- #1
- 24,752
- 795
Is String Theory Still King? A Look at the Top Cited Papers in Particle Physics
- Context: Graduate
- Thread starter marcus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- List
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers on the relevance and impact of string theory in the context of particle physics, particularly in light of citation metrics from recent years. Participants examine the implications of citation counts for string theory papers compared to other approaches in theoretical physics.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
Main Points Raised
- Some participants highlight that recent citation counts show a significant decline in the number of highly cited string theory papers compared to earlier years, suggesting a potential shift in the field.
- Others argue that string theory remains the dominant framework for theoretical physics, as it encompasses necessary properties for a theory beyond the standard model.
- A participant points out that the citation list includes both string theory and phenomenology papers, indicating that the landscape of particle physics is broader than just string theory.
- There is a mention of a poll where participants predicted the number of string theory papers that would achieve over 100 citations, with three individuals correctly forecasting the outcome.
- Some express a sense of disappointment regarding the overall citation trends in theoretical particle physics, indicating a perceived stagnation in the field.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the implications of the citation data. While some see it as a sign of string theory's continued dominance, others interpret it as a troubling indication of the field's progress. There is no consensus on the overall significance of these trends.
Contextual Notes
The discussion reflects varying interpretations of citation metrics and their implications for the future of theoretical physics. Participants rely on specific definitions and contexts for their claims, which may not be universally accepted.
- #2
josh1
It's worth mentioning that woit finds these results depressing.
- #3
- 24,752
- 795
Peter's count makes it official, we have 3 winners of the forecast poll
Chronos, Gokul, and notevenwrong
https://www.physicsforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=917
These three guessed that there would be exactly 3 string papers that appeared in the past 5 years (2002-2006) which would get 100+ cites in 2006.
And that's what Peter's list shows
the three papers are
Berenstein et al http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0202021 with 128
KKLT http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0301240 with 238
Susskind http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0302219 with 109
Here is the forecast poll thread with explanation of the question, and discussion:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131433
I guess the way to put it in a nutshell is to recall that in year 2000 there were twenty-one recent stringy papers which got cited 100+ times in that year. By recent I mean appearing in the past five years (1996 - 2000).
Here's the link if anyone wants to check:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/top40.2000.shtml
If you do the same count for 2006, then recent means (2002- 2006) and there were only three which made that mark.
My cordial thanks to Peter for having sifted thru the cites files to get final numbers for 2006. Spires has tended to be less forthcoming and a bit tardy with its results.
Chronos, Gokul, and notevenwrong
https://www.physicsforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=917
These three guessed that there would be exactly 3 string papers that appeared in the past 5 years (2002-2006) which would get 100+ cites in 2006.
And that's what Peter's list shows
the three papers are
Berenstein et al http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0202021 with 128
KKLT http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0301240 with 238
Susskind http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0302219 with 109
Here is the forecast poll thread with explanation of the question, and discussion:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131433
I guess the way to put it in a nutshell is to recall that in year 2000 there were twenty-one recent stringy papers which got cited 100+ times in that year. By recent I mean appearing in the past five years (1996 - 2000).
Here's the link if anyone wants to check:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/top40.2000.shtml
If you do the same count for 2006, then recent means (2002- 2006) and there were only three which made that mark.
My cordial thanks to Peter for having sifted thru the cites files to get final numbers for 2006. Spires has tended to be less forthcoming and a bit tardy with its results.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #4
josh1
marcus said:
What woit's list shows is that the view that string theory remains the only truly promising approach to physics beyond the standard model continues to prevail by a wide margin, the reason being that it is the only theory that includes all the properties that such a theory must have. However, it's good that there are some people willing to work on other ideas.
- #5
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
Is this the second time I've gotten incredibly lucky on one of your polls?! 
- #6
josh1
Gokul43201 said:Is this the second time I've gotten incredibly lucky on one of your polls?!
Since it was just luck and no money was involved it doesn't count, the lesson here being that next time, you should lie.
- #7
josh1
marcus said:
NO! That is not what peter's list shows. The exact quotation is:
peter woit said:
Thus his list pertains to all of particle physics, not just string theory, which, as peter's list shows, continues to utterly and completely dominate particle physics.