Causes of loss of interest in String program

In summary, there has been a recent loss of interest and focus in the string theory program, possibly due to deficiencies in program management. However, the concept of background independence remains a valuable goal for the program. It is important for any theory of gravity to be concrete, concise, and testable, and to provide a model of the expanding universe with a positive Lambda. Despite criticisms, prominent figures such as John Baez and Edward Witten remain interested in string theory. The lack of a definite theory that is falsifiable without ambiguity is a common critique, but it raises the question of how to falsify a "theory of theories". Overall, the string theory program may have lost energy due to misdirection, rather than the fault of the
  • #1
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,775
792
Tom's thread "Why I'm REALLY disappointed..." continues to get increasingly thought-provoking and informative. I summarized some recent discussion here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3219363#post3219363

I had some reaction to recent posts by Suprised and Tom that I will put in this side-thread because I don't want to overburden the main thread.

It is possible that there is a loss of interest among top creative people or loss of "research energy" in the program that is due to deficiencies in program management---failures of vision and direction: what Suprised calls "wrong turns" and "blind alleys". He also recalled the image of looking too much under the lamppost where the light is. We don't know that all of Suprised's diagnosis is correct, but he clearly knows what he is talking about and it is suggestive.

So has there really been a loss of focus or research energy? Has there been a loss of interest by top people? And if so, why?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I will say where I am coming from, regarding these issues. I think Final Theory is a wild goose El Dorado. Physics must be pragmatic and incremental.

Theories must be concrete, concise, and testable.
Even if they are recognized to be only a partial description of reality, they must give us something concrete to work with. Any theory of gravity must give a concrete picture of the accelerating expanding universe from its beginning. A theory of gravity is a theory of the geometry of the universe--how geometry evolves--so it has to give us a definite concrete model of the the universe to work with.

So any theory of gravity must at least include a positive cosmological constant. Like the classic gravity equation does. I'm happy to be contradicted on this and be given counterarguments, but this is where I am coming from. String program leaders misguide the program if they do not confront this---and maybe they already do and I just didn't hear about it.

Background independence is a limited but useful concept, provided you know how to use it (without defensiveness and obfuscation).

It basically means "no prior geometry" (NPG) and to be that a theory must first of all be a theory. It has to have a definite formulation in a few principles and equations, so you can say "that defines the theory". Then on top of that the formulation must not resort to a prior fixed spatial or spacetime geometry. Typically that means no prior metric on the spacetime manifold

Because the classic GR theory of gravity/geometry can be (and is) formulated NPG, this concept is useful as a research GOAL. Basically the goal statement means "Be like GR" in that crucial way.

We all know that theories can have different equivalent formulations, the question is (if you have an actual theory) does your theory have an equivalent formulation that makes no use of prior background geometry?

It is difficult to apply this criterion to String because the String program has not produced a definite theory as yet. But it still could be useful as a goal.
The goal could be something like "get a concise definite theory of gravity that gives a concrete model of the expanding universe and has a positive Lambda (ie. acceleration) and is testable, and make it use no prior background geometry."

I think the concept of background independence is valuable to have as a goal.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Well, if physics is pragmatic and all that, perturbative string theory is perfectly fine (not my philosophy, just following your logic).

And loop is out, no Einstein equations yet, not pragmatic.
 
  • #5
I'm just trying to increase the perspective with this note. The lack of definite theory that's cleanly falsifiable without fuzz is a common critique against ST.

marcus said:
Theories must be concrete, concise, and testable.

Lets just for the sake of argument, SUPPOSE that string theory is not a front level theory, but rather what some suggest a theory of theories.

An instructive question is they to ask, what does it mean to falsify a theory of theory? How do you know when a theory of theories is WRONG? Because suppose your theory defines one front line theory that is shot down, then you just have another one.

Do we need to change the notion of falsification? or is the notion of theory of theory simply baloney?

This isn't a trick question, I think it's a very relevat one. And one can reflect upon possible answers without taking side.

/Fredrik
 
  • #6
atyy said:
Well, if physics is pragmatic and all that, perturbative string theory is perfectly fine (not my philosophy, just following your logic).

And loop is out, no Einstein equations yet, not pragmatic.

Not my logic. I did not say theories should be pragmatic. I think physics should be pragmatic and incremental in the sense of proceeding in practical, doable, steps. Construct theories that you can test--gradually enlarge the areas of physical reality that we understand.

As I see it the main virtue of a theory of gravity is testability (in the area of cosmology, probably the only experimental arena). I would not necessarily require precisely reproducing the Einstein equations, but at least the theory should have a positive Lambda (accelerated expansion.) Just how I see it.

atyy said:
Looks like John Baez is still interested in strings http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/susy/ .

So is Edward Witten still interested :biggrin:. I'll get a count of his "string" and "membrane" papers over the past sixteen years 1995-2010

Code:
1995-1998      1999-2002      2003-2006      2007-2010
     38             29              9              5

As I see it the String program may have lost energy because of misdirection, not by fault of theory per se. We aren't engaged in petty squabble games---tit-for-tat and pot-calls-the-kettle. If the management of the program has been deficient in vision and discipline (as Suprised suggests) we can objectively and constructively discuss this.

IF substantial numbers of top creative people have lost some of their earlier interest and focus, this could be a serious problem and it makes sense to ask WHY. Maybe this can be remedied (again I think Tom and Suprised are groping towards this idea of "back on track.") And if they have NOT taken what Suprised calls "wrong moves" and "blind alleys" and have NOT lost research drive then we don't have to ask why.

Here are the Spires links so you can make your own count if you like, using core string keywords "string model" and "membrane model".

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Witten+and+%28dk+string+model+OR+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+1994+and+date+%3C+1999&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (38)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+1998+and+date+%3C+2003&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (29)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2002+and+date+%3C+2007&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (9)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2006+and+date+%3C+2011&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (5)

Substitute other names if you like. Horava, Verlinde, Maldacena, Strominger...
Who knows what you will find? I haven't tried the experiment with these others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
I'm not convinced there is a loss of interest in the string program in general. There may be a (continued) shifting of interest into ads/cft kind of pursuits.

I just learned today that the most listed interest of would be theorists applying to graduate school at MIT is "ads/cmt". Of course, MIT is known for such pursuits, but its still an amazing sight. I don't know whether this is a good turn of events, but I do know that most of these people are basically planning on doing string theory or holography. So I have some informal evidence that strings aren't losing any steam, quite the contrary ...
 
  • #8
marcus, you are missing the boat. The next big thing is AdS/LQG :tongue2:
 
  • #9
Physics Monkey said:
...
I just learned today that the most listed interest of would be theorists applying to graduate school at MIT is "ads/cmt". ... So I have some informal evidence that strings aren't losing any steam, quite the contrary ...

Congratulations! This means you are way "ahead of the curve"! By some 4 or 5 years I would guess.
You introduced yourself in some other thread. Atyy I think it was mentioned the work of a MIT phd student in condensed matter intersection with AdS or something like that, and you said "That's me."

I forget the exact words but it sounded like just the specialty that most of the MIT applicants are now listing as their goal in graduate school.

As I recall there was quite a bit of Condensed Matter application of Stringy math featured in the invited talks lineup at Strings 2010.

So that seems to be hot. Good to be ahead of changing fashion!
==========================

I think that the insight Suprised gave us, summarized here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3219363#post3219363
does not refer to applications of stringy math to condensed matter.

When Weinberg talks about the String program being "disappointing", or Suprised talks about "wrong turns" and "potentially damaging" misdirection of effort, I think they are thinking of trouble with the unification program---the attempt to get a fundamental theory.

Same when Murray Gell-Mann expresses frustration and impatience with String program theorists not attacking the hard roadblock problems. I haven't seen an suggestion that anyone is disappointed with the String mathematical tools that have been developed and which seem rich in applications at various non-fundamental levels.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
marcus, when you distinguish between fundamental and non-fundamental, you are talking like Weinberg. Have you ever read "more is different" (actually, I find that essay rather too truculent, but anyway). BTW, the thread you talk about above was actually about LQG/CMT.
 
  • #11
atyy said:
marcus, when you distinguish between fundamental and non-fundamental, you are talking like Weinberg. Have you ever read "more is different" (actually, I find that essay rather too truculent, but anyway).

Two great condensed matter theorists of our time---both with philosophical as well as physics insight: Phillip Anderson and Robert Laughlin. I respect them by (Nobel) reputation but I have not read books/articles by them.

I'm talking about something much simpler and really quite rudimentary. Not so sophisticated as what I think you have in mind.
If somebody applies String math to study superconductivity at the atomic/crystal level, then there is no need for them to include a positive cosmo constant Lambda in gravity. They ignore gravity, and most of the Standard Model. If AdS/CFT is applied to some condensed matter problem there will presumably be no difficulty choosing a mathematical model for the bulk. It's tools, not TOE.
 
  • #12
marcus said:
Two great condensed matter theorists of our time---both with philosophical as well as physics insight: Phillip Anderson and Robert Laughlin. I respect them by (Nobel) reputation but I have not read books/articles by them.

I'm talking about something much simpler and really quite rudimentary. Not so sophisticated as what I think you have in mind.
If somebody applies String math to study superconductivity at the atomic/crystal level, then there is no need for them to include a positive cosmo constant Lambda in gravity. They ignore gravity, and most of the Standard Model. If AdS/CFT is applied to some condensed matter problem there will presumably be no difficulty choosing a mathematical model for the bulk. It's tools, not TOE.

In the context of Newtonian physics, Hamiltonians and Lagrangians are just tools too.

Also, think about Asymptotic Safety - that's presumably "fundamental" in your view, I assume. Yet it came out of condensed matter physics (admittedly CMT done by a HEP theorist, but we should count Kadanoff and a long line before that too, I think!)
 
Last edited:
  • #13
atyy said:
In the context of Newtonian physics, Hamiltonians and Lagrangians are just tools too.
...

That's a thought! Maybe you should give Witten, or Strominger, a pep-talk about the merits of the program. Say nothing is more fundamental that anything else so not to be disappointed if you don't find the ultimate reductionist theory of existence. Just kidding.

But empirically there does seem to be this loss of unification drive and direction that Suprised was discussing---this sense of "wrong turns". So I think it is worth thinking about what caused it. I'm thinking management--program guidance--vision. Maybe that's wrong. But there should be some explanation for it, and it may not be intrinsic to String per se.

You remember I listed Witten's "string" and "membrane" papers over the past sixteen years 1995-2010. Here are the same numbers for Strominger and Maldacena.

Code:
1995-1998      1999-2002      2003-2006      2007-2010
     38             29              9              5
     23             14             22              4
     27             33             24              9

It looks like Witten shifted interest sooner than the other two. Here are the Spires links so you can make your own count if you like, using core string keywords "string model" and "membrane model". Just put in a different name instead of Witten and repeat the search.

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Witten+and+%28dk+string+model+OR+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+1994+and+date+%3C+1999&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (38)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+1998+and+date+%3C+2003&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (29)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2002+and+date+%3C+2007&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (9)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2006+and+date+%3C+2011&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (5)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
marcus said:
Congratulations! This means you are way "ahead of the curve"! By some 4 or 5 years I would guess.
You introduced yourself in some other thread. Atyy I think it was mentioned the work of a MIT phd student in condensed matter intersection with AdS or something like that, and you said "That's me."

I forget the exact words but it sounded like just the specialty that most of the MIT applicants are now listing as their goal in graduate school.

As I recall there was quite a bit of Condensed Matter application of Stringy math featured in the invited talks lineup at Strings 2010.

So that seems to be hot. Good to be ahead of changing fashion!
==========================

I think that the insight Suprised gave us, summarized here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3219363#post3219363
does not refer to applications of stringy math to condensed matter.

When Weinberg talks about the String program being "disappointing", or Suprised talks about "wrong turns" and "potentially damaging" misdirection of effort, I think they are thinking of trouble with the unification program---the attempt to get a fundamental theory.

Same when Murray Gell-Mann expresses frustration and impatience with String program theorists not attacking the hard roadblock problems. I haven't seen an suggestion that anyone is disappointed with the String mathematical tools that have been developed and which seem rich in applications at various non-fundamental levels.

We will never get a handle of the fundamental theory by forcibly ignoring other phenomenon. For example. It is still complete mystery how the brain possesses subjective experience. Our brain is just supposed to be pure biochemistry and circuitry. At most what you can get from this is unconscious processes and zombie like behavior, yet you have full qualia and subjective experience. If qualia is as fundamental as charge or mass, then it is part of physics and part of the Final Theory. By ignoring it completely and totally with no efforts to even entertain any notion of its possibility, we are pulling away from crucial ingredients that can nail the Final Theory. Decades ago. Topics like branes and stuff is considered taboo and physicists rise up their head away from them.. but now it is part of fundamental physics. It is possible that in 50 years time. They may discover qualia as being something fundamental and when it is integrated into the final theory like M-Theory, then everything locks into place. I don't know if it is related to Information Theory. Quantum, Relativity, 2nd law of thermodynamics is related to quantity, speed and quality of information. Anyway. Let's not talk about any of this here as these are presently taboo. But what I'm simply saying is not to ignore other possibilities just because a few entertain it. When Einstein discovered SR and GR, these were not even in the radar of physicists.
 
  • #15
marcus said:
That's a thought! Maybe you should give Witten, or Strominger, a pep-talk about the merits of the program. Say nothing is more fundamental that anything else so not to be disappointed if you don't find the ultimate reductionist theory of existence. Just kidding.

But empirically there does seem to be this loss of unification drive and direction that Suprised was discussing---this sense of "wrong turns". So I think it is worth thinking about what caused it. I'm thinking management--program guidance--vision. Maybe that's wrong. But there should be some explanation for it, and it may not be intrinsic to String per se.

You remember I listed Witten's "string" and "membrane" papers over the past sixteen years 1995-2010. Here are the same numbers for Strominger and Maldacena.

Code:
1995-1998      1999-2002      2003-2006      2007-2010
     38             29              9              5
     23             14             22              4
     27             33             24              9

It looks like Witten shifted interest sooner than the other two. Here are the Spires links so you can make your own count if you like, using core string keywords "string model" and "membrane model". Just put in a different name instead of Witten and repeat the search.

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Witten+and+%28dk+string+model+OR+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+1994+and+date+%3C+1999&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (38)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+1998+and+date+%3C+2003&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (29)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2002+and+date+%3C+2007&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (9)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2006+and+date+%3C+2011&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (5)

Well, you can always see what you want. I do it too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
atyy said:
Well, you can always see what you want. I do it too.
I try to see as objectively as I can, forget about what I want, if I want to see anything.

But here it's pretty simple and hard to mistake. Almost everybody--physicists and physics watchers alike---must see the decline of expert interest in the String unification program.
Mature string theorists like Suprised are probably the most sensitively aware of it.*

The question is, what do you do about it. What should be done, at the departmental and funding agency level?

And in order to make constructive decisions one should try to understand why.

Maybe the answer has been already suggested by Physicsmonkey. As hypotetical example, suppose MIT were to admit to string-related PhD program only those applicants who were smart enough to see the drawbacks to writing thesis on string unification/phenomenology and were asking to study the application of stringy math to, say, superconductivity, or some other condensed matter.

Maybe that's the answer! Bail out of TOE and aim for applications. At the level of graduate school admissions policy, and at hiring committee, and at the funding agency. And smart MIT applicants would probably have a good idea of what the admissions people wanted to see, so they would be writing just the kind of applications Physicsmonkey indicated, for whatever reason. It is hard to distinguish cause from effect sometimes.

That is one scenario. But I'm trying to think how to cure the problem rather than just avoiding it. Suprised listed a bunch of what he thought were potentially destructive "wrong turns" that could explain. If S. were right, and the administrators committees directors chairmen etc knew he was right, they could remedy the problem and get the program steaming ahead on track. That may sound optimistic but I think it's more interesting to speculate about.
============================
*Longtime string theorists must be among the most aware of the decline in expert interest, an indicator being how the theorists themselves rate the value/interest of their own colleagues' string research papers. This is shown e.g. by how many recent string papers (past five years) are cited enough to make it into the Spires HEP top 50. A substantial fraction of the Spires annual Top Fifty used to be recent string research papers.

So I conclude that Suprised, who has been in the String program 25 years, must be more poignantly aware of unification program decline than any of the rest of us.

Spires top cited articles during odd years 2001-2009
(with number of recent string papers making the top fifty shown in parenthesis)

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2001/annual.shtml (twelve)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/annual.shtml (six)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2005/annual.shtml (two)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/annual.shtml (one)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/annual.shtml (one)

A paper is counted as recent here if it appeared in the past five years.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
atyy said:
My point about Lagrange's and Hamilton's work was that although it was just tools in their day, that laid the understanding for what was fundamental in the next era. In other words, before Newtonian mechanics could be generalised, it had to be understood.
Yes! it is important for mathematics to evolve and grow. It is important for the mathematical methods used in physics to grow. It is in that sense that I like stringy math (and also spin network/group field theory math) it is like adding a new wing to the house.

atyy said:
Tell me whether these papers are stringy or not:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501052
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5009

Is this an LQG paper or not:
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0201177

I will do what you say, since you ask. I have not been counting "stringy" papers because the idea is too vague to make a well-defined time series. I set up a criterion "core String" depending only on the DESY library's cataloguing, so I could measure the same thing the same way year after year without and notice changes.

You mention Loop! But we are not playing some game of "string versus loop" here. It's boring when I point out something good happening in Loop and somebody immediately gets defensive and thinks they have to tell me why String is good (to keep them "even" I guess.) And if I see that the String program has a problem (which various people have attributed to various "wrong turns" and I find interesting) that is not intended as a game of competing theories, which one is "better".

I want to see as fairly and accurately how things are, not play "one-up".

People are always trying to make it seem that the two theories are "even", to balance the points. But they are not on a level. They are actually in very different circumstances as regards speed of development towards a finished formulation and testabilty and probably other things. Also the leadership style is noticeably different. And one has only about 200 active researchers who basically all know each other. And they have very different program goals.

So it seems ridiculous to try to equate the two on merits and demerits, or even spend much time comparing.

What I want to do in this thread is study the loss of expert interest in the String unification program. And hope to hear more about what the causes might be. If it has to do primarily with program management and vision then we might see a turnaround if the causes can be identified and remedied.

=================
about the papers. Here are their DESY keywords. When trying to track an index over time the thing is not to insert one's own judgment and most importantly, measure the same thing each time. So I count "core String" papers to be those the DESY librarians tag with keywords 'string model' or 'membrane model' The following two are not "core String" in that sense.:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/wwwtopics?key=6095437 [Broken]
Direct proof of tree-level recursion relation in Yang-Mills theory
gauge field theory, Yang-Mills
gluon, scattering amplitude
scattering amplitude, higher-order
analytic properties
tree approximation

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/wwwtopics?key=8842914 [Broken]
Bootstrapping Null Polygon Wilson Loops
loop integral, 1
Wilson loop
operator product expansion
excited state
flux tube
bootstrap


The paper by Justin Roberts you mentioned is classified mathematics, not physics, and is not in Spires, so it has no keywords. Spires is basically HEP, not math. However Spires does have one paper, from the year before, by Justin Roberts!

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/wwwtopics?key=4817060 [Broken]
Rozansky-Witten theory
field theory, topological
differential forms, symplectic
algebra, Lie
category
knot theory
mathematical methods

Is this Loop? You know from review papers that Loop draws heavily on several of the types of mathematics mentioned by the DESY librarians as keywords. But that does not make the paper Loop. I have to use an automatic criterion in order to tabulate changes---so I do not try to second-guess the DESY, I just go by what keywords they tag on the paper. They don';t say "quantum gravity, loop space" or "quantum cosmology, loop space" or "spin, foam" so I don't count it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
marcus said:
about the papers. Here are their DESY keywords. When trying to track an index over time the thing is not to insert one's own judgment and most importantly, measure the same thing each time. So I count "core String" papers to be those the DESY librarians tag with keywords 'string model' or 'membrane model' The following two are not "core String" in that sense.:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/wwwtopics?key=6095437 [Broken]
Direct proof of tree-level recursion relation in Yang-Mills theory
gauge field theory, Yang-Mills
gluon, scattering amplitude
scattering amplitude, higher-order
analytic properties
tree approximationhttp://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/wwwtopics?key=8842914 [Broken]
Bootstrapping Null Polygon Wilson Loops
loop integral, 1
Wilson loop
operator product expansion
excited state
flux tube
bootstrap

But in fact they are core string, so your count is totally off. (The Roberts paper is arguably not core loop, but it is central to the loop programme, so I wouldn't disagree either way.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
atyy said:
But in fact they are core string, so your count is totally off.

They are not "core string" in my sense, as I defined it. They may be in your sense. As to "totally off", I doubt it. The DESY librarians are pretty good. All I need to see change over time is a consistent gauge. For the period 1995-1998 Witten wrote 38 papers that I DEFINE as "core String" which by definition just means keywords "string model" and "membrane model".

You can say those are or are not "core String" and quibble about words. So don't call it "core String". Call it CS if you want. Or DKSM, for "Desy keyword string membrane".

Then I measure the same thing the same way for the other timeperiods.

What I am counting on is that the librarians behave consistently.

If they are consistent then we have a quick way to show change over time.
I've looked over the listings and I doubt that the qualitative picture the keywords give is way off.
 
  • #21
The trouble with what you say is that you are making a subjective judgment (about what to count) and I am not.

If you have a point to make, Atyy, then why not try the same experiment? Pick the keywords you want Spires to track over time, without first looking to see what results arise from the choice. And give us the time series results (with the links so we can check for ourselves, as here.) It could be interesting. You could get something qualitatively different, which would be instructive.
 
  • #22
I'm actually just done visiting harvard and princeton grad open houses, and after talking to quite a lot of the top faculty I can tell you that there is no loss of interest in string theory. in fact many seemed overly excited by some various recent developments, in formal string theory, string theory as applied to particle physics, and qft stuff that (through ads/cft) could possibly reveal new things about string theory and non-perturbative stuff in qg. some new perspectives on de sitter space stuff might also be showing up.

and what the hell does it matter if BCFW is really stringy or not? sorry marcus, but this distinction is solely in your head and no where else where it matters. the bcfw stuff revealed quite a few things about string theory and provided one of the most non-trivial checks of ads/cft. you should have learned by now that everything done for n=4 YM has direct consequences for string theory. in fact the main goal of ads/cft, and the reason why it is one of the most popular topics in the history of physics, is that you can choose to work on the easy side to find facts about the hard side. to argue that the work on SYM is actually non-stringy (for whatever obscure counting purposes you're interested in) is completely disingenuous.

i also don't get what the need for urgency is regarding string theory. string theory indeed inspired a large number of different spin-offs (like ads/cmt, bcfw, etc) and i don't see this fact as proof that string theory is dying or fading away or whatever. on the contrary in my opinion, it proves that string theory is deeply connected to reality and will never go away
 
  • #23
Squabbling about minor bits of evidence is not so interesting, I think. Basically everybody knows the String unif program has suffered a severe decline, most importantly a loss of expert interest shown in research output, citations, and top people's behavior. What's interesting is what Suprised (and other knowledgeable people) had to say about causes of this loss of focus and drive.

I think there are real ideas here, mostly from Suprised but also from Tom Stoer, about what may have been "wrong turns"

marcus said:
FOR CONTINUITY since we're on a new page, it may help to carry over some essential posts. This of Suprised was seminal:

===quote Suprised post #553===
I guess there were many potentially wrong turns - at least in the sense of bias towards certain ways of thinking about string theory. Here a partial list of traditional ideas/beliefs/claims that have their merits but that potentially did great damage by providing misleading intuition:
...
==endquote==

===quote Tom Stoer post#554===

I would like to come back to suprised's list regarding possibly wrong turns.
  1. - That geometric compactification of a higher dimensional theory is a good way to think about the string parameter space
  2. - That perturbative quantum and supergravity approximations are a good way to understand string theory
  3. - That strings predict susy, or have an intrinsic relation to it (in space-time)
  4. - That strings need to compactify first on a CY space and then susy is further broken. That's basically a toy model but tends to be confused with the real thing
  5. - That there should be a selection principle somehow favoring "our" vacuum
  6. - That a landscape of vacua would be a disaster
  7. - That there exists a unique underlying theory
  8. - That things like electron mass should be computable from first principles
Let's look at this list again: there is a deep connection between some topics; that's why I was mentioning background independence. I would like to comment on this once more.

String theory walked - for a rather long time - on the trail of particle physics and quantum field theory. Of course there was a graviton, but after recognizing this particle one immediately focussed on QFT-like reasoning (background, strings on top of this background, perturbative quantization, ...). I would say that the first few topics are essentially due to this perception of string theory.

Looking at the field today most researchers are convinced that non-perturbative approaches are required. Thousands of backgrounds / vacua have been identified, but still they are mostly perceived as reasonable backgrounds on which standard particle- or QFT-like theories can be formulated. This is OK for model building an phenomenology (it is not only OK but of course heavily required in order to achieve a closer relation to reality).

But using intuition to find such backgrounds and doing "ordinary physics" on top of these backgrounds does not help in order to understand the relation between these backgrounds and to identify the "unique" and deeper origin of these backgrounds, which I would call the underlying theory.

I think another wrong turn - perhaps the most serious one - would be to turn a bug (the missing unique underlying theory) into a feature (we do not need a unique underlying theory). It would be same as looking at the periodic system and stating that happily there is no underlying theory required as we have a collection of relations between different chemical elements.

I think we do not need to look for a selection principle ("why is it iron instead of copper?"), we do not need to condemn the landscape ("iron, copper, mercury, oxigen, ... is too much; we need a single solution"), we do not need to look for a way to calculate the mass of the electron ("how do we calculate the mass of the mercury atom in a theory which does not explain why there is a mercury atom?"). All what we have to do is to understand what string theory really is. My impression is that we still do not know, we are scratching at the surface, we see some "effective models", not more (and not less).

So 1. - 4. may have been wrong turns - but were overcome somehow over the last years. 5., 6. and 8. are perhaps wrong turns which are in the spotlight today. 7. is not a wrong turn but the essential driving force of progress in physics. I would not abandon it w/o having a worthy successor.

I am still with David Gross (and others - like Weinberg I guess) who asked exactly these questions:
  • WHAT IS STRING THEORY?
    This is a strange question since we clearly know what string theory is to the extent that we can construct the theory and calculate some of its properties. However our construction of the theory has proceeded in an ad hoc fashion, often producing, for apparently mysterious reasons, structures that appear miraculous. It is evident that we are far from fully understanding the deep symmetries and physical principles that must underlie these theories. It is hoped that the recent efforts to construct covariant second quantized string field theories will shed light on this crucial question.
  • We still do not understand what string theory is.
    We do not have a formulation of the dynamical principle behind ST. All we have is a vast array of dual formulations, most of which are defined by methods for constructing consistent semiclassical (perturbative) expansions about a given background (classical solution).
  • What is the fundamental formulation of string theory?

Denying the relevance of these questions is - in my opinion - the "wrongest turn ever".
==endquote from Tom's post #554 ==

===quote Suprised reply, post #555===
Nicely said, Tom.

Though I think I should explain what I meant with 7) "there exists a unique underlying theory".
Much could be said here. For the time being, let me provocative and say the following:

Strings seem to be the natural generalization of gauge theory, actually closely related to it by dualities, such as AdS/CFT; in the latter context, strings are indeed reconstructed from gauge theory. So let's view strings as analogous to gauge theory; and then re-ask the same question: "what is the underlying unique theory of gauge theory" ?

Clearly this is a not very fruitful question to ask, because it presupposes something which does not exist, at least in the sense of the question. All there is with gauge theory, are various degreses of freedom that are exposed depending on the energy scale (gluons, quarks, mesons...)

As for strings, the situation is unclear but it may be similar - there may be no further "unique underlying theory". All there might be is the complicated web of perturbative approximations related by dualities, but there is no regime where "universal, more fundamental" degrees of freedom would be liberated.

The real question is whether there is an encompassing, "off-shell" mother theory which would contain all the known theories as "critical points", and describe transitions between them, etc. This may, or may not exist (analogous to gauge theory). So this question is a potential blind ally as well!
==endquote Suprised==

==quote Atyy==
So we don't obviously need Calabi-Yau compactifications?
==endquote==

==Suprised reply to Atyy, post #556==
They are just special examples of vacua, their main advantage is being relatively well under technical control. That's why there has been so much focus on them, unfortunately thereby creating the impression that they would be somehow essential. But there are zillions of other constructions (generalized geometries with fluxes, non-geometric vacua, brane backgrounds, non-perturbative F-theory vacua, M-Theory vacua,... ).

Of course, many of such vacua are equivalent via dualities, and this shows, again, that there is no objective, unambiguous meaning of a compactification geometry.
==endquote==
 
  • #24
marcus said:
The trouble with what you say is that you are making a subjective judgment (about what to count) and I am not.

If you have a point to make, Atyy, then why not try the same experiment? Pick the keywords you want Spires to track over time, without first looking to see what results arise from the choice. And give us the time series results (with the links so we can check for ourselves, as here.) It could be interesting. You could get something qualitatively different, which would be instructive.

Marcus, I've tried to explain to you before that these keyword search statistics are extremely bad science. Besides not taking into account many statistical concepts such as sample size, it is not even clear that keywords are an effective substitute for just looking at the papers and recognizing what they are about. If you want to do statistics in a way that any scientist can respect, you must actually understand the properties of the sample, have some quantity in mind that is supposed to be of statistical significance, and then actually attempt to quantify the degree of correlation of your hypothesis with the sample. Absence of any of these results in a garbage in-garbage out situation.

To see how far off the mark your keyword searches were, I actually looked at all Witten papers for the periods > 2002- < 2007 and > 2006 - < 2011. These were obtained by using your date ranges in inspire, without the keywords. There is some overlap between the two periods, possibly because papers that appeared in the arxiv in 2006 also appeared in journals in 2007. Statistically, the overlap is not of much significance.

I attempted to classify papers which were string-related and those which were not. Basically my criteria were:

String: About strings, branes or 2d topological qft. Also includes AdS/CFT, the initial twistor amplitude paper and any Langlands papers that refer directly to 2d mirror symmetry.

Other: Papers about straight qft including particle physics, Chern-Simons and exotic qfts that don't directly imply string relations in their abstract or title. Also includes papers about pure 3d quantum gravity.

Results are:

2003-2006 http://inspirebeta.net/search?ln=en...+2002+AND+DATE+<+2007&f=&action_search=Search

-52 total papers

-15 conference proceedings
* 8 QFT
* 7 string

-37 journal articles
* 15 QFT
* 3 QG
* 19 string


2007-2010 http://inspirebeta.net/search?ln=en...n_search=Search&sf=&so=d&rm=&rg=25&sc=0&of=hb

-25 total papers

-5 conference proceedings
* 5 QFT

-20 journal articles
* 9 QFT
* 2 QG
* 9 string


The first thing to notice is that Witten's total output in 2007-2010 was half that for the 3 yrs prior. Measurements for this period will be less statistically significant as a result. As for relevant ratios,

2003-2006: 50% of total were string, 51% of journal articles were string
2007-2010: 36% of total were string, 45% of journal articles were string

It is amusing to do some statistics. Suppose that Witten's papers are randomly distributed between string and nonstring physics, and that the topics of papers are independent of previous papers. Then we have a binomial distribution. With 35 string papers in 77 trials, we have [tex]p=0.45[/tex]. For the two periods we have

2003-2006: expected number of string papers: 52(0.45) = 24
variance: 52(0.45)(0.55) = 13
actual number of string papers: 26
expected: [tex]24\pm 3.6[/tex]

2007-2010: expected number of string papers: 25(0.45) = 11
variance: 25(0.45)(0.55) = 6
actual number of string papers: 9
expected: [tex]11\pm 2.4[/tex]

In both cases the number of string papers produced is within one standard deviation of the expected result. There is no reason to conclude that Witten has lost interest in string theory between these two periods.

You are free to conduct a similar analysis over a larger data sample, or for other notable string theorists. The results might be interesting. Keyword search results with no analysis will not be.
 
  • #25
negru said:
I'm actually just done visiting harvard and princeton grad open houses, and after talking to quite a lot of the top faculty I can tell you that there is no loss of interest in string theory. in fact many seemed overly excited by some various recent developments, in formal string theory, string theory as applied to particle physics, and qft stuff that (through ads/cft) could possibly reveal new things about string theory and non-perturbative stuff in qg. some new perspectives on de sitter space stuff might also be showing up.

sounds like a successful trip. Congratulations!
It sounds like they are excited about applications of stringy math tools.
I am glad they told you about deSitter space stuff showing up. that is good news.
It is really sick to try to minimize the importance of observed positive Lambda.

and what the hell does it matter if BCFW is really stringy or not?

Here we go on a new way out of the former Strings unification program! Great.
I've already discussed this type of move in this thread. I think it is healthy. I also like the move into AdS/Condensed Matter. It is all good new stuff for people to shift their attention to. And they can tell themselves it is really stringy.

Let's have a quick look at BCFW: Britto, Cachazo, Feng and Witten recursion
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501052
Direct Proof Of Tree-Level Recursion Relation In Yang-Mills Theory
Ruth Britto, Freddy Cachazo, Bo Feng, Edward Witten
(Submitted on 7 Jan 2005 (v1), last revised 8 Feb 2005 (this version, v2))
Recently, by using the known structure of one-loop scattering amplitudes for gluons in Yang-Mills theory, a recursion relation for tree-level scattering amplitudes has been deduced. Here, we give a short and direct proof of this recursion relation based on properties of tree-level amplitudes only.

More recently, for example the Mason Skinner paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2083
if anyone is curious.

I agree enthusiastically. What that hell does it matter if BCFW is really stringy or not?!
:biggrin:

i also don't get what the need for urgency is regarding string theory. string theory indeed inspired a large number of different spin-offs (like ads/cmt, bcfw, etc)

Read what Suprised has to say. I'm taking my cues from the "disappointed" thread. Just quoted some excerpts. Some people are not happy: specifically the way the String unification program has gone leaves something to be desired.

Branching out into peripheral mathematics and peripheral physical applications leaves them unsatisfied. These people seem not to be satisfied with the bright new spinoffs.
It's kind of interesting but I'm basically happy either way it gets resolved.
 
  • #26
Fzero, I edited the table here to include two more: Polchinski and Jeff Harvey. I could be wrong and there is no loss of oomph among the top people. In that case Suprised is complaining about nothing and there is no problem. It could be that there is some kind of decline or spreading out into peripheral areas not part of the former unification "TOE" program---but that I am using the wrong means to acquire preliminary evidence.

This is not meant as rigorous science. More a quick heuristic way to sniff out what's going on. I am more interested in the causes (assuming the phenomenon is real, though not rigorously proven.)

marcus said:
But empirically there does seem to be this loss of unification drive and direction that Suprised was discussing---this sense of "wrong turns". So I think it is worth thinking about what caused it. I'm thinking management--program guidance--vision. Maybe that's wrong. But there should be some explanation for it, and it may not be intrinsic to String per se.

The odd thing is that except for Witten, everyone I've tabulated seems to have a sharpish drop in the last time period. Why should they suddenly stop writing so many papers that DESY tags "string" and "membrane". Can there have been a change at DESY library?

The following is edited to include more people:
===quote===

You remember I listed Witten's "string" and "membrane" papers over the past sixteen years 1995-2010. Here are the same numbers for Strominger and Maldacena.

Code:
          1995-1998      1999-2002      2003-2006      2007-2010
Witten         38             29              9              5
Strominger     23             14             22              4
Maldacena      27             33             24              9 
Polchinski     21             17             11              4
Harvey, J      16             15              9              2

It looks like Witten shifted interest sooner than the other two. Here are the Spires links so you can make your own count if you like, using core string keywords "string model" and "membrane model". Just put in a different name instead of Witten and repeat the search.

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Witten+and+%28dk+string+model+OR+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+1994+and+date+%3C+1999&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (38)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+1998+and+date+%3C+2003&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (29)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2002+and+date+%3C+2007&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (9)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2006+and+date+%3C+2011&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken] (5)
===========================
If you want, have a look at the tabulation of recent string presence in the Spires top cited 50 papers and let me know if you think that also is fallacious.

Spires top cited articles during odd years 2001-2009
(with number of recent string papers making the top fifty shown in parenthesis)

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2001/annual.shtml (twelve)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/annual.shtml (six)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2005/annual.shtml (two)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/annual.shtml (one)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/annual.shtml (one)

A paper is counted as recent here if it appeared in the past five years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
marcus said:
This is not meant as rigorous science. More a quick heuristic way to sniff out what's going on. I am more interested in the causes (assuming the phenomenon is real, though not rigorously proven.)

There is no excuse for doing poor science. You are asking questions that can be accurately addressed without doing a crazy amount of work, but prefer to continue along a misguided track even when this is pointed out multiple times.

You remember I listed Witten's "string" and "membrane" papers over the past sixteen years 1995-2010. Here are the same numbers for Strominger and Maldacena.

Code:
          1995-1998      1999-2002      2003-2006      2007-2010
Witten         38             29              9              5
Strominger     23             14             22              4
Maldacena      27             33             24              9 
Polchinski     21             17             11              4
Harvey, J      16             15              9              2

It looks like Witten shifted interest sooner than the other two.

Witten shifted interest to what? You are still using numbers for him that are demonstrably wrong. He did not publish 9 string papers in 2003-2006, the number was 26. In the last 6 years the relative number of string papers to nonstring papers was constant.

It may be that there is something more interesting for the others on the list, but the table above does not provide the relevant information for us to draw any conclusions. We already know that your methodology does not return the correct number of string papers and we know that it ignores the total output entirely.

Many reasons are possible for a decline in number of string publications, including unusually large numbers of publications during the duality and AdS/CFT "revolutions." For some of these authors we could also look at their output previous to 1995. We could also try to correlate Maldacena's scientific output versus number of children if you think that's relevant. In any case, the output of these researchers should be put in the context of the number of all string papers over the same time periods. We'd also want to know the trend of cosmology and phenomenology output.

If you want, have a look at the tabulation of recent string presence in the Spires top cited 50 papers and let me know if you think that also is fallacious.

Spires top cited articles during odd years 2001-2009
(with number of recent string papers making the top fifty shown in parenthesis)

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...1/annual.shtml [Broken] (twelve)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...3/annual.shtml [Broken] (six)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...5/annual.shtml [Broken] (two)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...7/annual.shtml [Broken] (one)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...9/annual.shtml [Broken] (one)

A paper is counted as recent here if it appeared in the past five years.

While it is interesting to measure the impact of recent papers, it is also folly to ignore the fact that the only theory papers in the top 10 for 2009 are all AdS/CFT papers.

I have no doubt that less string theory papers are being written now than ten years ago. It's also clear that recent papers have not been as ground breaking as papers from a decade ago. Trying to conclude that this is due to changing interest or acceptance among top string theorists is much less straightforward. I've demonstrated a way in which this could be partially be tested, but there are many more trends that should also be examined before drawing conclusions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Strings has no problems with a cosmological constant - it provides 10^500 or more solutions - granted, maybe none is a solution if we look more carefully at matter content - but that's a problem even without the cosmological constant.

The other problem that "we don't know what string theory is" is precisely what the whole let's understand AdS/CFT better business is about.
 
  • #29
marcus, your claims are completely absurd, again - do you really believe in what you are writing or do you make it up for the sake of provocation? I can't tell.
 
  • #30
fzero said:
...
marcus said:
...
If you want, have a look at the tabulation of recent string presence in the Spires top cited 50 papers and let me know if you think that also is fallacious.

Spires top cited articles during odd years 2001-2009
(with number of recent string papers making the top fifty shown in parenthesis)

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2001/annual.shtml (twelve)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/annual.shtml (six)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2005/annual.shtml (two)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/annual.shtml (one)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/annual.shtml (one)

A paper is counted as recent here if it appeared in the past five years.

While it is interesting to measure the impact of recent papers, it is also folly to ignore the fact that the only theory papers in the top 10 for 2009 are all AdS/CFT papers.

I have no doubt that less string theory papers are being written now than ten years ago. It's also clear that recent papers have not been as ground breaking as papers from a decade ago. Trying to conclude that this is due to changing interest or acceptance among top string theorists is much less straightforward. I've demonstrated a way in which this could be partially be tested, but there are many more trends that should also be examined before drawing conclusions.

I don't "try to conclude that this is due..." Changing activity among top people is one indicator. Decline in citations of current string, by string researchers themselves is yet another indicator.

BTW I think you are wrong in classifying geometric Langlands as String. I attended three lectures by Witten on that a few years ago where String was not mentioned. It's high level mathematics with broad general applicability. Would you say that harmonic analysis was stringy?

I don't find your analysis convincing, or transparent/replicable. So I prefer to stick with the classification by DESY librarians. Does anyone accuse them of bias?

Thanks for having a look at those citation numbers! I am glad you agree with at least one of my conclusions "fewer ground-breaking".
I think you are wrong about "fewer...[String]...papers being written..."
I have tried to measure the gross output of research and have found it STEADY. But more and more of it seems not to interest other string theorists. It's hard to describe without sounding snobbish...more and more seems to come from people I have never heard of at institutions not of first rank on topics which are yet another variation on same old stuff. As you say, not ground-breaking. That is just a frankly subjective impression. However it is born out by the decline in cites.

I would say that in gross terms world wide (including China, India, etc...) String output is probably about steady, but there is a change in quality which is hard to put one's finger on.
 
  • #31
suprised said:
marcus, your claims are completely absurd, again...
:biggrin:
What are my claims? And why are they absurd?

BTW I liked some of the things you said in that other thread. Essentially I'm just groping around trying to make sense of what you (and a few others) said.

Let's look at your first four "wrong turns" and try to figure out how they could be fixed---so the core String unification program could get back on track. I will fetch them.

===quote Suprised post #553===
I guess there were many potentially wrong turns - at least in the sense of bias towards certain ways of thinking about string theory. Here a partial list of traditional ideas/beliefs/claims that have their merits but that potentially did great damage by providing misleading intuition:

  1. - That geometric compactification of a higher dimensional theory is a good way to think about the string parameter space
  2. - That perturbative quantum and supergravity approximations are a good way to understand string theory
  3. - That strings predict susy, or have an intrinsic relation to it (in space-time)
  4. - That strings need to compactify first on a CY space and then susy is further broken. That's basically a toy model but tends to be confused with the real thing.
...
==endquote==
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Suprised, you are in charge of how we interpret your words, so please correct me if I misinterpret. It seems to me that you provide a glimpse of renewal or "Renaissance" in the String program---which so far has very interesting math but no one definite physical theory.

1. We should stop thinking of compactified extra dimensions as real. The world is 4D.

3. String has no intrinsic relation to SUSY. We should cut loose from the SUSY dream and not waste so much research on "superstuff"

2. That goes for SUGRA ("supergravity") too. Supergravity approximations are not a good way to understand String.

2. continued...Furthermore perturbative is not a good way. Perturbative uses a fixed prior setup---including a prior geometry---which is then subjected to small variations. You regard this approach as deficient.

4. And Calabi-Yau is not the real thing. You warn against confusing it with reality.

To me this seems like a breath of fresh air, a hint of some kind of reconsideration taking place at the administrative level. For some reason I think of you as talking with Hermann Nicolai occasionally, one of the directors at Potsdam. If you know him, do you think he might agree with your assessment of program-damaging "wrong turns" and your ideas of a new direction?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
marcus said:
BTW I think you are wrong in classifying geometric Langlands as String. I attended three lectures by Witten on that a few years ago where String was not mentioned. It's high level mathematics with broad general applicability. Would you say that harmonic analysis was stringy?

It was one Langlands paper, http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0802.0999, that was classified as string:

Mirror Symmetry, Hitchin's Equations, And Langlands Duality
Edward Witten
(Submitted on 7 Feb 2008)

Geometric Langlands duality can be understood from statements of mirror symmetry that can be formulated in purely topological terms for an oriented two-manifold $C$. But understanding these statements is extremely difficult without picking a complex structure on $C$ and using Hitchin's equations. We sketch the essential statements both for the ``unramified'' case that $C$ is a compact oriented two-manifold without boundary, and the ``ramified'' case that one allows punctures. We also give a few indications of why a more precise description requires a starting point in four-dimensional gauge theory.

Do you propose that 2d mirror symmetry is something other than string theory? I believe that I assigned all of the other Langlands papers to qft. My assignments were actually conservative, since if I had used the keyword "string" many of the qft papers I assigned come up as string.

I don't find your analysis convincing, or transparent/replicable. So I prefer to stick with the classification by DESY librarians. Does anyone accuse them of bias?

It takes about 10 minutes to look over the list of papers. I suppose it requires some knowledge to understand the papers, but I faith that you could replicate the analysis.

As for DESY librarians, I am not accusing them of bias, I am explaining that keyword searches are no substitute for actually knowing what is in the papers. Here is your list of 2003-2006 "string" papers: http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+witten+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2002+and+date+%3C+2007&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= [Broken]
Here is the list of all papers by Witten over that period: http://inspirebeta.net/search?ln=en...n_search=Search&sf=&so=d&rm=&rg=25&sc=0&of=hb

Some string papers that are not picked up by your search:

Two-dimensional models with (0,2) supersymmetry: Perturbative aspects.

The Hitchin functionals and the topological B-model at one loop.

Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space.

This is not a comprehensive list, but serves to show how useless keyword searches are.



Thanks for having a look at those citation numbers! I am glad you agree with at least one of my conclusions "fewer ground-breaking".
I think you are wrong about "fewer...[String]...papers being written..."
I have tried to measure the gross output of research and have found it STEADY.

You have not quantified this. In Witten's case he has produced half as many papers in the last 3 years as he did over the prior 3 year period. You have not bothered at all to compare your keyword search results to total output for the named researchers. Interesting things can probably be learned from correct statistics.

But more and more of it seems not to interest other string theorists. It's hard to describe without sounding snobbish...more and more seems to come from people I have never heard of at institutions not of first rank on topics which are yet another variation on same old stuff. As you say, not ground-breaking. That is just a frankly subjective impression. However it is born out by the decline in cites.

This is a very narrow-minded and unscientific conclusion. Every field has a certain amount of unilluminating work produced by "people I have never heard of at institutions not of first rank on topics which are yet another variation on same old stuff." Just by the mere fact that you're using databases of work that has not been peer-reviewed makes this a bigger problem than you realize. The effect of these low-grade papers will go down a bit if you place some cuts on papers that have not been published. This is another reason why no-thought analysis has big problems when it comes to statistics.

I would say that in gross terms world wide (including China, India, etc...) String output is probably about steady, but there is a change in quality which is hard to put one's finger on.

It gets easier when you understand the subject that the papers are about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Hi fzero, you said total output had declined and I replied that I had tried to gauge it and found it approximately STEADY. I was using Harvard Abstracts for that. i think they already restrict to peer-review published stuff.

fzero said:
Just by the mere fact that you're using databases of work that has not been peer-reviewed makes this a bigger problem than you realize. The effect of these low-grade papers will go down a bit if you place some cuts on papers that have not been published. This is another reason why no-thought analysis has big problems when it comes to statistics.
...

It doesn't really matter. Show me some evidence that peer-reviewed string research output has declined over the past 10 years and I will believe you.
===============

You came up with a handful of Witten papers that you think should be included in the 2003-2006 count. What I'm looking for is a trend in what I should perhaps call DKSM papers, for "DESY keyword string and membrane".

Here are the DKSM numbers for Witten, Strominger, Maldacena, Polchinski, Harvey, looking for a trend. I don't suggest an interpretation of the trend, at this point (although you can) I am just looking to see if it shows up.

Code:
          1995-1998      1999-2002      2003-2006      2007-2010
Witten         38             29              9              5
Strominger     23             14             22              4
Maldacena      27             33             24              9 
Polchinski     21             17             11              4
Harvey, J      16             15              9              2
If you want to stick in non-DKSM papers to the 2003-2006 basket then to be consistent you have to do the same thing to the 1995-1998 basket. It might increase even more! I doubt that what you are talking about would make any difference to the overall downtrend.

I think we agree that there has been a decline in ground-breaking papers.

I'm interested in the reasons for this which Suprised and others brought up in the "really disappointed" thread. Basically some physical misconceptions which have governed the way people in the program think.

I'm interested in what can be done about that.

The indicators that there has been a decline (in citations, in work by the best people, in "ground-breaking") don't really matter. Let's get back to the main topic of WHY, and what can be done.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
marcus, do you think ground-breaking work can really be "managed"? Discoveries are made in many ways, both by sudden revolutions as well as by slow steady work, and everything in between.

So whether you think any of these revolutionary or small increments - string remains the first field of study for anyone interested in quantum gravity:
1)integrability in AdS/CFT
2)ABJM
3)twistors
4)many, many standard model like constructions
 
<h2>1. What are some common causes of loss of interest in string programs?</h2><p>Some common causes of loss of interest in string programs include lack of motivation, difficulty understanding complex concepts, and feeling overwhelmed by the amount of material to learn.</p><h2>2. How can a lack of motivation affect interest in string programs?</h2><p>A lack of motivation can lead to a decrease in interest in string programs because students may not see the value or relevance of the material, or they may not feel challenged enough to stay engaged.</p><h2>3. Are there any specific techniques or strategies to prevent loss of interest in string programs?</h2><p>Yes, there are several techniques that can help prevent loss of interest in string programs. These include incorporating hands-on activities, providing opportunities for students to collaborate and share their work, and offering a variety of learning experiences to cater to different learning styles.</p><h2>4. How can teachers address difficulty understanding complex concepts in string programs?</h2><p>Teachers can address difficulty understanding complex concepts by breaking them down into smaller, more manageable parts, providing visual aids or real-life examples, and offering additional resources for students to practice and reinforce their understanding.</p><h2>5. Is it normal for students to lose interest in string programs over time?</h2><p>It is not uncommon for students to experience a decrease in interest in string programs over time. This can be due to a variety of factors such as changes in personal interests, competing priorities, or a lack of support or recognition for their efforts. However, with proper support and engagement strategies, students can maintain their interest and continue to excel in string programs.</p>

1. What are some common causes of loss of interest in string programs?

Some common causes of loss of interest in string programs include lack of motivation, difficulty understanding complex concepts, and feeling overwhelmed by the amount of material to learn.

2. How can a lack of motivation affect interest in string programs?

A lack of motivation can lead to a decrease in interest in string programs because students may not see the value or relevance of the material, or they may not feel challenged enough to stay engaged.

3. Are there any specific techniques or strategies to prevent loss of interest in string programs?

Yes, there are several techniques that can help prevent loss of interest in string programs. These include incorporating hands-on activities, providing opportunities for students to collaborate and share their work, and offering a variety of learning experiences to cater to different learning styles.

4. How can teachers address difficulty understanding complex concepts in string programs?

Teachers can address difficulty understanding complex concepts by breaking them down into smaller, more manageable parts, providing visual aids or real-life examples, and offering additional resources for students to practice and reinforce their understanding.

5. Is it normal for students to lose interest in string programs over time?

It is not uncommon for students to experience a decrease in interest in string programs over time. This can be due to a variety of factors such as changes in personal interests, competing priorities, or a lack of support or recognition for their efforts. However, with proper support and engagement strategies, students can maintain their interest and continue to excel in string programs.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
727
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
33
Views
19K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top