Who is most respected in particle physics?

[Bob_for_short]

Dear Marcus,

You know everybody in the particle and QG fields and their reputations.

Could you name several names of senior, experienced theoretical particle physicists who are highly respected, please?

Responses of other PF members are also welcome.

Regards,

Vladimir.

 

[hamster143]

Witten, Weinberg, Georgi.

 

[MTd2]

Isaac Newton

 

[Bob_for_short]

I did not mention it but I need the names of alive physicists. I would like to contact some of them to ask for recommendation letters.

 

[fatra2]

Hi there,

You want to have recommendation letter from someone you never met?

Good luck!

 

[MTd2]

I guess you should not look for the best, but the best person, in a given context, that thinks and agrees with you.

 

[Bob_for_short]

You want to have recommendation letter from someone you never met?

Yes, I do. I have a positive experience in the past. It works sometimes.

I guess you should not look for the best, but the best person, in a given context, that thinks and agrees with you.

No, I need the most respectable ones. You know why? Because their word is decisive in the selection process.

 

[MTd2]

But they are immensely more likely to give a damn about you.

 

[Bob_for_short]

But they are immensely more likely to give a damn about you.

I will pick up (leave) those who will be favourable about my project.

 

[MTd2]

The most open minded among the top is t'Hooft. But it seems to me that the best is really something contextual.

 

[Bob_for_short]

Thank you, MTd2, I keep him in mind too.

 

[MTd2]

So, are you looking for what kind of place?

 

[humanino]

Why care about recommendation letter ? If I had a theory to replace the renormalization process, I'd better spend half an hour to talk with them rather than get a recommendation letter. If any of them agree with you, you do not need a recommendation letter.

 

[MTd2]

Why care about recommendation letter ? If I had a theory to replace the renormalization process, I'd better spend half an hour to talk with them rather than get a recommendation letter. If any of them agree with you, you do not need a recommendation letter.

Maybe he doesn't have money to pay for a travel. Who knows?

So, it is renormalization, right? I guess Weinberg is the best one on these matters, he's been hard thinking on these matters for 35 years. But Percacci is a nice guy to ask things though, since he pursuit Weiberg's asymptotic safety for 25 years, even though Weinberg himself gave up.

Maybe Percacci would be more likely to have a more positive view. Look also for his collaborators and think about Smolin. He is a very nice guy.

 

[Bob_for_short]

So, are you looking for what kind of place?

I work presently in France and the position opening is in the USA. It is a research position with one's own research program. Just what I need. I my life I solved a lot of problems for others (to make living) and could not spend enough time on my own subject.

Yes, it is about formulation of, say, QED, in a different way - without self-action and thus without renormalizations. It is a promising direction for all QFTs.

I need three RLs because it is an open competition and I have to respect its rules.

 

[MTd2]

You should go to a conference on new approaches to renormalization and expose your ideas. Garrett Lisi got grants by doing something similar.

 

[Bob_for_short]

You should go to a conference on new approaches to renormalization and expose your ideas. Garrett Lisi got grants by doing something similar.

Thanks for names and advice. I am rather busy at work, not that free to go where I like and do what I like, unfortunately. I've got to break free in order to get donw to my project entirely.

 

[marcus]

...Could you name several names of senior, experienced theoretical particle physicists who are highly respected, please?
...

My nomination (adding to people already mentioned by others) would be Lance Dixon at SLAC-Stanford.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/slac/faculty/hepfaculty/dixon.html

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~lance/

I have several reservations about adding this name to your list. One is that I'm the wrong person to ask, since not being an insider myself, I can't claim to know who is highly respected in particle physics.
Another problem is that, although we can tell you names of "senior, experienced theoretical particle physicists who are highly respected", these will not necessarily be suitable people for you to write to for the purpose you have in mind!

You say you are trying for a position in the USA. I think maybe you should get a rec from at least one mainstream USA particle theorist. Also senior is good, but not too senior. A very old famous guy may have already in his life received too many dubious-appeal letters or have already helped too many near-desperate struggling colleagues. So very old might work but is risky.

So I say Lance for 3 reasons.
Lance is absolutely mainstream
Lance is USA
Lance is still fairly young (although already known and respected.)

Michael Peskin, also at SLAC-Stanford, is of course well-known too, and of about the right generation. I have the impression that he has an odd (maybe even congenial to you) sense of humor.
Here is his homepage:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~mpeskin/
It has this beautiful quote from a Classical Chinese story:

`Whereever you go', said the Patriarch, `I'm convinced you'll come to no good. So remember, when you get into trouble, I absolutely forbid you to say that you are my disciple. If you give a hint of any such thing I shall flay you alive, break all your bones, and banish your soul to the Place of Ninefold Darkness, where it will remain for ten thousand aeons.' `I certainly won't venture to say a word about you,' promised Monkey. `I'll say I found it all out for myself.'
--from A Journey to the West, by Cheng-En Wu, tr. by Arthur Waley​

 

[Bob_for_short]

Thanks, Marcus.

I have already been explained how the selection process is carried out. Nobody cares what the research program one presents - because there is no sufficiently competent people amongst those who make decision. The only things they take into account are RLs. They rely upon them. It is not wise to present RLs from unknown people. It makes my task much harder.

 

[MTd2]

You have to make it with the few competent people amongst those who make decision then.

 

[Bob_for_short]

As I said, I am too far away from the laboratory with that post. I will follow the general rules displayed for candidates. Thank you all for your kind participation in this thread!

 

[JustinLevy]

Considering your ideas of a Lagrangian for replacing QED don't even reduce to Maxwell's equations, I think you better work on your idea a lot more before approaching people so high up in the field. Before even getting into details, the broad strokes of your approach don't seem motivated well at all. Heck even as a physics student I sometimes receive unsolicited emails about some crackpot theory. I'm sure it gets much worse for people higher in academia. If you aren't careful, your ideas will be lost and lumped into such emails.

Your writing style also, unfortunately, comes off as crackpottish due to the ratio of complaints against mainstream theory to actual content, and also the absolutism of the phrasing. All in all, cleaning up your paper so that someone can skim it and understand what you are claiming would be great.

All you seem to really be doing is proposing a different Lagrangian ... put that front and center. Many physicists can read the majority of the physical content off of a Lagrangian themselves. If your trial lagrangian has the correct classical limits and interesting features, they will be much more inclined to read the intro and conclusion (and maybe even skim or read the whole paper).

Since all you are really doing is just proposing a different Lagrangian and claiming it is _exact_ instead of approximate and therefore doesn't need regulating, I can't help but ask: Do you really think something as fundamental as electrodynamics has been using the wrong lagrangian all these years and you were the one that came up with the correct one?

The first thing people will ask for is, at the very least, experimental post-diction.
If your theory is better than QED, can you derive the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron with your theory?
Considering your theory doesn't even reduce to Maxwell's equations, I think that would be very very unlikely.

 

[Bob_for_short]

Dear JustinLevy,

I gave my answers to your post in the "Independent Research" section.

 

[ccdantas]

I find it highly uncommon (almost impossible) to get recommendation letters from someone you have never interacted with before, no matter if you send them your theory/project, and how good it may sound.

Recommendation letters are usually written to former students, postdocs, etc, with whom the advisor had full contact, who know the candidate very well and his/her capabilities. The recommendation letter must show for how long the candidate worked with the advisor/teacher/employer, so it must show not only his/her competency and potential in his/her field, prior experience, etc, but many other skills like communication, interaction with others, reliability, etc, that is, qualities that can only be judged for a long previous personal interaction.

Some people may find very inconvenient to be asked to write such a letter without knowing the person on those grounds, so it may well pose a negative weight on you. Also, some recommendation letters are requested to send closed and directly to the employer, without you having the chance to see it.

Having said that, I'm curious if you can get those letters, so please let us know if you are successful.

 

[ccdantas]

BTW, if it was all that simple (to get recommendation letters from "important people" that you never personally knew), I can only wonder about the so many opportunities lost in my life.:uhh:

 

[Bob_for_short]

I find it highly uncommon (almost impossible) to get recommendation letters from someone you have never interacted with before, no matter if you send them your theory/project, and how good it may sound.

Indeed, it is not that easy at all, and I never said it would be a piece of cake.

In 1994 I tried to go to the USA as a graduate student in order to fulfil my research program (or project) and I needed three RLs urgently. I found three people who agreed to read my publications and discuss my results and my project. (Of course, I contacted more people but not everybody was ready to do this.) And all the three gave positive responses - they discussed my results with me and wrote the RLs. One of them, a Doctor of Mathematics from the Moscow State University, was the most strict: he pointed out that my way of presenting the results is of physical rather than mathematical level of rigour and asked me to prove that my new perturbation series converge in a regular sense. And one Physics and Mathematics Doctor from Moscow Lebedev's Physical Institute (ФИАН, LPI) got so excited with my result in atomic physics that I had to calm him down in order to obtain a reasonable RL.

I was not accepted to graduate programs in the US universities because nobody wanted me to work on my own project. Normally the graduate students work with their leaders on the leader's projects.

And today I am quite conscious about a low probability of any response from those who was mentioned in this thread.

 

[Fra]

...nobody wanted me to work on my own project. Normally the graduate students work with their leaders on the leader's projects.

This is also my experience.

But I think is has to be the the problem of the advocate of the competing approach to show that it can outperform the main approach. Probably all the one working on the main approaches do so because it's what they find most promising, in which case it's still rational.

A problem is when rationality is compromised by these commercial drives that cause people to join the mainstrem jus in order to stay in business, which causes an excessive sociological-type "inertia" in the system that doesn't seem rational from a pure intellectual point of view. OTOH, it's still reality, which unfortuantely is a little more than only a intellectual advencture for it's own sake.

Can you aim at some of the generally acknowledge open question in physics?

I also have my own secret ideas but only post-dictions or other pure "reinterpretations" has no value to anyone else unless it can be shown to be a more successful way forward. Because it's exactly the same way I assess other programs. I see no other way but to secretly work this out on ones own at minimum until a point where it's MORE than just a matter of point of preferences. This is my strategy. I see several ways how to reach to several open problems, but I realize and accept that it's exclusively my problem to show this. If you can make clear statements about some open problems and how to test the statements, I suspect more attention should rightfully come.

If you don't make it, you have at least not sold yourself only to be part of a compromised game, and it has been a great time meanwhile.

If you current work drains you too badly, perhaps you can find another regular job that at least gives you an hour a night to think about something interesting?

/Fredrik

 

[Bob_for_short]

Dear Fredrik,

I will answer you in my "Independent Research" thread, if you don't mind.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I find it highly uncommon (almost impossible) to get recommendation letters from someone you have never interacted with before, no matter if you send them your theory/project, and how good it may sound.

I agree. Like you said, letters are usually written by people who have worked closely with you for years.

Frankly, a letter that starts out with "...I have never met the candidate..." is unlikely to be given a large weight.

 

[Bob_for_short]

I agree. Like you said, letters are usually written by people who have worked closely with you for years.

Frankly, a letter that starts out with "...I have never met the candidate..." is unlikely to be given a large weight.

Do you read scientific articles of your mates solely? Frankly, are you serious?

I am an experienced researcher who have already solved lots of difficult problems and who has his own, original vision (proposal) of how we can reformulate out theories without conceptual and mathematical difficulties. Isn't it sufficient? Better give me names and let us see.

 

[arivero]

My problem is not with "personally", but... are you going to write people whose papers YOU have not read?

 

[marcus]

Look at it in historical perspective for a moment. Kalitvianski says his career (as a mathematical physicist?) started in 1981-1982. I guess Moscow maybe. He has lived through the near-collapse of a major scientific establishment. People were taking desperate measures to relocate and continue their work. He tried to re-locate to USA and didn't make it but instead relocated to France. (If I remember correctly.) On the basis of rec letters from other Russian mathematicians who in some cases probably did not know him. Different standards probably prevailed in the S.U. crisis times of 20 years ago.

Most of us have not had that experience.

I have no great sympathy for Kalitvianski nor do I especially appreciate his proposed revolutionary theory but I reckon he is not a crackpot. I reckon he is a passionate obsessed guy who is very frustrated by a kind of "shipwreck" disaster that he thinks was not his fault--which washed him up on the beach to a job in France where he is kept busy and has no time to work on his pet idea. He maintains a certain gloomy sense of humor about it.

We have mostly all known NORMAL functioning scientific establishments. Many if not all of us, under other circumstances, could actually be thinking and acting like Kalitvianski, if we had a pet idea we wanted to develop and then the supporting economy crashed and the scientific establishment partially crumbled.

He feels a moral necessity to do something we consider abnormal---write to people he doesn't know, for their recommendations. Personally, given the circumstances, I think that's cool. I read that as passionate determination on the part of someone who (is probably not a crackpot and) has decided he has no other options.

Something I don't like is a kind of "chip on shoulder" mannerism or a readiness to air his grievances. But that is just a matter of style, not content. It is could be partly cultural (the famous gloomy fatalistic sense of humor---the well-known dark irony).
But if you ignore style and just look at content then I claim that what he is proposing to do is perfectly OK and we should suggest names to him and tell him to "go for it".

So what if he fails? If he fails, he fails and that is all. He has apparently reached a point where he feels like he has to try this. We might have good advice but he doesn't want that now.

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

@Bob,

Bob, go for it. Write the letters! Give it your best shot. Do you want more names suggested?
What would be an example of a couple of people you think are the kind you should write to? Give us an idea of one or two and we can try to think of more LIKE the ones you think are good.

 

[Vanadium 50]

what he is proposing to do is perfectly OK and we should suggest names to him and tell him to "go for it".

If someone were to come to you and say, "I'm broke. I need advice on how to play the lottery", it's simply not responsible to answer the question without also pointing out that this is not a sound fiscal strategy.

Bob for Short's institution has a theory group. That set of people are in a position to write letters that will be taken far more seriously than some stranger's.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do you read scientific articles of your mates solely?

No, but we weren't talking about scientific articles. We were talking about letters of recommendation. And we weren't talking about whether the writer of the letter is known to the reader of the letter - we were talking about whether the subject of the letter is known to the writer of the letter.

I am an experienced researcher who have already solved lots of difficult problems and who has his own, original vision (proposal) of how we can reformulate out theories without conceptual and mathematical difficulties.

Yes, we know. You try and work your theory into every thread you can.

 

[ccdantas]

I think there is a confusion here between two concepts:

Recommendation letter

versus

Letter of support

It is perfectly fine to get letters of support from someone that do not know you or your work closely, but have read your project/idea and thinks it has merit for financial or other support.

Concerning the first one, it is absolutely imperative that the person knows the candidate from having worked with him/her for a long period and closely. So, yes, a complete stranger asking for a recommendation letter may be seen very, very negatively and it is embarrassing.

But suppose for a moment that a very "important" researcher accepts to write a recommendation letter to someone he doesn't know. There are only 2 options:

- He/she will lie about the candidate (something very unlikely, sp. from an "authority")
- He/she will be honest that he does not know the candidate -- and therefore it will be a poor rec. letter (even if the project seems very good -- but again this appears not to be important for the job in question)

So you see that is why such a thing is not of usual practice.

Also, I think Marcus is making a confusion here. I think every one is entitled to fight for their ideas and independent research, but there are right and wrong ways to do it. My considerations above are meant to offer him a positive advice.

As a last word, I think it is perfectly fine if he collects letters of support to his project from "important" researchers, if he can, and attach them to the recommendation letters from people that have professionally worked with him. This could make him a good candidate for the job.