Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Most Influential Paper 2006 (first quarter)

  1. Ashtekar

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Baez

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Crane

    13.3%
  4. Freidel

    13.3%
  5. 't Hooft

    46.7%
  6. Padmanabhan

    26.7%
  1. Apr 6, 2006 #1

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Abhay Ashtekar
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604013
    Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: An Analytical and Numerical Investigation I

    John Baez et al
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603085
    Exotic Statistics for Loops in 4d BF Theory

    Louis Crane
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602120
    Categorical Geometry and the Mathematical Foundations of Quantum General Relativity

    Laurent Freidel et al
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604016
    Hidden Quantum Gravity in 3d Feynman diagrams

    Gerard 't Hooft
    http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604008
    The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics

    Thanu Padmanabhan
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603114
    Dark Energy: Mystery of the Millennium

    These papers were all posted in roughly the same timeframe---the first 90-or-so days of this year. Which do you think will prove the most influential in future research? This can't be determined with certainty but perhaps by the end of the year we will have some indication.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2006 #2

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Padmanabhan, but it won't become evident anytime soon. To understand the exquisitely fine-tuned balance between the expansive pressure of the quantum vacuum and the gravitational equivalence of the vacuum, we need a paradigm-shift in cosmology that incorporates the quantum world into the macro world. From all indications, that is not going to penetrate concordance cosmology anytime soon. We may have to let M theory, colliders, etc, suck up all the resources for the next several decades before the light comes on. Maybe after we spend a trillion dollars and still don't find the Higgs Boson...
     
  4. Apr 6, 2006 #3

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Turbo thanks for commenting. and thanks to everyone who voted so far! I am very interested in what other people think about these different ideas and research initiatives.

    selfAdjoint said he thought the Padmanabhan paper would be important, one of the year's most important. I will get the link.
    That was what gave me the idea to make a poll, in fact.
    You might be interested in what he gives for reasons.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83148

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=955493&postcount=32

     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2006
  5. Apr 6, 2006 #4
  6. Apr 6, 2006 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The intersection of quantum physics and relativity is a nasty place, and people often think in terms of complications to reconcile the differences. That is the ideal place to look for simplifications and resolution. The Universe cannot be expected to follow the same rules everywhere across all space and time unless the rules are simple. Cosmologists often don't have a good grasp of this, and should perhaps go into investment banking for a time before they venture into lion-taming as a bridge to cosmology.
     
  7. Apr 6, 2006 #6

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    turbo what is that black and white animal that is neither a skunk or a raccoon? it looks like it has a sense of humor
     
  8. Apr 6, 2006 #7

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I did vote for the Padmanabhan paper, although I don't actually think it will show up as heavily cited. This because it was mostly a survey, and cites go to original sources. What I think makes the latest paper important is that by introducing these ideas to a wider audience, he has made it likely that others will work in the area, and thereby cite his earlier papers. I definitely agree with turbo about the role of this line of research. Whatever nature may be like, we are not going to discover it by sterile, scholastic arguments on whose mathematical model is more "natural" or "inevitable", or lord help us, "True".
     
  9. Apr 6, 2006 #8

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    did beauty just raise her ugly head?:smile:
     
  10. Apr 6, 2006 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you are referring to my avatar, it is my all-time favorite ferret Turbo. Ferrets are fun if you can adapt to their mischievous ways and accept them into your home. Pound for pound, they are way smarter than dogs or cats and dogs and can manipulate their environments like you would not believe. They also routinely out-smart much larger dogs. I love ferrets and skunks, but perhaps got this tendency when I hiked a ~4000 ft "hill" here and ended up sharing my sandwich with a weasel that came to my feet and wanted more and more and kept coming to me to encourage me to give him/her to offer more.
     
  11. Apr 6, 2006 #10

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I hope so, but doubt the wide acceptance of the reality.
     
  12. Apr 7, 2006 #11

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Thanks to all who voted!
    arivero, hawk, heartless, hossi, selfAdjoint, scott, and turbo

    I was thinking i wouldnt vote and just see what others said but this morning decided to join with heartless in picking Freidel's paper. (the authors promise a companion doing the same things in 4D)

    so far it is 2 for Freidel, 3 for 't Hooft, and 3 for Padmanabhan.

    At the end of the year, let's not merely apply the citations count in a mechanical way. Let's figure out a more qualitative way to approach it. maybe invite anyone who voted at the beginning to reconsider and see if anyone would change their pick, and why. By yearend there should be some more indications on which to base judgment----besides citation which are always part of the picture.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2006
  13. Apr 7, 2006 #12
  14. Apr 11, 2006 #13

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I'm rather curious about this. Marcus, has ANY of these papers appeared in print? Do you have citations for them if they have?

    Zz.
     
  15. Apr 11, 2006 #14

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Not to my knowledge, Zapper. I will get some citation-counts later in the year.

    these are in large measure papers that members have commented on or notices in recent PF threads----or precursors to them have been. so I gathered together in the poll papers that forum participants were already aware of (perhaps with some exceptions)

    they are all so recent that there has barely been time for them to be submitted:smile: for publication, not to say published/cited, but I suppose several will eventually make it into print

    In case anyone would like link to earlier comment on some of these papers:


    Padmanabhan
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83148
    and the particular paper on page 3, post #31 and #32
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83148&page=3

    't Hooft
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=116420

    Crane
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113145

    Ashtekar
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111816

    Baez
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115082

    Freidel
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=116661
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2006
  16. Apr 11, 2006 #15

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    ... and some how, they are already "influential" before they even appear in print?

    Zz.
     
  17. Apr 11, 2006 #16

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    we are guessing as to which will BECOME important
    and sometime towards the end of the year one of us will check and see how they are doing

    there was no time limit on this prediction poll, so someone will have to make a judgment call later this year or next---about who was right.

    =================

    for anyone who has not previously taken part in PF forecast polls, it is partly a way to learn who the good guessers are and partly a "group-brain" activity similar to the DELPHI process. We have had several forecast polls so far. I will get some links.
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81739
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=713874&postcount=80

    One we had last year was where you guessed how many recent (past five years) string papers would turn out to be highly cited (100+) in 2005, and then after the SPIRES topcite list came out we checked to see who was closest.

    You could say that there is no such thing as a good guesser----past performance is mostly accidental and doesnt mean anything. But I suspect it does mean something and anyway it is fun. I am interested in what other people predict.

    That is why the forecast polls are public. So you can see who guessed what.

    Everyone is welcome, so OF THOSE LISTED which do you think will prove most valuable to future research------important, influential?
    Admittedly it is a vague question, I did not specify some objective measure like citation-counts as of a certain date, but we will deal with the vagueness later on down the line when we see what develops.

    I still think I will be proven right about Freidel/Baratin, even though "heartless" and I are distinctly in the minority so far:smile:
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2006
  18. Apr 11, 2006 #17

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    11 predictions so far, distributed as follows

    Ashtekar 0
    Baez 0
    Crane 1 (mike)
    Freidel 2 (heartless, me)
    't Hooft 5 (daveb, davey, hawk, hossi, scott)
    Padmanabhan 3 (arivero, selfAdjoint, turbo)
     
  19. Apr 11, 2006 #18

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    't Hooft is an example of how theoretical science works. He works a lot the photoshop demostrations of their seminar, he is a Nobel Prize (and not in the senil age), he communicates effectively in his papers. Then? It seems that people likes just to publish or contribute about nice closed problems, and they do not risk to follow 't Hooft path.
     
  20. Apr 11, 2006 #19

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Marcus, it seems to me you shoould add the Graviton Propagator paper, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604044, to the poll. I think it is going to be very influential. It doesn't just talk the linking of SST and LQG talk, it walks the walk.
     
  21. Apr 11, 2006 #20

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed


    I agree that it is important and solid progress. I would like to include it as your nomination in the SECOND QUARTER prediction poll.
    It is simplest if we just leave be the first quarter because people picked their guess of what would prove most influential from those listed

    So going back and making new choices would be a bother.
    but we should have some more regular process for nominating, as you have just done. (instead of my wild, hopefully inspired:smile: grabs in the dark)

    So I will start a thread for people to register nominations for a 2nd quarter 2006 MVP prediction poll. And leave it around until June or so, and then put a poll together.

    I think the last one was fun. something you said about padmanabhan prompted me to set it up.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Most Influential Paper 2006 (first quarter)
Loading...