Here is are some exerpts from the article linked and quoted in the post starting this thread. So if we discuss the issues raised we can be definite about just what they are
==quote==
The Thin Line of Theory: Is BU downplaying a passing fad?
By: Steve Macone
Posted: 1/25/05
...
While the physics departments at many other universities devote significant resources within high energy physics research to study a subject called string theory, BU has shied away from what some faculty call a fad, confident that its physics program is still in the top tier nationwide.
...
String theory requires some elaborate, ad hoc mathematics, the acceptance of additional dimensions in space and time and a little willingness to disregard the universe as we know it.
While string theorists admit their concept is far from perfect, some scientists, including a number of high-energy physicists at BU, extend the criticism further, claiming string theory is far from science.
...
Kenneth Lane, a theoretical high-energy physicist at BU, said this area of research is better left to mathematicians.
"String theory is not physics," Lane said. "It's lovely mathematics, but it makes no physics predictions. We're interested in the outcomes of experiments. If all we did was string theory, our experimentalists wouldn't know what to do. That's why it's not popular at BU."
Not surprisingly, some debate has risen among string theorists for what they view as BU's snubbing of a vital discipline.
Cumrun Vafa, a string theorist at Harvard University, said that for a particular faculty member to feel that string theory should be relegated to the mathematics department is wrong.
...
If a physics department as a whole chooses not to invest significantly in string theory, Vafa said, it is making a big error. BU is depriving its physics students of learning about one of the most exciting developments in physics that the youngest, most brilliant physicists are studying, he said.
"It's turning a blind eye to it," Vafa said. "I think drawing lines is against the sprit of science and against the progress of physics. And I think they are doing a disfavor to BU. I don't want to pass judgment, but not having a string theory group puts [BU physics] out of first rate in my opinion."
Differing in opinion from faculty at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lane said he is not aware of any BU faculty who think string theory belongs in the physics department.
"We don't think of ourselves as not doing something," he said. "We think of ourselves as doing physics.
...
"Many places have string theory," Lane adds, "not just Harvard and MIT, but Ohio State [University] and the University of Florida. But these other people are followers. We are leaders ... in another area," he said, noting accomplishments BU has made in the area of phenomenology by helping to create the idea of the Little Higgs Boson, a development Lane said is a significant improvement on the current standard model of particle physics.
"I think we've had an impact in the Boston area and beyond," Lane said. "One of the reasons Sheldon Glashow, a Nobel laureate, left Harvard was because they had become way too stringy. We sort of led the way. We did not emphasize string theory, and we attracted Shelly. It jogged [Harvard] into hiring more experimental physicists."
Lane describes string theory as a waning discipline he predicts will cease [when LHC begins producing results.]
Because the LHC, a particle accelerator used to study high-energy physics by smashing particles together, will operate at previously unattainable energy levels, scientists anticipate this new machine will reveal a whole new level of nature's physics secrets.
"I think I can safely predict that string theory is going to wither and die when exciting results start coming out of the LHC," Lane said.
But Harvard's Vafa said that string theorists share excitement about the LHC, and that experimental results it yields will not prove or disprove string theory.
Although string theory is not grounded in empirical data, Vafa said, it has already greatly influenced the way we think about physics and that perhaps 15 years ago BU could have afforded not to give substantial attention to string theory.
But not today, Vafa said.
"Theoretical developments have indicated string theory is a very important part of physics," Vafa said. "It has already proven foolish. It's past the point."
Barton Zwiebach, a string theorist at MIT, said few competitive universities lack string theory research, but that BU has a strong physics department nonetheless.
"If they wish to grow and become a still stronger group, that would be a good thing to do [to study string theory]," Zwiebach said. "... Most people who are skeptics still believe [the string theory is] worth studying. You seldom find someone who thinks it's not worth studying at all."
Zwiebach added that the risk for BU in not researching string theory is that it will attract less competitive graduate students.
Andrew Cohen, associate chairman for undergraduate studies and high energy physicist at BU, described the differences between BU's physics research and that of other institutions as less significant, less stringent and more of a decision to choose one research path than shunning another.
"Even if string theory is a correct theory of nature - and I am one who thinks that, although not certain, it has a good chance - it will remain only one aspect of high energy theory," Cohen said.
High energy physics is now very compartmentalized, Cohen said, with most string theorists only researching string theory and most other high energy physicists, or phenomenologists, not working in string theory. He didn't describe the current climate of research among physicists as negative.
Cohen also said that because only the largest institutions can support enough faculty in string theory and phenomenology to fully represent both disciplines, many smaller universities researching high energy physics have one or the other.
While the focus of research in high energy physics at BU is not directed toward string theory, Cohen said, there have been occasions when BU faculty have done work in the area. He listed numerous examples of contributions to string theory by BU professors such as Claudio Rebbi, who he said was one of the early string pioneers.
Richard Brower, a professor in the College of Engineering, continues to publish string theory papers, Cohen added, and several BU post-doctorate students have written papers on the subject.
"BU has an involvement with string theory," he said, "but many of us currently find the experimentally accessible puzzle of mass more exciting."
Cohen said there is very little risk in not studying string theory, adding that the phenomenology research at BU is considered to be some of the best.
BU's curriculum contains nearly the same amount of string theory as most other institutions, Cohen said.
"We share courses with Harvard and MIT, and many of our students have attended string theory and other particle physics courses at these institutions," he said.
Cohen said he does not feel there is any disregard for string theory among BU faculty.
"BU is one of the places where phenomenologists can be found who occasionally do work in string theory," Cohen said, "but graduate students are even more specialized. So students who want to do string theory by and large don't come to BU, and those who want to do phenomenology don't go the institutions that focus on string theory."
Sheldon Glashow, one of the most vocal critics of string theory at BU, said his views differ from those of his faculty colleagues. Glashow said experimentalists have no contact with string theorists, who often form "colonies" separate from other disciplines within physics departments.
As Glashow believes, it is the string theorists themselves who are drawing the lines within the discipline.
He explained that the Albert Einstein, who failed in his search to find a unified theory of forces in the universe, spent the last three decades of his life isolated from the scientific community.
"It is tragic," Glashow said, "but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory.
"So when one person spends 30 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20 years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that curious."
Glashow cautioned that particle theory, under which string theory and phenomenology fall, comprises only a small fragment of any physics department.
"When people say that Harvard is the best physics department in the country, it's because they have wonderful resources in many fields," Glashow said. "Our physics department excels in a number of areas. We do world-shaking experiments, and we're in the headlines all the time for this kind of stuff."
"We're doing well," Glashow said. "I would put our physics department in the top 20 in the country, easily. String theory is not the dominant area [at BU], as it is at some schools. It is, to a certain extent, a fad, and I think we've really kept a level head. I think we have a properly balanced department."
==endquote==
http://www.dailyfreepress.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=894f12de-4803-4be7-93e5-196bb6781c0a
