Register to reply

Gross Tel Aviv perspective on string

by marcus
Tags: aviv, gross, perspective, string
Share this thread:
May5-07, 05:08 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,274
David Gross gave the concluding talk at a recent string conference in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv

I am having difficulty getting the slides and video, which Peter Woit says are online.

This talk by Gross (Nobelist, director of Santa Barbara ITP) is likely to be interesting. If anyone has a better link, experiences or figures out the problem, please share what you know.

Lacking the original video talk by Gross, here is Woit's blog summary of it:

==quote from N.E.W.==
Gross ended the conference with a remarkable discussion of the current state of string theory. He put up various cartoons illustrating the fact that the public perception of string theory has turned rather negative (including the recent one from the New Yorker: “Is String Theory Bullshît?”), but took solace in a recent use of string theory in an advertisement for women’s bikinis. He declared that “I am still a true believer in the sexiness of string theory”, and that he continued to think it is clearly on the right road.

But, after giving the standard list of string theory achievements, he did admit that he was much less optimistic than 20 years ago, and spent some time discussing what he sees as the main failure to date: the continuing lack of a fundamental dynamical principle behind string theory.

The question “what is string theory?” still has no real answer, and he has “the very uneasy feeling that we’re missing something big, that semi-classical intuition fails”, and that this will make the landscape disappear.

Perhaps most remarkably, Gross admitted to some discouragement about AdS/CFT. He noted that the recent Klebanov et. al. results promoted by press release as connecting string theory with physics were actually due to an impressive gauge theory calculation. According to him, what has happened is that gauge theory techniques have proved more powerful than string theory techniques. He went on to discuss the landscape, explaining that he found the anthropic principle impossible to falsify, completely against the way physics has made progress in the past, and just “an easy way out”.

Gross ended his talk by pointing out that 90 percent of the conference talks used supersymmetry, and that currently there was a “really weird situation”: supersymmetry was an essential tool, but there was absolutely no evidence for it. He said that he continues to believe that supersymmetry will be found at the LHC and has been willing to take 50/50 bets on the subject for bottles of wine, etc.

more links to try

Ahh, I see they say that the videos require a Windows system. So Mac users can't get Gross' talk.
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on
UCI team is first to capture motion of single molecule in real time
And so they beat on, flagella against the cantilever
Tandem microwave destroys hazmat, disinfects
May6-07, 03:36 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,488
No big surprise that gauge theory stands up in the face of adversity. I admit, however, I tend to cling to background independent, diffe-invariant, GR consistent models.
May6-07, 07:19 AM
P: 145
for the video, I have a windows system, but had the same problem (using FF).
Using IE it worked. Maybe you want to try IE on Mac as well.
If not, this info might at least be useful to other people WITH a windows system.

May6-07, 07:38 AM
P: 344
Gross Tel Aviv perspective on string

I can't open with Safari/Mac.

May6-07, 12:16 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
...I tend to cling to background independent, diffe-invariant, GR consistent models.
Why "cling" to ideas that are so speculative and in which you're not personally invested?
May6-07, 03:29 PM
island's Avatar
P: 43
he found the anthropic principle impossible to falsify

Gee, I would think that a fundamental dynamical principle that defines the structure of the universe from "non-anthropically constrained" first principles, would accomplish exactly that.

I swear to "god" that some of the most intelligent people in the world go absolutely brain-dead when it comes to the anthropic physics.
May6-07, 07:46 PM
island's Avatar
P: 43
Gross is trying to say that the (weak) fact of our existence canít be falsified, so the selection principle canít be falsified, but a fundamental dynamical structure principle necessarily falsifies any possibilty for selection effects.

The fact that the ímain failure in 20 yearsí to produce a fundamental dynamical principle in lieu of ďanthropic selection", *most apparently* and only indicates that the anthropic constraint must be strongly linked to any realistically plausible cosmological structure principle, so he has disassociated the dynamical structure principle that is being indicated by the only two relevant facts, while complaining about the solution that is *most apparently* being offered.

I wonder why?

Maybe itís because anthropic selection CAN be falsified in context.
May6-07, 09:35 PM
jal's Avatar
P: 640
Good Day!
I took the time to listen to his remarks and also to some of the other presentations.
I found that his important message was something else than the anthropic principle.
1. String has not found the right model that they can use to do dynamics. (to his dissapointment)
2. He thinks that Supersymmetry does seem to indicate a way to go.
3. More knowledge of minimum scale and mini black holes would be of helpfull.
(which CERN should supply)
Hans de Vries
May7-07, 03:36 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,135
Nobel price winner Martinus Veltman concludes his 2003 pop-sci book with:

Quote Quote by Martinus Veltman

The fact is that this book is about physics, and this implies that the
theoretical ideas must be supported by experimental facts. Neither
supersymmetry nor string theory satisfy this criterion. They are
figments of the theoretical mind. To quote Pauli:
They are not even wrong. They have no place here.
That's before Woit started his blog?

This is from "Facts and Mysteries in elementary particle physics"
A lovely pop-sci book discussing the SM, its history and its
personalities including humor and personal anecdotes.

This is from somebody who excelled in going really deep in real physics.

Regards, Hans
May7-07, 08:13 AM
Sci Advisor
Demystifier's Avatar
P: 4,632
Quote Quote by marcus View Post
He declared that ďI am still a true believer in the sexiness of string theoryĒ
I have heard several times that some branch of physics is "sexy". Can somebody explain to me what does it mean? (I am serious.)
May7-07, 08:35 AM
P: 344
Having the power to attract, pleasing to the mind (I guess). I personally find the term horrible.
May7-07, 09:53 AM
P: 271
2. Slang. Highly appealing or interesting; attractive: “The recruiting brochures are getting sexier” (Jack R. Wentworth).
May7-07, 10:37 AM
P: 146
Goodness! I start thinking about a gender critique of ST! Using of a word instead of another one is never accidental... Maybe a woman woundn't use that word... but few women talk about ST. I give you a question: are there more women working on ST or on QG? It isn't so trivial ;-)
May7-07, 10:48 AM
island's Avatar
P: 43
Sexy Physics
Hans de Vries
May7-07, 11:35 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,135
Peskin's talk on discovering SUSY at LHC has the wrong link. It should be:

(The video works only with internet explorer 5.5 or higher)

Regards, Hans
May8-07, 01:23 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,488
Quote Quote by josh1 View Post
Why "cling" to ideas that are so speculative and in which you're not personally invested?
They remain attractive having been thoroughly tested and not falsified to date.
May8-07, 09:38 AM
island's Avatar
P: 43
Terms like "sexy, promising, or attractive" lose their luster after about 20 or 30 years of stagnation. Maybe they're still the most-sexy and most-attractive things going, but now they have age-spots and wrinkles, so the terminology is essentially nothing but hype at this point.
May8-07, 10:29 AM
P: 344
Science is a human activity (as far as we know), and we humans are most of the time subjective creatures. So, in order not to be deluded most of the time in our subjectiveness (which usually have nothing to do with nature out there), we have trained ourselves with mathematical logic and, among others, constructed the scientific method to guide us. Subjectiveness, however, is good sometimes, it's a human element that sometimes brings forth interesting enlightment. But we should not allow ourselves to be eventually deluded. I might personally find some approach or idea attractive and become interested in spending my time and energy on it. But just because I subjectively "feel" its attractiveness is not a reason to firmly believe it is true.

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Gross Calls String Theory A Bizarre Science That Is A Dangerous Business Beyond the Standard Model 43
David Gross: String confusion Beyond the Standard Model 7
Want to hear something REALLY gross? General Discussion 19