Causes of loss of interest in String program

[suprised]

So who is Horgan...a second Niels Bohr?

 

[unusualname]

@oldman

this is a fundamental physics forum, anyone slightly lightweight usually perishes pretty soon (me soon unless...)

It's all deep mathematical understanding here, do you get the topological arguments of string theory mathematically or are you a noob thinking of extra space dimensions as really existing?

Basically, reality is a work in progress by mankind, if the popular press want to portray the state-or-the-art expert thinking in simple terms like "extra space dimensions" then that's the way it is. The fact the some of the people involved contribute to this portrayal doesn't help. But it's a mathematical model, sorry suckers but reality really isn't the way your mind conceives it,

 

[atyy]

Then since judging by citations is so common there must be a great many people whom you deem unwilling to think for themselves. Academics have a love-hate relation with cite-counts.

I sympathize since I also tend to evaluate stuff independently on my own. But hiring committees and deans are aware of citations and such. Funding agencies would pay attention to this kind of measure. You may have applied for grants or been up for tenure--and have first hand experience of this.

We devoutly believe that nothing beats an intelligent person's subjective assessment. But even so we are always getting rated on the basis of objectifiable external circumstances. Especially if it is by a committee, because the various subjective judgments may not coincide.

I didn't say that any particular subjective judgement was better than random statistics. But I did say that random statistics are not better than subjective judgement. (They are all bad, except for my personal objective view )

More seriously, people on committees know they will make mistakes, but they do their best given limited time and funding and responsibility to the source of funding. But I'm sure the best people on committees do not rely on statistics, preferring to make their own mistakes.

But silly games are fun! Please give us the p value for your statistics, and make sure they are corrected for multiple comparisons. The use of any test that assumes Gaussianity must also be justified.

 

[marcus]

Bohr's Truth (actual quote as found by Oldman):

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Which is not quite the same thing. Talk is cheap. Measurement is probably impossible in the
realm of string theory and loop quantum gravity, etc. Both are (mathematical) talk that so far has failed to meet the long-established gold standard that distinguishes physics from say, literary criticism; namely of being able to make verifiable predictions.
.. .

But he said it roughly 100 years ago, so I interpret the Bohr quote in the light of a stern Lutheran north-Europe culture where you could go to hell for saying what you didn't know---for making up stories about nature without firm justification. "What we can say..." I (personally) interpret to mean what we can say with sober righteous empirical justification.

And empiricism is not about what it IS but about how it responds to measurement. One is in a continuous interrogatory dialog.

So I disagree with your interpretation but nevertheless find your post a cheerful ray of light. It is good to have the exact (English translation?) Bohr quote.

 

[marcus]

...
Basically, reality is a work in progress by mankind, if the popular press want to portray the state-or-the-art expert thinking in simple terms like "extra space dimensions" then that's the way it is. The fact the some of the people involved contribute to this portrayal doesn't help. But it's a mathematical model, sorry suckers but reality really isn't the way your mind conceives it,

YESSS!
This has the ring of truth. And where is the act of measurement represented in this mathematical model? Or collection of models?

There is probably a simple obvious answer, so just to make it explicit: Where in various related models are we told about the limitations of measurement?

I would like to have built into my model the idea of what information is accessible about the world's geometry---a concrete representation of the geometrical measurements we are allowed to make.

 

[unusualname]

YESSS!
This has the ring of truth. And where is the act of measurement represented in this mathematical model? Or collection of models?

There is probably a simple obvious answer, so just to make it explicit: Where in various related models are we told about the limitations of measurement?

I would like to have built into my model the idea of what information is accessible about the world's geometry---a concrete representation of the geometrical measurements we are allowed to make.

I think we've got pretty close to the "geometry" of reality, just that we've gone off on all sorts of really weird and convoluted paths trying to complete it. Mainly because we're trying to make nature conform to a deterministic model at some level, when it doesn't, but that's just my (maybe wrong) idea.

 

[marcus]

...
More seriously, people on committees know they will make mistakes, but they do their best given limited time and funding and responsibility to the source of funding. But I'm sure the best people on committees do not rely on statistics, preferring to make their own mistakes.
...

Your moral certainty about this does you credit, Atyy! And I would like to think that we ALL make up our own minds, reasoning subjectively and independently, "preferring to make our own mistakes."

Committee's are set up to force people to come to agreement. Statistics together with other external evidence can help settle difference and arrive at collective decision. They play a useful role even if none of the brilliant subjective minds on the committee believes in the infallibility of statistics.

Your post expressed tolerance, and I appreciate that.

BTW I don't know how the citations and participation measures will turn out this year or the next or the next and they could well turn out quite favorably!
This would not necessarily make me change my mind!

There may NOT currently be a lull in the enthusiasm of string theorists, or if there is it could be merely temporary---and whether there is or not should not influence how one evaluates the field. One's opinion should be based on principles.

But I would still like to know the reasons for whatever it is that is going on.

 

[marcus]

I think we've got pretty close to the "geometry" of reality, just that we've gone off on all sorts of really weird and convoluted paths trying to complete it. Mainly because we're trying to make nature conform to a deterministic model at some level, when it doesn't, but that's just my (maybe wrong) idea.

Great! It's good news that you are close to the "geometry" of reality.

I want to understand better this going off on various different paths.

I'm interested in your idea that the divergence or dispersal into different models has to do with nature not conforming to a single deterministic model.

There was an exchange between Tom and Suprised which might interest you, if you didn't happen to see it. One of Suprised's points relates to what you said.

I quoted the exchange in post #129 of this thread, to have it handy:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3266311#post3266311
(I note with amusement that this post also contained a tabulation of attendance at past Strings conferences, one of our objective measures of the state of health, ridiculous or not.)

 

[unusualname]

Great! It's good news that you are close to the "geometry" of reality.

I want to understand better this going off on various different paths.

I'm interested in your idea that the divergence or dispersal into different models has to do with nature not conforming to a single deterministic model.

There was an exchange between Tom and Suprised which might interest you, if you didn't happen to see it. One of Suprised's points relates to what you said.

I quoted the exchange in post #129 of this thread, to have it handy:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3266311#post3266311
(I note with amusement that this post also contained a tabulation of attendance at past Strings conferences, one of our objective measures of the state of health, ridiculous or not.)

marcus, you should check my home web page, I think we're just a tiny weeny perturbation away from the correct model of reality, unfortunately it's a new landscape with ~(#states in the universe)^2 solutions!

or maybe something more obvious, if you have any ideas pm me!

 

[marcus]

Unusual, for some reason I can't find the URL to your homepage. Also I'm reluctant, here in this thread, to get off into anything that is not in the common vocabulary of string theorist and would not e.g. be discussed in their main annual conference at least once and a while.
I don't know if your new Landscape would form part of that central ground that I'm trying to understand better. It might, but I'm not in a position to judge.

I need to refresh us on the objective measures (humble as they are) which are always there to compare with our subjective views and either explain away or find reasons for.

 

[marcus]

This thread started with a modest bit of objective reality in the form of some cite count observations. It may be time to find some alternative citation count measures. These can always be explained away but useful observations can come up while we do that. Both PAllen and Suprised pointed out some interesting reasons for the last batch.

We also have these figures on the main annual conference attendance

Number of physicists at Strings conferences:
Strings 2003 396
Strings 2004 477
Strings 2005 415
Strings 2006 ~600
Strings 2007 (site broken)
Strings 2008 400
Strings 2009 450
Strings 2010 193

These are essentially FLAT obviously. Suprised has explained the anomalous 2010 figure. The conference was in TEXAS, which is also rather flat. The 2006 figure is from the Chinese news agency. There is some confusion about how many physicists took part, Strings 2006 was a big event in China.

I will go find the earlier citation count figures. For the purposes of this thread, "interest" is what is measured by (1) citations to current research and (2) attendance at the main annual conference---common ways of gauging the health and activity of an academic field.

Here we are, from post #16:
==quote==
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.
==endquote==
In making the counts I tried to use a broad idea of what research to include as string and examined whatever was in doubt by hand. I did not merely rely on the papers' abstracts. Of course AdS stuff and Randall-Sundrum stuff etc etc are included. Make the count yourself if you want.

What you get is not flat, but the decline has been, in part, explained away by some thoughtful observations that PAllen made. Also as I recall Suprised pointed out that it is more difficult now than it was earlier to write a significant paper that the other string theorists will want to cite a lot.

Objective measures are not the most intriguing part of the discussion (recent posts by Oldman, Suprised, Unusualname, and others deserve serious attention please look back to the previous page!) but I do want to try to find a fresh measure of citations-to-current-research.

Also Suprised suggested looking at the publication record of some younger string theorists, which I think is a very good idea. He mentioned Alday, Gaiotto, Drummond, Neitzke, and Nekrasov.

There's a fair amount to be attended to, I see.

 

[yoda jedi]

Come on, Yoda, these things are quite fascinating and you know it.

was fascinating, I think the string theory will not survive.


.

 

[yoda jedi]

Bohr's Truth (actual quote as found by Oldman):

"IIt is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."


But he said it roughly 100 years ago, so I interpret the Bohr quote in the light of a stern Lutheran north-Europe culture where you could go to hell for saying what you didn't know---for making up stories about nature without firm justification. "What we can say..." I (personally) interpret to mean what we can say with sober righteous empirical justification.

And empiricism is not about what it IS but about how it responds to measurement. One is in a continuous interrogatory dialog.

So I disagree with your interpretation but nevertheless find your post a cheerful ray of light. It is good to have the exact (English translation?) Bohr quote.

yes bohr, can be changed:

"IIt is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out what nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

and that is called the epistemic view.

...and maybe can be right.

.

 

[marcus]

I don't know if String models incorporate what you call the epistemic view.

I would like if someone could show me how the Program does this. If it does not then this could be one of the root reasons for what has happened to the program. Something clearly has happened. People get emotional and squabble about what words to use to describe it but the bickering is not so important.

What I hear in this thread is that the Program does not offer a single handle on the world, but rather has broken into a tribe of different models.

The sophisticated view is that none of these models represents reality. However they are all interesting to examine and find relations between.

I would not say that this dispersion and this sophisticated view is inherently wrong! However these two things may help to understand the decline in citations (and possible other measures of direction and vitality.)

In any case I would be glad to be contradicted by anyone who thinks they know that this sophisticated proliferation is NOT a factor, or even that it does not exist. I might learn something from a counterargument.
=======================

Yoda, about the epistemic view. It's one of the things I look for. An "information-oriented" theory of geometry. I want our geometric measurements of the world to be incorporated in the theory---present mathematically. Perhaps as tangible operators on a tangible Hilbertspace, or in some other concrete mathematical form.
Because "not about what the world IS, but about how it responds when we measure" and that includes the measurements corresponding to preparation of experiment and subsequent predictions.
For me it is pragmatic/operational. I don't myself say "epistemic" but I think you understand very well what I am trying to say.

Since there is one world (that all observers share) why is there not one "string theory" that describes how that world responds to each observer's measurements of it? And in particular to geometrical measurements, since everything else rests in and on the geometry.

And what has one done, if one gives up the goal of such a theory and adopts a more sophisticated view? Do you understand my viewpoint?

 

[marcus]

Looking back to post #161, this is a quick way of showing declining string representation in the Spires ALL-HEP Top Fifty. The 50 most cited papers in all that Spires HEP database covers.
==quote==
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.
==endquote==

Several people pointed out that this includes a lot of EXPERIMENTAL AND OBSERVATIONAL competition. So it doesn't bring out how highly cited current string research could be if you restrict to some THEORY branch. I'll pick a theory branch and do the even years this time, to see how it goes. To save trouble I will just count string appearances in the Spires Top Ten "quantum gravity" listing.

String papers appearing in the indicated year making the Spires "quantum gravity" top ten:
2000:
http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=dk+quantum+gravity+and+date+%3D+2000&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29
4 out of 10 here (that I can see). The string papers I identify are numbers 1,3,5, and 9. I'm happy if anyone wants to check that.

2002:
http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=dk+quantum+gravity+and+date+%3D+2002&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29
3 out of 10, this time. I would say 1, 6, and 7 are the stringy ones.

2004:
http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=dk+quantum+gravity+and+date+%3D+2004&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29
1 out of 10. The one string paper making the top ten is number 8.

2006:
http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=dk+quantum+gravity+and+date+%3D+2006&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29
4 out of 10. The stringy ones are numbers 1, 3, 6, 8.

2008:
http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=dk+quantum+gravity+and+date+%3D+2008&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29
3 out of 10. Numbers 1, 6, 10.

2010:
http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=dk+quantum+gravity+and+date+%3D+2010&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29
2 out of 10. Numbers 5 and 8.

So nothing remarkable. I would call it roughly FLAT.

 

[atyy]

I think it's generally agreed there hasn't been another string revolution yet (although there have been a few "minirevolutions" as Lubos likes to say)

That is very different from any loss of interest (in plain English, not your technical definition) in string theory.

If you are asking for people to put their ideas here how to make another string revolution, I'm pretty certain no one is going to say. If they knew, they'd write the paper!

But progress can be made in many different ways, including an accumulation of "small" steps. After all, AdS/CFT has roots going back to QCD, to 't Hooft's holography, and to Brown and Henneaux's paper relating AdS3 to a CFT. Enough small steps can be revolutionary too, the computer industry is a clear example.

 

[negru]

String theory is usually classified under high energy, not quantum gravity, so I'm not sure how useful that is.

 

[Sardano]

String theory is usually classified under high energy, not quantum gravity, so I'm not sure how useful that is.

The thing is, we already know that string theory is a perturbative consistent theory of gravity. We already know that we can include non perturbative effects and that gravity has a consistent unitary realization in String Theory. So the problem of Quantum Gravity in String Theory has been solved long ago. The String Theory program has another problems and challeneges, like applying this quantum theory of everything to solve physical problems and make cuantitave unique predictions.

 

[marcus]

@Atyy, negru, Sardano
All reasonable observations! Thanks--especially for what Atyy says about making progress in small steps. I'd be glad if anyone wants to check my counts of string papers in the Spires quantum gravity top ten of these years. For the links look back a few to post #165.

Papers making the QG top ten
Year               2000      2002      2004      2006      2008      2010
String-related       4         3         1         4         3         2

For String-related I included some Sugra4 and Sugra8 that did not explicitly mention string, and also some Randall-Sundrum and several AdS/CFT. Also Bousso's holography result that Ashtekar has extended to a stronger result in LQC (it is not solely a string result but works in other contexts.)
I tried to be generously inclusive. You can see how it went, if you want.

The most obvious thing I guess is that the string presence in QG is FLAT. There is no decline shown here. Interestingly there is a decline if you look at the Spires HEP database as a whole. Look back to post #161. You might want to try to figure out why that is. From 12 out of the TopFifty down to 1 out of the TopFifty. Maybe you can decide on some simple explanation.

Atyy has already given an explanation for the decline from 12/50 to 1/50. But you might want to think of your own preferred reasons.

BTW traditionally a theory of quantum gravity is expected to resolve the singularity at the start of expansion, and therefore to make testable predictions about early universe (CMB observations). I think this expectation goes back to John Archibald Wheeler, possibly earlier.

 

[marcus]

...
The most obvious thing I guess is that the string presence in QG is FLAT. There is no decline shown here. Interestingly there is a decline if you look at the Spires HEP database as a whole. Look back to post #161. You might want to try to figure out why that is. From 12 out of the TopFifty down to 1 out of the TopFifty. Maybe you can decide on some simple explanation.
Atyy has already given an explanation for the decline from 12/50 to 1/50. But you might want to think of your own preferred reasons.

BTW traditionally a theory of quantum gravity is expected to resolve the singularity at the start of expansion, and therefore to make testable predictions about early universe (CMB observations). I think this expectation goes back to John Archibald Wheeler, possibly earlier.

The measure of interest (vitality) we are using here is based on annual citations to recent literature---plus annual attendance (which doesn't show a drop.)
So looking at individual researchers' outputs cannot directly show a decline of interest. However it can indicate causes to us.

Changes in the researcher's output can suggest reasons for a decline in the field as a whole.

One hypothesis (which some of the best posts by others in this thread tend to confirm) is that stringers have become sophisticated and are no longer apt to view their vibrating geometrical objects in their extra-dimensional backgrounds as real. The conception of reality (and how we may measure it) has dispersed into a flock of sophisticated abstract alternatives. So far this is just a hypothesis to be considered. A certain degree of this kind of dispersion is natural in any kind of exploration, but if it gets extreme it might have something to do with a decline in annual citations to recent work.

Suprised has suggested looking at the research output of Gaiotto, Alday and others to see if there is a contrast with what we were seeing earlier. What we found earlier was a drop in research specifically about strings and branes. That is what DESY classifies with the terms "string model" and "membrane model". They also have some minor categories called "M-brane" and "string, spin", but those are the two main ones.

What we found earlier by looking at the work of a sampling of top people was admittedly pretty crude and undecisive but suggested a change in the character of research.
Since the people Suprised suggested are younger, I will just look at recent years 2006-2010.

 

[marcus]

Here's for Gaiotto:
http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Gaiotto%2C+d+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2006&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (5)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Gaiotto%2C+d+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2007&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (3)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Gaiotto%2C+d+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2008&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (2)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Gaiotto%2C+d+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2009&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (4)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Gaiotto%2C+d+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2010&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (0)

Here's for Alday:
http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Alday%2C+L+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2006&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (1)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Alday%2C+L+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2007&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (1)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Alday%2C+L+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2008&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (3)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Alday%2C+L+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2009&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (1)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Alday%2C+L+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2010&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (1)

I have to say nothing remarkable is happening. So my hypothesis of a change in character of research is not showing up, not clearly and unambiguously in any case. Of course it is just a spot check with a very small sample---names suggested by Suprised.


Here's for Nekrasov:
http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Nekrasov+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2006&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (2)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Nekrasov+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2007&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (0)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Nekrasov+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2008&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (1)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Nekrasov+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2009&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (1)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Nekrasov+and+%28DK+string+model+or+membrane+model+or+M-brane%29+and+date%3D2010&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (1)

Well that tends to shoot down the hypothesis of a change in character (away from concrete geometric paradigms). On a quick spot check basis, there is no marked decline in specifically string and brane research by these young people unless it happened EARLiER with Alday and Nekrasov.

 

[marcus]

As a reminder of what the main topic is here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3268516#post3268516
What I mean by interest is field vitality measured by annual cites to current research (and annual conference attendance, but that shows no decline).

So what I'd like to explain away or understand the reasons for is this:

Spires top cited articles during odd years 2001-2009
(with number of recent string papers making the top fifty shown in parenthesis)
2001:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2001/annual.shtml (twelve)
2003:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/annual.shtml (six)
2005:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2005/annual.shtml (two)
2007:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/annual.shtml (one)
2009:
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.

What I'm interested here is not absolute numbers but the change. Is it flat? Or if not, which way does the change go? And can we explain it?

At least on the surface this looks remarkable. And we don't have, as yet, a satisfactory explanation although several have been suggested.

It could have to do with "Bohr's Truth" (discussed by Oldman and Yoda and myself). Namely the models do not contain a mathematical representation of measurement, but instead refer to concrete physical objects which are imagined to exist---something that reality is supposed to be made of. Bohr and others have said that is not the way to go.

It could have to do with "increased sophistication" (presented in a favorable light by some of us) where the researchers no longer believe in the real existence of strings and branes that reality was earlier supposed to be made of, or in the extra dimensions wherein they were thought to vibrate. Instead, there are a lot of different mathematical models to study and compare.

It could have to do with the explanation Atyy offered, that "there hasn't been another string revolution yet". The last one was, as I recall, around 1998. There was an interesting panel discussion of this at the Toronto Strings 2005 conference, called "The Next String Theory Revolution". If Atyy's explanation is right, then annual citations to current literature just naturally decline if there is no revolution.

It could be that something is wrong with the annual Spires Top 50 HEP listing.

There is a remote possibility, I guess, that the obvious decline has to do with the increased interest in the early universe, over the past 10 years. This would tend to favor physical theories that say something definite about the start of expansion. Maybe there is something to that, and we may be able to check on it. Perhaps I should look at LQG occurrene in some annual series analogous to the annual Spires Top 50. Since Loop is a much smaller program, it wouldn't show up at all in the overall Spires HEP Topcites. But we can look at it in the narrower gr-qc context (general relativity-quantum cosmology).

Number of recent Loop papers making the annual Spires gr-qc Top 50
2003:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/eprints/to_gr-qc_annual.shtml (5)
2005:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2005/eprints/to_gr-qc_annual.shtml (7)
2007:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/eprints/to_gr-qc_annual.shtml (5)
2009:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/eprints/to_gr-qc_annual.shtml (5)
A paper is counted as recent here if it appeared in the past five years.

At least in this case there are some clear physics grounds that could help explain the sustained performance. We have been getting a lot of data on the early universe and there is a lot of interest in understanding it. The start of expansion is something we can expect to get improved models of. Physically speaking it is a fertile field, so that conceivably could have something to do with what we are looking at.

EDIT: I guess "Bohr's Truth" also would apply to explain this, since LQG is not about what the buildingblocks of reality might be (if there are such things), but about the interrelationship of measurements. The quantum state of geometry is defined by a hypothetical network of measurement.

 

[marcus]

Suprised suggested I look at the publication of some younger theorists (Alday, Gaiotto, Neitzke, Nekrasov,...) in the same light as we earlier looked at some famous people that came to mind as a kind of informal spot check.

I finally got around to doing this in a systematic way. Note that we are not gauging interest as defined here, but looking for a shift in focus, a change in the character of these people's research.
(In some cases part of any observed decline could be due to the decline in output that often comes with age, but most here are young or in middle years.)

Because the younger people were not producing papers so far back as the earlier tabulation went, I shortened the time range down to 2003-2010. This counts the papers that DESY classified "string model" or "membrane model", as was done before in the earlier tabulation.

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Silverstein+and+%28dk+string+model+OR+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2002+and+date+%3C+2005&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (9)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+Silverstein+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2004+and+date+%3C+2007&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (7)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+Silverstein+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2006+and+date+%3C+2009&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (5)

http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+Silverstein+and+%28dk+string+model+or+dk+membrane+model%29+and+date+%3E+2008+and+date+%3C+2011&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE= (5)

          2003-2004      2005-2006      2007-2008      2009-2010
Gaiotto         5              9              5              4
Alday           1              5              4              0
Neitzke         3              2              1              0
Nekrasov        4              3              1              2  
Strominger     15              7              4              0
Dijkgraaf       4              5              3              4
Polchinski      8              3              2              2
Maldacena      17              7              5              4 
Gibbons,G       6              5              1              1
Harvey,J        4              5              2              0
Ooguri          7              6              3              4
Silverstein,E   9              7              5              5

 

[fzero]

Alday had at least 9 papers in 2009-2010 that directly use string theory to compute results in gauge theory. An example is http://www-library.desy.de/cgi-bin/spiface/find/hep/www?irn=8558248 The DESY keywords for the paper are

supersymmetry, 4
surface, minimal
space, anti-de Sitter
scattering amplitude
strong coupling
Bethe ansatz, thermodynamical
free energy
gluon

The minimal surfaces being referred to are classical string configurations whose boundary is the gauge theory Wilson loop. Once again, DESY keywords are completely insufficient for distinguishing between papers which either use or do not use string theory techniques. None of the above keywords, either alone or in combination, could be used to conclude that string techniques were being used without making additional assumptions.

 

[MTd2]

I guess it should be done something like this, a Boolean search like "N=1" OR "N=2" OR "N=4" OR "N=8". It would give a better picture.

 

[yoda jedi]

I don't know if String models incorporate what you call the epistemic view.

I would like if someone could show me how the Program does this. If it does not then this could be one of the root reasons for what has happened to the program. Something clearly has happened. People get emotional and squabble about what words to use to describe it but the bickering is not so important.

What I hear in this thread is that the Program does not offer a single handle on the world, but rather has broken into a tribe of different models.

The sophisticated view is that none of these models represents reality. However they are all interesting to examine and find relations between.

I would not say that this dispersion and this sophisticated view is inherently wrong! However these two things may help to understand the decline in citations (and possible other measures of direction and vitality.)

In any case I would be glad to be contradicted by anyone who thinks they know that this sophisticated proliferation is NOT a factor, or even that it does not exist. I might learn something from a counterargument.
=======================

Yoda, about the epistemic view. It's one of the things I look for. An "information-oriented" theory of geometry. I want our geometric measurements of the world to be incorporated in the theory---present mathematically. Perhaps as tangible operators on a tangible Hilbertspace, or in some other concrete mathematical form.
Because "not about what the world IS, but about how it responds when we measure" and that includes the measurements corresponding to preparation of experiment and subsequent predictions.
For me it is pragmatic/operational. I don't myself say "epistemic" but I think you understand very well what I am trying to say.

Since there is one world (that all observers share) why is there not one "string theory" that describes how that world responds to each observer's measurements of it? And in particular to geometrical measurements, since everything else rests in and on the geometry.

And what has one done, if one gives up the goal of such a theory and adopts a more sophisticated view? Do you understand my viewpoint?

regardless of epistemic and ontic schemes, maybe string and loop theory can not do the job.
and there are some hints that naure is nonlinear.
and the string and loop theories are linear.



.

 

[fzero]

I guess it should be done something like this, a Boolean search like "N=1" OR "N=2" OR "N=4" OR "N=8". It would give a better picture.

I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Plenty of papers on N=1,2,4 SYM don't directly use string techniques, or at least build off a result derived from string techniques in another paper, without directly using string techniques themselves. It's not clear that we should call any of those "string" papers. Most of the scattering amplitude papers in the twistor arena should probably be called non-string for the type of analysis marcus is doing. Of course, the mere fact that a string theorist is working in that area is not evidence that she has lost interest in string theory.

 

[marcus]

What I am measuring here is number of papers that DESY classifies as "string model" and "membrane model". The interesting thing, which I would like explained, is why (from this informal sample of people) there used to be a lot of papers in that category and now are less. Maybe there is a very simple explanation.

I felt I should redo the table in part because Suprised suggested I look at younger theorist's output in the same light as I did the others earlier. The table is not especially important to the discussion. Since we are on a new page, here it is:

          2003-2004      2005-2006      2007-2008      2009-2010
Gaiotto         5              9              5              4
Alday           1              5              4              0
Neitzke         3              2              1              0
Nekrasov        4              3              1              2  
Strominger     15              7              4              0
Dijkgraaf       4              5              3              4
Polchinski      8              3              2              2
Maldacena      17              7              5              4 
Gibbons,G       6              5              1              1
Harvey,J        4              5              2              0
Ooguri          7              6              3              4
Silverstein,E   9              7              5              5

In connection with this table I am not asking some other question which you or others may have in mind. As I said this tabulation is not about "interest in string theory" broadly interpreted. Nor is it about "string techniques" etc etc. or what "should" be classified as string.

What I think it may have to do with is what I called "increased sophistication".

 

[fzero]

What I am measuring here is number of papers that DESY classifies as "string model" and "brane model". The interesting thing, which I would like explained, is why there used to be a lot of papers in that category and now are less.

I am not asking some other question which Fzero or others may have in mind. As I said this tabulation is not about "interest" in "real" this or that. "string techniques" etc etc.

You seem to trying to find some result in sociology or anthropology rather than in physics. Experts have explained to you that the DESY keywords are incomplete. I'm sure that 99.99% of active physicists never use the keywords when searching the literature. It's far more efficient to track through the references and citations of important papers.

To follow through a bit more, you're not trying to measure the level of interest by experts in string theory, you're measuring what some librarians believe string theory is. These are two completely different topics and the latter would be more appropriately discussed in the Social Sciences forum. It's insincere and misleading to keep posting those tables in a discussion that you've been claiming to be about interest in the string program. The "string program" is ultimately decided by its participants and not librarians.

The table is not especially important to the discussion.

Is this why you've posted it so many times in the thread? Whether or not you feel the table is important to the discussion is actually irrelevant. We've explained to you that the table cannot be relevant to the discussion referred to in the title of the thread. This was argued early in the thread and you've probably gone on to post twenty more variations of the table in the meantime.

 

[marcus]

I think you are mistaken. I think there probably is an explanation and that the table relates to a real change in the character of research over the years 2003-2010.

I would like to hear what some others have to say about how the program has changed. i can only guess or give my own personal impression, but I think it has become more sophisticated and abstract.

More split up into a variety of different models and lines of investigation. I sense that there is less conviction now (than in 2003 for example) that the world is actually made of real strings and branes. Less conviction that one is working towards a unique theory of everything.

I do not call that increased sophistication a loss of interest. For the purposes of this thread, interest can be measured by current citations to the recent papers. That does not involve DESY keywords.

What a sample of individual theorists are doing is not all that important. Here is what I would like to understand better, if you or anyone can explain it:

Spires top cited articles during odd years 2001-2009
(with number of recent string papers making the top fifty shown in parenthesis)
2001:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2001/annual.shtml (twelve)
2003:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/annual.shtml (six)
2005:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2005/annual.shtml (two)
2007:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/annual.shtml (one)
2009:
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.

Why is it that in 2001 twelve recent papers made the list of most-cited HEP research and in 2009 only one recent paper made the list?

I think there are some reasons that have to do with physics and I'm curious to find out what people can suggest.

 

[marcus]

Here are some ideas. Maybe someone can correct me on these: they are just suggested reasons for the above decline in current cites.

1. the program has not incorporated a math representation of measurement/information. (It seems more concerned with notions of what nature IS rather than with how it responds to measurement).

2. the program doesn't incorporate the geometry of the universe. (Unless you count borrowing second-hand classical geometries.)

3. it hasn't worked out a resolution of the cosmological singularity.

4. it has fragmented into studying a multitude of different models none of which anyone seems to seriously believe in.

About declining citations, I looked at the "hep-th" annual top 50 for the past four years and saw that recent string papers constituted a declining portion:

Recent string papers in the "hep-th" top 50:
2007 18
2008 23
2009 19
2010 13

Recent being the preceding 5 years including the year in question.

This is worrisome because hep-th is string home territory, where most string research is posted. And the hep-th top 50 is normally totally dominated by the string program.

I would be glad if anyone would care to check the numbers. The links are:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/eprints/to_hep-th_annual.shtml
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2008/eprints/to_hep-th_annual.shtml
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2009/eprints/to_hep-th_annual.shtml
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2010/eprints/to_hep-th_annual.shtml

 

[negru]

I'm sorry but this is getting very boring. Is learning how to count your most important academic achievement, and that's why keep counting random things?
I just glossed over 2010 and noticed that out of top 10 papers 8 of them are string theory. Same as in 2007.

Either you find a statistically rigorous method of counting, or please just shut up already.

 

[negru]

And find something meaningful to count too. Number of papers is highly irrelevant. The least you could do was count each new idea put forward in each paper. That's probably too hard though, but you could for example count the number of pages of each paper, and compare total number of pages.

 

[Haelfix]

Marcus, you have made the same point 100 times, with barely any difference between posts.

You have not even attempted to debate any of this in a reasonable manner and I don't think anyone actually agrees with you. Please stop spamming the forum with the same thing over and over again.. Its boring, has absolutely nothing to do with physics, and frankly is pretty far removed from reality.

Why don't you do us all a favor, and email the 10 or 15 'string leaders' who you think have changed their mind, ask them what they think of the state of the field/extra dimensions/background independance/quantum cosmology/measurement information (whatever that means) and then post what they tell you. Ok?

Now if you want to ask a physics question, then sure i'd be glad to help, but if its more thinly veiled sociology crap then sorry no.

 

[marcus]

I'm sorry but this is getting very boring. Is learning how to count your most important academic achievement, and that's why keep counting random things?
I just glossed over 2010 and noticed that out of top 10 papers 8 of them are string theory. Same as in 2007.

Either you find a statistically rigorous method of counting, or please just shut up already.

There is no reason to be impolite or ad hom. We are counting recent papers in the case of 2007 that would be arxiv 2003-2007.
You say there are 8 in the first 10, but there are actually 2.

They are numbers 5 and 6 on the list, I define string very broadly and inclusively so I included the Copeland paper (mainly cosmology) because it discussed some string ideas of dark energy, among others.

For 2010 you say there are 8 out of the first 10, but there is only one. Again it is the cosmology paper by Copeland et al, which mentions some string ideas among others.

You aren't reading very carefully. Like a lot of criticism on this thread, what you say is irrelevant.

 

[marcus]

.
...Why don't you do us all a favor, and email the 10 or 15 'string leaders' who you think have changed their mind, ask them what they think of the state of the field/extra dimensions/background independance/quantum cosmology/measurement information (whatever that means) and then post what they tell you. Ok?
...

Your post is not relevant to the thread or to the questions I've raised. I am not suggesting some bunch of leaders has changed their mind.
What I mean by interest here is probably best measured by current citations to recent research. (And conference attendance).

Cites indicate how string theorists value their own colleagues' output.

Current cites to recent work show a decline.

I just posted some new data on that (see post #181), at least new for me:I hadn't looked at the hep-th listing before.

The question is why this decline.

Personally I don't think it's "sociology" or boring. There are a lot of intellectual resources invested in this program. i'd like to know why it doesn't seem to be panning out, and if it isn't what can be done.

When this question is raised I get a lot of squawking, denial, vituperation, ad hom, and misinterpretative spin.

To me this indicates that the decline in current cites, and other indications of direction and vitality, is a sore point. It proves it's real.

 

[marcus]

Since we have a new page, and it helps us stay on topic to have in view the main thing we are trying to understand, I will recopy:

Spires top cited articles during odd years 2001-2009
with number of recent string papers making the top fifty shown in parentheses.
2001:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2001/annual.shtml (twelve)
2003:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/annual.shtml (six)
2005:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2005/annual.shtml (two)
2007:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2007/annual.shtml (one)
2009:
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.

Why is it that in 2001 twelve recent papers made the list of most-cited HEP research and in 2009 only one recent paper made the list?

I think there are some physics reasons and I'm curious to find out what people can suggest.

I think the reasonable thing to do is not to deny this but unemotionally and constructively try to see if there are any deficiencies contributing to this decline, and any remedies. A lot of intellectual resources have been invested in the program and we all have an interest in its success.

As an encouragement to other people to offer their ideas, I'll toss out a few ideas of mine (but I don't expect they'll necessarily be the most insightful we can come up with if we make the effort.)

 

[marcus]

Keep in mind that we are looking for correctible deficiencies in the research program. There is a lot of great string mathematics with applications to various stuff unrelated to unification (condensed matter, superconductivity, QCD...). Hurrah for applied mathematics. It is the program we are looking at, not string math.

I wish I had more to offer, and would be glad if others would contribute ideas.1. the program has not incorporated a math representation of measurement/information. (It seems more concerned with notions of what nature IS rather than with how it responds to measurement).

2. the program doesn't incorporate the geometry of the universe. (Unless you count borrowing second-hand classical geometries.)

3. it hasn't worked out a resolution of the cosmological singularity.

4. it has fragmented into studying a multitude of different models none of which carry conviction.

 

[negru]

In that case, are you proposing that we LIE to them? Should we tell them there has NOT been a decline in current citation standings?

What purpose do you imagine that would that serve?

No, let's instead over emphasize a research program that no serious physicists ever look at..

I propose that the most useful and moral purpose this forum can serve (with regards to sociology) is to present an accurate description of how various research programs are viewed in academia. From experience I can tell you that the numbers you're showing have no connection to reality, because either way:
1. they do not represent a meaningful quantity
2. even if they did they are not statistically significant

You are not doing anyone a favor with the hyping of LQG and downplaying of strings. What will happen is that students will come from this forum believing that string theory and LQG are somehow two competing theories, and that the winner remains to be established. Well in the real world, this is not at all true. The significance of LQG has measure zero in all research being done. The physicists doing LQG have absolutely no credibility. Of course this is not something you can learn by watching the arxiv and counting citations and papers. If you go to a good university and tell people you're doing LQG, they will laugh at you, and that's it. Whether they're doing string theory or astronomy. I visited some just a while ago, that was the unique reaction I saw when people asked about opinions on lqg. If you're so interested about where various fields are going, you should be more concerned that smolin writes papers with lisi, rather than by how many papers witten puts out. I'm terribly sorry, I've nothing against lisi, but if you write papers with him you'll never be taken seriously for the rest of your life.


So if you want to discuss the physics of LQG that's perfectly fine, everyone should figure it out for themselves whether it makes sense or not - assuming they have the required expertise. But over hyping a field which virtually does not exist is totally different, and is very damaging, both to the students and academia in general.

 

[fzero]

You might want to count the number of non-string recent papers on the hep-th top 50 lists. I looked at 2008-2010 and found that in the top 50 we have:

non-string:
2008: 2
2009: 5
2010: 11

The bulk of the 5 and 11 papers are on Horava-Lifschitz theories. So H-L is pretty much a huge reason for string papers dropping off of those lists.

It would be useful to see the numbers of recent non-string papers for the SPIRES topcite lists. I think that it would be necessary to further split these into theoretical and experimental papers. That would tell you some of the theory research areas that have been blossoming recently. Looking at the 2010 list, we have a bunch of cosmology experiment papers and a handful of theory papers, including the Copeland et al Dark Energy paper, Horava and a modified gravity paper. It looks like observational cosmology has pushed string papers off of the SPIRES topcite lists, not any competing theory.

 

[negru]

The mere fact that we're counting Horava cites shows how useless this whole exercise is...

Btw I also saw verlinde give a talk, and he said that the biggest motivation he has is string theory. so i guess you should count him too marcus ...

oops i meant horava not verlinde...always get my crackpots confused..

 

[atyy]

The mere fact that we're counting Horava cites shows how useless this whole exercise is...

Probably not any more than Randall-Sundrum. (I mean the idea is interesting, but for a while if you looked at cites, you'd think it as important as AdS/CFT, which I think is on a different plane?)

 

[negru]

Well I never said I considered cites to be relevant in any way. As far as I'm concerned the most important paper of the near future (imo of course) has about 20-30 cites or so. If you really need to count something, I'd say look at h-index. Most cites come from garbage papers, especially in the case of verlinde and horava. Many garbage papers cite string theory stuff of course, so i don't think it's reliable.

 

[atyy]

Well I never said I considered cites to be relevant in any way. As far as I'm concerned the most important paper of the near future (imo of course) has about 20-30 cites or so. If you really need to count something, I'd say look at h-index. Most cites come from garbage papers, especially in the case of verlinde and horava. Many garbage papers cite string theory stuff of course, so i don't think it's reliable.

Out of curiosity, which is the paper you're most excited about?

 

[Haelfix]

I agree with Negru, citations are important but not that important. In fact in modern times, it takes awhile for a good paper to start racking up citations b/c it takes awhile to absorb the technical details. That's a symptom of an advanced research field.

The best paper of the past 2 years in pure theory is probably one of Nima's recent papers (arXiv:1012.6032) or the work by Seiberg et al (arXiv:1002.2228) as well as on general gauge mediation.

They represent important technical steps, and while they are not necessarily revolutionary, they will be textbook material within 10 years.

 

[marcus]

...students will come from this forum believing that string theory and LQG are somehow two competing theories, and that the winner remains to be established. Well in the real world, this is not at all true. The significance of LQG has measure zero in all research being done. The physicists doing LQG have absolutely no credibility. Of course this is not something you can learn by watching the arxiv and counting citations and papers. If you go to a good university and tell people you're doing LQG, they will laugh at you, and that's it...

That is not quite accurate. Although retired, I occasionally attend seminars and colloquia at the physics and math departments here. UC Berkeley physics department is not second rate. LQG does not have measure zero here. And what people laugh at in a university setting depends a lot on who you talk to.

Back in March I talked with someone at the UC physics department who is doing his PhD in Loop, should be finished by the end of the summer. My guess is he will postdoc at Marseille.

The advisor has two other students who are likely prospects for doing Loop thesis, but I don't know that either has chosen a topic yet. I think it's earlier stages.

Two people from UC physics will be attending Loops 2011 conference in May, one of whom will be giving a paper.

 

[unusualname]

This thread has become messy, and the arguments that it is just poorly argued sociological nonsense are not too unfair

However, the naysayers have consistently refused to address any points hinting at deeper problems, which have been posted, ie string theory may not quite be correct, has struggled to address fundamental issues in an elegant manner, and may just be plain over-convoluted epicycles for the 21st century.

I don't think too many people think this structure will survive in all its complexity come the final theory, I mean, nature ain't that bad surely? ;-)

 

[Sardano]

This thread have ended with the usual monologue of Marcus saying nosenses. I will say what is in everybodys mind: Marcus, you are not a physicist, you are not a researcher in ST nor LG, you have never been, so please, shut up!

 

[MTd2]

may just be plain over-convoluted epicycles for the 21st century.

Maybe better comparison is that string theory is the aristotelian physics of the 21st century. epicycles fitted quite well experimental data, which is not true, yet, for string theory. So, it is still on the stage of aristotelian physics. It might be promoted to epicycles if any sign of supersymmetry is found, but still it is aristotelian physics.

 

[unusualname]

Maybe better comparison is that string theory is the aristotelian physics of the 21st century. epicycles fitted quite well experimental data, which is not true, yet, for string theory. So, it is still on the stage of aristotelian physics. It might be promoted to epicycles if any sign of supersymmetry is found, but still it is aristotelian physics.

haha, that's clever, I was just thinking that a load of uber-intelligent people allowed their brilliant mathematical imaginations to run wild in the absence of the true natural constraining ideas. The results of the rampage are undoubtedly incredible constructions, but without the correct prior constraining ideas might just be not very close to true nature

Maybe if Feynman had 20 years after his interview in Davis & Brown book, he would still have same opinion of string theory

Just sayin' (maybe that's the reason for (some) loss of interest in strings)