Learning Lessons from String Research Decline

[marcus]

here, for comparison, is arXiv for the past 10 years.
this now is governed by what the author(s) put(s) in the abstract

(Counts papers whose abstract summary has the keywords
string OR brane OR braneworld OR D-brane OR M-theory OR p-brane.)

I tried to put in AdS/CFT to see if it would make any difference to the numbers, but had trouble. will try again later


Year 1994:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1994/0/1

Year 1995:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1995/0/1

Year 1996:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1996/0/1

Year 1997:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1997/0/1

Year 1998:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1998/0/1

Year 1999:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1999/0/1

Year 2000:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2000/0/1

Year 2001:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2001/0/1

Year 2002:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2002/0/1

Year 2003:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2003/0/1

Last twelve months (e.g. 29 July 2003 to 29 July 2004):
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/past/0/1

there was some unexplained variation in the 2003 and Last twelve months counts. The second column was what I got Monday 9August

1994    610    610
1995    801    801
1996   1002   1002
1997   1248   1248
1998   1299   1299
1999   1403   1403
2000   1491   1492
2001   1546   1546
2002   1570   1570
2003   1201   1408
LTM     873   1117

 

[marcus]

ArXiv has changed the interface to their search engine and I haven't figured it out yet.

spires is OK though, so at least we have those numbers
and Jim Graber's NASA Astrophysical Data resource is still fine.

jgraber's NASA-ADA is now in rough agreement about 2003 with spires
(but this may not last since Spires may add more to its database as the
librarians continue to process 2003 papers)

it has been pointed out that the data is unsatisfactory---true enough---it consists of applying the same recipe year after year, the same search proceedure for each of a series of 10 or more years, and it can be argued that the right recipe to use changes.

however i suppose that applying the same keywords year by year for 10 years does tell something---produces some kind of trajectory which one can attempt to understand. Moreover the results correspond to what e.g. Lubos Motl says----he has said string theory research output has declined during the past year or so----that's anecdotal or hearsay but he might be expected to know. So what we can do is produce some semi-objective corroboration of what an insider says. it is not authoritative but it correlates to the scuttlebut.

 

[marcus]

ahrkron has asked that we have something comparable for Loop research papers.

I'm curious about what has happened with LQG. How does it behave using a similar "diagnostic tool"?

Here, for comparison, are arXiv counts for Loop and allied
approaches over the past 10 years.


Year 1994:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/1994/0/1

Year 1995:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/1995/0/1

Year 1996:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/1996/0/1

Year 1997:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/1997/0/1

Year 1998:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/1998/0/1

Year 1999:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/1999/0/1

Year 2000:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/2000/0/1

Year 2001:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/2001/0/1

Year 2002:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/2002/0/1

Year 2003:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/2003/0/1

Last twelve months (e.g. 10 August 2003 to 10 August 2004):
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/past/0/1

1994    59    
1995    81    
1996    69
1997    68
1998    59
1999    73
2000    83
2001    92
2002   113
2003   129
LTM    148

 

[marcus]

More changes in the Spires database. Time to update:
The Spires 2003 number (and maybe some other years as well) will eventually be larger as the librarians continue indexing and add more papers to the database. The keyword search tool has been modified lately and may also find more papers.


January 2003 was when the Kachru 10¹⁰⁰ string vacuums paper came out. It is a good time-marker. It is now a year and a half later

Spires HEP database counts:

String, brane, M-theory papers by year of publication
1986   138
1987   196
1988   365
1989   766
1990  1114
1991   953
1992   874
1993   782
1994   882
1995   998
1996  1084
1997  1458
1998  1414
1999  1532
2000  1686
2001  1807
2002  2126
2003  2104
2004  ...

Here are links so you can check the numbers yourself.


1986:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1986

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1987

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1988

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1989

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1990

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1991

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1992


http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1993

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1994

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1995

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1996

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1997

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1998

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+1999

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2000

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2001

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2002

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2003

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+K+%22STRING+MODEL%22+OR+MATRIX+MODEL+OR+MEMBRANE+MODEL+AND+DATE+2004

---------------

Arivero provided a graph from the preprint arxiv.
http://arxiv.org/Stats/hca_avg.gif

 

[selfAdjoint]

Arivero's graph shows a general drop in hep submissions (if I read it right). That would be a sum of experiment, lattice, phenomenology, and theory, and include everything, not just string physics. So your drop in strings (I still have search questions about that) would just be a detail within an overall decline.

It seems to me that instead of scoring points on this branch of physics or that, we should be concerned for the future health of the whole field.

 

[marcus]

Arivero's graph shows a general drop in hep submissions (if I read it right). That would be a sum of experiment, lattice, phenomenology, and theory, and include everything, not just string physics. So your drop in strings (I still have search questions about that) would just be a detail within an overall decline...

that's one good interpretation. In fact this is what Alejandro's original post said. He made the very same point. Personally I do not know for sure what to think. The statistics are suggestive and point in several directions.

And having said that they are suggestive (variously) one should also say that they are not very stable or statistically solid! For my part I would like to have more reliable indices of US and World research output in theoretical physics.

I have put some effort into getting some numbers and what I've posted is the best I can do.

Probably the most sigificant (as I see it, and you have indicated agreement I think) are the CITATION figures that form the basis of Michael Peskin's annual review. You have offered an interesting explanation of the shift in ranking in the TopCites area. I don't know if you still hold to that interpretation. Maybe I should update that information so we can take another look.

Again from a personal standpoint, it looks to me as if plenty of theoretical physics is being done, just that some of the action has moved over into astrophysics and condensed matter.
Peskin's review of citations moved astrophysics up in the ranking of "what's hot in physics" (Peskin's phrase, perhaps an unfortunate choice of words) and the numbers of papers and citations seem to support the shift----also Alejandro's graph showed a rise in condensed matter research IIRC and he pointed this out in his post.

So I differ from you in the sense that I am not concerned with the overall health. Plenty of stuff is being done, as I see it, we just have shifts of research emphasis.
I think it is worthwhile tracking them regardless of whether one has an ax to grind or wants to "score points" for anyone team.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Sorry Marcus, I haven't fully had time to read the full 4 pages of this current subsection however I would like to make a small theory about why the numbers are down. Could it be that the String theory had become such a heavily researched topic since it has become mainstream that they are just running out of new angles to tackle the topic. This is not to say that string theory is any less probable of leading to toe, merely that people are running out of ways to restate what others have said. Thus leading to less cituations in articles what you gauged as "quality" I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) I know I am kind of playing devil's avocate here but as my stats teacher told me over and over again Correlation does not imply causation citing the example of how in an area in New England. There was a case where the more priests there were in an area the greater the number of drunk people in the town that caused crimes. However this does not mean that that increase in priest caused more drunk crimes simply that there was a correlation.

OF Course I could be compeltely wrong. Just an Idea

 

[marcus]

Sorry Marcus, I haven't fully had time to read the full 4 pages of this current subsection however I would like to make a small theory about why the numbers are down. Could it be that the String theory had become such a heavily researched topic since it has become mainstream that they are just running out of new angles to tackle the topic. This is not to say that string theory is any less probable of leading to toe...

OF Course I could be compeltely wrong. Just an Idea

On the contrary I would encourage you in this point of view. Of course I don't know enough to say you are definitely right! but this seems like a very
reasonable explanation.

also the statistics themselves are very very bad. I have had a terrible time getting numbers that will stay the same.

Spires (Stanford SLAC and DESY in Germany) has just changed their search engine again and I can't get it to work! this happened just this week.
Spires is a very wonderful database in several (but unfortunately *not all*) ways.

be skeptical of everything, and have fun


(PS, better find Marlon's LQG thread, is has a good link in it)

 

[marcus]

the changing face of High Energy Physics is shown by the American Physical Society's meeting of the Division of Particles and Fields
http://dpf2004.ucr.edu/program.html

These are the plenary talks.
I have bolded plenary talks which appear related to astronomy and cosmology, neutrinos and high energy astrophysics.
The string theory talk is in blue for easy spotting by those interested.
Sean Carroll gave the final plenary talk, today 31Aug, on cosmology.


---Friday August 27th---
8:10 am
*Neutrino Physics Experiment
*Kai Zuber (Oxford)

9:00 am
*Neutrino Physics Theory
*André de Gouvêa (Northwestern)

10:20 am
*Electroweak and Top Quark Physics
*Evelyn Thomson (Ohio State)

11:20 am
*Electroweak Symmetry Breaking
*David Rainwater (Rochester)

---Saturday August 28th---

8:00 am
*Heavy Flavor Physics
*Aaron Roodman (SLAC)

8:50 am
*Advanced Accelerators - Near Future and Far Future Options
*Jamie Rosenzweig (UCLA)

10:10 am
*Cosmology - Experiment
*Joseph Fowler (Princeton)

11:00 am
*How to Popularize Particle Physics
*Elizabeth Simmons (Michigan State)

---Monday August 30th---

1:30 pm
*Heavy Ion Physics
*Jamie Nagle (Univ. of Colorado)
*
2:20 pm
Very High Energy Astrophysics
*Stefan Westerhoff (Columbia)

Tuesday August 31st

10:20 am
*CP Violation
*Owen Long (UC Riverside)

11:10 am
*Current Trends in String Theory[/color]
*Clifford Johnson (USC)

1:30 pm
*QCD
*Sean Fleming (Carnegie Mellon)

2:20 pm
*Computing in High Energy Physics
*Ian Fisk (FNAL)

3:40 pm
*Searches for New Physics
*Gustaaf Brooijmans (Columbia)

4:30 pm
*Cosmology Theory
*Sean Carroll (Chicago)

 

[marcus]

there have been several "current state of string research" type summaries lately

Lubos Motl has an overview of String Field Theory. Peter Woit gives a link to it:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000080.html

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...0409151145350.2121-100000@feynman.harvard.edu

Also the Clifford Johnson talk Current Trends in String Theory, mentioned in the previous post, is available for download at the conference site.
http://dpf2004.ucr.edu/program.html
http://dpf2004.ucr.edu/plenary/johnson.pdf


Also Mike Douglas just posted this:
Basic results in Vacuum Statistics
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409207

[edit: Peter Woit's comment on Douglas paper appeared shortly afterwards:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000082.html ]