Sociology of Physics: comment and indices

Fra

Fascinating.

Do you know how those sales ranks are actually calculated?
Take for example the number 15.81 from 6 July, how is it calculated?

How many individual books are these individual numbers based upon?

/Fredrik

marcus

Fra, Amazon does not provide figures on the numbers of copies sold. They only give a sales rank. The book that sells the most copies is #1, the next most copies sold gets rank #2.
Also publishers tend to be reticent about actual numbers sold. So all we have to go on are the ranks. I calculate the ratios myself because the rank of a physics book is hard to interpret, I like to know the rank compared with something.

So for example the ratio at noon today was 1.67. Trouble was doing a bit more than one and a half times better than the stringy benchmark I compare with. The way it works is this:
At noon TwP rank was 2907.
The five most popular stringy books today were elegant, fabric, parallel, idiot guide, hyperspace and their ranks were 2620, 2871, 4090, 5257, 9431.
This makes an average of 4853.8. One just adds up the five ranks and divides by 5.
So the average stringy rank, for books in the top five, was 4853.8.
Smolin's rank of 2907 was 1.67 times better than that. That is the ratio 4853.8/2907.

So I record this for today:
17 July 1.67


Another example was the ratio for 6 July, as described here:
On that day the most popular string books (and their ranks) were Brian Greene's Fabric (#1507) and Elegant (#1782), Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds (#5330) and Hyperspace (#7309) and Lisa Randall's Warped Passages (#15503). Among the top five, the average salesrank was 6286.2. The Smolin book's salesrank was 15.81 times better than this stringy benchmark. Since that day it happened to be #395 among all books that Amazon sells.

The point of such an index is that it should be quick to calculate, and one should calculate it consistently always the same way. And one then watches it over time. Only the change over time, if there is any change, can mean something. By itself one cannot say what the number means.
The stringy benchmark to some extent measures the size of the problem (the over-hyping and over-selling of string to the public) and so the ratio has a connection with how well Smolin's initiative is doing relative to the size of the mountainous problem it addresses. But there is no rigorous meaning---one can learn what it means only by watching it over time and seeing what it correlates with. Like any other numerical indicator that one tracks.

marcus

A couple of days ago I thought the spike was over and it was back to normal (like 0.5 - 0.7) but that hasn't happened yet actually. Trouble is still doing somewhat better than par.

Trouble with Physics salesrank compared with string benchmark:

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

2 July 3.78
3 July 5.88
4 July 5.11
5 July 16.10
6 July 15.81
7 July 7.09
8 July 5.98
9 July 5.58
10 July 3.87
11 July 2.92
12 July 2.67
13 July 6.42
14 July 4.88
15 July 2.37
16 July 0.81
17 July 1.67
18 July 2.76
19 July 1.50


At noon pacific on 19 July, Trouble was 4081 and the most popular stringies (elegant, parallel, blackhole, fabric, hyperspace) were 3403, 5943, 6152, 7098, 8108 for an average of 6140.8 making the ratio 1.50.

Fra

Thanks. I was just curious if the explanation could have been a random fluctuation. A random fluctuation as an explanation would be more plausiable the lower the total # of books is.

The larger # of individual books it is, the more remarkable is it.

So maybe one explanation could have been: A drop in totals sales# of all books (due to bad times?) + fluctuations which are bound to come in the small n limit :)

/Fredrik

marcus

The main cause of turbulence just this past week, that I have seen, is the appearance of "Kindle" e-book versions of all these titles. Amazon is listing e-book ranks (from the "Kindle store") mixed into the physics bestseller list, which is quite confusing. e-book ranks are calculated on a different basis. I suspect that Kindle store sales (of the e-books) is small compared with total sales of ordinary books, so for the time being I am ignoring the Kindle versions of the titles. TwP now has a kindle version and it is doing quite well in the ranks, which surprises me. I thought that it would be mostly children and young people who buy the e-books, and I don't think of them as the main market for TwP. The appeal is that you get the book instantly, by wire, and also it is cheaper.
In any case, in doing these numbers I am focusing only on real books, and ignoring e-books.

Also there was a jump in sales of the Susskind black hole book (not really about string but I include it in calculating the stringy topfive because of some string-inspired stuff in chapters near the end.) This jump in sales came immediately after an article by Susskind appeared in Physics World. This makes it more believable that Smolin's spike in sales was at least partly caused by his having an article in Physics World (with some follow-on comment) a couple of weeks earlier. It was the magnitude of the spike that strikes me as unusual, not the timing.

Trouble is still doing somewhat better than par.

Trouble with Physics salesrank compared with string benchmark:

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

2 July 3.78
3 July 5.88
4 July 5.11
5 July 16.10
6 July 15.81
7 July 7.09
8 July 5.98
9 July 5.58
10 July 3.87
11 July 2.92
12 July 2.67
13 July 6.42
14 July 4.88
15 July 2.37
16 July 0.81
17 July 1.67
18 July 2.76
19 July 1.50
20 July 1.19
21 July 1.30
22 July 1.39


At noon pacific on 21 July, Trouble was 3750 and the most popular stringies (blackhole, elegant, fabric, parallel, hyperspace) were 2071, 2121, 5145, 6722, 8284 for an average of 4868.6 making the ratio 1.30.

At noon pacific on 22 July, Trouble was 3055 and the most popular stringies (fabric, blackhole, elegant, parallel, hyperspace) were 2778, 3161, 3491, 3637, 8223, for an average of 4258.0 making the ratio 1.39.

marcus

Something made the Smolin book sales pick up in late June/early July. There was an unexplained two-week spike in sales during the first half of July, which is now over. But the salesrank is still better than par, and better than in the first half of this year. I'm wondering if this indicates anything for the long term.

Trouble with Physics salesrank compared with string benchmark:

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
...
19 July 1.50
20 July 1.19
21 July 1.30
22 July 1.39
23 July 1.79
24 July 1.09
25 July 0.53


At noon pacific on 23 July, Trouble was 2190 and the most popular stringies (elegant, blackhole, fabric, parallel, hyperspace) were 1701, 2234, 2379, 4976, 8333 for an average of 3924.6 making the ratio 1.79.

At noon pacific on 24 July, Trouble was 3848 and the most popular stringies (elegant, hyperspace, fabric, blackhole, parallel) were 2257, 3600, 4369, 4648, 6013 for an average of 4176.8 making the ratio 1.09.

On the 25th Trouble ranked 6714 compared with a stringy topfive average of 3564.2 making the ratio 0.53, more like what was typical during the first half of the year.

=====================
EDIT TO REPLY TO NEXT POST
Hi Views,
Since I can still edit this, I will save a post and reply to yours here. You asked what are my thoughts. I think the Kachru et al paper you refer to would not have had anything to do with the increase in sales of Smolin's book, The Trouble with Physics, during July.

ViewsofMars

Marcus, it might have peeked due to this publication:

I was especially interested in CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK (p. 56 - 58). What are your thoughts about it?

ViewsofMars

Hi Marcus. That's fine.

Getting back to what you stated, "Something made the Smolin book sales pick up in late June/early July." I hope you won't mind me mentioning that I’m still new here so I hope it is ok for me to share with you what I just earlier observed elsewhere on physicsforums. You might consider in the future that because of you the 'increase in sales of Smolin's book' may have resulted when you presented on June 2, 2009 in Physics, Sub-Forums : Beyond the Standard Model, Topic: re: Introduction To Loop Quantum Gravity (page 11):

“This wide audience article by Smolin in PhysicsWorld (June 2, 2009) could turn out to be influential. It is part of the development of Unimodular Relativity (UR) in conjuctions with evolutionary cosmology (the conjectured evolutionary basis for the laws of physics).
It's a very readable article, called The Unique Universe."

and this quote of yours too may have had an effect on sales:
Marcus, I'd appreciate a response as I earlier asked of you on the the Kachru et al paper, D-brane Instantons in Type II String Theory that was supported in part by US Department of Energy. I'd like your input on it. Comments please. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I do think it is important for the public to realize that research is important. And, I'm most definately a big fan of the BIG BANG! (A round of applause for George Smoot!)

marcus

Trouble with Physics salesrank compared with string benchmark:

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
...
19 July 1.50
20 July 1.19
21 July 1.30
22 July 1.39
23 July 1.79
24 July 1.09
25 July 0.53
26 July 0.76
27 July 1.11


At noon pacific on 26 July, Trouble was 4686 and the most popular stringies (blackhole, elegant, fabric, idiotguide, parallel) were 1245, 2383, 4435, 5016, 5090 for an average of 3633.8 making the ratio 0.76.

At noon pacific on 27 July, Trouble was 3631 and the most popular stringies (blackhole, elegant, fabric, hyperspace, parallel) were 2617, 3653, 3915, 4027, 5976, for an average of 4037.6 making the ratio 1.11.

That's a curious thought. I rather doubt that anything we say here in SocialSci forum significantly influences the mass science book market or any other sector of the world at large.

You sound like you see your role as getting a message across to the general public. What I'm interested in is accurately tracking what is going on. I'm interested in how some indices behave---and in trying to follow and understand certain trends.

I guess there is a secondary idea here also that public support for scientific research will be more solid and effective in the long run if the public is well-informed. If the public knows the truth about what is happening in physics research (not just the hype as per discovery channel and gee whiz science specials.) But that is a secondary consideration. First of all I want some objective comprehension for myself, of what is going on.
==================
BTW View, you keep referring to a technical paper by Kachru et al:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3251
That is not sociology of physics by a long shot! If you want comment on that, you should start a thread about it in Beyond forum. Some of the folks there might be interested in discussing it with you.

marcus

Trouble with Physics salesrank compared with string benchmark:

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
...
19 July 1.50
20 July 1.19
21 July 1.30
22 July 1.39
23 July 1.79
24 July 1.09
25 July 0.53
26 July 0.76
27 July 1.11
28 July 1.04
29 July 0.78

At noon pacific on 28 July, Trouble was 4317 and the five most popular stringies (elegant, blackhole, hyperspace, fabric, parallel) were 2917, 3538, 4463, 4632, 6966 for an average of 4503.2 making the ratio 1.04.
===================

Here's a source for another index or two that we could be keeping track of:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...tecount%28d%29
This is Loop/Spinfoam research published since 2006 (i.e. 2007-present) ranked by cites.
As of 28 July there are 251 papers listed, and the citecounts for the top ten run from 65 down to 25.

Maybe I should take a two-year chunk, like 2007-2008, and watch that because the number of papers will not increase. Then compare that with 2008-2009, or eventually with 2009-2010. We can track the rate of research publication that way, as well as the citations picture.

Here is the same search but restricted to [2007, 2008]. The search finds 196 papers in the Spires data base.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...tecount%28d%29
As you might expect, the ten topcited papers are the same ones, and range from 65 down to 25.

Loop/Spinfoam publication rate (entries in the Spires database for two-year intervals)

[2003 2004] 126
[2005 2006] 136
[2007 2008] 196

For some reason there has been a dramatic increase in the rate that Loop/Spinfoam reserch papers have been entered into the Spires database. Probably at least part due to the increased activity in the field. Considerably more papers were written in the period [2007 2008] than were written in the period [2005 2006].

ViewsofMars

I'd like a link (url) that I can review from Amazon where you are obtaining those figures.

I'm sure of the readership on physicsforums, and what you write on physicsforums is noted on peoples' blogs.



You mean about George Smoot. Yup! He is a nobel prize winner. Top notch physicist.

Yes, I agree with you 'that public support for scientific research will be more solid and effective in the long run if the public is well-informed'. And, maybe I can be of help to you in a sociological sense. Here is an excerpt of an article, Cosmology's Golden Age, from CERN ( International Journal of High-Energy Physics) Courier dated Jun 8, 2009 that was written by George F Smoot, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:

I don't think a book should be the only indicator for future research as my example previously noted above. Funding is important.

Regarding strings, under Smoot Astrophysics Group Personnel (1) is Scientist Jodi Lamoureux-Christiansen. On her homepage (2) under RESEARCH INTERESTS, please note Cosmic Strings (3):
“CMB results rule out topological defects as the primary source of structure in the universe. They may only be a low-level source of structure. Their importance, however, has recently been recognized in theoretical work on hybrid inflation, D-Brane inflation and SUSY GUTS which all favor cosmic string formation. The discovery of Cosmic Strings would solve another dark theoretical mystery by putting a physical face to the yet another component of the universe.”
And please do review in Astrophysics (4):
Title: Search for Cosmic Strings in the GOODS Survey
Authors: J.L. Christiansen, E. Albin, K.A. James, J. Goldman, D. Maruyama, G.F. Smoot
(Submitted on 29 Feb 2008 (v1), last revised 24 May 2008 (this version, v2))
1. http://aether.lbl.gov/people.html
2. http://atom.physics.calpoly.edu/~jodi/
3. http://atom.physics.calpoly.edu/~jodi/strings.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0027v2
4. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...803.0027v2.pdf
###

Marcus, ever heard of Blue Ocean Strategy? Look, I'm creating a new market space by using a teaching module within your space along with providing you and our audience what I consider to be important feedback. Your topic "Sociology of Physics:comment and indices" isn't meant to reflect only *your* feedback without critique. It wouldn't be a democracy if I weren't allowed to comment. Also, at times, less certainty yields better decisions.

I should mention that I'm enjoying our exchanges. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

marcus

Getting close to the first of August. For compactness, I only save smoothed first-of-month readings.

Trouble with Physics salesrank compared with string benchmark:

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
...
30 July 0.90
31 July 0.44

At noon pacific on 30 July, Trouble was 4736 and the five most popular stringies (fabric, elegant, hyperspace, parallel, blackhole) were 3418, 3651, 3804, 4623, 5714 for an average of 4242.0 making the ratio 0.90. I intend to smooth with a 5 day average around the first of the month. Take readings on the 30, 31, 1, 2, and 3 of August, which will average out some of the random fluctuation.
===================

In my previous post I introduced another index which we can track. First of all there's this:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...tecount%28d%29
This is Loop/Spinfoam research published since 2006 (i.e. 2007-present) ranked by cites.
As of 28 July there are 251 papers listed, and the citecounts for the top ten run from 65 down to 25. Both publication rate and citations matter.

And here it is restricted to [2007, 2008]. The search finds 196 papers in the Spires data base.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...tecount%28d%29

Loop/Spinfoam publication rate (entries in the Spires database for two-year intervals)

[2003 2004] 126
[2005 2006] 136
[2007 2008] 196

A similar check shows string research publication declining over the past three years, and that citations to string papers have declined from highs in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The research mix may be finding a new balance.
Various things suggest this and maybe I should also mention some anecdotal evidence tending to confirm it.

marcus

Trouble with Physics salesrank compared with string benchmark:

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
...
30 July 0.90
31 July 0.44
1 August 0.51
2 August 0.81
3 August ?

One more noon reading to take, for an average around 1 August.
At noon pacific on 2 August Trouble ranked 5824 and the stringy top five (blackhole, elegant, fabric, hyperspace, parallel) ranked 2715, 3797, 4024, 6387, 6555, for an average of 4695.6 making the ratio 0.81.

marcus

The noon readings around 1 August turned out to be:
30 July 0.90
31 July 0.44
1 August 0.51
2 August 0.81
3 August 0.53

So the final average, giving the smoothed figure for 1 August is 0.64

Trouble with Physics salesrank compared with string benchmark:

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
...

As far as I can see the most remarkable thing about Trouble sales long term is how steady the book's rank is holding. It came out in September of 2006 and so far shows no sign of going away. In case anyone is curious at noon pacific on 3 August Trouble ranked 9242 and the stringy top five (hyperspace, elegant, fabric, blackhole, parallel) ranked 2879, 3554, 3557, 5474, 8961, for an average of 4885.0 making the ratio 0.64.
===============================
Another index to keep track of is the:

Loop/Spinfoam publication rate

[2003 2004] 126
[2005 2006] 136
[2007 2008] 196

To check these figures use this Spires keyword search and adjust the dates accordingly---here the dates are set to give research output from [2007 2008]:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...tecount%28d%29

==============
Another is a string publication index using keywords "superstring, M-theory, AdS/CFT, brane, compactification, heterotic" to search the Harvard archive.
Here are the results as of 3 August, for the first 6 months of three consecutive years:

2007: 2669
2008: 2597
2009: 2418

The links used are:
2007
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=YES&version=1

2008
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=YES&version=1

2009
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=YES&version=1

marcus

Checking in on Smolin's book.

Trouble with Physics salesrank compared with string benchmark:

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
...
8 August 0.89
9 August 1.49
10 August 0.39
...

At noon pacific 9 August, Trouble ranked 4129 and the five most popular string books (elegant, fabric, parallel, hyperspace, blackhole) ranked 2446, 3289, 3902, 5033, 16039 for an average of 6141.8, making the ratio 1.49.

I would say that although public interest and perception is a factor, there are some more important sociological indicators of changes in the fundamental physics research picture. Loop and allied research publication rate going up (see earlier post) and string publication lapsing. More researchers getting into nonstring QG and QC (the application of quantum gravity to cosmology). Exodus of smart people from string.

One can see a major shift in focus in the work of leaders like Hermann Nicolai, Petr Horava, Edward Witten, Steve Gidding, Juan Maldacena, Arkani-Hamed. Physicists show recognizable herd behavior, so what the leaders do is imporrtant.

Besides this exodus or shift in focus there has this summer been a remarkable run of conferences which combine Loop-and-allied speakers with String and ex-String folks. There is apparently more interest and openness on the part of the String and ex-String community---more desire to listen and discuss.
To mention a few:

Planck Scale (Wroclaw, June)
Marcel Twelve (Paris, July)
FQXi IV (Azores, July)
Emergent Gravity (Vancouver, August)
Ellisfest (Cape Town, August)
AsymSafe (Perimeter, November)

Another indicator of a change in the mental climate was Steven Weinberg's 7 July talk at CERN. (Basic message: string not the only game in town, SW currently chooses to work on an alternative, undercutting string motivation.) Five years ago Weinberg was an influential and staunch supporter: string as "our one best hope" of unification. No longer.

atyy

Vidal: Entanglement, symmetries, and the simulation of strongly interacting systems on a lattice, AND its (VERY CLOSE) relation to spin networks: A Tensor Network (TN) exploits the structure of entanglement in strongly interacting systems on a lattice to provide an efficient representation of its ground state. TN algorithms are becoming increasingly popular, thanks to its ability to simulate systems that cannot be addressed with quantum Monte Carlo techniques, such as frustrated antiferromagnets and interacting spins on a 2D lattice. In my talk I will explain how, in the presence of a symmetry, a TN reduces to a linear superposition of exponentially many Spin Networks (of the type you like in loop quantum gravity). It follows that TN algorithms can be used to evaluate such linear superpositions efficiently.

Hmmm, are LQG spin networks still alive or have they been replaced by spin foams (sorry, am completely confused on by the whole state of LQG/spinfoams)?

marcus

They are essentially the same theory. As the theory appears to be coming together, a spinfoam is how a spin network evolves.
So it would be impossible for one to replace the other. Or maybe I should say unnecessary.

Thanks for mentioning the Vidal presentation. Do you have a link?
What you quote here is what it says in the conference program http://www.emergentgravity.org/index..._programme.php
(in case anyone wants to see source and context---there are a lot of other interesting looking talks)
But what about a link to the corresponding work by Vidal?