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

Peter Woit's topcite list

  1. Jan 18, 2007 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 18, 2007 #2
    It's worth mentioning that woit finds these results depressing.
  4. Jan 18, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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 [Broken]

    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 [Broken] with 128

    KKLT http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0301240 [Broken] with 238

    Susskind http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0302219 [Broken] with 109

    Here is the forecast poll thread with explanation of the question, and discussion:

    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:

    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: May 2, 2017
  5. Jan 19, 2007 #4
    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.
  6. Jan 19, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is this the second time I've gotten incredibly lucky on one of your polls?! :bugeye:
  7. Jan 19, 2007 #6
    Since it was just luck and no money was involved it doesn't count, the lesson here being that next time, you should lie.
  8. Jan 21, 2007 #7
    NO!!! That is not what peter's list shows. The exact quotation is:

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook