the Smolin/string controversy

[Martin]

Lee Smolin's latest book, The Trouble with Physics...and What Comes Next came out a year ago (September 2006) and initiated controversy. Has the controversy been good or bad for the physics profession, in your view? Has anything changed as a result of discussion? Will there be any effects, good or bad, on future directions of research?

 

What's your view on this? Is the controversy over? If not, how is it going?

One way to measure how it's going, on a sheer quantitative level, is to check the Smolin/string salesrank ratio using the physics bestseller list at amazon.com. What do you predict the Smolin/string ratio will be a month from now---say noon Pacific time on 1 October?

 

Today (1 September) when I checked the ratio was a bit over 6. The Smolin book was 4th on the bestseller list with storewide salesrank of 995.

 

Meanwhile the average salesrank of the five most popular string books was 6340.6. So the ratio 6340.6/995 = 6.4.

 

This means that judging by salesranks the Smolin book was selling about 6 times better than the top five stringy books average.

 

To me this seems uncharacteristically high. It could be a temporary spike caused by the fact that a lot of college students are buying their textbooks right now at the beginning of the semester---and while they are spending real money on physics texts perhaps they pick up a copy of "Trouble..." on the side---it costs some 10 bucks which looks like small change compared with textbooks these days.

 

For all we know the Smolin/string ratio could be down to ONE, by 1 October when the Fall textbook buying is over. Instead of selling 6 times better, Smolin's book could then simply be selling ON PAR with the average five most popular string books.

 

What do you think the actual figure will be? Closer to 1, or 2,...., or 6?

To have a definite time, I'll check at noon Pacific time on 1 October.

 

BTW in case anyone is curious about which the five most popular string books were, when I checked just now, here are their standings on the bestseller list and salesranks:

 

Greene fabric 13th 2544

Greene elegant 17th 2925

Randall warped 30th 4845

Steinhardt endless universe 84th 9885

Kaku parallel worlds 99th 11,504

 

Besides the salesrank ratio, would you like to suggest any other number indicators of how things are going, stringwise, that we could look at?

[BenTheMan]

Meanwhile the average salesrank of the five most popular string books was 6340.6. So the ratio 6340.6/995 = 6.4.

 

This means that judging by salesranks the Smolin book was selling about 6 times better than the top five stringy books average.

 

The only thing this means is that Smolin's book is the only anti-string theory book on the shelf. To me it is much more impressive that the Elegant Universe is still selling in the top 20 science books eight years after it was written.

 

Should we really be judging science based on a popularity contest?

[Royston]

One way to measure how it's going, on a sheer quantitative level, is to check the Smolin/string salesrank ratio using the physics bestseller list at amazon.com. What do you predict the Smolin/string ratio will be a month from now---say noon Pacific time on 1 October?

 

I'm not sure the sales of TWP is a true indication of whether there will be a shift in interest of research, quite simply because it's a popularization, I'll use this analogy...TWP is filled with them

 

There were (off the top of my head) 700 people who signed up for the applied maths course I'm currently finishing. Over half dropped out due to different reasons, they weren't interested, it was too hard et.c

 

By making evaluations on who took the course, maths is a popular subject, but by evaluating who dropped out half way through, for a myriad of reasons, maths is by no means a popular subject. I should imagine, with any readership of layman science books, that many get nothing from the book, or simply give up and toss it aside.

 

I would be shocked if funding into certain fields of research was fueled by public demand...I don't think it is. I would say that many of the public, seem to think that the LHC shouldn't be turned on, because they think it will create black holes that will swallow the Earth...which is of course crap, but it certainly hasn't hindered the building of the LHC.

 

So cutting it short, a true indication is studying future funding of research projects, not on book interest, I don't think the sales of books bears any indication of what the next area of research is going to be...which is a good thing.

 

I'm not sure how much influence Lee Smolin has on areas of research, I'm not sure I really care, all I care about is physics coming up with results, and learning as it progresses, which both camps (from my understanding) has come up with. This is just the opinion of a mere under-grad, but I'm one of the people that is truly interested in physics and is influenced by the decisions of the so-called authorities, so I find this issue very important.

[Martin]

... To me it is much more impressive that the Elegant Universe is still selling in the top 20 science books eight years after it was written.

 

Should we really be judging science based on a popularity contest?

 

Hi,

I think it is OK if you, Ben Dundee, want to judge science based on a popularity contest. Personally I don't judge it that way.

 

I have other measures to gauge the interest, quality, historical value of scientific research. Citations by other workers in the field is one objective measure, but there are subjective measures that are maybe more important.

 

The only thing this means is that Smolin's book is the only anti-string theory book on the shelf.

 

Roger Penrose's book The Road to Reality is critical of the string approach.

 

So is Peter Woit's book Not Even Wrong

 

Smolin's book is primarily critical NOT of string research itself but of the academic and government funding POLITICS which (in the US) prevents people from working on alternative approaches. Our postdocs have to go to Canada, UK, Europe. If they choose to work on CDT, Spinfoams, QEG, Causal Sets, Loop Cosmology they basically must give up the thought of making a faculty position in the US. This is IMHO stupid, outrageous, and harmful to the longterm interests of science in the US.

 

Smolin's book is very positive about the string framework of ideas, has a lot of nice things to say about it, what he is critical of is the "only game in town" delusion and the exclusionary pattern in funding and jobs.

 

So what we are trying to gauge here is not the scientific quality of certain research, but the progress of the controversy. Do you have any other objective measures or indicators you want to suggest?

[BenTheMan]

Hi,

I think it is OK if you, Ben Dundee, want to judge science based on a popularity contest. Personally I don't judge it that way.

 

That was the point. What do TWP book sales have to do with anything except book sales?

 

As for the other books, if they're so critical of the string approach, why don't you average them in with the sales of TWP?

 

Not Even Wrong #72,021

Road to Reality #8,025

 

Oh right. Because if you did that then the string books would win:)

 

Smolin's book is primarily critical NOT of string research itself but of the academic and government funding POLITICS which (in the US) prevents people from working on alternative approaches.

 

This discussion has already been had in other places, by others more qualified than myself. This is blatantly not true---just the TITLE of Smolin's book says as much.

 

Our postdocs have to go to Canada, UK, Europe.

 

You say this like it's a bad thing. And, coincidentally, they are not exactly handing out tenure track position to string theory grad students. I have met very few graduate students who wouldn't LOVE to go to Europe to do a post doc.

 

So what we are trying to gauge here is not the scientific quality of certain research, but the progress of the controversy. Do you have any other objective measures or indicators you want to suggest?

 

Progress of the controversy? What does this mean? This isn't the civil rights movement. The only thing this index you've created really determines is how many people are buying Smolin's book, versus Brian Greene's books. This is a result of Smolin's campaigning, poorly written New York Times articles, and NPR interviews.

[Martin]

 

As for the other books, if they're so critical of the string approach, why don't you average them in with the sales of TWP?

 

Not Even Wrong #72,021

Road to Reality #8,025

 

Oh right. Because if you did that then the string books would win:)

 

 

I think your perspective is too self-centered, or rather "string"-centered. The point is not that TWF is critical of string---it is very positive about string but also discusses shortcomings and failures.

 

IT IS ALSO POSITIVE ABOUT NON-STRING APPROACHES and discusses THEIR shortcomings and failures.

 

Smolin does not attack string concepts, he attacks the dog in the manger position of one group in the US, with its "only game in town" delusion. And he simply points out that when no one approach is working out especially well, its a stupid investment strategy to "monocrop".

 

The book is not merely popularization of fashionable speculative ideas (like Greene elegant). Smolin is making arguments about SCIENCE POLICY and explaining the good and bad features of various approaches to support his arguments.

 

What do TWP book sales have to do with anything except book sales?

 

Smolin TWP is unique---not like Greene, not like Penrose R2R (which is a brilliant textbook in disguise, able to sell on mass market by sheer force of talent), certainly not like Woit NEW which is much more a critique of string and does not do justice the going alternatives (CDT, Spinfoams, Causal Sets etc).

 

Smolin TWP makes a case for changing US research and jobs allocation in fundamental theory physics. When you make a case, it matters whether or not that case is heard.

 

that is why TWP sales "have to do" with something

there is IMHO an important controversy going on (which I see reflected in dapartment plans to have 10 percent fewer string theorists by 2012). TWP represents a piece of this controversy.

 

I said

Smolin's book is primarily critical NOT of string research itself but of the academic and government funding POLITICS which (in the US) prevents people from working on alternative approaches.

and an honest page-count would amply bear me out. If you go thru the book chapter by chapter you will see what I say is true. But you say:

This is blatantly not true---just the TITLE of Smolin's book says as much.

 

The publisher wanted the book to sell and knew saying "string theory" in the title would help. The book is NOT about string theory primarily, it uses string as an example of monoculture, clique-dominance whatever. At least Smolin did not let the publisher say something like "the FAILURE of string theory"

 

Woit or his publisher put that phrase in the extended title of NEW and I am sure it sold a lot of books. Please explain why what I say is "blatantly not true" about Smolin's book not being primarily anti-string.

 

He is pro-alternatives and pro-multiapproach-strategy. He discusses goods and bads of several research lines. Does that make the book "anti-string"?

[BenTheMan]

The book is not merely popularization of fashionable speculative ideas (like Greene elegant). Smolin is making arguments about SCIENCE POLICY and explaining the good and bad features of various approaches to support his arguments.

 

If it's a different book, then why are you comparing the two?

 

Smolin TWP makes a case for changing US research and jobs allocation in fundamental theory physics. When you make a case, it matters whether or not that case is heard.

 

Then average in NEW into your index. Doesn't it do the same thing?

 

Please explain why what I say is "blatantly not true" about Smolin's book not being primarily anti-string.

 

Martin---with all due respect, you cannot believe that smolin NEVER intended his book as an anti-string manifesto. Just because he doesn't directly attack string theory in the text doesn't mean that this wasn't his intention.

[Martin]

Ben, with all due respect, have you read the book?

[Royston]

Ben, with all due respect, have you read the book?

 

I've read it a couple of times, and it centers around the politics of the 'US' scientific system...but it does have negative points about string theory. I'd quite happily quote from the book if needed, but cherry picking quotes can be countered by other quotes from the book, and I don't think that will give a rounded view of the book in it's entirety...i.e somebody would need to read it to come to their own conclusions.

 

What I'm very concerned with, is the peer review process, which is tackled near the end of the book...this shouldn't be subject to so called 'politics.' But again, this only appears apparent in the 'US', and I think it maybe inflated, as the US being one of the most scientifically progressive countries.

 

I'm slightly agitated that none of my original points have been considered, such as, why are book sales....and TWP is a popularization whether you like it or not, are a gauge as to a shift in research. I'd rather know, if Smolin's case has shifted interest in research, and book sales is not an indication of this...there was not a marked interest in physics when Hawkings released 'A Brief History of Time', there was a brief interest in the 'book', and nothing more, if this book had any effect, where are all the physicists ?

[Martin]

I'd rather know, if Smolin's case has shifted interest in research

 

Snail, I'd like to know that too! All the booksales tell us is that the ARGUMENT IS GETTING OUT.

 

The next thing to consider is whether there has been a CHANGE IN HIRING PLANS since the book came out. (this would still not prove that there is a connection)

 

The answer to that is YES. There is a semi-official blue ribbon advisory panel called HEPAP set up to advise the DOE and NSF (dept of energy and nat'l science foundation). HEPAP can be regarded as the appointed guardian and advocate of HEP (high energy physics) community.

http://www.science.doe.gov/hep/hepap.shtm

they just did a nationwide survey of university physics departments and it looks like if you put all the different universities together it amounts to a planned 10 percent reduction in string researchers by 2012 (that is, over 5 years).

 

You can't change a string researcher's research interest, all you can change is the allocation of funds and jobs. Some, but not all, may be so specialized that they really can't do anything but string. Other string researchers ABLE to work in different branches of theoretical physics seem to have started leaving String already sometime around 2003, when a major decline in published output began. Either that or they just stopped writing as many papers.

 

If they think the field is running out of steam, then at least the smart ones will hustle over to a related area, like high energy particle ASTROPHYSICS, or cosmology.

 

Smolin's book came in 2006, long after that trend started. Its impact, if it has a significant one, should be on the allocation of funds and jobs.

 

such as, why are book sales....and TWP is a popularization whether you like it or not, are a gauge as to a shift in research.

 

book sales are a gauge of how widely the argument is getting out. The argument is aimed at academic administrators, committees, government research funding oversight, people who make decisions or whose advice and understanding influence decisions. also aimed at MEDIA people who write stuff that deans and department chairmen read and others in the science bureaucracy. George Johnson (NYTimes, LATimes) is a good example. And of course educated public opinion---which in itself also influences the other groups I mentioned.

 

when Hawkings released 'A Brief History of Time', there was a brief interest in the 'book', and nothing more, if this book had any effect, where are all the physicists ?

 

different kind of book obviously, Hawking not making any case for changing science policy. probably most scientists just considered the book pop sci and ignored it.

[BenTheMan]

Ben, with all due respect, have you read the book?

 

If I said yes would it make a difference?

 

book sales are a gauge of how widely the argument is getting out.

 

If this is true, why are you ignoring the sales ranking of NEW?

[bascule]

I really appreciate someone like Smolin who's willing to put work into a theory before realizing it's unteneable

[Reaper]

I never actually read this book, but I saw quite a few favorable reviews for it on Amazon so I'll get it as soon as I gain a few more dollars in my wallet.

 

I would have to agree though that people are so focused into strings that they forget that there are other avenues that can, and should, be pursued.

 

The answer to that is YES. There is a semi-official blue ribbon advisory panel called HEPAP set up to advise the DOE and NSF (dept of energy and nat'l science foundation). HEPAP can be regarded as the appointed guardian and advocate of HEP (high energy physics) community.

http://www.science.doe.gov/hep/hepap.shtm

they just did a nationwide survey of university physics departments and it looks like if you put all the different universities together it amounts to a planned 10 percent reduction in string researchers by 2012 (that is' date=' over 5 years).

[/quote']

 

So does that mean that we should start seeing an increase in research in LQG or related theories? From what I'm reading on this and some related threads on this subject, the string theorists don't seem to be getting anywhere.

 

BTW I think the link is broken, I can't seem to get into the site.

[Martin]

So does that mean that we should start seeing an increase in research in LQG or related theories?

 

that is an important question. there IS a significant increase in non-string QG under way but it is OUTSIDE US. more young researchers getting in, more support for grad students and postdocs

even more faculty jobs! Three people I've exchanged email with have landed faculty positions in the past couple of years. It is a small community so that is significant.

 

this is the kind of thing Smolin's book gives reasons would be good to happen in the US. It is a unique book because the message is POSITIVE. It does not put much effort into critique of String, really only enough to make clear how these newer nonstring approaches are DIFFERENT (Spinfoam, CDT, etc. )

 

It is not clear how much string cutback will translate into gains for the promising new approaches that we see people working on in UK Canada Europe etc..

 

People with a very "string-centered" view often can't tell the difference between Smolin and Woit. All they see is that both books don't adore/adulate string. Woit's book succeeds if string research is merely cut back.

But Smolin's book FAILS if there is simply a string cutback (which does seem to be happening) and there is not a corresponding increase in support for, say, Spinfoam, or Reuter's great new QEG approach. In the US, I mean. Or Bojowalds Quantum Cosmology.

Basically I'm talking about the new research directions predominant at the recent Loops 07 conference.

 

THAT IS A RESEARCH COMMUNITY THAT SMOLIN HAS DONE A LOT TO BUILD and his book has a positive message about those new QG approaches.

His book fails if US science policy is not opened up so young people can do PhD in those fields in US university, and followup postdoc research.

 

AND IT IS STILL EARLY DAYS, WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL TURN OUT!

 

so this is an important indicator to watch---this Smolin/string book index---but it is only one of several things to be concerned with.

 

Why don't you pester your local public library to get the book? Every library should have a copy, and then you wouldnt need to put the dollars down.

 

The link seems to be broken BTW, I can't seem to go to the site.

the link to the HEPAP (high energy physics advisory panel) works fine when I try it.

But this exerpt from Woit's blog gives the gist

=======HEPAP ADVISORY PANEL ON STRING CUTBACKS ETC====

quote from http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=579

The HEPAP University Grants Program Subpanel has just issued a report, concerning the “University Grants Program” in US HEP, that part of the DOE and NSF high energy physics budget which supports research based mainly at universities (as opposed to government laboratories such as Fermilab). Obviously this is the part of the HEP budget that is of most direct concern to university researchers, especially theorists, who receive most of their government funding this way (a small number of theorists are supported by national labs, not universities).

...

...

One of the most interesting things in the report is the set of numbers from survey responses about how many grant-supported theory researcher are working in which areas, and what hiring plans by area are for the next 5 years. Figure 3 on page 43 divides theory researchers into six categories, and gives counts for how many are working in each category now, how many expected in 2012. The number of string theorists is supposed to drop from 103 to 84, “field theorists” from 91 to 77, “model builders” from 88 to 70, and “QCD/Lattice QCD” from 50 to 41. “Particle phenomenologists” are supposed to increase from 188 to 194, and “astrophysicists and cosmologists” from 136 to 176. Obviously boundaries of these fields are unclear, especially since string theory in recent years has to some extent moved away from formal theory, with more people describing themselves as “string cosmologists”, “string phenomenologists”, “string-inspired model-builders”, and much of the attention of the field devoted to trying to do QCD calculations with string theory.

 

If you take these numbers seriously, a grad student would be nuts to work on anything except cosmology or phenomenology, since all other subfields show about as many people leaving them as would be accounted for by retirements, so essentially no new hiring. My suspicion though is that these numbers reflect what departments say they would like to do, not what they will do. Most departments now say they want to hire in the areas of cosmology and phenomenology. But faced with the fact that competition for the best people in those areas is tough, and finding it much easier to get good people in other subfields, I suspect there will continue to be quite a lot of hiring in these other subfields, in string theory especially, which seems to be what looking at the latest data from the Rumor Mill shows.

===endquote===

 

earlier I was saying it was a planned 10 percent cutback, but 103 to 84 looks more like a 20 percent cut.

also unclear how thoroughly the university physics departments will carry out their plans

[BenTheMan]

Martin---

 

Aparently you have stopped responding to my points.

 

I will ask again---why do you NOT include the sales rank of ``Not Even Wrong'' in your averages?

 

To others---

the reason that Martin doesn't include the sales rank of Peter Woit's book is because it completely destroys his point. Peter Woit's book is ranked somewhere around #44000 (just checked today---I'm sure these things fluctuate pretty rapidly) on the amazon.com sales chart currently. This is pretty remarkable, actually, that the top five string books are STILL outselling Woit's book, even though Elegant Universe was written eight years ago.

 

If you include this book in the ratio, it is much closer to 1:1.

 

Martin has arbitrarily chosen to disregard THIS book in his index because it disproves his point. This is a pretty low thing to do, especially since he hasn't given me any specific reasons why one should ignore this book, that came out at more or less the same time as Lee Smolin's book.

 

But, so it goes, I guess.

[Martin]

Ben, with all due respect, have you read the book?

If I said yes would it make a difference?

 

book sales are a gauge of how widely the argument is getting out.

 

If this is true, why are you ignoring the sales ranking of NEW?

 

It is you who seem unresponsive. You have been talking about TWP as if you know what it is about. I asked, have you read the book?

 

Have you?

 

Or have you merely given it a cursory glance without understanding what it's about? Please let us know.

 

I have already explained why Smolin's book is of special interest to me, so much so that Woit's book is irrelevant. If you had read my posts, OR read Smolin's book, you would not be asking your next question. I will try to explain again.

 

Woit's book is primarily a criticism of string. In that sense it is negative. I am not interested in string or in mere criticism of string. At Woit's blog no one discusses the non-string QG alternatives---no positive side in evidence. He is first and foremost a critic. That's not bad, it's just different.

 

Smolin's book is POSITIVE and it gives a hopeful message. He explains the NEW ALTERNATIVES, which are growing, making advances, and attaining prominence outside the US. But they are shut out of US departments by academic and funding agency politics. So Smolin goes into the politics and sociology---he analyzes the "groupthink" that supports and justifies the US string monopoly. The "only game in town" mentality.

 

Smolin doesn't waste much time detailing the failures of string as theory. Indeed much of his account of string thought itself is nice and appreciative. About the only major point he makes AGAINST string---in terms of a fundamental theoretical flaw---is a point that he simply HAS to make in order to explain why the newer non-string QG approaches are DIFFERENT. To make his argument he has to explain why one or more of the alternatives might have a chance to succeed.

 

String has a certain logical handicap, he argues, that these other approaches do not.

 

It's a spread your bets and don't put your eggs type of argument.

 

Woit is in another universe. I'm not interested in how mere criticism of a dwindling research program is selling on the market.

I regularly read Woit's blog because it has a lot of cool information and links, but I have no interest in knowing the extent to which his views are reaching the public. I haven't read Woit's book and have no interest in reading it. I get his viewpoint daily just by checking his blog.

 

By contrast, I think Smolin's message is a very important one. It is of vital concern to me whether and to what extent Smolin's argument about non-string QG research and the need to bring it into US departments is making headway.

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

 

Anyway, I ask you again have you read the book you seem to be talking about? If you have, please get your copy down and have it handy so that we can refer to chapter and verse.

[BenTheMan]

Anyway, I ask you again have you read the book you seem to be talking about?

 

Yes, Martin. I read the book, over the course of many trips to book stores. (I can't actually bring myself to buy the book.) And I find his book written in the same manner as your posts---attacking string theory without actually attacking string theory.

 

And I have kept up with the arguments between people like Smolin and Polchinski, and I have read commentary like this one on amazon.com:

 

String theory—the hot topic in physics for the past 20 years—is a dead-end, says Smolin, one of the founders of Canada's Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and himself a lapsed string theorist. In fact, he (and others) argue convincingly, string theory isn't even a fully formed theory—it's just a "conjecture."

 

Sounds like a criticism to me... And this about NEW:

 

Reading this in conjunction with Smolin's more comprehensive critique of string theory, readers will be able to make up their own minds about whether string theory lives up to the hype. (Sept.)

 

I regularly read Woit's blog because it has a lot of cool information and links, but I have no interest in knowing the extent to which his views are reaching the public.

 

The two books serve the same purpose. I haven't read Woit's book in its entirety---just chapters here and there at Barnes and Noble---but this much is clear from the reviews I have read.

 

There are two books, which advertise themselves as critiques of string theory, which amazon.com packages together for a sale price, which were written by two people who have the same opinions about string theory, and which both reach the same conclusions. So again, it is quite obvious to anyone that your index is biased.

 

So---now what difference does it make? You will still tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, you will continue to make posts trashing string theory, and I will continue to amuse myself bydebunking bad science.

 

So, you let me know when they figure out how to get SO(10) out of quantum gravity, and when they start deriving Yukawa couplings and mass matrices. Untill then, I'll stick with old school heterotic strings (where we can get SO(10), the MSSM, heavy tops, minimal higgses, no chital exotics...) which are quite successful in these respects, and WERE quite successful in these respects since the mid eighties.

[Martin]

The September 2007 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society has a review of The Trouble with Physics

 

http://www.ams.org/notices/200708/tx070800990p.pdf'>http://www.ams.org/notices/200708/tx070800990p.pdf

 

or go to the TOC

http://www.ams.org/notices/200708/

and click on the review, in the Commentary menu on the right hand side.

 

Just about every professional mathematician in the US belongs to the AMS, and members get the Notices hardcopy every month. this is what I mean about percolating into professional societies, academic decisionmaking circles etc.

 

Interesting review, some folks here might like to check it out. The reviewer sees the positive point of the book, what the argument is really about, in a way similar to what I've been saying. I like the way he summarizes it.

He's a mathematician, so he may have one or two non-essential physics errors which you might notice, but nothing to affect the overall conclusions.

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

BTW I was busy and couldnt check at noon but at 1 PM Pacific today 2 September Smolin was 3rd in physics books with rank 775.

for comparison so the numbers mean something the five most popular stringies were

warped 18th 3548

elegant 21st 3654

fabric 26th 4426

endless 32nd 5738

fabric hardbound 54th 8128

so the average was 5098.8 and the Smolin/string ratio was 5098.8/775 = 6.6

the spike still hasn't come down yet.

[BenTheMan]

And in my index, Woit was 18,822 (up 30,000 places since I checked last!) in overall sales, giving an average of 9798.9, then the corrected index is

 

5098.8/90798.9 = 0.4.

[Martin]

So you have your Amazon physics index too

 

Presumably it gives information which is meaningful to you. So go for it! Of course Penrose is another author of a bestselling book (Road to Reality) who is critical of string, so if all you are interested in is whether the author is a string-critic you could include him. But how you do your thing is your business!

 

I would suggest that you keep track of the index for a few days or weeks, it is how an index CHANGES that is important----shows which way the wind is blowing.

[BenTheMan]

Of course Penrose is another author of a bestselling book (Road to Reality) who is critical of string, so if all you are interested in is whether the author is a string-critic you could include him.

 

Ho hum. Penrose's book is more of a general book about math and physics---I actually own this one. He is a critic of string theory, but a critique of string theory isn't the main point of his book, so no, I don't include him in my index.

[Martin]

but a critique of string theory isn't the main point of his book,.

as I said neither is it the main point of Smolin's. You seem to confuse the string community with string theory (proto-theory, theoretical framework what have you---not yet really a theory). Smolin is critical of a situation in US academic funding that I would say is bad for the country---undermines US leadership in basic physics. of the theory ITSELF, well he has written quite a number of string papers---he's appreciative of the fine) points, gives a balance account (as he does with some non-string QG approaches.

 

I think Smolin's critics seriously misrepresent the point of the book. It could be for just the reason I suggested. The book does not oppose the (proto-) THEORY but rather it makes strong arguments against the "all eggs in one basket" US funding policy. Members of the stringy community perceive this as threatening the community welfare. So they codemn the book vociferously and present it as a "critique of string theory".

 

In any case, just to keep an eye on the Smolin/string ratio, as of noon Pacific today (4 september) it was 5.4

Smolin's "trouble" was 3rd with rank 968

the five best selling stringy books had average rank 5255.6

and the ratio was 5255.6/968 = 5.4

 

So "Trouble with Physics" was selling about 5 times better than the top five string books average.

 

I'm surprised still that high because the big rush to buy textbooks is over AFAICS. maybe we are still seeing a "start of semester" spike though. I expect the ratio to go down to around 2 by end of month.

 

Nobody should take this ratio as an indicator of who is RIGHT , that is not how scientific theories are tested and confirmed or falsified, obviously!

I'm interested because it gauges the penetration of this kind of funding policy argument---helps keep track of how the research-diversification controversy is going. (If Smolin book had disappeared soon after it went on sale a year ago in September 2006 then that would have been a bad sign for the policy case for diversifying US fundamental research strategy.

[iNow]

In any case, just to keep an eye on the Smolin/string ratio, as of noon Pacific today (4 september) it was 5.4

Smolin's "trouble" was 3rd with rank 968

the five best selling stringy books had average rank 5255.6

and the ratio was 5255.6/968 = 5.4

 

So "Trouble with Physics" was selling about 5 times better than the top five string books average.

Martin, I must say that your "Amazon indicator" is rather meaningless. If we chose sales to be representative of the accuracy of a written work, then we could throw out all books in favor of the Bible, since it surpasses all others in sales and readership since print. I would hope that you are willing to acknowledge the serious limitations inherent in your chosen method, and move on to other points.

[Martin]

If we chose sales to be representative of the accuracy of a written work,.

 

Nothing said about accuracy. I explained earlier in the thread that I am interested in IMPACT

(Smolin is arguing that physics departments and funding agencies should support several different QG approaches, more as they do in Europe actually. For some reason this spread-your-research-bets strategy is controversial in the US although not in Europe UK Canada India Latin America etc. US is the only exclusionary holdout I know)

 

In a certain way your example of the Bible is a good one iNow. The large sales of the Bible correspond to the fact that it has had over the centuries an enormous IMPACT on our civilization and society.

 

When we look at the Physics Bestseller list we are only gauging a little tiny impact in a very limited area. So no comparisons with the Bible please!

 

If you still have trouble understanding, iNow, please read my preceding post #22 where it says

Nobody should take this ratio as an indicator of who is RIGHT , that is not how scientific theories are tested and confirmed or falsified, obviously!

I'm interested because it gauges the penetration of this kind of funding policy argument---helps keep track of how the research-diversification controversy is going. (If Smolin book had disappeared soon after it went on sale a year ago in September 2006 then that would have been a bad sign for the policy case for diversifying US fundamental research strategy.

 

I'm happy that the Smolin book is still selling well after a year (it is not the usual mass-market item---it needs an intelligent reader) because that is one more sign that we may eventually get physics departments in the US where a grad student can study non-string QG and a postdoc can do non-string QG research. Europeans way ahead at the moment in this regard.

 

BTW you could ask "why involve string sales in this at all?" The reason is that if I say Smolin salesrank was 968 today it doesnt mean anything unless you can COMPARE it with some other recognizable benchmark. Well today Smolin was 968 and the String average was 5255.6. Neither number would mean anything to most people, but if you take the RATIO it gives a scale that you can appreciate. E.g. the Smolin book is probably having an impact on how we think about research in our society because *it is selling around 6 times better than the benchmark.*

Not only that but it has a double significance because if the impact is really strong then probably people will be less interested in stringy books and not so many will make it up the bestsell list. so the ratio is pretty good for gauging impact of that one book.

[iNow]

If I have "trouble understanding?" Teehehe.

 

Well, in sum, the sales of a book are more indicative of the claritiy and approachability provided by it's author, and the marketing capicity of their publishing representative, but you'll get no disagreement from me (and I'd presume most who devote time and effort to the study of string theory) that the lack of falsifiable predictions is an issue worthy of further discussion.

 

 

I guess it’s too bad that sales of Harry Potter has no impact on my ability to ride around on a broom stick whilst playing quidditch.