Learning Lessons from String Research Decline

[marcus]

There has been a decline in string research. What lessons can we learn from this?

First of all just to establish the basic fact, look at the numbers of papers posted on arXiv per 12-month period, there has been a substantial decline over the period 2000 to June 2004.

I'll supply links to the arXiv search engine for anyone who hasnt already seen the stringy research paper counts.

However there has been an if anything sharper decline in the research quality (as gauged by citations). There were less than half as many recent highly-cited stringy papers in 2003 as there were in 2002.

I'll supply links to the Stanford/SLAC HEP database that just issued its citations report for 2003, for anyone who hasnt checked it out already.

The decline in string research has affected both the raw number of papers and the number of highly-cited papers

What is happening in stringy research that correlates with this sudden falling off? What basic physics issues have emerged in this connection?

How do statements by string leaders----Leonard Susskind, Tom Banks, David Gross, Mike Douglas, Edward Witten---correlate with the drop off? Are any of their recent remarks relevant: do they explain (to some extent at least) what is going on?

Fortunately the answer is a partial yes: there are recent comments by Susskind and others that shed a little light on this. Hopefully we can gather some of these words-from-the-wise and post them, or links to them, on this thread.

What, if anything, can we infer? It may be that stringy research has encountered interesting physical-theoretical obstacles which would be informative to sketch out.

 

[marcus]

Here are those citebase links.

the general index:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/

most-cited papers in 2003 for the whole HEP database:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/annual.shtml
the 2003 citations broken down by field:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/eprints/index.shtml

 

[marcus]

This is from the Spires ranking of hep-th papers.

For definiteness 'recent' means the preprint appeared in the past 4 years so at end 2000 recent papers are those which appeared in years 1997-2000.

According to Spires, in year 2000 there were 9 recent stringy research papers that garnered 125+ citations, and look at the numbers of citations each received:

In 2000 the 9 recent highly cited sringy papers got: 498, 446, 397, 347, 316, 268, 191, 164, 131 citations.

By contrast, in 2003 there were only 4 recent highly cited (125+) stringy papers and they got: 197, 135, 134, 125 citations.

the above was from Spires list for the single category hep-th.

Here are some similar results from the combined Spires HEP list,
the combined list is broader and includes papers in all categories which
Spires considers part of the HEP database----in line with what is meant by High Energy Physics research at least at the Stanford SLAC, DESY(Germany) and the other institutions participating in Spires.
The Spires HEP database is broader than the single ArXiv category hep-th.

The 1999 Spires HEP topcite list had, with only recent papers counted, 24 papers which received 125+ citations.
Of these, 15 were recent string papers. (over 60 percent, a substantial percentage)

The number of citations these 15 recent string papers received that year were:
625, 464, 425, 285, 215, 202, 170 170, 167, 148, 146, 139, 137, 130, 126

By contrast the Spires HEP 2003 topcites list had, when only recent articles were included, 20 papers which garnered 125+ citations.
Of these, 4 were stringy type research (a smaller percentage than in 1999, 25 percent instead of 60 percent)

the numbers of citations for these 4 string papers were:
197, 135, 134, 125

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=220282#post220282

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=220548#post220548

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=226549#post226549

 

[marcus]

Here are those citebase links.

the general index:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/

most-cited papers in 2003 for the whole HEP database:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/annual.shtml
the 2003 citations broken down by field:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/eprints/index.shtml

There's been a sharp decline in string research and I am still hoping to hear some cogent explanations.
the decline is an objective thing you can see in the ArXiv and Spires numbers---the data is online and I've provided links.
What might be interesting is how you interpret it----there can be questions about interpretation.

Lubos Motl talked about the decline in stringy research last year on SPR and said he hoped it was "sinusoidal", but IIRC no cogent explanation.

Anyway the annual Spires report just came out and one can use it to quantify the sharp downturn in string research. it has four aspects

1. decline in raw output of papers
(according to ArXiv, a steady rise 1991 to about 2001-2002 and a decline since 2002 to present, no sinusoidal or uppy-downy behavior, just one long up and then down). Links will be provided so you can see for yourself.

2. loss of standing in the annual "Papers that shaped modern high energy physics" review. This is an annual "what's hot in HEP" essay. Since 1997 or so it has been written by Michael Peskin at SLAC. Up thru 2001 it has been dominated by string news. After 2001 string is more of an afterthought at the end. Other HEP areas of research take the limelight and are seen as hot. Links will be provided.

3. there are fewer recent highly cited stringy papers than there were before 2001 and these represent a declining percentage of recent highly cited HEP papers. Taking 'recent' to mean 'last four years' and highly cited to mean 125+ citations, one sees a decline from 60 percent in 1999 down to 25 percent in 2003. Percentagewise string has become a less important, or dominant, part of HEP research, as shown by the Spires HEP database.

4. the citation quality of recent stringy papers has declined.
Taking 'recent' to mean last four years here are the numbers for 1999 and for 2003:
1999:
625, 464, 425, 285, 215, 202, 170 170, 167, 148, 146, 139, 137, 130, 126,...

2003:
197, 135, 134, 125,...

In 2003 there were fewer recent stringy papers which got 125+ citations.
And their citability quality was inferior compared with their counterparts in 1999. It is not clear what citations measure, but they are an object measure of research quality of some sort as seen by other researchers in the field: influence, importance, valuable new ideas, advances, usefulness to later researchers, starting new lines of investigation, whatever gets your paper cited by those that come after. This quality has declined sharply in the string field, as the above comparison illustrates.

My feeling is that this sharp downturn should be explainable and that one ought to be able to learn something from it.

It certainly does not appear to be random fluctuation.
I just looked at the raw output figures for 1991 to present and could see no 'business cycle' or 'sinewave' (sinusoidal) component. The arxiv count went like this:

1991    102
1992    461
1993    544
1994    610
1995    810
1996   1002
1997   1248
1998   1299
1999   1403
2000   1491
2001   1546
2002   1518
2003   1258
LTM     970

By LTM I mean the last twelve months, 9 June 2003 to 9 June 2004.
counts produced by the arxiv search engine vary some, but the
general picture of a peak around 2001-2002 shows up consistently.
I don't believe in taking other people's word on things like this so I will
provide links to arxiv search so you can check for yourself.

 

[sol2]

Experimental observation lacking, can be a direct challenge to the conceptual basis of anything, and Peter Woit is challenging that conceptual basis? This is always a safe assumption:)

These statistics are very interesting from a overall perspective

Maybe we should compare it the the mathematical challenges of the poincare conjecture or the issues of Fermat ( a million dollar reward in the offering of the toe?).

The challenge is very difficult, and requires mnds that will incubate for a long time. These are the careful thinkers in this case that you have sited. Some who might not even care about the money:)

Does not mean the challenge is going unabated?

 

[marcus]

there is a real grain of wisdom in what you say, Sol2, as there often is.

It would be good to make some historical comparisons.

with other intellectual fashions, in the past,

and also with great outstanding problems.


It has happened that with great outstanding problems several
different approaches get tried, and many variations on them get tried,

and then those approaches get abandoned and some other approach
comes in (maybe from an unexpected direction) and works.

as a watcher or onlooker I try not to get locked into one particular set
of expectations

or even one view of the problem

You know I think that the problem been confronted now is not actually the TOE!

Whatever people think they are doing, i think what they are really trying to do is arrive at a background independent version of quantum theory

Yesterday selfAdjoint was speculating about "spaceons" of quantized space exchanging "gravitons" among themselves
(as the geometry of space changed dynamically, I guess)
it was a light-hearted, not a solemn, post, but it started me trying some unfamiliar lines of thought

anyway this stringy approach may be getting run into the ground
it is not just the decline in raw numbers of papers
it is the decline in citability---the papers have less and less significance.

whatever happens it's bound to be interesting

 

[sol2]

Marcus,

The question JB highlighted in terms of the background issue, are very important, and the thoughts here are really quite fleeting. So to bring one back down to Earth and I have to continually refresh my mind on that particular issue.

You are right, in terms of what must be geometrical expressed. How does this relationship transpired in the subject of background versus non background?

JB referred back to Smolin for comparsion of the true attempts at this question. Three Roads was a synopsis of the differents methods and approach and raised the question of how we might tackle this problem.

This is how I saw it. It lead us to the understanding of what mathematics we might use? This then raises intertesting speculations on my part about the philosphical discussion on the issues of math and its origination.

FOR ME WHAT HAS MATERIALIZE IS THE NEED FOR A CONSISTENT EXPRESSED DISCRIPTION OF THE GEOMETRY? (did not mean to captilize)

Also, you pointed out the historical discussion, and for me seeing how dirac and then Feynmen leads from him, in the toy model considerations, he consistently impoved this model for consideration?

The solvay meetings were to me to incubate the ideas generated from different perspectives and this issue is on going in the dialogue between these two camps of LGQ and Stringtheory.

But there is a basic question here about the background verus the nonbackground that must be answered?

Yesterday selfAdjoint was speculating about "spaceons" of quantized space exchanging "gravitons" among themselves
(as the geometry of space changed dynamically, I guess)
it was a light-hearted, not a solemn, post, but it started me trying some unfamiliar lines of thought

The only one missing, was wheeler's geon:) It has not passed others attention how we might describe the fundamental reality of dynamical resolution. Looking backwords, some of this historical insight can be quit revealing as you have stated

 

[marcus]

FOR ME WHAT HAS MATERIALIZE IS THE NEED FOR A CONSISTENT EXPRESSED DISCRIPTION OF THE GEOMETRY...

... two camps of LGQ and Stringtheory.

that's a good point. what you capitalized deserves to be
and bold-faced as well!

About "two camps" I don't know. People who think "camps"
could be more interested in convincing other people that
they are right, rather than finding out about nature.
There may be Stringtheory propagandists who will yell at you if
you don't genuflect to their Big Would-be TOE.
But the people working on quantizing gravity seem a fluid bunch not locked into one particular doctrine.

About the only thing non-String Quantum Gravity people seem to agree on is what you suggest here----the urgency of a (background independent)
description of geometry.
you have to be able to describe it in a convenient way so you can
say how it changes, as matter moves around.

geometry = gravitational field

it isn't satisfactory to base things on a fixed pre-conceived geometry because the world just isn't like that.

I would like to know other people's thoughts as to why String/Brane research has declined----some people say "flat-lined"----anyway seems at least temporarily stalled. But if I had to guess, I'd imagine it is just this very thing---this dynamic geometry thing.

Witten called for a background independent version in 1992 (said how important it isl) and people have made great efforts---including recently Vafa----but it seems very hard and complicated to achieve B.I. in context of strings.
Tom Banks referred to it as a "chimera".
Motl recently talked about this as a central goal----he called it finding a
"backround-universal" version---in a soul-searching SPS post.
I should get some links to these quotes, they are interesting and revealing I think.

 

[marcus]

...

My feeling is that this sharp downturn should be explainable and that one ought to be able to learn something from it.

It certainly does not appear to be random fluctuation.
I just looked at the raw output figures for 1991 to present and could see no 'business cycle' or 'sinewave' (sinusoidal) component. The arxiv count went like this:

1991    102
1992    461
1993    544
1994    610
1995    810
1996   1002
1997   1248
1998   1299
1999   1403
2000   1491
2001   1546
2002   1518
2003   1258
LTM     970

By LTM I mean the last twelve months, 9 June 2003 to 9 June 2004.
counts produced by the arxiv search engine vary some, but the
general picture of a peak around 2001-2002 shows up consistently.
I don't believe in taking other people's word on things like this so I will
provide links to arxiv search so you can check for yourself.

Here are links to the ArXiv search engine showing numbers of stringy research papers by year since 1991.

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

Year 1991:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1991/0/1

Year 1992:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1992/0/1

Year 1993:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/1993/0/1

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. 9 June 2003 to 9 June 2004):
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/past/0/1

 

[marcus]

...

I would like to know other people's thoughts as to why String/Brane research has declined----some people say "flat-lined"----anyway seems at least temporarily stalled. But if I had to guess, I'd imagine it is just this very thing---this dynamic geometry thing.

Witten called for a background independent version in 1992 (said how important it is) and people have made great efforts---including recently Vafa----but it seems very hard and complicated to achieve B.I. in context of strings.
Tom Banks referred to it as a "chimera".
Motl recently talked about this as a central goal----he called it finding a
"backround-universal" version---in a soul-searching SPS post.
I should get some links to these quotes, they are interesting and revealing I think.

we should backup key quotes with links---you may know this Witten quote
about background independence already but I'll put the references:

“Finding the right framework for an intrinsic, background independent formulation of string theory is one of the main problems in string theory, and so far has remained out of reach.” ... “This problem is fundamental because it is here that one really has to address the question of what kind of geometrical object the string represents.”

E Witten: “Quantum background independence in string theory” http://arxiv.org/hep-th/9306122 . “On Background independent open-string field theory” http://arxiv.org/hep-th/9208027 .

 

[sol2]

Marcus,

What is the move to the graviton, from gravitational wave understanding. If Gr was to remain consistent with QM how would this calculation serve to illustrate it as a smooth transformation?

The very significance of the graviton must have dimensional significance based on the value of those gravitational waves?

I hope I did not steer you off course here.

 

[marcus]

Marcus,

What is the move to the graviton, from gravitational wave understanding...

I hope I did not steer you off course here.

Sol2, indeed you don't steer me off course at all! I am unsteerable in
a graviton direction. Your ideas and questions I'm glad to see (as usual)
but I do not know from gravitons!

Maybe someone else can respond to your question. I do not think a graviton has ever been observed yet and the various
would-be theories that try to quantize Gen Rel seem to differ as to
whether and what they are. So for the time being I remain happily ignorant about gravitons---really no opinion!

Time will tell.

Do you know how photons were first detected?
(expect you do ) they were detected before
their existence was theorized

 

[notevenwrong]

To get numbers of string-theory related papers as a function of time it would probably be better to use the SPIRES database. The increase in numbers during the 90s is mostly due to the spreading use of the arXiv system, whereas SPIRES has been cataloging pretty much everything in particle physics for a very long time.

 

[marcus]

To get numbers of string-theory related papers as a function of time it would probably be better to use the SPIRES database. The increase in numbers during the 90s is mostly due to the spreading use of the arXiv system, whereas SPIRES has been cataloging pretty much everything in particle physics for a very long time.

Good suggestion! I imagine the effect would be especially important in the
early 90s when people were just getting started using arXiv.

Here goes:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1992&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1993&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1994&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1995&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+and+date+1996&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1992   734
1993   656
1994   771
1995   869
1996   857

this is by putting
fin k string model and date 1992
into spires

 

[marcus]

String, brane, M-theory papers by year of publication
1986    89
1987   136
1988   324
1989   725
1990  1092
1991   936
1992   853
1993   761
1994   864
1995   976
1996  1069
1997  1427
1998  1383
1999  1498
2000  1642
2001  1559
2002  1677
2003   xxx

-----------
I struck the Spires 2003 count from the list because jgraber's
post later in this thread puts it in doubt----they may still be
cataloging papers from last year. follow the link given for 2003
below if you want to get the current Spires count.

The search used terms of the form
fin k string model or matrix model or membrane model and date 1992
in the Spires HEP database

1986:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1986&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1987:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1987&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1988:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1988&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1989:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1989&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1990:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1990&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1991:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1991&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1992:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1992&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1993:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1993&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1994:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1994&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1995:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1995&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1996:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1996&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1997:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1997&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1998:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1998&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

1999:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+1999&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

2000:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+2000&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

2001:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+2001&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

2002:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+2002&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

2003:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+2003&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=



---------------
my first pass was with just the one spires keyword "string model"
to refine this I included other keywords
and went all the way to 2003


in any case at least we have something objective to check ideas against
Looking at the spires (key=string, membrane, matrix) numbers i see a swoop between 1990 and 1996.
Maybe someone who watches string research more attentively would like to explain this: what happened between 1990 and 1996?
or was it just unexplained random fluctuation?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I would suggest you add brane (rather than membrane) and adS/CFT (in just that format).

 

[marcus]

I would suggest you add brane (rather than membrane) ...

Have you looked at the list of permissible Spires keywords?

I tried brane but got no results (zilch!)
then I looked at the list and found that what they wanted was
"membrane model".

With a new search engine it's not always easy to figure out how to
use it. I would be glad if you or some of the others would try.
Maybe you can get it to accept "brane" as a key word.

 

[jeff]

I would suggest you add brane (rather than membrane) and adS/CFT (in just that format).

These are just a few terms under which you'll find stringy papers. I really do think you need to be expert on string theory to properly collect this sort of data and analyze what it actually means.

compactification
bosonization
calabi-yau
chan-paton
conifold
brane
d-brane
p-brane
d-instanton
d-string
del guidice-di vecchia-fubini
ddf
dilaton
dimensional reduction
duality
f-theory
fischler-susskind mechanism
flat direction
fundamental string
gepner model
gso
gliozzi-scherk-olive
green-schwarz mechanism
h-monopole
heterotic
holograph
k3
landscape
m-theory
m2-brane
m5-brane
matrix model
matrix theory
nambu-goto
narain
neveu-schwarz
orbifold
orientifold
ramond
refermionization
s-duality
u-duality
t-duality
twisted
string
superstring
veneziano
virasoro
w string
winding
world sheet
wrapped
inheritance principle
b-field
state-operator
born-infeld
uv/ir
polyakov
superstring
moduli
noncommutative geometry
a-d-e
dirac-born-infeld
ads/cft
ds/cft
g2
extremal
nonextremal
ns5-brane
ale
seiberg-witten
enhancon
type I
type IA
type IB
type II
type IIA
type IIB
fermionization
R
RR
R-R
Ramond-Ramond
NS
NS-NS
repulson
Dn-brane, n=0,1,...,8
blow-up
pp-wave
quiver
supergravity
strong/weak
tachyon condensation
o-plane
vertex operator

 

[marcus]

It looks like no one here can improve on the Spires search I just posted.
I would be delighted if someone could come up with a better keyword formulation that would get Spires to produce more papers. But unfortunately no useful suggestions have been offered so far.

If anyone would like to try improving, see if you can get more than 1677 papers in 2002, which is what I got with
fin k string model or matrix model or membrane model and date 2002

(it's a challenge )

What that means is "find keyword string model or matrix model or membrane model and publication year 2002"

The controlled list of 2000 admissible keywords is maintained by German librarians at DESY and they do not want you to say brane, you are supposed to say "membrane model".

It is a superior kick-ass system, the best in the world for HEP, but you have to be willing to say "matrix model" and NOT to say M-theory.

Anyway, you say that
fin k string model...
thing that I told you and it translates to this:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=fin+k+string+model+or+matrix+model+or+membrane+model+and+date+2002&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

and you get 1677 stringy papers for 2002

i would be real suprised if Spires HEP database had more stringies to give you than those. But please try!


"These are just a few terms under which you'll find stringy papers. I really do think you need to be expert on string theory to properly collect this sort of data and analyze what it actually means."

Not at Spires you wont. I guess we need a tutorial on the Spires HEP database.

In the preceding post's list of over 90 words and phrases all but one of which would be useless as keyword inputs to Spires,
and that one useful term was one I was already including: matrix model.


Spires has a great "Help" section with lots of examples.
Spires is easy to use and I believe all working physicists doing research in HEP must already be familiar with it.

None of this is news to any bona fide research people who might look in at PF.

Spires was obviously designed for the ordinary physicist and physics student to use----it's easier than the catalog at our local public library BY FAR

Spires is a joint project of Stanford/SLAC and Fermilab and DESY (Germany) and some other national HEP centers. Here is the list of some 2000 keywords that is maintained by the DESY librarians.

http://www-library.desy.de/schlagw2.html

note the abbreviation of "schlagwort" for keyword.

If you want to do a Spires keyword search, you choose from that list.

 

[jeff]

It looks like no one here can improve on the Spires search I just posted.

As I said...

These are just a few terms under which you'll find stringy papers. I really do think you need to be expert on string theory to properly collect this sort of data and analyze what it actually means.

compactification
bosonization
calabi-yau
chan-paton
conifold
brane
d-brane
p-brane
d-instanton
d-string
del guidice-di vecchia-fubini
ddf
dilaton
dimensional reduction
duality
f-theory
fischler-susskind mechanism
flat direction
fundamental string
gepner model
gso
gliozzi-scherk-olive
green-schwarz mechanism
h-monopole
heterotic
holograph
k3
landscape
m-theory
m2-brane
m5-brane
matrix model
matrix theory
nambu-goto
narain
neveu-schwarz
orbifold
orientifold
ramond
refermionization
s-duality
u-duality
t-duality
twisted
string
superstring
veneziano
virasoro
w string
winding
world sheet
wrapped
inheritance principle
b-field
state-operator
born-infeld
uv/ir
polyakov
superstring
moduli
noncommutative geometry
a-d-e
dirac-born-infeld
ads/cft
ds/cft
g2
extremal
nonextremal
ns5-brane
ale
seiberg-witten
enhancon
type I
type IA
type IB
type II
type IIA
type IIB
fermionization
R
RR
R-R
Ramond-Ramond
NS
NS-NS
repulson
Dn-brane, n=0,1,...,8
blow-up
pp-wave
quiver
supergravity
strong/weak
tachyon condensation
o-plane
vertex operator

 

[selfAdjoint]

Jeff, did you read Marcus's post beyond the first line? He said that for a Spires search you have to use their llist of keywords. Marcus can you give us a link to the full list?

 

[jeff]

Jeff, did you read Marcus's post beyond the first line? He said that for a Spires search you have to use their llist of keywords. Marcus can you give us a link to the full list?

Unless you can widen the search as I've indicated, then - spires or not - your numbers will be low. Anyway, it's incorrect to say that because we're unsure how to accommodate the observed accelerating cosmological expansion into string theory, that strings have somehow "crashed". If we attribute these observations to a positive cosmological constant, then we simply (and in fact quite probably) require new non-perturbative tools to properly incorporate de sitter into strings, and we know of nothing that would preclude this possbility, if only because we don't really yet understand what M-theory is.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I went to the site and tried to enter queries other than yours but got no results. Why 'string model' ? Why not just 'string'?

 

[marcus]

I went to the site and tried to enter queries other than yours but got no results. Why 'string model' ? Why not just 'string'?

Maybe you have to get inside the head of a DESY librarian

they keep the list:
http://www-library.desy.de/schlagw2.html

when you go to Help it says here are the keywords used to classify the papers and gives this link

inaccuracies happen when you just look for words mentioned in the abstract as they do in arXiv

in arXiv one gets logic papers with "string of ASCII characters" counting as an occurrence of "string"

the arXiv throws in all that and comes up with around 1500 or 1550 papers preprints for 2001

Spires is a bit more reliable and complete and has 1677 publications for 2002. It is roughly consistent because preprints lead publications by about a year. After that both indices crash. (it is like the stock market, it doesn't matter if it is the DowJones or the SP500 that you track you just need some repeatable objective index and they all show roughly similar behavior)

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

Evidently at Spires the librarians inspect every paper and tag it with
their choice of key words

it is a retrieval system

it doesn't matter if the authors of the article say "p-brane" or "D-brane"
the librarian will tag it "membrane model"
and tag it with a few other tabs as well most likely
and then put it on the shelf

to get it to come back you have to say the right word
but if you know to do this it is a great system and works beautifully
a wonderful and long-established asset to the HEP community

 

[marcus]

just to restore focus, here is what we are hopefully going to learn why it happened. and there was a corresponding change in the citations numbers and some other related shifts noted in Michael Peskin's annual review of HEP

Spires HEP database counts:

String, brane, M-theory papers by year of publication
1986   136
1987   194
1988   363
1989   766
1990  1113
1991   953
1992   874
1993   782
1994   880
1995   997
1996  1083
1997  1455
1998  1411
1999  1527
2000  1670
2001  1575
2002  1708
2003   xxx

-----------
I struck the Spires 2003 count from the list because jgrabers post puts it in doubt. he says there has indeed been some decline but not as sharp as
the spires 2003 number indicates.

I think there should be a number of reasons for the decline
and looking at them should bring out things worth knowing about, some of which were mentioned in threads on sci.physics.research, or maybe here at PF.

I'm hoping for some enlightening comment from knowledgeable posters.
-----------

The search used terms of the form:

fin k string model or matrix model or membrane model and date 1992

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



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

 

[marcus]

Here are some Spires links.

the general index:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/

most-cited papers in 2003 for the whole HEP database:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/annual.shtml


the 2003 citations broken down by field:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/eprints/index.shtml

the main index has a link to Michael Peskin's review of the HEP field,
it's instructive to read his reviews from other years like 1999, 2000,
2001, and compare them with the one for 2003:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/review.shtml

 

[ahrkron]

There may be many factors contributing to this decline. Funding, evolving terminology (resulting in a less representative count for the most recent periods considered), and an actual "bump" may do it.

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

 

[marcus]

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

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=233994#post233994

this is about as similar as i can get
LQG and allied approaches are not part of High Enegy Physics so they don't have HEP amenities like Spires, or so many people working in them, or so many papers.

most LQG papers don't have to do with particle physics and are of interest to GR people, not HEP people, so they are not in the Spires database
or in any case they do not come up when I say "quantum gravity" to Spires.

However, using the arXiv search engine hitting on occurrences of words like "loop quantum gravity" in the abstract summary of the preprint, we can find preprints in arXiv for LQG and allied research areas, similar to what we did with string+brane+M-theory group. It aint perfect but it's something.

the link gives numbers of preprints by year from 1992 to present

here's a couple of searches I use to find recent non-string Quantum Gravity preprints in arxiv

Last Twelve Months:
http://lanl.arXiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...m+AND+OR+triply+doubly+special/0/1/0/past/0/1


----
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...am+AND+dynamical+triangulation/0/1/0/past/0/1

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

 

[jgraber]

I just tried a very simple search in NASA ADS. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/physics_service.html
Check only Physics/geophysics
date 01/200x-12/200x
abstract string
Results:
2000 1004 papers
2001 1066 papers
2002 1159 papers
2003 1096 papers
A little drop off, but definitely not a crash.
This crude search searches American Physical Society Journals only.
Anyone is welcome to try more sophisticated searches and see what you come up with.

However, I think the result is roughly correct, there has been a drop off, but not a crash. I would attribute the drop off to the end of the Maldacena bubble.

Just my two cents worth.
Jim Graber

 

[jeff]

...definitely not a crash.

Obviously.

I would attribute the drop off to the end of the Maldacena bubble.

We need new nonperturbative tools since D-branes have on their own pretty much done what they can, at least on their own.

 

[marcus]

I just tried a very simple search in NASA ADS. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/physics_service.html
Check only Physics/geophysics
date 01/200x-12/200x
abstract string
Results:
2000 1004 papers
2001 1066 papers
2002 1159 papers
2003 1096 papers
A little drop off, but definitely not a crash.
This crude search searches American Physical Society Journals only.
Anyone is welcome to try more sophisticated searches and see what you come up with.

However, I think the result is roughly correct, there has been a drop off, but not a crash. I would attribute the drop off to the end of the Maldacena bubble.

Just my two cents worth.
Jim Graber

jgraber, great hearing from you (last time I remember your posting was
around time of APS meeting)
I tend to put a fair amount of weight on your view, so I have
conflicting pictures to reconcile here
the spires picture (with the change in the citation numbers and Michael Peskin's review with its shift of emphasis) on the one hand and what you
point to on the other. contradiction is the spice of life.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Number of papers published has not crashed; that was established before, I think. What has crashed is new heavily cited papers. As I posted before, this doesn't necessarily mean that sst is played out, just that the previous generation raised so many hares that the current generation is still chasing them.

 

[marcus]

... just that the previous generation raised so many hares that the current generation is still chasing them.

bingo, great metaphor!
(I don't necessarily accept the full conclusion, perhaps jury still out, but understand the model for how citations could be dissipated and the arrival of next big mama papers can be delayed)

 

[jeff]

...doesn't necessarily mean that sst is played out...

This is too equivocal: The evidence that strings is the way to go is overwhelming. No other theory has the potential to explain so many - indeed, virtually all known - questions about fundamental physics. This is a result of it's (mostly still undiscovered) richness and depth (duality symmetries, in particular the ones relating spacetime geometry and gauge theory, and, of course, the way it incorporates supersymmetry etc).

 

[selfAdjoint]

I accept your correction. The richness is indeed truly awesome.