene) ranked 3601, 6389, and 52337, for an average of 20775.7 and a ratio of 2.82.
At 6PM Berlin time on 31 January, Züruck vor den Urknall ranked 9726 and the top three stringy average was 15288.0, making the ratio 1.57. The top three stringies (Stoff, Verborgene, Elegante) ranked 5805, 19071, 20988. I will be making a 5 day average around 1 February to smooth out some of the random fluctuation.

Lee Smolin's book, The Trouble with Physics, compared with string benchmark:
30 January 0.31

 

[marcus]

Zurück

1 December 0.9
1 January 0.5
...
...
30 January 1.66
31 January 1.57
1 February 1.06

Trouble

1 December 0.5
1 January 0.3
...
...
30 January 0.31
31 January 0.32
1 February 0.24To illustrate, at 6PM Berlin time on 1 February Züruck ranked 8875 and the top three stringies (Elegante, Stoff, Verborgene) ranked 7185, 7393, 13609 for an average of 9395.7 and a ratio of 1.06. The first two stringies are Brian Greene books in translation and Verborgene is Lisa Randall's book. All three have sustained popularity in the German market.
At noon pacific 1 February Trouble ranked 37677 and the top five stringies (parallel, fabric, elegant, hyperspace, elegant paperback) ranked 4127, 5415, 5983, 10443, 18759, for an average of 8945.4 and a ratio of 0.24.

==update on string citation standings==

String citation standing in the Spires top 50 HEP has dropped. In the early 2000s it used to be that more like 12/50: around twelve out of the top fifty would be recent string. And the rankings of those twelve were often near the top of the 50 list. By recent, I mean papers that appeared in the past five years, counting back from the year in question. For the year 2008, it would be 2004-2008.

In 2008 four of the top-cited HEP papers were recent string. And the four recent string papers that made the top 50 list had average citecount of just under 180, which put them down near the bottom of the list. Their ranks were 37, 44, 48, 49.

In 2009 only one of the top-cited HEP papers was a recent string one. And it was number 33, rather far down towards the bottom of the top-50 list. The paper in question was cited 222 times.

Details were given in this post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=372499
Here's the link to Spires topcites listings:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/annual.shtml

 

[marcus]

To get the usual averages around the first of the month, for a long term record:

Zurück

1 December 0.9
1 January 0.5
(1 February 1.1)
...
...
30 January 1.66
31 January 1.57
1 February 1.06
2 February 0.72
3 February 0.32

5-day average around 1 February equals 1.1

Trouble

1 December 0.5
1 January 0.3
1 February 0.3
...
...
30 January 0.31
31 January 0.32
1 February 0.24
2 February 0.32
3 February 0.36

5-day average around 1 February for Smolin's book came to 0.31. It is the smoothed or average figure that I record for the first of the month.To illustrate, at 6PM Berlin time on 1 February Züruck ranked 8875 and the top three stringies (Elegante, Stoff, Verborgene) ranked 7185, 7393, 13609 for an average of 9395.7 and a ratio of 1.06. The first two stringies are Brian Greene books in translation and Verborgene is Lisa Randall's book. All three have sustained popularity in the German market.
At noon pacific on 2 February Trouble ranked 30575 and the top five stringies (elegant, fabric, parallel, hyperspace, elegant paperback) ranked 5446, 6634, 7262, 14438, 15760, for an average of 9908.0 and a ratio of 0.32.
At noon pacific on 3 February Trouble ranked 21116 and the top five stringies (parallel, elegant, fabric, hyperspace, elegant paperback) ranked 4475, 5235, 7569, 9953, 11243, for an average of 7695.0 and a ratio of 0.36.

 

[marcus]

Updates as of 6 February:
String publication for three successive years, measured using the Harvard abstracts database with keywords superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, heterotic, compactification.

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

On 4 February 2010, the successive year figures were 5311, 5181, 5046. Seems to be a slight downward trend.

============

Zurück vor den Urknall Amazon.de salesrank relative to stringy benchmark at 6PM Berlin time.

1 December 0.9
1 January 0.5 (2010)
1 February 1.1
...

http://www.amazon.com/dp/3100039106/?tag=pfamazon01-20
The benchmark used here for comparison is the average salesrank of the three currently most popular string books on the German market. One can see that Züruck, a Loop cosmology book, is doing approximately as well as the top three stringies (typically these are translations of two Brian Greene books and one by Lisa Randall.)

===============

Loop publication index uses the Spires base with DESY keywords "spin, foam", "field theory, group", "quantum gravity, loop space", and "quantum cosmology, loop space". Figures seem nearly stable.

2005 40
2006 82
2007 122
2008 137
2009 143 (as of 4 February 2010)

Link for 2008 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2008&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2009 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2009&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

=====

"Top-cited high-energy physics articles during 2008", dated January 14, 2009,
from SLAC-Stanford's Symmetry-Breaking
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...ited-high-energy-physics-articles-during-2008String citation standing in the Spires top 50 HEP has dropped. In the early 2000s it would often be that around twelve out of the top fifty would be recent string. And the rankings of those twelve were often near the top of the 50 list. By recent, I mean papers that appeared in the past five years, counting back from the year in question. For the year 2008, it would be 2004-2008.

In 2008 four of the fifty top-cited HEP papers were recent string. And the four recent string papers that made the top 50 list had average citecount of just under 180, which put them down near the bottom of the list. Their ranks were 37, 44, 48, 49.

In 2009 only one of the top-cited HEP fifty, was a recent string paper. And it was number 33, two thirds of the way down the list. The paper in question was cited 222 times.

Details were given in this post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=372499
Here's the link to Spires topcites listings:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/annual.shtml

=================

Trouble with Physics, Amazon.com salesrank compared with five most popular string titles.

1 January 0.6 (2009)
1 February 0.7
1 March 0.5
1 April 0.6
1 May 0.6
1 June 0.7
1 July 1.9
1 August 0.6
1 September 0.6
1 October 0.4
1 November 0.5
1 December 0.5
1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
...Readings taken at noon Pacific, averaged around the first of the month to reduce random fluctuation.

 

[marcus]

I made a spot check of how those two popular books were doing, today.

Züruck vor den Urknall (back before the big bang) is the first popular book in any language that is entirely (or even primarily) based on the Loop approach, so it is interesting to track how it is doing in the German market.

The Trouble with Physics gives brief descriptions of several non-string approaches quantizing geometry, but it does not adopt anyone in particular. The scope is broader. Since we do not know how various approaches will work out, the book is critical of the narrow concentration on string (especially by the research establishment in the Usa)

Zurück Amazon.de salesrank relative to stringy benchmark at 6PM Berlin time.

1 December 0.9
1 January 0.5 (2010)
1 February 1.1
...
8 February 2.4

http://www.amazon.com/dp/3100039106/?tag=pfamazon01-20 The book came on the market in April 2009.
The benchmark used here for comparison is the average salesrank of the three currently most popular string books on the German market (typically these are translations of two Brian Greene books and one by Lisa Randall.)

On 8 February at 6PM central european time Züruck ranked 8315 and the three most popular stringies (Stoff, Elegante, Verborgene) ranked 13579, 21073, 24027 for an average of 19559.7 and a ratio of 2.4

The Smolin book appeared in September 2006. It stayed near the top of the physics bestseller list for the first two years and is less prominent now, but still selling.

Trouble amazon.com salesrank compared with stringy top-5 benchmark

1 December 0.5
1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
...
8 February 0.3

At noon pacific, 8 February, Trouble ranked 28293 and the top five stringies (elegant, fabric, parallel, elegant paperback, hyperspace) ranked 3013, 4486, 5263, 13977, 18701, for an average of 9088.0 and a ratio of 0.3

 

[marcus]

String publication for three successive years, measured using the Harvard abstracts database with keywords superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, heterotic, compactification.

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

On 15 February 2010, the successive year figures were 5309, 5181, 5031. Seems to be a slight downward trend.

============
Here's how string publication looks for the first month of four successive years:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

As of 15 February the January publication figures were 795, 800, 699, 395
The last can be expected to increase as late arrivals are entered in the database.

===============

Loop publication index uses the Spires base with DESY keywords "spin, foam", "field theory, group", "quantum gravity, loop space", and "quantum cosmology, loop space". Figures seem nearly stable.

2005 40
2006 82
2007 122
2008 137
2009 143 (as of 15 February 2010)

Link for 2008 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2008&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2009 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2009&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

=====

Here are links to Spires "top-50" listings
for 2008:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2008/annual.shtml
for 2009:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/annual.shtml

These are reported in articles such as: "Top-cited high-energy physics articles during 2008",
from SLAC-Stanford's online magazine Symmetry-Breaking
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...ited-high-energy-physics-articles-during-2008

String citation standing in the Spires top 50 HEP list has dropped. In the early 2000s it would often happen that around twelve out of the top fifty would be recent string papers. And the rankings of those twelve were often near the top of the 50 list. By recent, I mean papers that appeared in the past five years, counting back from the year in question. For the year 2008, it would be 2004-2008.

In 2008 four of the fifty top-cited HEP papers were recent string. And the four recent string papers that made the top 50 list had average citecount of just under 180, which put them down near the bottom of the list. Their ranks were 37, 44, 48, 49.

In 2009 only one of the top-cited HEP fifty, was a recent string paper. And it was number 33, two thirds of the way down the list. The paper in question was cited 222 times.

Details were given in this post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=372499
Here's the link to Spires topcites listings:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/annual.shtml

=================

 

[marcus]

String publication for three successive years, measured using the Harvard abstracts database with keywords superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, heterotic, compactification.

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

As of 26 February 2010, the successive year figures were 5310, 5181, 5251. Seems to be steady or with a slight downward trend.

============
Here's how string publication looks for the first month of four successive years:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

As of 26 February the January publication figures were 794, 800, 701, 410
Based on past experience, the recent January figure might be roughly stable by now, but it could increase as late arrivals are entered in the database.

===============

Loop publication index uses the Spires base with DESY keywords "spin, foam", "field theory, group", "quantum gravity, loop space", and "quantum cosmology, loop space". Figures seem nearly stable.

2005 40
2006 82
2007 122
2008 137
2009 146 (as of 26 February 2010)

Link for 2008 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2008&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2009 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2009&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE= ===============
on 27 Feb. readings for Züruck (at 6 PM central Europe time) and Trouble (at noon pacific time):
Züruck 0.18 (from a ratio of 5255.0/29062)
Trouble 0.353 (from 8843.0/25034)

The German publisher has announced that a paperback edition for 9 Euro will be forthcoming, so some people are advance-ordering that instead of ordering the hardbound edition for 19 Euro. Or simply waiting. Sales apt to be slack until the paperback edition comes on the market--probably not until September 2010.

 

[marcus]

Around the first of the month I track the salesrank of two popular non-string books. I take readings as of 6 PM central European time, for the German book Züruck vor den Urknall, and at noon Pacific for the Usa book Trouble with Physics. As a benchmark for comparison the rank is compared with the 3 most popular stringy books on the German market, or to the 5 most popular on the Usa market. I average around the first of the month to get rid of some of the random fluctuation.

So far the numbers have been

             Züruck    Trouble
27 February  0.181      0.353
28 February  0.885      0.236
1 March      1.345      0.513
2 March      0.213      0.693
3 March

On 1 March at 6PM Berlin time, Z ranked 13120 and the top three stringies (Stoff, Elegante, Verborgene) ranked 9217, 10409, 33295 for an average of 17640.3 making the ratio 1.345.
On 1 March at noon Pacific T ranked 13958 and the top five stringies (fabric, parallel, elegant, hyperspace, elegant paperback) ranked 3467, 3515, 8085, 9643, 11072 for an average of 7156.4 and ratio 0.513.

The particular interest of Züruck vor den Urknall (Back before the big bang) is that it is the first wide-audience book to appear in any language which is entirely based on Loop quantum geometry rather than string. The author describes what has been learned about how the geometry of the universe evolves in the Loop model.

On 2 March at noon Pacific T ranked 14680 and the top five stringies (fabric, parallel, elegant, little, hyperspace) ranked 4787, 5862, 8269, 15694, 16237 for an average of 10169.8 and a ratio of 0.693.

 

[marcus]

Today (3 March) at 6PM Berlin time, the German edition of Smolin's book was number one Theoretical Physics bestseller on the German market and Bojowald's Züruck vor den Urknall was number two.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/295042/&tag=

==initial items on the bestseller list==
1. Die Zukunft der Physik: Probleme der String-Theorie und wie es weitergeht von Lee Smolin
Preis: EUR 24,95

2. Zurück vor den Urknall: Die ganze Geschichte des Universums von Martin Bojowald
Preis: EUR 19,95

3. Verborgene Universen. Eine Reise in den extradimensionalen Raum von Lisa Randall
Preis: EUR 10,95

4. Das elegante Universum: Superstrings, verborgene Dimensionen und die Suche nach der Weltformel von Brian Greene
Preis: EUR 9,95

5. Grundzüge der Relativitätstheorie von Albert Einstein
Preis: EUR 24,95
...
...
==endquote==

You can see that Smolin and Bojowald are doing OK even though their books are hardbound first editions and cost more than, say, the Brian Greene paperback.

Here are the salesrank ratios around the first of this month.

             Züruck    Trouble
27 February  0.181      0.353
28 February  0.885      0.236
1 March      1.345      0.513
2 March      0.213      0.693
3 March      1.392      0.376

On 3 March at 6PM Berlin time, Züruck ranked 7337 and the top three stringies (Stoff, Verborgene, Elegante) ranked 5361, 11721, 13547 for an average of 10209.7 making the ratio 1.392.

The particular interest of Züruck vor den Urknall (Back before the big bang) is that it is the first wide-audience book to appear in any language which is entirely based on Loop quantum geometry rather than string. The author describes what has been learned about how the geometry of the universe evolves in the Loop model.

It's 5-day average, which I'll record for the 1 March, to get a smoothed longterm record, is 0.803

Zurück Amazon.de salesrank relative to stringy benchmark at 6PM Berlin time.

1 December 0.9
1 January 0.5 (2010)
1 February 1.1
1 March 0.8

For comparison, here is how Smolin's book has been doing in the Usa market. The average around the first of March was 0.434.

Trouble amazon.com salesrank compared with stringy top-5 benchmark

1 December 0.5
1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4

 

[marcus]

String research publication the first two months of four consecutive years. Keywords superstring, M-theory, AdS/CFT, brane, compactificiation, heterotic:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

As of 8 March the Jan+Feb figures are 1122, 1129, 1110, 637
The figure for the first two months of 2010 can be expected to increase as late arrivals are added to the database.
========================

Here is the longterm salesrank ratio record for The Trouble with Physics
(Amazon.com salesrank compared with five most popular string titles)

1 January 0.6 (2009)
1 February 0.7
1 March 0.5
1 April 0.6
1 May 0.6
1 June 0.7
1 July 1.9
1 August 0.6
1 September 0.6
1 October 0.4
1 November 0.5
1 December 0.5
1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4
...
...
8 March 0.7Readings taken at noon Pacific, averaged around the first of the month to reduce random fluctuation.
As a sporadic spot check, at noon on 8 March Trouble ranked 9469 and the top five stringies (fabric, elegant, parallel, little, hyperspace) ranked 3789, 5361, 8317, 8374, 8964 for an average of 6910.0 and a ratio of 0.74.

__________________

 

[marcus]

Looking back to September 2007, when the first paperback edition hit the market, The Trouble with Physics has done surprisingly well. Here is its longterm salesrank ratio record, with some recent spot checks.
(Amazon.com salesrank compared with five most popular string titles)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1986028#post1986028
1 September 6.4 (2007)
1 October 6.5
1 November 5.2
1 December 2.4
1 January 1.5 (2008)
1 February 1.3
1 March 0.4
1 April 0.6
1 May 1.0
1 June 1.0
1 July 0.5
1 August 0.4
1 September 0.8
1 October 0.4
1 November 0.6
1 December 0.6
1 January 0.6 (2009)
1 February 0.7
1 March 0.5
1 April 0.6
1 May 0.6
1 June 0.7
1 July 1.9
1 August 0.6
1 September 0.6
1 October 0.4
1 November 0.5
1 December 0.5
1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4
...
...
8 March 0.7
...
11 March 0.7
12 March 0.8Readings taken at noon Pacific, averaged around the first of the month to reduce random fluctuation.
As a sporadic spot check, at noon on 8 March Trouble ranked 9469 and the top five stringies (fabric, elegant, parallel, little, hyperspace) ranked 3789, 5361, 8317, 8374, 8964 for an average of 6910.0 and a ratio of 0.74.

At noon on 12 March Trouble ranked 9734 and the top five stringies (elegant, fabric, parallel, elegant paperback, little) ranked 4058, 5143, 5370, 9168, 16168 for an average of 7981.4 and a ratio of 0.82.

 

[marcus]

The Trouble with Physics has a somewhat unusual record. It came out hardbound in 2006 and paperback in 2007, and has not sunk out of sight as rapidly as some similar books. Various new stringy books from around the same time have come out, by talented writers, and sunk into oblivion marketwise. Two (as I recall) by Susskind, one by Randall, and various mass appeal things like "string for dummies" or "complete idiot's guide to..." or "...demystified". Currently there is one by Gubser which romanticizes doing string research by comparing it with rock-climbing, and has a lot about himself and how he likes the mountains and adrenalin etc. Susskind's latest has a lot about himself and his travels and jogging and arguing with Stephen Hawking etc. So I'd say they are doing the right things to sell pop-sci books. But it is not catching on in the market as well as Trouble has. Seemingly not as durable.

I keep expecting Trouble to drop out of sight like the other recent popularizations written by scientists. But here is the recent record of how it's doing, after more than 3 years, compared with the topfive stringy benchmark. (Which I use because it represents, in a sense, the scale of the problem in public perception which Smolin's book addresses.)

1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4
...
...
8 March 0.7
...
11 March 0.7
12 March 0.8
13 March 0.9
14 March 0.5
...

At noon on 13 March, Trouble ranked 6815 and the top five stringies (elegant, parallel, hyperspace, fabric, elegant paperback) ranked 4526, 4952, 5717, 7734, 8387 for an average of 6263.2 and a ratio of 0.92.

At noon on 14 March, Trouble ranked 12562 and the top five stringies (parallel, hyperspace, fabric, elegant, little) ranked 3853, 5246, 5862, 8223, 11054 for an average of 6847.6 and a ratio of 0.55.

 

[marcus]

"Trouble" salesrank ratio

1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4
...
...
8 March 0.7
...
11 March 0.7
12 March 0.8
13 March 0.9
14 March 0.5
...
18 March 0.6
19 March 0.7

At noon on 18 March, Trouble ranked 16390 and the top five stringies ( parallel, elegant, little, fabric, hyperspace) ranked 5629, 6866, 9298, 11672, 13803 for an average of 9453.6 and a ratio of 0.58.
At noon on 19 March, Trouble ranked 12710 and the top five stringies ( parallel, elegant, hyperspace, fabric, little) ranked 2824, 7498, 7909, 8113, 15141 for an average of 8297.0 and a ratio of 0.653.
=================

Another sociological index we could, I suppose, be watching is simply the salesrank average of the top five stringies. I have been using that as a benchmark (to compare Trouble's salesrank with) for the past few years, since it represents in a sense the size of the problem which Trouble has helped to correct: string overhype.
But that benchmark average may itself have some observable trend.
==================

A further index we could keep track of is attendance at the annual Strings conference.
It has been running at over 400 registered participants at least since 2005, when I started watching. This year, for various reasons, it is down to 193. So about half the usual.
I suppose as string research declines in interest there could be a tendency to hold the conference in humbler venues and that in turn could diminish attendance. Not sure about this, but we can see how it goes.

 

[marcus]

String research publication the first two months of four consecutive years. Keywords superstring, M-theory, AdS/CFT, brane, compactificiation, heterotic:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

As of 25 March the Jan+Feb figures are 1125, 1132, 1117, 789
The figure for the first two months of 2010 should be fairly stable by now, based on past experience--but it seems low and could still increase as late arrivals are added to the database.
========================

"Trouble" salesrank ratio

1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4
...
...
8 March 0.7
...
11 March 0.7
12 March 0.8
13 March 0.9
14 March 0.5
...
18 March 0.6
19 March 0.7
...
22 March 0.6
23 March 0.3
...
25 March 0.6

At noon on 25 March, Trouble ranked 16364 and the top five stringies (parallel, elegant, fabric, hyperspace, little) ranked 3250, 4382, 5418, 17430, 21654 for an average of 10426.8 and a ratio of 0.64.

=================

I mentioned we could watch the salesrank average of the top five stringies, which I've been using as a benchmark (to compare Trouble's salesrank with) for the past few years. That benchmark average may itself be slipping. To check for some trend in the stringy topfive average, I looked back to:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1986028#post1986028 November 2008

9 November 3132.8
12 November 3445.8
13 November 3473.8
15 November 3668.2
17 November 3989.8
18 November 4784.6
21 November 3904.6
23 November 3534.6
27 November 3335.6
28 November 3426.4
4 December 3922.8

The ten numbers I happened to find for November 2008 average tp 3669.6

I think you can see that the average salesrank of the five most popular stringies is now roughly twice that.

 

[marcus]

It recently occurred to me to keep track of the salesrank average of the five most popular string books (at noon on any given day).
I haven't always recorded that here but I do have these 10 figures for around March 2010

27 February 8843.0
1 March 7156.4
2 March 10169.8
8 March 6910.0
12 March 7981.4
13 March 6263.2
14 March 6847.6
18 March 9453.6
19 March 8297.0
25 March 10426.8

The average (of these salesrank averages) is 8234.9

So in the past year and a half, from November 2008 to around March 2010 the popularity of string books has declined by more than a factor of two according to this measure.
In November 2008 the average salesrank of the stringy top five was about 4000 (more exactly we got 3669.9) and around early March we found it was more than twice that, namely 8234.9.

 

[brainstorm]

Interesting rise indeed. I really don't have much of a serious clue but maybe the global crisis slightly setting people back and forcing them to reconsider what they are doing. Maybe the crisis makes look upon all the established structures with doubt and critisism, not only in society but also in science. since it becomes more clear that in times of limited resources, some extra thought may be needed and we can not afford to invest in the wrong questions.

Perhaps the critics, and questioning of - how have all the investments in ST made us more fit? - is even more relevant in the crisis days when it becomes more obvious that time and money is limited. We have to question how be choose to invest every single dollar. Ultimately it's self-preservation.

In think that type of reasoning is more likely to appear during bad times.

How was the pattern last summer? ie. could there be some summer/vacation phenomenon?

/Fredrik

This is an excellent post. I believe you are right that when economic crisis is constructed in one discourse, it spreads to others as a result of cognitive-emotional relations between people and their various distinct discourses.

Let's start by getting one thing straight, though. Choosing how to invest every single dollar is not self-preservation as much as it is hope of preserving economic status and systems that allow people to avoid doing labor that they don't want to do.

In one sense, science is a form of knowledge and it has its own economy of ideas and critique. On the other hand, academia involves organization various life activities of the human individuals practicing science, which is somewhat distinct from the actual practice of science itself.

To simplify some, first consider the lifestyle of some academic scientist you know. What do they own, eat, wear, drive, buy, sell, make, do, use, etc? Now trace the supply chains of any aspect of that lifestyle. When you arrive at some other individual who provides supplies and services for the academic scientist, ask yourself what would happen if that person practiced science.

If you can follow this example, you should be able to see that science can, at least in theory, be practiced by people working in non-academic situations.

Now, imagine all funding to science was eliminated and all scientists currently working in academia had to seek income in non-academic activities. If that was the case, the question is what would the right or wrong questions be to invest in, since economic productivity would be separate from scientific research.

So now you are probably saying, "yes but it's hardly possible to prepare and serve food to customers and clean up after them while doing good scientific research." This is where the relationship between economic crisis and academic investment really emerges.

The operative question is what is sacrificed economically in order for individuals to devote all their working hours to science or other academic endeavors? The answer depends on what each individual is capable of doing besides research and what economic demand pressures are pushing divestment in academia and why?

Cynically, I would say that many people have lost the ability to approach economy as a big picture, if they ever had that ability to start with. All such people know is that the squeeze is on them to generate money for someone else and they want money for themselves so they can spend it to get other people to do and make things for them.

In the bigger picture, though, the truth is that there is no scarcity of resources at all. In fact, prices fall and unemployment rises precisely because of overproduction and surplus. Nevertheless, people continue to want to make more money for reasons such as paying off debt and gaining more purchasing power.

Some people who want to make more money do it by investing in themselves and use their own labor to make goods or services to sell to others. Some of the same people, but also others, try to invest the money they have in others to make more money that way. Other people try to make money by convincing investors that they will be able to multiply their money if they pay them to do it. This is where it starts getting tricky.

Imagine I am in debt or just want to make some money and you are in the same position as me, but you have some money to invest. Neither of us really knows what is needed to produce for the economy, so I decide to come up with an idea for you to invest in, with the hope of making more money for both of us. But what if there is no more money to make?

So this is where the question becomes how far people are willing to go to try to squeeze more money out of the economy when there's none to squeeze. Presumably, every academic job could be eliminated until administrators and personnel emerged with reasons that their work will generate revenues for the institutions.

Then, as long as the revenue-plans aren't working, people are disciplined and fired to stoke the fire of getting them to generate revenues. It makes you wonder why no one comes forth with the big picture of how economy actually works and why it is not possible to make money under certain circumstances and how production and consumption is able to continue despite the economic crisis.

The reason why this big picture doesn't come out, I think, is because no one who sees economics purely in terms of generating more revenues and jobs wants to think about the fact that the revenues and jobs are nothing more than structuring mechanisms for producing the goods and services that are consumed.

If they did, they would realize that money becomes practically unnecessary in a free-market where significant abundance has been reached. Logically, supply-side competition drives prices down to levels so low that consumers and businesses become able to freely explore various production and consumption activities until new forms of scarcity emerge, which create new high prices which form an incentive for competition and production of these products and services.

Of course, this has happened in the form of growth of certain sectors, which are where jobs become available. These are mostly service jobs designed to cater to people who have nothing better to do than leisurely cruise around expending resources and money. If such people would conserve their spending, the amount of service labor to be done would decrease, and there would be more freedom to pursue free scientific activities.

"Great," you say, "why didn't he just say that in the first place?" Well, I'll leave you with the problem of what happens when the scientists and academics who are free from working in service jobs are the ones consuming the goods and services that generate those jobs.

Is it fair for academics to complain about funding-cuts, when the cause of those cuts in the first place is related to the fact that they are spending money on goods and services that require personnel to produce them? Maybe though it's less the will to consumption as it is the will to profit, tax revenues, and jobs/income that is driving the big squeeze, though.

 

[marcus]

Time to average the Trouble with Physics
salesrank ratios for a few days around 1 April

At noon Pacific on 30 March Trouble ranked 13201 and the stringy top five averaged
8550.0 for a ratio of 0.65.
At noon on 31 March Trouble ranked 10646 and the stringy top five average was 6351.8
for a ratio of 0.60."Trouble" salesrank ratio

1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4
...
...
30 March 0.65
31 March 0.60
1 April ?
2 April ?
3 April?
...

=================

I mentioned we could watch the salesrank average of the top five stringies, which I've been using as a benchmark (to compare Trouble's salesrank with) for the past few years. If public interest in string research has declined then one would expect this number to increase. Salesrank is so to speak a measure of disinterest. (Other things being equal, the higher the rank, the fewer books are being purchased.) Here are some November 2008 data.

9 November 3132.8
12 November 3445.8
13 November 3473.8
15 November 3668.2
17 November 3989.8
18 November 4784.6
21 November 3904.6
23 November 3534.6
27 November 3335.6
28 November 3426.4
4 December 3922.8

The ten numbers I happened to find for November 2008 average out to 3669.6

I haven't always recorded these numbers here but I do happen to have these fairly recent ones from around March 2010

27 February 8843.0
1 March 7156.4
2 March 10169.8
8 March 6910.0
12 March 7981.4
13 March 6263.2
14 March 6847.6
18 March 9453.6
19 March 8297.0
25 March 10426.8
30 March 8550.0
31 March 6351.8

At noon Pacific on 31 March the top five stringies (parallel, warped, little, fabric, elegant) ranked 3138, 5248, 5731, 7812, 9830 for an average of 6351.8
=======================
Another thing we sometimes watch is the string research publication rate. Here's a search at Harvard abstracts (keywords: superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, compactification, heterotic) for the first parts of consecutive years, to spot any trend.

Here's how string publication looks for the first three months of each of four successive years:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

As of 31 March, the Jan+Feb+March figures for four successive years were:
1664, 1642, 1559, 1023

The figure for the first three months of 2010 can be expected to increase some as March late arrivals are added to the database.

 

[marcus]

Well, Lisa Randall appeared on the Charlie Rose show, talking about the LHC startup and giving a huge boost to sales of her braney book, even the hardbound edition, which had almost disappeared from the top 100 physics bestseller list

The stringy top five today were parallel, warped hardbound, warped paperback, little, and fabric. The average rank was 4914.8 compared with 14108 for Smolin's book. So on 1 April the ratio was 0.35.At noon 2 April Trouble was 22249 and the stringy topfive average was 5584.6 making the ratio 0.25.
The stringy top five were elegant, parallel, hyperspace, warped, and fabric.

 

[marcus]

Averaging the Trouble with Physics salesrank ratios for a few days around 1 April

At noon Pacific on 30 March Trouble ranked 13201 and the stringy top five averaged
8550.0 for a ratio of 0.65.
At noon on 31 March Trouble ranked 10646 and the stringy top five average was 6351.8
for a ratio of 0.60."Trouble" salesrank ratio

1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4
...
...
30 March 0.65
31 March 0.60
1 April 0.35
2 April 0.25
3 April 0.47 (11:20 AM)
...

I had to be out at noon, so this 11:20 AM reading was as close as I could get. (Normally for consistency I check the salesranks right at noon Pacific or just after.) On 3 April Trouble ranked 13210 and the five most popular string books that day (elegant, hyperspace, parallel, fabric, little) ranked 3850, 4721, 4873, 5413, 12,452 for an average of 6261.8 and a ratio of 0.474.

The fiveday average ratio for 1 April rounds to 0.5

"Trouble" salesrank ratio

1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4
1 April 0.5

 

[marcus]

Looking back to September 2007, when the first paperback edition hit the market, The Trouble with Physics has done surprisingly well. Here is its longterm salesrank ratio record, with some recent spot checks.
(Amazon.com salesrank compared with five most popular string titles)...

1 September 6.4 (2007)
1 October 6.5
1 November 5.2
1 December 2.4
1 January 1.5 (2008)
1 February 1.3
1 March 0.4
1 April 0.6
1 May 1.0
1 June 1.0
1 July 0.5
1 August 0.4
1 September 0.8
1 October 0.4
1 November 0.6
1 December 0.6
1 January 0.6 (2009)
1 February 0.7
1 March 0.5
1 April 0.6
1 May 0.6
1 June 0.7
1 July 1.9
1 August 0.6
1 September 0.6
1 October 0.4
1 November 0.5
1 December 0.5
1 January 0.3 (2010)
1 February 0.3
1 March 0.4
1 April 0.5
...
10 April 0.3
11 April 0.9

As a sporadic spot check at noon on 10 April Trouble ranked 36994 and the top five stringies (parallel, fabric, warped, elegant, elegant paperback) ranked 5813, 11449, 14860, 15050, 15760 for an average of 12586.4 and a ratio of 0.34
The next day, checking at noon on 11 April Trouble ranked 12112 and the top five stringies (parallel, hyperspace, black hole, fabric, elegant) ranked 5238, 6946, 11608, 13744, 14341 for an average of 10375.4 and a ratio of 0.86

I mentioned we could watch the salesrank average of the top five stringies, which I've been using as a benchmark (to compare Trouble's salesrank with) for the past few years. If public interest in string research has declined then one would expect this number to increase. Salesrank is so to speak a measure of disinterest. (Other things being equal, the higher the rank, the fewer books are being purchased.) Here are some November 2008 data.

9 November 3132.8
12 November 3445.8
13 November 3473.8
15 November 3668.2
17 November 3989.8
18 November 4784.6
21 November 3904.6
23 November 3534.6
27 November 3335.6
28 November 3426.4
4 December 3922.8

The ten numbers I happened to find for November 2008 average out to 3669.6

As a spot check, the same average currently, 10 April 2010, was 12586.4.

10 April 12586.4
11 April 10375.4

There does seem to have been a marked change in the popularity of string books over the past year and a half.
Before November 2008 the average salesrank of the five most popular stringies was typically under 4000. Commonly somewhere around 3000 or 3500. Such salesranks could come back, but at least for the past year or so they haven't been that good. Now one often sees 6000, 8000, even (as now) 10000. Recent ranks in the "five digits" so to speak.

Another thing we sometimes watch is the string research publication rate. Here's a search at Harvard abstracts (keywords: superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, compactification, heterotic) for the first parts of consecutive years, to spot any trend.

Here's how string publication looks for the first three months of each of four successive years:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

As of 11 April, the Jan+Feb+March figures for four successive years were:
1664, 1643, 1562, 1242

The figure for the first three months of 2010 seems low and may increase some as March late arrivals are added to the database.

 

[marcus]

Trouble salesrank compared with stringy top five
1 April 0.5
...
10 April 0.3
11 April 0.9
12 April 0.2
13 April 0.5
14 April 0.4

As a sporadic spot check at noon on 10 April Trouble ranked 36994 and the top five stringies (parallel, fabric, warped, elegant, elegant paperback) ranked 5813, 11449, 14860, 15050, 15760 for an average of 12586.4 and a ratio of 0.34
The next day, checking at noon on 11 April Trouble ranked 12112 and the top five stringies (parallel, hyperspace, black hole, fabric, elegant) ranked 5238, 6946, 11608, 13744, 14341 for an average of 10375.4 and a ratio of 0.86.
At noon 13 April Trouble ranked 16452 and string top five (little, parallel, hyperspace, fabric, elegant) ranked 2728, 5509, 11424, 12093, 12135 for benchmark average 8777.8 and a ratio of 0.53
At noon 14 April, Trouble 27406 and string top five (little, parallel, fabric, elegant, warped) 4953, 7214, 10679, 12771, 14696 for an average of 10062.6 making the ratio 0.37.

The string popularity benchmark (average rank of 5 currently most popular) has become interesting in and of itself. It used to be around 3000-3500 when I was watching earlier, then as of November 2008 it was averaging around 3700. Now it seems to be growing, a possible signal of declining public interest in string books.

10 April 12586.4
11 April 10375.4
12 April 14077.0
13 April 8777.8
14 April 10062.6

Recent ranks often in the "five digits" so to speak. Breaking new ground in 2010. I've been watching since 2006 and have never seen this high for such extended periods.

Another thing we sometimes watch is the string research publication rate. Here's a search at Harvard abstracts (keywords: superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, compactification, heterotic) for the first quarter of consecutive years, to spot any trend.

Here's how string publication looks for the first three months of each of four successive years:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1As of 14 April, the Jan+Feb+March figures for four successive years were:
1664, 1643, 1563, 1255

Still waiting for the 2010 figure to get up closer to the previous three years.

 

[marcus]

Loop research publication index uses the Spires base with DESY keywords "spin, foam", "field theory, group", "quantum gravity, loop space", and "quantum cosmology, loop space". Figures for 2005-2009 seem nearly stable.

2005 40
2006 82
2007 122
2008 134
2009 147
2010 43 (as of 15 April 2010)

Link for 2008 Loop research papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2008&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2009 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2009&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2010 (still incomplete,of course):
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2010&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

In the pop-sci category, as of noon 15 April Trouble with Physics ranked 8940 and was actually doing better than the stringy top five average, which was 10267.4, making the average 1.15. The five most popular string books (little, elegant, dummies, fabric, parallel) ranked 5407, 9219, 9787, 13441, 13483.

I'm following the stringy topfive average salesrank which back when there was more public interest in string used to be in the low 3000s---and was 3700 as recently as November 2008. As interest has declined this average salesrank has increased noticeably. Readings taken at noon Pacific:

String topfive salesrank avg.
10 April 12586.4
11 April 10375.4
12 April 14077.0
13 April 8777.8
14 April 10062.6
15 April 10267.4

Trouble salesrank compared to string benchmark
10 April 0.3
11 April 0.9
12 April 0.2
13 April 0.5
14 April 0.4
15 April 1.1

 

[marcus]

As of noon 16 April Trouble with Physics ranked 9345 and was again doing better than the stringy top five average, which was 15618.2, making the ratio 1.67. The five most popular string books (parallel, little, hyperspace, elegant paperback, elegant) ranked 6367, 13978, 15406, 19424, 22916.

String topfive salesrank avg.
10 April 12586.4
11 April 10375.4
12 April 14077.0
13 April 8777.8
14 April 10062.6
15 April 10267.4
16 April 15618.2

Trouble salesrank compared to string benchmark
10 April 0.3
11 April 0.9
12 April 0.2
13 April 0.5
14 April 0.4
15 April 1.1
16 April 1.7

 

[marcus]

String publication for the first three months of this year still looks low by comparison with past years. But it has come up slightly over the past week as late arrivals are added to the Harvard database.

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

This does a search at Harvard abstracts (keywords: superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, compactification, heterotic) for the first quarter of consecutive years, to spot any trend.
As of 20 April, the Jan+Feb+March figures for four successive years were:
1664, 1643, 1563, 1270

=====
String pops used to be near the top of the Amazon physics bestseller list. Average salesrank of the five most popular tended to be in the 3000s---the November 2008 average was a respectable 3700. Recently the string books have drifted down the chart to around the 10000s---five figure territory. I don't know whether or not this signals a decline in public readership/interest, a permanent loss of share in the pop-physics market.
String topfive salesrank avg.
10 April 12586.4
11 April 10375.4
12 April 14077.0
13 April 8777.8
14 April 10062.6
15 April 10267.4
16 April 15618.2
...
18 April 9539.2
19 April 11229.4
20 April 11659.2

Trouble salesrank compared to string benchmark
10 April 0.3
11 April 0.9
12 April 0.2
13 April 0.5
14 April 0.4
15 April 1.1
16 April 1.7
...
18 April 0.3
19 April 0.2
20 April 0.5

 

[marcus]

Recently the string books drifted down the chart to around the 10000s---five figure territory. I don't know whether or not this signals a permanent decline in public readership/interest, or is just a temporary fluke. Just have to watch and see what happens.

String topfive salesrank avg.
10 April 12586.4
11 April 10375.4
12 April 14077.0
13 April 8777.8
14 April 10062.6
15 April 10267.4
16 April 15618.2
...
18 April 9539.2
19 April 11229.4
20 April 11659.2
21 April 9290.6
22 April 8069.4
23 April 8757.6
24 April 8823.8

Trouble salesrank compared to string benchmark
10 April 0.3
11 April 0.9
12 April 0.2
13 April 0.5
14 April 0.4
15 April 1.1
16 April 1.7
...
18 April 0.3
19 April 0.2
20 April 0.5
21 April 0.5
22 April 0.2
23 April 0.2
24 April 0.5

At noon Pacific on 24 April the top five stringies (parallel, little, hyperspace, fabric, elegant) ranked 6015, 6036, 8021, 11648, 12399 for an average of 8823.8. Trouble ranked 16606 making the ratio 0.53.

 

[marcus]

String publication for the first three months of this year should have come up by now, as late arrivals are enteried into the data base. It usually takes an extra month for the numbers to stabilize and it's now the end of April so it should have done so. But the figure still looks low.

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

This does a search at Harvard abstracts (keywords: superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, compactification, heterotic) for the first quarter of consecutive years.

As of 29 April, the Jan+Feb+March figures for four successive years were:
1670, 1643, 1583, 1316

=====

At noon 28 April Trouble ranked 15906 and the topfive stringies (fabric, hyperspace, parallel, elegant paperback, elegant hard) ranked 4180, 5309, 6932, 8223, 13216 for an average of 7572.0 making the ratio 0.48.

At noon 29 April Trouble ranked 24468 and the topfive stringies (hyperspace, fabric, parallel, elegant paperback, elegant hard) ranked 3287, 4951, 8222, 9023, 9119 for an average of 6920.4 making the ratio 0.28.

 

[marcus]

Time to set up for checking string publication for the first four months of successive years:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

This does a search at Harvard abstracts (keywords: superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, compactification, heterotic) for the first quarter of consecutive years.

As of 1 May (which is too early to get a stable 2010 number) the Jan+Feb+March+April figures for four successive years were:
2044, 2034, 1914, 1565=====
On the popular physics book market (Amazon salesranks):
Noon 29 April topfive average 6920.4 and trouble 24468 for a ratio of 0.28.
Noon 30 April topfive average 7928.2 and trouble 34183 for a ratio of 0.23.
Noon 1 May topfive average 6964.4 and trouble 30318 for a ratio of 0.23
11AM 2 May topfive average was 6222.8 and trouble 17748 for a ratio of 0.35 (can't check at noon today, 11:04 AM closest I can do)

on 2 May, for example, (graduation presents for youngsters?) the string top five were all Kaku and Greene: hyperspace, parallel, elegant paperback, fabric, elegant, in that order. :-D. More serious books not selling.

 

[marcus]

By good fortune I was home and able to check salesranks at noon today. Had not expected not to be able to. So I can correct the previous post.

Noon 29 April topfive average 6920.4 and trouble 24468 for a ratio of 0.28.
Noon 30 April topfive average 7928.2 and trouble 34183 for a ratio of 0.23.
Noon 1 May topfive average 6964.4 and trouble 30318 for a ratio of 0.23
Noon 2 May topfive average was 6965.4 and trouble 20256 for a ratio of 0.34
Noon 3 May topfive average was 6546.6 and trouble 62031 for a ratio of 0.11

The 5 day average topfive salesrank (around 1 May) is 7065.0.
The 5 day average Trouble salesrank is 34251.2.
The ratio of the two 5-day averages is 0.21

========================
So far the most highly cited LQG paper that has appeared in 2010 is one by Lee Smolin, 47 citations.
Here are the raw numbers of LQG papers in successive years.
Loop research publication index uses the Spires base with DESY keywords "spin, foam", "field theory, group", "quantum gravity, loop space", and "quantum cosmology, loop space". Figures for 2005-2009 seem nearly stable.

2005 40
2006 82
2007 122
2008 134
2009 140
2010 47 (as of 2 May 2010)

Link for 2008 Loop research papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2008&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2009 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2009&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2010 (still incomplete,of course):
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2010&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

If you click on any of these Spires links, then select sort by citation count and repeat the display, you will get the most highly cited papers listed first, a handy way to spot ground-breaking or influential papers.

String research publications numbers for the first three months of successive years, as of 2 May:
2007: 1670
2008: 1643
2009: 1583
2010: 1316

At this point the Jan+Feb+March numbers should be stable. Downward trend, apparently.
This is based on a search at Harvard abstracts (keywords: superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, compactification, heterotic) for the first quarter of consecutive years.

For the first four months of successive years it is still too early to get a stable 2010 number. As of 2 May, for what it's worth, the Jan+Feb+March+April figures for the same four successive years were: 2044, 2034, 1914, 1565.

 

[marcus]

String publication for the first four months of successive years:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

This does a search at Harvard abstracts (keywords: superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, compactification, heterotic). As of 8 May (which is too early to get a stable 2010 number) the Jan+Feb+March+April figures for the four successive years were:
2044, 2034, 1914, 1579

String research publications numbers for the first three months of successive years, as of 8 May:
2007: 1670
2008: 1643
2009: 1583
2010: 1318

So far the most highly cited LQG paper that has appeared in 2010 is one by Lee Smolin, 32 citations.
Here are the raw numbers of LQG papers in successive years.
Loop research publication index uses the Spires base with DESY keywords "spin, foam", "field theory, group", "quantum gravity, loop space", and "quantum cosmology, loop space". Figures for 2005-2009 seem nearly stable.

2005 40
2006 82
2007 122
2008 134
2009 140
2010 53 (as of 8 May 2010)

Link for 2008 Loop research papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2008&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2009 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2009&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2010 (still incomplete,of course):
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2010&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

If you click on any of these Spires links, then select sort by citation count and repeat the display, you will get the most highly cited papers listed first, a handy way to spot ground-breaking or influential papers.

=====
On the popular physics book market (Amazon salesranks):

Around 1 May:
The 5 day average topfive salesrank was 7065.0.
The 5 day average Trouble salesrank was 34251.2.
The ratio of the two 5-day averages was 0.21

At noon 7 May:
Stringy topfive salesranks averaged 12432.4
Trouble ranked 13212
The ratio was 0.94

At noon 8 May:
Stringy topfive salesranks averaged 8625.6
Trouble ranked 17196
The ratio was 0.50

At noon 9 May:
topfive average 7931.6
trouble 29348
ratio 0.27
===============================
As it happens, I didn't save data for the stringy topfive average for around the first of every month, in the past.
But by chance I recorded samples for three days around the 15th of several past months.

13 November2008 3473.8
15 November2008 3668.2
17 November2008 3989.8

14 July2009 9043.6
15 July2009 6081.4
16 July2009 4331.0

13 March2010 6263.2
14 March2010 6847.6
18 March2010 9453.6

14 April2010 10062.6
15 April2010 10267.4
16 April2010 15618.2

 

[marcus]

String publication for the first four months of successive years:

2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2008: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

2010: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

This does a search at Harvard abstracts (keywords: superstring, M-theory, brane, AdS/CFT, compactification, heterotic). As of 12 May (which is too early to get a stable 2010 number) the Jan+Feb+March+April figures for the four successive years were:
2044, 2034, 1914, 1580

String research publications numbers for the first three months of successive years, as of 12 May:
2007: 1670
2008: 1643
2009: 1583
2010: 1311

So far the most highly cited LQG paper that has appeared in 2010 is one by Lee Smolin, 32 citations.
Here are the raw numbers of LQG papers in successive years.
Loop research publication index uses the Spires base with DESY keywords "spin, foam", "field theory, group", "quantum gravity, loop space", and "quantum cosmology, loop space". Figures for 2005-2009 seem nearly stable.

2005 40
2006 82
2007 122
2008 134
2009 140
2010 55 (as of 12 May 2010)

Link for 2008 Loop research papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2008&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2009 Loop papers:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2009&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

Link for 2010 (still incomplete,of course):
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+SPIN%2CFOAM+OR+DK+FIELD+THEORY%2C+GROUP+OR+DK+QUANTUM+GRAVITY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+OR+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY%2C+LOOP+SPACE+AND+DATE+%3D+2010&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

If you click on any of these Spires links, then select sort by citation count and repeat the display, you will get the most highly cited papers listed first, a handy way to spot ground-breaking or influential papers.

=====
On the popular physics book market (Amazon salesranks):

Around 1 May:
The 5 day average topfive salesrank was 7065.0.
The 5 day average Trouble salesrank was 34251.2.
The ratio of the two 5-day averages was 0.21

At noon 7 May:
Stringy topfive salesranks averaged 12432.4
Trouble ranked 13212
The ratio was 0.94

At noon 8 May:
Stringy topfive salesranks averaged 8625.6
Trouble ranked 17196
The ratio was 0.50

At noon 9 May:
topfive average 7931.6
trouble 29348
ratio 0.27

Noon 11 May:
topfive 7964.4
trouble 17534
ratio 0.45

Noon 12 May:
topfive 8379.8
trouble 9829
ratio 0.85
===============================
As it happens, I didn't save data for the stringy topfive average for around the first of every month, in the past.
But by chance I recorded samples for three days around the 15th of several past months.

13 November2008 3473.8
15 November2008 3668.2
17 November2008 3989.8

14 July2009 9043.6
15 July2009 6081.4
16 July2009 4331.0

13 March2010 6263.2
14 March2010 6847.6
18 March2010 9453.6

14 April2010 10062.6
15 April2010 10267.4
16 April2010 15618.2

 

[marcus]

In the past I didn't systematically save data on the stringy topfive average (just used it as a temporary benchmark for comparison), but by chance recorded samples for three days around the 15th of several past months. I shall continue this abbreviated record.

13 November2008 3473.8
15 November2008 3668.2
17 November2008 3989.8

14 July2009 9043.6
15 July2009 6081.4
16 July2009 4331.0

13 March2010 6263.2
14 March2010 6847.6
18 March2010 9453.6

14 April2010 10062.6
15 April2010 10267.4
16 April2010 15618.2

14 May2010 9519.6
15 May2010 5428.2
16 May2010 ...?...

To illustrate, at noon on 14 May the five most popular string books (parallel, hyperspace, elegant, fabric, elegant hardbound) ranked 3926, 4001, 5146, 13437, 21088, average 9519.6.

 

[marcus]

14 January2007 4204.0
15 January2007 3497.0
16 January2007 5487.8

14 February2007 3236.0
15 February2007 4050.8
16 February2007 4078.9

13 November2008 3473.8
15 November2008 3668.2
17 November2008 3989.8

14 July2009 9043.6
15 July2009 6081.4
16 July2009 4331.0

13 March2010 6263.2
14 March2010 6847.6
18 March2010 9453.6

14 April2010 10062.6
15 April2010 10267.4
16 April2010 15618.2

14 May2010 9519.6
15 May2010 5428.2
16 May2010 5705.6

Mid-month salesrank averages for the string top five:

January2007 4396
February2007 3789
November2008 3711
July2009 6485
March2010 7521
April2010 11983
May2010 6884