hi Juan, in Latin-based languages there is often a word which speakers translate as "deception" but which has the English meaning of
disappointment.
this can cause misunderstanding and even unnecessary angry reactions. A French speaker may be thinking: Je suis deçu. And he many mistakenly translate this "I am deceived." (the implication is more serious, since in English the word deception involves an accusation of dishonesty---intentional misrepresentation). But what "Je suis deçu" means if you look in the bilingual dictionary is actually "I am disappointed."
I think you want, in this post, to be FACTUAL AND OBJECTIVE, and you do not want to be inflammatory (which will tend to bring an indignant reaction and is useless.) therefore I am proposing this little emendation in your post
Juan R. said:
Two conclusions from Toronto.
1)
In general this year there is a broadly extended disappointment on future of string theory, with many people claiming for a new direction in theoretical physics. There are increasing rumours that this year Witten plans to abandon string theory research and rescue more "traditional" (particle physics) research programs.
2)
Community is highly divided with around half part (if panel was equitative) claiming for failure of string theory like a predictive theory (due to well-known landscape difficulties). Originally, it was claimed that string theory could explain everything with a simple parameter. The other half claiming that old aim of the TOE may be not abandoned in despite how much work has been published this year, and stating that landscape phylosophies are some other things but physics (i.e. science).
I think this is what you meant.
I think your statement is basically accurate. The string research program is currently in decline (which could be only temporary) and there is this division of opinion which you mention, among theorists. Lubos Motl, for instance, echos the view of those leaders like David Gross, who say "do not give up hope" and hold to the old aim of a predictive theory. But there are other influential figures, like Susskind, who propose abandoning the goal of a predictive theory, accepting the Landscape, and appealing to the Anthropic Principle. There are signs of a mood of disappointment and expressions of discouragement among researchers.
But this is not exactly news to us at PF. The landscape trouble came out in January 2003 with the KKLT paper and we at PF have WATCHED the split in the string program happening all through 2003 (remember the huge discussion at Usenet sci.physics.research?) and read about it all through 2004, for example in blogs of knowledgeable people containing direct quotations and discussion comments from both sides, or several sides.
Therefore I would ask you to be careful NOT TO RUB IT IN. This is an important aspect of being TACTFUL. You probably learned this in grammar school. When someone is down on the ground, it is not tactful to "rub his nose in the dirt". Nobody likes this kind of "triumphal" or "rubbing in" behavior. And it will often provoke an indignant reaction, which just wastes time and energy.
I must say that in a subtle sense, I find your post OFF TOPIC in this thread. Even though it is basically accurate in an objective sense, it does not tell us anything new. It reminds me of the English expression "beating the dead horse". I wonder if you have a parallel in Spanish.
The new, surprising thing, I would say, is that the rank-and-file string researchers (Mr. and Mrs. Average String Theorist) WENT AGAINST THE LEADERSHIP in this vote.
On one hand, a representative (you say "equitative") panel of the TOP people voted 4-4.
But on the other hand, the audience consisted mostly of average middle-level string theorists representing the MASSES of comparatively obscure unknown common string theory researchers and they voted overwhelmingly against appealing to Anthropery. They prefer to continue in the hope of an eventual predictive theory.
Much surprise was expressed about this, according to Overbye, with some unprintable exclamations by the panel.
Our job I think (please tell me if you disagree) is to observe any NEW developments and try to understand them. There is no purpose in repeating what everyone who pays attention already knows: string program is in trouble, there is a decline of papers and citations, it could be time for a number of people to leave the field and find other research projects, the decline might only be temporary and new discoveries in the future might reanimate the field and give it a new direction---something that we cannot predict. These latter observations are not new and, in my opinion, it is not useful to argue about them.
so we have no online copy)
