- #1
- 24,775
- 792
To my knowledge, The Trouble with Physics...and What Comes Next is the only book on the market which not only criticizes the virtual string monopoly in the US but also describes a range of other QG approaches pursued abroad and blocked here. What interests me about Smolin's book is that it makes positive policy recommendations. Since we don't know where the key advances in the fundamental physics of space, time, and matter will be made, the book argues that research bets should be spread among string and non-string approaches. As they are in Canada and Europe.
In the belief that books can sometimes bring about change, several of us have been watching the impact of this book: The wider the audience it reaches, the greater its impact, and the more hope that the string research monopoly will be broken at several top US universities. If that happens, the balance will be more like it is in the outside world and US graduate students will be have the option of pursuing careers in non-string QG theory without having to move abroad.
Here we will be tracking Smolin's Amazon sales rank as a ratio relative to a benchmark indicating the size of the problem: the salesranks of the five most popular stringy books on any given day. To have a regular time, the reading is taken at noon pacific.
To illustrate with an example, here were the rankings at noon on 1 February, the moment of truth for the last forecast poll.
Smolin salesrank 6922
Greene elegant 2788
Greene fabric 9104
Kaku parallel 9609
Greene elegant (hardbound) 10,146
Randall warped 13,603
average rank of the five stringy books most popular on that day 9050.0
ratio 9050.0/6922 = 1.3
Some salesrank ratios in the past:
1 September 6.4
1 October 6.5
1 November 5.2
1 December 2.4
1 January 1.5
1 February 1.3
...
...
1 May ?
=================
here's something strange. I was assuming that the book had seen it's moment of glory and would subside down around parity or less. I was predicting a ratio of 1.0, in fact.
But I just checked as of noon 3 February and something had sent the ratio back up to 2.1!
The smolin was selling TWICE as well, judging by salesranks, as the average of the string topfive.
Some fluke? An interview on TV? Orders from small retailers replenishing stock? Can't think of a reason.
Maybe just a random hiccup.
6329.4/2994 = 2.1
In the belief that books can sometimes bring about change, several of us have been watching the impact of this book: The wider the audience it reaches, the greater its impact, and the more hope that the string research monopoly will be broken at several top US universities. If that happens, the balance will be more like it is in the outside world and US graduate students will be have the option of pursuing careers in non-string QG theory without having to move abroad.
Here we will be tracking Smolin's Amazon sales rank as a ratio relative to a benchmark indicating the size of the problem: the salesranks of the five most popular stringy books on any given day. To have a regular time, the reading is taken at noon pacific.
To illustrate with an example, here were the rankings at noon on 1 February, the moment of truth for the last forecast poll.
Smolin salesrank 6922
Greene elegant 2788
Greene fabric 9104
Kaku parallel 9609
Greene elegant (hardbound) 10,146
Randall warped 13,603
average rank of the five stringy books most popular on that day 9050.0
ratio 9050.0/6922 = 1.3
Some salesrank ratios in the past:
1 September 6.4
1 October 6.5
1 November 5.2
1 December 2.4
1 January 1.5
1 February 1.3
...
...
1 May ?
=================
here's something strange. I was assuming that the book had seen it's moment of glory and would subside down around parity or less. I was predicting a ratio of 1.0, in fact.
But I just checked as of noon 3 February and something had sent the ratio back up to 2.1!
The smolin was selling TWICE as well, judging by salesranks, as the average of the string topfive.
Some fluke? An interview on TV? Orders from small retailers replenishing stock? Can't think of a reason.
Maybe just a random hiccup.
6329.4/2994 = 2.1
Last edited: