Gross Tel Aviv perspective on string

[marcus]

David Gross gave the concluding talk at a recent string conference in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv

http://video.tau.ac.il/Lectures/Exact_Sciences/Physics/stringfest//

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.
==endquote==

more links to try
http://stringfest.tau.ac.il/final_program.html

Ahh, I see they say that the videos require a Windows system. So Mac users can't get Gross' talk.

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[Micha]

Marcus,
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.

 

[ccdantas]

I can't open with Safari/Mac.

Christine

 

[josh1]

...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?

 

[island]

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.

 

[island]

Gross is trying to say that the (weak) fact of our existence can’t be falsified, so the selection principle can’t be falsified, but a fundamental dynamical structure principle necessarily falsifies any possibility for selection effects.

The fact that the ’main failure in 20 years’ to produce a fundamental dynamical principle in lieu of “anthropic 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 it’s because anthropic selection CAN be falsified in context.

 

[jal]

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)
jal

 

[Hans de Vries]

Nobel price winner Martinus Veltman concludes his 2003 pop-sci book with:

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"
https://www.amazon.com/dp/981238149X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
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

 

[Demystifier]

He declared that “I am still a true believer in the sexiness of string theory”

I have heard several times that some branch of physics is "sexy". Can somebody explain to me what does it mean? (I am serious.)

 

[ccdantas]

Having the power to attract, pleasing to the mind (I guess). I personally find the term horrible.

 

[f-h]

from answers.com
2. Slang. Highly appealing or interesting; attractive: “The recruiting brochures are getting sexier” (Jack R. Wentworth).

 

[francesca]

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 ;-)

 

[island]

http://4.content.collegehumor.com/d1/ch6/2/5/collegehumor.5b8042f283aa6f7007d91c25fe4a99a6.jpg"

 

[Hans de Vries]

Peskin's talk on discovering SUSY at LHC has the wrong link. It should be:

http://video.tau.ac.il/Lectures/Exact_Sciences/Physics/stringfest/OnDemand.html?6

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

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[island]

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.

 

[ccdantas]

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.

 

[josh1]

I have heard several times that some branch of physics is "sexy". Can somebody explain to me what does it mean? (I am serious.)

I do not like this business of sexy branches or not sexy branches. Some like stringy branches, other`s loopy branches. Every branch is a sexy branch to someone (well, maybe not when that branch is a twig). So no more of this talk about sexy branches.

 

[island]

we have trained ourselves with mathematical logic and, among others, constructed the scientific method to guide us.

I would think that these would be the most natural criteria for defining what physicists should see as sexy physics, rather than being viewed as some un-natural kludge that we've construed to keep us in line with the nature, although it does accomplish this in spite of our prejudices, like you said.

Natural rigor defines the most preferred theory, which is why their most natural extensions make the "most clean" predictions.

If the preferred theory is the most accurate reflection of nature in the least number of steps possible, then this natural preference should define "sexy" to a physicist.

So anything other than the most naturally preferred theory necessarily carries a *greater* degree of deviation away from absolute hotness!... er, perfectly sexy?... ;)

Something about absolute symmetry as a natural but unattainable "goal".

 

[Demystifier]

I am not sure about various branches of physics, but this physics thread is definitely very sexy!

 

[Anonym]

If the preferred theory is the most accurate reflection of nature in the least number of steps possible, then this natural preference should define "sexy" to a physicist.

In addition, if during calculations you enter orgasm.

 

[chrisina]

The real question should not be wether a given theory is "sexy" or not (which I interpret as meaning "mathematically consistent").
The real question is wether it is "useful" (meaning, does it improve our understanding of nature, and to a larger extent, increases our ability to control the resources of nature).

My conclusion is that a theory that is "sexy", but not (yet) "useful", is just WORK IN PROGRESS. It has only two possible alternatives, or to become "useful" one day, or to remain "sexy" forever (and get lost into oblivion).

My intuition is that, the probability that a theory that has remained just "sexy" after more than 10000 man year of hard work of high IQ people will ever become "useful", diminishes with added time.

But that's just an intuition that derives from the fact that up till now, sexyness - gestation periods of what became useful theories have been in the order of a magnitude of a few man year (and even less...).
Maybe the future will prove this intuition wrong, but I doubt it...

 

[Anonym]

The real question should not be wether a given theory is "sexy" or not (which I interpret as meaning "mathematically consistent").
The real question is wether it is "useful" (meaning, does it improve our understanding of nature, and to a larger extent, increases our ability to control the resources of nature).

My conclusion is that a theory that is "sexy", but not (yet) "useful", is just WORK IN PROGRESS. It has only two possible alternatives, or to become "useful" one day, or to remain "sexy" forever (and get lost into oblivion).

My intuition is that, the probability that a theory that has remained just "sexy" after more than 10000 man year of hard work of high IQ people will ever become "useful", diminishes with added time.

But that's just an intuition that derives from the fact that up till now, sexyness - gestation periods of what became useful theories have been in the order of a magnitude of a few man year (and even less...).
Maybe the future will prove this intuition wrong, but I doubt it...

Come on! Just enjoy doing it, does not a matter how. That is sex all about.

Dany.

 

[Demystifier]

R. Feynman said something like this:
Physics is like sex. It may have practical results too, but this is not why we are doing it.

From this, I conclude that applied physics is not sexy.

 

[chrisina]

Would love to hear more comments on my earlier assertion :
-My intuition is that, the probability that a theory that has remained just "sexy" after more than 10000 man year of hard work of high IQ people will ever become "useful", diminishes with added time-

 

[Anonym]

R. Feynman said something like this:
Physics is like sex. It may have practical results too, but this is not why we are doing it.

From this, I conclude that applied physics is not sexy.

Your deep involvement with BM badly affect your logic: how from “it may have practical results too” followed the conclusion “that applied physics is not sexy”? Specifically, I have in mind quantum computers and quantum computations as a practical result of the further development of the J. von Neumann theory of measurements.

Would love to hear more comments on my earlier assertion:
-My intuition is that, the probability that a theory that has remained just "sexy" after more than 10000 man year of hard work of high IQ people will ever become "useful", diminishes with added time.

Sorry, I have no idea what is the example that you have in mind.

Regards, Dany.

 

[Demystifier]

Your deep involvement with BM badly affect your logic: how from “it may have practical results too” followed the conclusion “that applied physics is not sexy”?

I have skiped some straightforward technical (i.e. non-sexy) details which I leave as an exercise to the reader.
Hint: if A is not why we are doing B, than A is not sexy.

 

[Anonym]

I have skiped some straightforward technical (i.e. non-sexy) details which I leave as an exercise to the reader.
Hint: if A is not why we are doing B, than A is not sexy.

If so then Goethe is not a poet (Look Sexy Physics , post #14). It is known that he used to write verses on the backs of his mistresses.

Hint: generalization of the matrices similar to one written on the back of first lady from the right is what I consider as extension of the J. von Neumann theory of measurements. The sexy technical details will be submitted for publication soon.

Regards, Dany.

 

[arivero]

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.

I keep my position of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512065 Susy has been discovered but it lives with a leg in the TeV scale and the another leg in QCD.