String crash lessons [Archive]

marcus

Jun6-04, 03:31 PM

There has been a decline in string research. What lessons can we learn from this?

First of all just to establish the basic fact, look at the numbers of papers posted on arXiv per 12-month period, there has been a substantial decline over the period 2000 to June 2004.

I'll supply links to the arXiv search engine for anyone who hasnt already seen the stringy research paper counts.

However there has been an if anything sharper decline in the research quality (as gauged by citations). There were less than half as many recent highly-cited stringy papers in 2003 as there were in 2002.

I'll supply links to the Stanford/SLAC HEP database that just issued its citations report for 2003, for anyone who hasnt checked it out already.

The decline in string research has affected both the raw number of papers and the number of highly-cited papers

What is happening in stringy research that correlates with this sudden falling off? What basic physics issues have emerged in this connection?

How do statements by string leaders----Leonard Susskind, Tom Banks, David Gross, Mike Douglas, Edward Witten---correlate with the drop off? Are any of their recent remarks relevant: do they explain (to some extent at least) what is going on?

Fortunately the answer is a partial yes: there are recent comments by Susskind and others that shed a little light on this. Hopefully we can gather some of these words-from-the-wise and post them, or links to them, on this thread.

What, if anything, can we infer? It may be that stringy research has encountered interesting physical-theoretical obstacles which would be informative to sketch out.

marcus

Jun6-04, 03:37 PM

marcus

Jun6-04, 03:44 PM

This is from the Spires ranking of hep-th papers.

For definiteness 'recent' means the preprint appeared in the past 4 years so at end 2000 recent papers are those which appeared in years 1997-2000.

According to Spires, in year 2000 there were 9 recent stringy research papers that garnered 125+ citations, and look at the numbers of citations each received:

In 2000 the 9 recent highly cited sringy papers got: 498, 446, 397, 347, 316, 268, 191, 164, 131 citations.

By contrast, in 2003 there were only 4 recent highly cited (125+) stringy papers and they got: 197, 135, 134, 125 citations.

the above was from Spires list for the single category hep-th.

Here are some similar results from the combined Spires HEP list,
the combined list is broader and includes papers in all categories which
Spires considers part of the HEP database----in line with what is meant by High Energy Physics research at least at the Stanford SLAC, DESY(Germany) and the other institutions participating in Spires.
The Spires HEP database is broader than the single ArXiv category hep-th.

The 1999 Spires HEP topcite list had, with only recent papers counted, 24 papers which received 125+ citations.
Of these, 15 were recent string papers. (over 60 percent, a substantial percentage)

The number of citations these 15 recent string papers received that year were:
625, 464, 425, 285, 215, 202, 170 170, 167, 148, 146, 139, 137, 130, 126

By contrast the Spires HEP 2003 topcites list had, when only recent articles were included, 20 papers which garnered 125+ citations.
Of these, 4 were stringy type research (a smaller percentage than in 1999, 25 percent instead of 60 percent)

the numbers of citations for these 4 string papers were:
197, 135, 134, 125

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=220282#post220282

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=220548#post220548

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=226549#post226549

marcus

Jun9-04, 09:50 AM

Here are those citebase links.

the general index:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/

most-cited papers in 2003 for the whole HEP database:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/annual.shtml
the 2003 citations broken down by field:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/eprints/index.shtml

There's been a sharp decline in string research and I am still hoping to hear some cogent explanations.
the decline is an objective thing you can see in the ArXiv and Spires numbers---the data is online and I've provided links.
What might be interesting is how you interpret it----there can be questions about interpretation.

Lubos Motl talked about the decline in stringy research last year on SPR and said he hoped it was "sinusoidal", but IIRC no cogent explanation.

Anyway the annual Spires report just came out and one can use it to quantify the sharp downturn in string research. it has four aspects

1. decline in raw output of papers
(according to ArXiv, a steady rise 1991 to about 2001-2002 and a decline since 2002 to present, no sinusoidal or uppy-downy behavior, just one long up and then down). Links will be provided so you can see for yourself.

2. loss of standing in the annual "Papers that shaped modern high energy physics" review. This is an annual "what's hot in HEP" essay. Since 1997 or so it has been written by Michael Peskin at SLAC. Up thru 2001 it has been dominated by string news. After 2001 string is more of an afterthought at the end. Other HEP areas of research take the limelight and are seen as hot. Links will be provided.

3. there are fewer recent highly cited stringy papers than there were before 2001 and these represent a declining percentage of recent highly cited HEP papers. Taking 'recent' to mean 'last four years' and highly cited to mean 125+ citations, one sees a decline from 60 percent in 1999 down to 25 percent in 2003. Percentagewise string has become a less important, or dominant, part of HEP research, as shown by the Spires HEP database.

4. the citation quality of recent stringy papers has declined.
Taking 'recent' to mean last four years here are the numbers for 1999 and for 2003:
1999:
625, 464, 425, 285, 215, 202, 170 170, 167, 148, 146, 139, 137, 130, 126,...

2003:
197, 135, 134, 125,...

In 2003 there were fewer recent stringy papers which got 125+ citations.
And their citability quality was inferior compared with their counterparts in 1999. It is not clear what citations measure, but they are an object measure of research quality of some sort as seen by other researchers in the field: influence, importance, valuable new ideas, advances, usefulness to later researchers, starting new lines of investigation, whatever gets your paper cited by those that come after. This quality has declined sharply in the string field, as the above comparison illustrates.

My feeling is that this sharp downturn should be explainable and that one ought to be able to learn something from it.

It certainly does not appear to be random fluctuation.
I just looked at the raw output figures for 1991 to present and could see no 'business cycle' or 'sinewave' (sinusoidal) component. The arxiv count went like this:

1991 102
1992 461
1993 544
1994 610
1995 810
1996 1002
1997 1248
1998 1299
1999 1403
2000 1491
2001 1546
2002 1518
2003 1258
LTM 970

By LTM I mean the last twelve months, 9 June 2003 to 9 June 2004.
counts produced by the arxiv search engine vary some, but the
general picture of a peak around 2001-2002 shows up consistently.
I dont believe in taking other people's word on things like this so I will
provide links to arxiv search so you can check for yourself.

sol2

Jun9-04, 09:59 AM

Experimental observation lacking, can be a direct challenge to the conceptual basis of anything, and Peter Woit is challenging that conceptual basis? This is always a safe assumption:)

These statistics are very interesting from a overall perspective :smile:

Maybe we should compare it the the mathematical challenges of the poincare conjecture or the issues of Fermat ( a million dollar reward in the offering of the toe?).

The challenge is very difficult, and requires mnds that will incubate for a long time. These are the careful thinkers in this case that you have sited. Some who might not even care about the money:)

Does not mean the challenge is going unabated? :smile:

marcus

Jun9-04, 10:24 AM

there is a real grain of wisdom in what you say, Sol2, as there often is.

It would be good to make some historical comparisons.

with other intellectual fashions, in the past,

and also with great outstanding problems.

It has happened that with great outstanding problems several
different approaches get tried, and many variations on them get tried,

and then those approaches get abandoned and some other approach
comes in (maybe from an unexpected direction) and works.

as a watcher or onlooker I try not to get locked into one particular set
of expectations

or even one view of the problem

You know I think that the problem been confronted now is not actually the TOE!!!

Whatever people think they are doing, i think what they are really trying to do is arrive at a background independent version of quantum theory

Yesterday selfAdjoint was speculating about "spaceons" of quantized space exchanging "gravitons" among themselves
(as the geometry of space changed dynamically, I guess)
it was a light-hearted, not a solemn, post, but it started me trying some unfamiliar lines of thought

anyway this stringy approach may be getting run into the ground
it is not just the decline in raw numbers of papers
it is the decline in citability---the papers have less and less significance.

whatever happens it's bound to be interesting

sol2

Jun9-04, 10:46 AM

Marcus,

The question JB highlighted in terms of the background issue, are very important, and the thoughts here are really quite fleeting. So to bring one back down to earth and I have to continually refresh my mind on that particular issue.

You are right, in terms of what must be geometrical expressed. How does this relationship transpired in the subject of background versus non background?

JB referred back to Smolin for comparsion of the true attempts at this question. Three Roads was a synopsis of the differents methods and approach and raised the question of how we might tackle this problem.

This is how I saw it. It lead us to the understanding of what mathematics we might use? This then raises intertesting speculations on my part about the philosphical discussion on the issues of math and its origination.

FOR ME WHAT HAS MATERIALIZE IS THE NEED FOR A CONSISTENT EXPRESSED DISCRIPTION OF THE GEOMETRY? (did not mean to captilize)

Also, you pointed out the historical discussion, and for me seeing how dirac and then Feynmen leads from him, in the toy model considerations, he consistently impoved this model for consideration?

The solvay meetings were to me to incubate the ideas generated from different perspectives and this issue is on going in the dialogue between these two camps of LGQ and Stringtheory.

But there is a basic question here about the background verus the nonbackground that must be answered?

Yesterday selfAdjoint was speculating about "spaceons" of quantized space exchanging "gravitons" among themselves
(as the geometry of space changed dynamically, I guess)
it was a light-hearted, not a solemn, post, but it started me trying some unfamiliar lines of thought

The only one missing, was wheeler's geon:) It has not passed others attention how we might describe the fundamental reality of dynamical resolution. Looking backwords, some of this historical insight can be quit revealing as you have stated

marcus

Jun9-04, 01:35 PM

FOR ME WHAT HAS MATERIALIZE IS THE NEED FOR A CONSISTENT EXPRESSED DISCRIPTION OF THE GEOMETRY...

... two camps of LGQ and Stringtheory.

that's a good point. what you capitalized deserves to be
and bold-faced as well!

About "two camps" I dont know. People who think "camps"
could be more interested in convincing other people that
they are right, rather than finding out about nature.
There may be Stringtheory propagandists who will yell at you if
you dont genuflect to their Big Would-be TOE.
But the people working on quantizing gravity seem a fluid bunch not locked into one particular doctrine.

About the only thing non-String Quantum Gravity people seem to agree on is what you suggest here----the urgency of a (background independent)
description of geometry.
you have to be able to describe it in a convenient way so you can
say how it changes, as matter moves around.

geometry = gravitational field

it isnt satisfactory to base things on a fixed pre-conceived geometry because the world just isnt like that.

I would like to know other people's thoughts as to why String/Brane research has declined----some people say "flat-lined"----anyway seems at least temporarily stalled. But if I had to guess, I'd imagine it is just this very thing---this dynamic geometry thing.

Witten called for a background independent version in 1992 (said how important it isl) and people have made great efforts---including recently Vafa----but it seems very hard and complicated to achieve B.I. in context of strings.
Tom Banks referred to it as a "chimera".
Motl recently talked about this as a central goal----he called it finding a
"backround-universal" version---in a soul-searching SPS post.
I should get some links to these quotes, they are interesting and revealing I think.

marcus

Jun9-04, 02:39 PM

...

My feeling is that this sharp downturn should be explainable and that one ought to be able to learn something from it.

It certainly does not appear to be random fluctuation.
I just looked at the raw output figures for 1991 to present and could see no 'business cycle' or 'sinewave' (sinusoidal) component. The arxiv count went like this:

1991 102
1992 461
1993 544
1994 610
1995 810
1996 1002
1997 1248
1998 1299
1999 1403
2000 1491
2001 1546
2002 1518
2003 1258
LTM 970

By LTM I mean the last twelve months, 9 June 2003 to 9 June 2004.
counts produced by the arxiv search engine vary some, but the
general picture of a peak around 2001-2002 shows up consistently.
I dont believe in taking other people's word on things like this so I will
provide links to arxiv search so you can check for yourself.

Here are links to the ArXiv search engine showing numbers of stringy research papers by year since 1991.

(Counts papers whose abstract summary has the keywords
string OR brane OR braneworld OR D-brane OR M-theory OR p-brane.)

Year 1991:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1991/0/1

Year 1992:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1992/0/1

Year 1993:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1993/0/1

Year 1994:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1994/0/1

Year 1995:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1995/0/1

Year 1996:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1996/0/1

Year 1997:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1997/0/1

Year 1998:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1998/0/1

Year 1999:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1999/0/1

Year 2000:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2000/0/1

Year 2001:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2001/0/1

Year 2002:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2002/0/1

Year 2003:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2003/0/1

Last twelve months (e.g. 9 June 2003 to 9 June 2004):
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/past/0/1

marcus

Jun9-04, 04:10 PM

...

I would like to know other people's thoughts as to why String/Brane research has declined----some people say "flat-lined"----anyway seems at least temporarily stalled. But if I had to guess, I'd imagine it is just this very thing---this dynamic geometry thing.

Witten called for a background independent version in 1992 (said how important it is) and people have made great efforts---including recently Vafa----but it seems very hard and complicated to achieve B.I. in context of strings.
Tom Banks referred to it as a "chimera".
Motl recently talked about this as a central goal----he called it finding a
"backround-universal" version---in a soul-searching SPS post.
I should get some links to these quotes, they are interesting and revealing I think.

we should backup key quotes with links---you may know this Witten quote
about background independence already but I'll put the references:

“Finding the right framework for an intrinsic, background independent formulation of string theory is one of the main problems in string theory, and so far has remained out of reach.” ... “This problem is fundamental because it is here that one really has to address the question of what kind of geometrical object the string represents.”

E Witten: “Quantum background independence in string theory” http://arxiv.org/hep-th/9306122. “On Background independent open-string field theory” http://arxiv.org/hep-th/9208027.

sol2

Jun9-04, 08:08 PM

Marcus,

What is the move to the graviton, from gravitational wave understanding. If Gr was to remain consistent with QM how would this calculation serve to illustrate it as a smooth transformation?

The very significance of the graviton must have dimensional significance based on the value of those gravitational waves?

I hope I did not steer you off course here.

marcus

Jun9-04, 09:06 PM

Marcus,

What is the move to the graviton, from gravitational wave understanding....

I hope I did not steer you off course here.

Sol2, indeed you dont steer me off course at all! I am unsteerable in
a graviton direction. Your ideas and questions I'm glad to see (as usual)
but I do not know from gravitons!

Maybe someone else can respond to your question. I do not think a graviton has ever been observed yet and the various
would-be theories that try to quantize Gen Rel seem to differ as to
whether and what they are. So for the time being I remain happily ignorant about gravitons---really no opinion!

Time will tell.

Do you know how photons were first detected?
(expect you do :smile:) they were detected before
their existence was theorized

notevenwrong

Jun10-04, 09:37 AM

marcus

Jun10-04, 09:48 AM

To get numbers of string-theory related papers as a function of time it would probably be better to use the SPIRES database. The increase in numbers during the 90s is mostly due to the spreading use of the arXiv system, whereas SPIRES has been cataloging pretty much everything in particle physics for a very long time.

Good suggestion! I imagine the effect would be especially important in the
early 90s when people were just getting started using arXiv.

Here goes:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1992&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1993&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1994&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1995&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1996&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1992 734
1993 656
1994 771
1995 869
1996 857

this is by putting
fin k string model and date 1992
into spires

marcus

Jun10-04, 11:48 AM

String, brane, M-theory papers by year of publication
1986 89
1987 136
1988 324
1989 725
1990 1092
1991 936
1992 853
1993 761
1994 864
1995 976
1996 1069
1997 1427
1998 1383
1999 1498
2000 1642
2001 1559
2002 1677
2003 xxx

-----------
I struck the Spires 2003 count from the list because jgraber's
post later in this thread puts it in doubt----they may still be
cataloging papers from last year. follow the link given for 2003
below if you want to get the current Spires count.

The search used terms of the form
fin k string model or matrix model or membrane model and date 1992
in the Spires HEP database

1986:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1986&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1987:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1987&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1988:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1988&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1989:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1989&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1990:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1990&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1991:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1991&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1992:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1992&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1993:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1993&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1994:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1994&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1995:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1995&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1996:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1996&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1997:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1997&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1998:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1998&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1999:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+1999&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

2000:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+2000&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

2001:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+2001&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

2002:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+2002&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

2003:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+2003&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

---------------
my first pass was with just the one spires keyword "string model"
to refine this I included other keywords
and went all the way to 2003

in any case at least we have something objective to check ideas against
Looking at the spires (key=string, membrane, matrix) numbers i see a swoop between 1990 and 1996.
Maybe someone who watches string research more attentively would like to explain this: what happened between 1990 and 1996?
or was it just unexplained random fluctuation?

selfAdjoint

Jun10-04, 04:08 PM

I would suggest you add brane (rather than membrane) and adS/CFT (in just that format).

marcus

Jun10-04, 06:44 PM

I would suggest you add brane (rather than membrane) ...

Have you looked at the list of permissible Spires keywords?

I tried brane but got no results (zilch!)
then I looked at the list and found that what they wanted was
"membrane model".

With a new search engine it's not always easy to figure out how to
use it. I would be glad if you or some of the others would try.
Maybe you can get it to accept "brane" as a key word.

jeff

Jun10-04, 07:52 PM

I would suggest you add brane (rather than membrane) and adS/CFT (in just that format).

These are just a few terms under which you'll find stringy papers. I really do think you need to be expert on string theory to properly collect this sort of data and analyze what it actually means.

compactification
bosonization
calabi-yau
chan-paton
conifold
brane
d-brane
p-brane
d-instanton
d-string
del guidice-di vecchia-fubini
ddf
dilaton
dimensional reduction
duality
f-theory
fischler-susskind mechanism
flat direction
fundamental string
gepner model
gso
gliozzi-scherk-olive
green-schwarz mechanism
h-monopole
heterotic
holograph
k3
landscape
m-theory
m2-brane
m5-brane
matrix model
matrix theory
nambu-goto
narain
neveu-schwarz
orbifold
orientifold
ramond
refermionization
s-duality
u-duality
t-duality
twisted
string
superstring
veneziano
virasoro
w string
winding
world sheet
wrapped
inheritance principle
b-field
state-operator
born-infeld
uv/ir
polyakov
superstring
moduli
noncommutative geometry
a-d-e
dirac-born-infeld
ads/cft
ds/cft
g2
extremal
nonextremal
ns5-brane
ale
seiberg-witten
enhancon
type I
type IA
type IB
type II
type IIA
type IIB
fermionization
R
RR
R-R
Ramond-Ramond
NS
NS-NS
repulson
Dn-brane, n=0,1,...,8
blow-up
pp-wave
quiver
supergravity
strong/weak
tachyon condensation
o-plane
vertex operator

marcus

Jun11-04, 12:58 AM

It looks like no one here can improve on the Spires search I just posted.
I would be delighted if someone could come up with a better keyword formulation that would get Spires to produce more papers. But unfortunately no useful suggestions have been offered so far.

If anyone would like to try improving, see if you can get more than 1677 papers in 2002, which is what I got with
fin k string model or matrix model or membrane model and date 2002

(it's a challenge :smile:)

What that means is "find keyword string model or matrix model or membrane model and publication year 2002"

The controlled list of 2000 admissible keywords is maintained by German librarians at DESY and they do not want you to say brane, you are supposed to say "membrane model".

It is a superior kick-*** system, the best in the world for HEP, but you have to be willing to say "matrix model" and NOT to say M-theory.

Anyway, you say that
fin k string model......
thing that I told you and it translates to this:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+m embrane+model+and+date+2002&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

and you get 1677 stringy papers for 2002

i would be real suprised if Spires HEP database had more stringies to give you than those. But please try!!!

"These are just a few terms under which you'll find stringy papers. I really do think you need to be expert on string theory to properly collect this sort of data and analyze what it actually means."

Not at Spires you wont. I guess we need a tutorial on the Spires HEP database.

In the preceding post's list of over 90 words and phrases all but one of which would be useless as keyword inputs to Spires,
and that one useful term was one I was already including: matrix model.

Spires has a great "Help" section with lots of examples.
Spires is easy to use and I believe all working physicists doing research in HEP must already be familiar with it.

None of this is news to any bona fide research people who might look in at PF.

Spires was obviously designed for the ordinary physicist and physics student to use----it's easier than the catalog at our local public library BY FAR :biggrin:

Spires is a joint project of Stanford/SLAC and Fermilab and DESY (Germany) and some other national HEP centers. Here is the list of some 2000 keywords that is maintained by the DESY librarians.

http://www-library.desy.de/schlagw2.html

note the abbreviation of "schlagwort" for keyword.

If you want to do a Spires keyword search, you choose from that list.

jeff

Jun11-04, 07:12 AM

It looks like no one here can improve on the Spires search I just posted.

As I said...

These are just a few terms under which you'll find stringy papers. I really do think you need to be expert on string theory to properly collect this sort of data and analyze what it actually means.

compactification
bosonization
calabi-yau
chan-paton
conifold
brane
d-brane
p-brane
d-instanton
d-string
del guidice-di vecchia-fubini
ddf
dilaton
dimensional reduction
duality
f-theory
fischler-susskind mechanism
flat direction
fundamental string
gepner model
gso
gliozzi-scherk-olive
green-schwarz mechanism
h-monopole
heterotic
holograph
k3
landscape
m-theory
m2-brane
m5-brane
matrix model
matrix theory
nambu-goto
narain
neveu-schwarz
orbifold
orientifold
ramond
refermionization
s-duality
u-duality
t-duality
twisted
string
superstring
veneziano
virasoro
w string
winding
world sheet
wrapped
inheritance principle
b-field
state-operator
born-infeld
uv/ir
polyakov
superstring
moduli
noncommutative geometry
a-d-e
dirac-born-infeld
ads/cft
ds/cft
g2
extremal
nonextremal
ns5-brane
ale
seiberg-witten
enhancon
type I
type IA
type IB
type II
type IIA
type IIB
fermionization
R
RR
R-R
Ramond-Ramond
NS
NS-NS
repulson
Dn-brane, n=0,1,...,8
blow-up
pp-wave
quiver
supergravity
strong/weak
tachyon condensation
o-plane
vertex operator

selfAdjoint

Jun11-04, 08:11 AM

Jeff, did you read Marcus's post beyond the first line? He said that for a Spires search you have to use their llist of keywords. Marcus can you give us a link to the full list?

jeff

Jun11-04, 12:33 PM

Jeff, did you read Marcus's post beyond the first line? He said that for a Spires search you have to use their llist of keywords. Marcus can you give us a link to the full list?

Unless you can widen the search as I've indicated, then - spires or not - your numbers will be low. Anyway, it's incorrect to say that because we're unsure how to accomodate the observed accelerating cosmological expansion into string theory, that strings have somehow "crashed". If we attribute these observations to a positive cosmological constant, then we simply (and in fact quite probably) require new non-perturbative tools to properly incorporate de sitter into strings, and we know of nothing that would preclude this possbility, if only because we don't really yet understand what M-theory is.

selfAdjoint

Jun11-04, 01:37 PM

I went to the site and tried to enter queries other than yours but got no results. Why 'string model' ? Why not just 'string'?

marcus

Jun11-04, 02:16 PM

I went to the site and tried to enter queries other than yours but got no results. Why 'string model' ? Why not just 'string'?
:smile: Maybe you have to get inside the head of a DESY librarian

they keep the list:
http://www-library.desy.de/schlagw2.html

when you go to Help it says here are the keywords used to classify the papers and gives this link

inaccuracies happen when you just look for words mentioned in the abstract as they do in arXiv

in arXiv one gets logic papers with "string of ASCII characters" counting as an occurrence of "string"

the arXiv throws in all that and comes up with around 1500 or 1550 papers preprints for 2001

Spires is a bit more reliable and complete and has 1677 publications for 2002. It is roughly consistent because preprints lead publications by about a year. After that both indices crash. (it is like the stock market, it doesnt matter if it is the DowJones or the SP500 that you track you just need some repeatable objective index and they all show roughly similar behavior)

----------------

Evidently at Spires the librarians inspect every paper and tag it with
their choice of key words

it is a retrieval system

it doesnt matter if the authors of the article say "p-brane" or "D-brane"
the librarian will tag it "membrane model"
and tag it with a few other tabs as well most likely
and then put it on the shelf

to get it to come back you have to say the right word
but if you know to do this it is a great system and works beautifully
a wonderful and long-established asset to the HEP community :rolleyes:

marcus

Jun12-04, 10:36 PM

just to restore focus, here is what we are hopefully going to learn why it happened. and there was a corresponding change in the citations numbers and some other related shifts noted in Michael Peskin's annual review of HEP

Spires HEP database counts:

String, brane, M-theory papers by year of publication
1986 136
1987 194
1988 363
1989 766
1990 1113
1991 953
1992 874
1993 782
1994 880
1995 997
1996 1083
1997 1455
1998 1411
1999 1527
2000 1670
2001 1575
2002 1708
2003 xxx

-----------
I struck the Spires 2003 count from the list because jgrabers post puts it in doubt. he says there has indeed been some decline but not as sharp as
the spires 2003 number indicates.

I think there should be a number of reasons for the decline
and looking at them should bring out things worth knowing about, some of which were mentioned in threads on sci.physics.research, or maybe here at PF.

I'm hoping for some enlightening comment from knowledgeable posters.
-----------

The search used terms of the form:

fin k string model or matrix model or membrane model and date 1992

Here are links so you can check the numbers yourself.

*1986:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1986

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1987

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1988

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1989

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1990

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1991

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1992

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1993

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1994

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1995

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1996

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1997

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1998

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1999

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2000

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2001

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2002

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2003

---------------

marcus

Jun12-04, 10:42 PM

Here are some Spires links.

the general index:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/

most-cited papers in 2003 for the whole HEP database:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/annual.shtml

the 2003 citations broken down by field:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/eprints/index.shtml

the main index has a link to Michael Peskin's review of the HEP field,
it's instructive to read his reviews from other years like 1999, 2000,
2001, and compare them with the one for 2003:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/review.shtml

ahrkron

Jun13-04, 05:51 PM

There may be many factors contributing to this decline. Funding, evolving terminology (resulting in a less representative count for the most recent periods considered), and an actual "bump" may do it.

I'm curious about what has happened with LQG. How does it behave using a similar "diagnostic tool"?

marcus

Jun13-04, 11:42 PM

I'm curious about what has happened with LQG. How does it behave using a similar "diagnostic tool"?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=233994#post233994

this is about as similar as i can get
LQG and allied approaches are not part of High Enegy Physics so they dont have HEP amenities like Spires, or so many people working in them, or so many papers.

most LQG papers dont have to do with particle physics and are of interest to GR people, not HEP people, so they are not in the Spires database
or in any case they do not come up when I say "quantum gravity" to Spires.

However, using the arXiv search engine hitting on occurrences of words like "loop quantum gravity" in the abstract summary of the preprint, we can find preprints in arXiv for LQG and allied research areas, similiar to what we did with string+brane+M-theory group. It aint perfect but it's something.

the link gives numbers of preprints by year from 1992 to present

here's a couple of searches I use to find recent non-string Quantum Gravity preprints in arxiv

Last Twelve Months:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/past/0/1

----
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+simplicial+c anonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR+AND+doubly+spe cial+AND+spin+foam+AND+dynamical+triangulation/0/1/0/past/0/1

----trial---
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs: +AND+loop+OR+cosmology+gravity+abs:+AND+AND+quantu m+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phenomenology+OR+simplici al+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR+spinfoam+AND+spin+fo am+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/past/0/1

jgraber

Jun14-04, 02:05 PM

jeff

Jun14-04, 02:19 PM

...definitely not a crash.

Obviously.

I would attribute the drop off to the end of the Maldacena bubble.

We need new nonperturbative tools since D-branes have on their own pretty much done what they can, at least on their own.

marcus

Jun14-04, 02:23 PM

I just tried a very simple search in NASA ADS. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/physics_service.html
Check only Physics/geophysics
date 01/200x-12/200x
abstract string
Results:
2000 1004 papers
2001 1066 papers
2002 1159 papers
2003 1096 papers
A little drop off, but definitely not a crash.
This crude search searches American Physical Society Journals only.
Anyone is welcome to try more sophisticated searches and see what you come up with.

However, I think the result is roughly correct, there has been a drop off, but not a crash. I would attribute the drop off to the end of the Maldacena bubble.

Just my two cents worth.
Jim Graber

jgraber, great hearing from you (last time I remember your posting was
around time of APS meeting)
I tend to put a fair amount of weight on your view, so I have
conflicting pictures to reconcile here
the spires picture (with the change in the citation numbers and Michael Peskin's review with its shift of emphasis) on the one hand and what you
point to on the other. contradiction is the spice of life.

selfAdjoint

Jun14-04, 03:42 PM

Number of papers published has not crashed; that was established before, I think. What has crashed is new heavily cited papers. As I posted before, this doesn't necessarily mean that sst is played out, just that the previous generation raised so many hares that the current generation is still chasing them.

marcus

Jun14-04, 04:03 PM

... just that the previous generation raised so many hares that the current generation is still chasing them.

bingo, great metaphor!
(I dont necessarily accept the full conclusion, perhaps jury still out, but understand the model for how citations could be dissipated and the arrival of next big mama papers can be delayed)

jeff

Jun14-04, 04:33 PM

...doesn't necessarily mean that sst is played out...

This is too equivocal: The evidence that strings is the way to go is overwhelming. No other theory has the potential to explain so many - indeed, virtually all known - questions about fundamental physics. This is a result of it's (mostly still undiscovered) richness and depth (duality symmetries, in particular the ones relating spacetime geometry and gauge theory, and, of course, the way it incorporates supersymmetry etc).

selfAdjoint

Jun14-04, 09:21 PM

I accept your correction. The richness is indeed truly awesome.

arivero

Jun20-04, 02:01 PM

This is too equivocal: The evidence that mathematics is the way to go is overwhelming. No other approach has the potential to explain so many - indeed, virtually all known - questions about fundamental physics. This is a result of it's (mostly still undiscovered) richness and depth (duality symmetries, in particular the ones relating spacetime geometry and gauge theory, and, of course, the way it incorporates supersymmetry etc).

Cheers,

Alejandro

setAI

Jun20-04, 05:22 PM

This is too equivocal: The evidence that strings is the way to go is overwhelming. No other theory has the potential to explain so many - indeed, virtually all known - questions about fundamental physics...

except of course that it is background dependent which prevents it from truly being fundamental- fix that main flaw- make string theory background independent- then we should be getting somewhere-

___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

arivero

Jun21-04, 12:10 PM

About the stats: marcus, have you divided it by the total number of papers? hep had a small decreasing at the end of 2003,
http://arxiv.org/Stats/hca_avg.gif

marcus

Jun21-04, 01:30 PM

About the stats: marcus, have you divided it by the total number of papers? hep had a small decreasing at the end of 2003,
http://arxiv.org/Stats/hca_avg.gif

interesting graphic, I had never seen that at arXiv.

In 1993 astro-ph was only about 1/7 of hep
and now it is about the same size
(in the rate that papers are coming in)

also hep peaked in 2002 and has, as you pointed out, declined
it illustrates a shift in research interest and excitement, I suppose,
so many good new instruments in space----the uncertain wandering of
theory development since the mid 1980s---maybe a number of
related things

selfAdjoint

Jun21-04, 01:54 PM

But look at the steady growh of cond-mat also. Part of this is that it now includes the hot network theory area, and also the statistical mechanics approach to finance, which seems to have survived the dot-com crash.

arivero

Jun21-04, 02:40 PM

On other hand, one should compare this with another more veteran journals, because perhaps it only means that the ArXiV has taken ten years to reach all the interested audience in the field, and by now it has touched the ceiling. Perhaps it signals it is mature enough for improvements (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=239505#post239505)

marcus

Jul13-04, 10:32 AM

Here are two perspectives on the String "Landscape" exerpted from Woit's blog "Not Even Wrong". They are by people who have sometimes posted on PF----Urs Schreiber and Peter Woit----and were prompted by a a lay question from an artist by the name of Pyracantha.

Here is Pyracantha's original question:

"Pyracantha from "Electron Blue" here, the artist who is trying to learn math/physics in middle age. I read your site in the hope that someday I'll understand what you and your colleagues are talking about. But I have heard one phrase many times and it intrigues me. What is the "landscape?" Could you explain it in terms that a beginner like me could understand?"

---Urs quote from Comments on "Witten in Crete"-----

Hi Pyracantha -

in so-called perturbative quantum theories one chooses a solutiuon of the classical equations of motion, the so-called 'background' and then studies quantum corrections to that background order by order.

For instance in ordinary quantum field theory the background might be flat Minkwoski spacetime and in that background we can imagine photons and electrons to propagate and interact in Feynman-diagram fashion. The 'vacuum' background together with all these particle whizzing around would then be a full perturbative state of the theory.

(One problem is that not all aspects of the full quantum theory are captured by such a perturbative procedure.)

Now, in string theory the idea is pretty much the same, only that here the particles are not pointlike but a have a small linear extension. This seemingly simple modification has drastic consequences. While in field theory there are many possible choices of fundamental particles, their interactions, and choices of background, the consistency of string interaction very much constrains all three of these. The big open question is: How much exactly?

When people talk about the 'string theory landscape' they are thinking of the abstract space in which each point is one consistent perturbative string theory background, i.e. one consistent choice of particle content, particle interaction and classical spacetime that they propagate in. In principle the number and position of points in this 'theory space' is determined by the background equations of motion of string theory (or equivalently, if you want to hear the technical terms, by the requirement that there is a supercfonformal field theory with central charge 15 on the worldsheet of the string).

There has been some recent progress in better understanding this space - but it is still immensely ill understood. Still, the progress that has been made has appeared significant enough to some people to base some more far reaching speculation on it. That's because a good understanding of which background solutions string theory admits is the key to be able to apply string theory to pheonomenological considerations. When a string theory background is found which is consistent with the observed particles of nature, then studying the stringy quantum corrections to it would allow to deduce what this background predicts as corrections to the currently known physics.

Peter Woit here has pointed out repeatedly that some of the speculations concerning the landscape that have been published are not at all based on results that have really been calculated.

On the other hand, the mere fact that a discussion of such a 'theory landscape' is possible (even though not easy) is important. It is not possible in field theory of point particles. There we also have some restrictions on the Lagrangians (i.e. the particle content and interaction) that we are allowed to consider as a consistent field theory, but they are far less severe than those found in string theory.

As has been pointed out very nicely by Jacques Distler in his weblog, the points in the landscape which are consistent with the experiments that we have made are probably very rare. In any case, none has been found so far. If there is none at all, then string theory is wrong as a theory of nature. If there is a single such point, then string theory, based on the currently known data, could make predictions about for instance new particles that could be found in future colliders. (These predictions could still be disporved by experiments, of course.). If however there are very many such points then predictions for new particles etc. would be very difficult. One might, in this case, still try to make some statistical predictions. Such statistics about properties of the 'landscape' are currently what some people are trying to do. But it seems fair to say that this is, while an intersting idea, quite premature.

Finally, there is the theoretical possibility that the world we live in cannot be understood as a small perturbation of some background. The success of perturbative field theory suggests otherwise, but nobody can know this for sure. So one possibility is that none of the points in the 'landscape' correspond to the world we live in, but some nonperturbative description of string theory is necessary to describe our world. Nonperturbative description of string theory tend to be described not by full classical backgrounds, but by asymptotical backgrounds, this means roughly that at spatial infinity the background is fixed, while 'in between' physics is described fully nonperturbatively. Nonperturbative discriptions of string theory are known for instance for universes which asymptotically have the geometry of what is called 'anti-deSitter Space'. This is, roughly, the shape of a universe with a negative cosmological constant.

Now, unfortunately for string theorists, recent very exciting measurements of various cosmological parameters have shown that instead we observe a cosmological constant which is positive. This means that the particular anti-deSitter non-perturbative deswcription of string theory appears not to be applicable to describe the universe that we live in.

This is probably the main reason for the current excitement about landscape discussions. Namely people are trying to find out if in the landscape admits universes which only temporarily have a positive cosmological constant, while asymptotically this constant goes negative. If this were the case then there would still be hope that the nonperturbative string theory description which involves asymptotically anti-deSitter space could be used to describe the world we observe.

So that's what all this landscape talk is about. Unfortunately, since there is so little known for sure about the 'landscape' (even though the landscape is a well defined mathematical object (space of all superconformal 2d theories with c=15) which can in principle be understood exactly), some of the discussion concerned with it recently has tended to be more philosophical than scientific.

Posted by Urs Schreiber at July 13, 2004 04:38 AM

-------end quote------

marcus

Jul13-04, 10:35 AM

-----quote from the "Witten in Crete" comments-----

Hi Urs,

Thanks a lot for the detailed summary of the current point of view on the "landscape". I hope that helps Pyracantha, but if not here's a much over-simplified version:

String/M theory supposedly is a theory of strings and maybe other objects in an 11-dimensional space-time. We see 4 of the dimensions (3 space, 1 time), what about the other 7? The initial hope was that there would be a small number of possible consistent choices of these 7 dimensions, so there would be a small number of calculations you could do and see if one of them agreed with experiment.

Lately people have started to believe that there are an astronomically large number of possible consistent choices, and these are referred to as the "landscape". The reason for this terminology is that each such choice comes with an important number attached, the energy of the vacuum, and if one imagined mapping out all possible choices on a plane, one could imagine making a topographical map, with the energy the altitude. Zero energy choices would be at sea-level, and the whole thing would presumably have peaks and valleys, with our universe sitting at the bottom of some valley.

Anyway, that's very roughly the idea.

The standard ideology has always been that this large number of choices is just due to the fact that one only knows an approximation to the real string/M-theory, and that if one knew the real thing one would find that all or most of these choices were inconsistent. The other part of this ideology is that there is a unique real string/M-theory, for which all these choices are just possible lowest energy states. In this scenario, maybe they are only approximately at lowest energy and the true lowest energy state is something else, or maybe there really are an extremely large number of possible lowest energy states (this may include metastable states, not at lowest energy, but separated by an energy barrier from lower energy states).

My own point of view is that this standard ideology is just wishful thinking. My guess is that there isn't a simple unique 11-dimensional theory, but something rather complicated, involving a possibly infinite number of choices as to how to set it up. People are free to keep believing the standard ideology, since it's hard to prove a negative, to show that what they would like to exist doesn't.

The really strange thing that has happened in recent years is that a lot of string theorists, most prominently Susskind, have adopted the point of view that, whatever string theory is, it has an astronomically large "landscape" of equally good vacuum states, and thus equally good models of the universe. I would have thought that once someone had convinced themselves that, even if there was a unique real string theory, it would be consistent with an unimaginably large number of possible models of the universe and quite possibly be completely vacuous and unable to predict anything, they would give up on the whole idea. The idea Urs mentions, that maybe only a small number of these models is consistent with some simple facts one knows about the standard model, so you could use these to make predictions about other things, seems to me to be just more wishful thinking.

Given that you don't know the underlying theory, and what you do know leads to an essentially infinite number of possibilities, it's not clear that the kinds of arguments that Susskind et. al. are making are even science at all. Some of these papers are weird documents, with virtually no equations, just a lot of hand-waving arguments involving massive amounts of wishful thinking and no solid conclusions. My take on all this is that the time is long past at which a reasonable person should have given up on the whole idea and moved on to something more promising, but sociological reasons are keeping this from happening.

Posted by Peter at July 13, 2004 10:53 AM
------end quote-------

marcus

Jul13-04, 11:26 AM

These two statements about the Landscape Problem in string theory show the problem very clearly. the confusion surrounding the landscape could (one should always remember) be a temporary and helpful stage in the development of a more deterministic theory. But right now it involves some discomfort and uncertainty for some of those involved and a certain amount of quiet tearing of hair over Leonard Susskind and the Anthropic controversy.

In this thread I want to suggest a connection between the present confusion (perhaps crisis is too strong a word) and a decline in string research visible in the numbers.

the clearest decline has been in the citations indices for 2002 and 2003
as compared with sample earlier years such as 1999 and 2000. We looked at those earlier in this thread. One point in looking at citations is that the Spires figures for 2003 are done---the topcites lists arent going to change. this may not be true for the whole database. One can compare total numbers of papers, as in these two links, but the 2003 number may change because cataloging may still be in progress:

2002:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2002

2003:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2003

selfAdjoint gave an interesting explanation for the decline in citations having to do with earlier great papers "starting many hares" which caused a dissipation of research effort in many directions.

Jim Graber pointed out that in another catalog (NASA Astrophysics Data, Harvard) the decline in numbers of papers from 2002 to 2003 was rather modest, only on the order of 10 percent, it seemed to me.

The preprint numbers are in some sense a "leading indicator" because hardcopy publication comes about a year later. So one can look at the arXiv numbers for 2002, 2003, and LTM (last twelve months) to get an idea of the decline to be expected in hardcopy publication between 2003 and 2004.

preprints in 2002:
http://arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2002/0/1

preprints in 2003:
http://arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2003/0/1

Last twelve months (e.g. 15 June 2003 to 15 June 2004):
http://arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/past/0/1

What is interesting is perhaps not the decline in string research (in both numbers and citations) itself, but whether there is any connection between the numerical decline and confusion over the Landscape. I guess Peter Woit's comments are relevant here.

sol2

Jul13-04, 11:44 AM

I do not think it so strange that the landscape could not of held us to some geometrical standards. It would be as if the professor crossing the room would have held some underlying principals, that govern such landscape developements. What lies beneath?

This idea of Susskind is another monitoring factor I like to compare.

Cherenkov radiation under artful expression always seems really interesting when thinking of Susskind through your explanation highlighted. :smile:

I have a picture somewhere in my archive that I saw yesterday, that I am having trouble finding. It would have sparked some wonder. Along side of this the cubical expressionism in quantum gravity(monte carlo effect). . Just one of the many artful expressions these searchers use as a expression of the world they are seeing?

One thing that continued to haunt my perspective is the aurora borealis, just one more aspect we might have detailled to some maxwellian progressive state out side the envelope, to lavish in some cradled development of the gravitational field. Might have went to far here :smile:

marcus

Jul29-04, 01:05 AM

The preprint numbers are in some sense a "leading indicator" because hardcopy publication comes about a year later. So one can look at the arXiv numbers for 2002, 2003, and LTM (last twelve months) to get an idea of the decline to be expected in hardcopy publication between 2003 and 2004.

preprints in 2002:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2002/0/1

preprints in 2003:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2003/0/1

Last twelve months (e.g. 28 July 2003 to 28 July 2004):
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/past/0/1

these numbers are not perfectly stable, the arxiv search engine isnt designed to be consistent in these large searches, but the annual percentage changes are fairly consistent---just now when i ran these three I got 1570, 1201, and 873 for the periods 2002, 2003, and Last Twelve Months. Since these are preprints, a leading indicator of publication, we could project publication figures as follows:

publ. 2003 1570
publ. 2004 1201
publ. 2005 873

this is a wild stab in the dark, obviously.
We have a palpable decline in arxiv preprints (in these research areas) since a peak around 2002---this is not in question and it is one possible measure of activity. But it is obviously risky to convert the preprint numbers into an index of publication.

thanks to various people who have helped either with links or advice or both, in the process of getting this year by year research trajectory sketched out.

selfAdjoint, arivero, and jgraber for their comments, and also thanks to
notevenwrong who posted earlier in this thread and suggested using the
Spires database as a better historical record than the preprint arxiv.

selfAdjoint

Jul29-04, 08:49 AM

marcus

Jul29-04, 12:16 PM

Marcus, I have to say that your method of searching on keywords is sensitive to fashions in topic names, so AdS/CFT might be synonymed Maldacena, or even now Hawking! Just thinking about this I would expect the numbers for any fixed set of keywords to decline on a three year cycle as new topic names replace old.

let's try to get as good numbers as conveniently possible---the comments from you and others have been helpful so far and much appreciated. If the topical terms that researchers use change that in itself is interesting.

Please look back two posts to
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=269755#post269755
and look at the spires numbers 1986-2002
this is with a fixed set of keywords used by the professional librarians
whose job is to make a useful database for the HEP community.
I do not see any 3 year cycle such as you say might be expected, but there are other features such as a temporary dip after 1900.

IIRC in the spires case one is limited to choice of keywords (and I dont think AdS/CFT would be an option) but I may be able to get higher numbers in the arXiv search by putting in AdS/CFT. Bear in mind, though, that the arXiv preprint numbers are mainly a way of getting a leading indicator.

selfAdjoint

Jul29-04, 01:13 PM

marcus

Jul29-04, 01:35 PM

I don't like the spires keywords. I went through them several weeks ago and tried to pick out by hand the ones that could be related uniquely to string physics in the broader sense. The list of about 40 words I came up with was pathetic as far as capturing recent and current research. Librarians just don't understand physicists! And they are always years behind. So I would suspect that the non-appearence of a three year cycle you saw was an artifact of librarian conservatism rather than truly present in the papers being indexed.

I hate to sound new age or Clintonian but I share your pain. the nice thing about arXiv is that it is not governed by librarians

actually I love librarians they are wonderful and some of my best friends---but they have their own data retrieval ways

anyway an arXiv search of the preprints is simply governed by the words the author himself puts in his abstract summarizing the paper

so it has different shortcomings----like language fashions: a guy can continue doing the same research, mathematically speaking, and just use different (buzz) words in his abstract.

thanks for trying to improve the Spires search by sifting thru their list of allowed keywords!

it may be more possible to improve the arXiv search

marcus

Jul29-04, 01:48 PM

here, for comparison, is arXiv for the past 10 years.
this now is governed by what the author(s) put(s) in the abstract

(Counts papers whose abstract summary has the keywords
string OR brane OR braneworld OR D-brane OR M-theory OR p-brane.)

I tried to put in AdS/CFT to see if it would make any difference to the numbers, but had trouble. will try again later

Year 1994:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1994/0/1

Year 1995:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1995/0/1

Year 1996:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1996/0/1

Year 1997:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1997/0/1

Year 1998:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1998/0/1

Year 1999:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1999/0/1

Year 2000:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2000/0/1

Year 2001:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2001/0/1

Year 2002:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2002/0/1

Year 2003:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2003/0/1

Last twelve months (e.g. 29 July 2003 to 29 July 2004):
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+OR+string+brane+abs:+OR+braneworld+D-brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/past/0/1

there was some unexplained variation in the 2003 and Last twelve months counts. The second column was what I got Monday 9August

1994 610 610
1995 801 801
1996 1002 1002
1997 1248 1248
1998 1299 1299
1999 1403 1403
2000 1491 1492
2001 1546 1546
2002 1570 1570
2003 1201 1408
LTM 873 1117

marcus

Aug4-04, 11:52 AM

ArXiv has changed the interface to their search engine and I havent figured it out yet.

spires is OK though, so at least we have those numbers
and Jim Graber's NASA Astrophysical Data resource is still fine.

jgraber's NASA-ADA is now in rough agreement about 2003 with spires
(but this may not last since Spires may add more to its database as the
librarians continue to process 2003 papers)

it has been pointed out that the data is unsatisfactory---true enough---it consists of applying the same recipe year after year, the same search proceedure for each of a series of 10 or more years, and it can be argued that [i]the right recipe to use changes[i].

however i suppose that applying the same keywords year by year for 10 years does tell something---produces some kind of trajectory which one can attempt to understand. Moreover the results correspond to what e.g. Lubos Motl says----he has said string theory research output has declined during the past year or so----that's anecdotal or hearsay but he might be expected to know. So what we can do is produce some semi-objective corroboration of what an insider says. it is not authoritative but it correlates to the scuttlebut.

marcus

Aug5-04, 06:04 PM

ahrkron has asked that we have something comparable for Loop research papers.

I'm curious about what has happened with LQG. How does it behave using a similar "diagnostic tool"?

Here, for comparison, are arXiv counts for Loop and allied
approaches over the past 10 years.

Year 1994:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/1994/0/1

Year 1995:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/1995/0/1

Year 1996:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/1996/0/1

Year 1997:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/1997/0/1

Year 1998:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/1998/0/1

Year 1999:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/1999/0/1

Year 2000:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/2000/0/1

Year 2001:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/2001/0/1

Year 2002:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/2002/0/1

Year 2003:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/2003/0/1

Last twelve months (e.g. 10 August 2003 to 10 August 2004):
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,astro-ph,nucl-th,math-ph,hep-ex,physics,cond-mat,hep-lat,quant-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/OR+OR+abs:+AND+AND+loop+quantum+OR+cosmology+gravi ty+abs:+AND+AND+quantum+gravity+OR+OR+discrete+phe nomenology+OR+canonical+nonperturbative+abs:+OR+OR +spinfoam+AND+spin+foam+AND+OR+triply+doubly+speci al/0/1/0/past/0/1

1994 59
1995 81
1996 69
1997 68
1998 59
1999 73
2000 83
2001 92
2002 113
2003 129
LTM 148

marcus

Aug19-04, 10:07 PM

More changes in the Spires database. Time to update:
The Spires 2003 number (and maybe some other years as well) will eventually be larger as the librarians continue indexing and add more papers to the database. The keyword search tool has been modified lately and may also find more papers.

January 2003 was when the Kachru 10100 string vacuums paper came out. It is a good time-marker. It is now a year and a half later

Spires HEP database counts:

String, brane, M-theory papers by year of publication
1986 138
1987 196
1988 365
1989 766
1990 1114
1991 953
1992 874
1993 782
1994 882
1995 998
1996 1084
1997 1458
1998 1414
1999 1532
2000 1686
2001 1807
2002 2126
2003 2104
2004 ....

Here are links so you can check the numbers yourself.

1986:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1986

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1987

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1988

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1989

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1990

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1991

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1992

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1993

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1994

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1995

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1996

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1997

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1998

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1999

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2000

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2001

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2002

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2003

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MOD EL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2004

---------------

Arivero provided a graph from the preprint arxiv.
http://arxiv.org/Stats/hca_avg.gif

selfAdjoint

Aug20-04, 08:34 AM

marcus

Aug20-04, 09:24 AM

Arivero's graph shows a general drop in hep submissions (if I read it right). That would be a sum of experiment, lattice, phenomenology, and theory, and include everything, not just string physics. So your drop in strings (I still have search questions about that) would just be a detail within an overall decline....

that's one good interpretation. In fact this is what Alejandro's original post said. He made the very same point. Personally I do not know for sure what to think. The statistics are suggestive and point in several directions.

And having said that they are suggestive (variously) one should also say that they are not very stable or statistically solid! For my part I would like to have more reliable indices of US and World research output in theoretical physics.

I have put some effort into getting some numbers and what i've posted is the best I can do.

Probably the most sigificant (as I see it, and you have indicated agreement I think) are the CITATION figures that form the basis of Michael Peskin's annual review. You have offered an interesting explanation of the shift in ranking in the TopCites area. I dont know if you still hold to that interpretation. Maybe I should update that information so we can take another look.

Again from a personal standpoint, it looks to me as if plenty of theoretical physics is being done, just that some of the action has moved over into astrophysics and condensed matter.
Peskin's review of citations moved astrophysics up in the ranking of "what's hot in physics" (Peskin's phrase, perhaps an unfortunate choice of words) and the numbers of papers and citations seem to support the shift----also Alejandro's graph showed a rise in condensed matter research IIRC and he pointed this out in his post.

So I differ from you in the sense that I am not concerned with the overall health. Plenty of stuff is being done, as I see it, we just have shifts of research emphasis.
I think it is worthwhile tracking them regardless of whether one has an ax to grind or wants to "score points" for any one team.

Tom McCurdy

Aug22-04, 09:12 PM

Sorry Marcus, I haven't fully had time to read the full 4 pages of this current subsection however I would like to make a small theory about why the numbers are down. Could it be that the String theory had become such a heavily researched topic since it has become mainstream that they are just running out of new angles to tackle the topic. This is not to say that string theory is any less probable of leading to toe, merely that people are running out of ways to restate what others have said. Thus leading to less cituations in articles what you gauged as "quality" I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) I know I am kind of playing devil's avocate here but as my stats teacher told me over and over again Correlation does not imply causation citing the example of how in an area in New England. There was a case where the more priests there were in an area the greater the number of drunk people in the town that caused crimes. However this does not mean that that increase in priest caused more drunk crimes simply that there was a correlation.

OF Course I could be compeltely wrong. Just an Idea

marcus

Aug22-04, 09:35 PM

Sorry Marcus, I haven't fully had time to read the full 4 pages of this current subsection however I would like to make a small theory about why the numbers are down. Could it be that the String theory had become such a heavily researched topic since it has become mainstream that they are just running out of new angles to tackle the topic. This is not to say that string theory is any less probable of leading to toe...

OF Course I could be compeltely wrong. Just an Idea

On the contrary I would encourage you in this point of view. Of course I dont know enough to say you are definitely right! but this seems like a very
reasonable explanation.

also the statistics themselves are very very bad. I have had a terrible time getting numbers that will stay the same.

Spires (Stanford SLAC and DESY in Germany) has just changed their search engine again and I can't get it to work! this happened just this week.
Spires is a very wonderful database in several (but unfortunately *not all*) ways.

be skeptical of everything, and have fun

(PS, better find Marlon's LQG thread, is has a good link in it)

marcus

Sep1-04, 12:41 AM

the changing face of High Energy Physics is shown by the American Physical Society's meeting of the Division of Particles and Fields
http://dpf2004.ucr.edu/program.html

These are the plenary talks.
I have bolded plenary talks which appear related to astronomy and cosmology, neutrinos and high energy astrophysics.
The string theory talk is in blue for easy spotting by those interested.
Sean Carroll gave the final plenary talk, today 31Aug, on cosmology.

---Friday August 27th---
8:10 am
*Neutrino Physics Experiment
*Kai Zuber (Oxford)

9:00 am
*Neutrino Physics Theory
*André de Gouvêa (Northwestern)

10:20 am
*Electroweak and Top Quark Physics
*Evelyn Thomson (Ohio State)

11:20 am
*Electroweak Symmetry Breaking
*David Rainwater (Rochester)

---Saturday August 28th---

8:00 am
*Heavy Flavor Physics
*Aaron Roodman (SLAC)

8:50 am
*Advanced Accelerators - Near Future and Far Future Options
*Jamie Rosenzweig (UCLA)

10:10 am
*Cosmology - Experiment
*Joseph Fowler (Princeton)

11:00 am
*How to Popularize Particle Physics
*Elizabeth Simmons (Michigan State)

---Monday August 30th---

1:30 pm
*Heavy Ion Physics
*Jamie Nagle (Univ. of Colorado)
*
2:20 pm
Very High Energy Astrophysics
*Stefan Westerhoff (Columbia)

Tuesday August 31st

10:20 am
*CP Violation
*Owen Long (UC Riverside)

11:10 am
*Current Trends in String Theory
*Clifford Johnson (USC)

1:30 pm
*QCD
*Sean Fleming (Carnegie Mellon)

2:20 pm
*Computing in High Energy Physics
*Ian Fisk (FNAL)

3:40 pm
*Searches for New Physics
*Gustaaf Brooijmans (Columbia)

4:30 pm
*Cosmology Theory
*Sean Carroll (Chicago)