- #1
- 24,775
- 792
Peter Woit reports on a short series of posts on SPR by Lubos and Michael Douglas, and a question asked concurrently by David Kogan. Lubos referred to Woit's blog and was seemingly in agreement with part of what Peter said. I had a bit of difficulty identifying the PF instances because they occur in several threads. Thought it might be useful to gather the links together here so as to more easily follow the conversation:
Here is David Kogan's post
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45246
---quote from Kogan---
Relating to string theory, how do physicists know when to abandon a theory?
What are some examples of "brick walls" that would cause string theory to
become nonviable and abandoned?
---end quote---
Here is a preliminary exchange between Lubos and Michael Douglas, about Landscaping: vacuum counts and averages. First Lubos, then Michael.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=44344
Near the end of that exchange, Douglas says:
---quote from Douglas---
More importantly, as explained in 0303194, my recent 0409207, etc., I
think it is meaningless to average over different vacua, because we
only observe one vacuum. Rather, the goal of my own work, and what I
advocate doing, is to characterize the distribution of vacua well
enough to estimate the number N_SM of different vacua which satisfy
the many existing observational constraints (standard model,
cosmological, etc.) as well as possible future constraints (this might
lead to "predictions" as discussed in 0409207). Based on this
information, we can decide whether we should continue the search for
the right vacuum directly (appropriate if N_SM <= a few), look for
additional principles to cut down the number (if N_SM is large), or
give up and start making anthropic arguments or whatever (if N_SM is
ridiculously large).
---end quote---
The conversation continues, but not in the same thread. This next post is the one which caught Peter Woit's attention. In it, Lubos replies to Michael and also appears to agree with a comment made by Peter Woit
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45506
---quote from Lubos, "Stringy Naturalness"---
Dear Michael,
thanks for these interesting comments here. I've read your constructively
provoking recent review
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409207
Well, Peter Woit made some comments about the situation on his blog
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
on September 20th - his summary is that you say that string theory
predicts that we can never see any physics related it. It would be too
difficult for me to pretend that I disagree with these Woit's remarks.
Do I understand well that all these predictions of yours about the
nonexistence of low energy SUSY and large dimensions critically rely on
your definition of stringy naturalness? You describe your notion of
stringy naturalness very explicitly:
[itex](**)[/itex] An effective field theory (or specific coupling or observable)
T1 is more natural in string theory than T2, if the number
of phenomenologically acceptable vacua leading to T1 is larger
than the number leading to T2.
I could not disagree more. This very definition of naturalness already
seems to contain - assume, in fact - Woit's result that the most typical
prediction of this approach to string theory will be that there are no
predictions. According to [itex](**),[/itex] the more ambiguous and unpredictive
something is, the better.
Also, I don't think that this counting "the more vacua, the more natural"
generalizes the notion of naturalness from physics "before" string theory
in any natural way. I would say that naturalness means - and always meant
- that the parameters that naturally appear in the description of physics
should be of order one. There are infinitely many more numbers (even among
integers!) :-) that are *not* of order one (for example 1235235236236236),
but this makes them *less* natural, not more, does not it?
If the notion of stringy naturalness were defined using the number of
vacua, I would probably choose a definition which seems to be nearly the
opposite of [itex](**),[/itex] namely
(##) An effective field theory or physical mechanism - or a value
of a coupling or another parameter - is natural from the
stringy viewpoint if it can be expected to be reproduced
in stringy backgrounds whose adjustable discrete parameters
are of order one, i.e. backgrounds that are "simple".
A more rigorous definition what is "simple" and what exactly should be of
order one requires some deeper knowledge of physics than what we have, but
the rough philosophy difference seems clear, I think.
Note that this definition more or less implies that the number of the
discrete "natural" vacua with (approximately) the desired properties will
also be of order one, while your "natural" vacua are by definition members
of huge families (unnatural families, in my language).
I think that it is (##), not (**), that naturally generalizes the previous
notions of naturalness. Naturalness means that the properly defined
parameters are of order one - not too small and not too large...
---end quote---
Here is David Kogan's post
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45246
---quote from Kogan---
Relating to string theory, how do physicists know when to abandon a theory?
What are some examples of "brick walls" that would cause string theory to
become nonviable and abandoned?
---end quote---
Here is a preliminary exchange between Lubos and Michael Douglas, about Landscaping: vacuum counts and averages. First Lubos, then Michael.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=44344
Near the end of that exchange, Douglas says:
---quote from Douglas---
More importantly, as explained in 0303194, my recent 0409207, etc., I
think it is meaningless to average over different vacua, because we
only observe one vacuum. Rather, the goal of my own work, and what I
advocate doing, is to characterize the distribution of vacua well
enough to estimate the number N_SM of different vacua which satisfy
the many existing observational constraints (standard model,
cosmological, etc.) as well as possible future constraints (this might
lead to "predictions" as discussed in 0409207). Based on this
information, we can decide whether we should continue the search for
the right vacuum directly (appropriate if N_SM <= a few), look for
additional principles to cut down the number (if N_SM is large), or
give up and start making anthropic arguments or whatever (if N_SM is
ridiculously large).
---end quote---
The conversation continues, but not in the same thread. This next post is the one which caught Peter Woit's attention. In it, Lubos replies to Michael and also appears to agree with a comment made by Peter Woit
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45506
---quote from Lubos, "Stringy Naturalness"---
Dear Michael,
thanks for these interesting comments here. I've read your constructively
provoking recent review
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409207
Well, Peter Woit made some comments about the situation on his blog
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
on September 20th - his summary is that you say that string theory
predicts that we can never see any physics related it. It would be too
difficult for me to pretend that I disagree with these Woit's remarks.
Do I understand well that all these predictions of yours about the
nonexistence of low energy SUSY and large dimensions critically rely on
your definition of stringy naturalness? You describe your notion of
stringy naturalness very explicitly:
[itex](**)[/itex] An effective field theory (or specific coupling or observable)
T1 is more natural in string theory than T2, if the number
of phenomenologically acceptable vacua leading to T1 is larger
than the number leading to T2.
I could not disagree more. This very definition of naturalness already
seems to contain - assume, in fact - Woit's result that the most typical
prediction of this approach to string theory will be that there are no
predictions. According to [itex](**),[/itex] the more ambiguous and unpredictive
something is, the better.
Also, I don't think that this counting "the more vacua, the more natural"
generalizes the notion of naturalness from physics "before" string theory
in any natural way. I would say that naturalness means - and always meant
- that the parameters that naturally appear in the description of physics
should be of order one. There are infinitely many more numbers (even among
integers!) :-) that are *not* of order one (for example 1235235236236236),
but this makes them *less* natural, not more, does not it?
If the notion of stringy naturalness were defined using the number of
vacua, I would probably choose a definition which seems to be nearly the
opposite of [itex](**),[/itex] namely
(##) An effective field theory or physical mechanism - or a value
of a coupling or another parameter - is natural from the
stringy viewpoint if it can be expected to be reproduced
in stringy backgrounds whose adjustable discrete parameters
are of order one, i.e. backgrounds that are "simple".
A more rigorous definition what is "simple" and what exactly should be of
order one requires some deeper knowledge of physics than what we have, but
the rough philosophy difference seems clear, I think.
Note that this definition more or less implies that the number of the
discrete "natural" vacua with (approximately) the desired properties will
also be of order one, while your "natural" vacua are by definition members
of huge families (unnatural families, in my language).
I think that it is (##), not (**), that naturally generalizes the previous
notions of naturalness. Naturalness means that the properly defined
parameters are of order one - not too small and not too large...
---end quote---
Last edited by a moderator: