Not Even Wrong

[Martin]

Peter Woit's blog

http://math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

reinforces the point that string research should be curtailed because it doesn't qualify as empirical science. The case for cutting funds for string research (until some definite testable predictions can be derived from the theory) was made in Woit's article in the journal "American Scientist", available online, and the earlier article "String Theory: an Evaluation".

http://arxiv.org/physics/0102051

 

 

It is argued that after a considerable period of waiting (it's been 40 years since the original papers) the theory's many variants still make no definite testable predictions, and therefore one may conclude that no experiment could, by contradicting it, cause the theory to be rejected, in which case such theorizing is logically vacuous. To borrow Pauli's phrase, string theory is "not even wrong."

[Martin]

there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of a string theory decline

statements from a leading figure such as Leonard Susskind, worrisome reports from Michael Douglas, objections raised by Tom Banks---(all three of them eminent string gurus)---but also

there is a simple bit of numerical evidence as well which I recently came across at the Stanford/SLAC Spires database.

 

there has been a recent 6-fold decline in highly cited string papers, in the following sense:

 

suppose one takes as "recent" the papers in a 4-year window and one looks at the year 1999

In that year there were 18 recent string papers which, in 1999, were each cited by 125+ other papers.

 

these are the blockbuster or highly influential papers which initiate lines of investigation with landmark results and potentially valuable new ideas. In 1999 many of the highly cited papers were by Witten, Maldacena, Vafa, etc. etc. big names.

 

but if one looks at the year 2003

the Spires citebase shows that only 3 recent string papers

were, in 2003, cited by 125+ other papers

 

the big names were more quiet. the blockbuster papers were fewer. the heavily cited recent papers in the Spires HEP database tended to be in other fields: neutrinos, astroparticle theory, whatever.

 

by recent in 2003 I mean the paper appeared in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003

by recent in 1999 I mean the paper appeared in 1996,1997, 1998, 1999

 

a decline in high-quality papers from 18 to 3 is a pretty sharp decline

 

it corresponds to the subjective impression of collapse in the string research enterprise that one gets from anecdotal evidence

maybe even not too interesting because the dwindling of string is already old news---still, it is a numerical result which may count for something

[Phi for All]

What has Witten been up to? Was there any further research into whether or not gravitons pass across multiple universes?

[Martin]

What has Witten been up to? ...

 

several ways you can find out

(besides someone here at SFN who follows his work telling you)

go to

http://arxiv.org/

press search and get

http://arxiv.org/multi?group=physics&%2Ffind=Search

type "Witten" in for the author

that will find you his recent papers

I see 11 papers that appeared in 2003 or 2004.

"string theory in twistor space is a recent theme"

 

for more recent news: he gave a talk just two weeks ago at UC Davis

at a conference of other HEP theorists including Leonard Susskind

and other famous string folk

 

and Witten's slides are available online along with the other

speakers at the conference

 

there is a link to the UC Davis conf lecture slides at Peter Woit's blog

called "Not Even Wrong"---Woit is a close watcher of the string scene,

and an alert critic as well

 

so go to Woit's blog and check out what Witten said to his theorist colleagues on 15 May just two weeks ago, no substitute for firsthand info.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

 

link to slides is in the 29 May blog "Slides from the Davis Conference"

summary of Witten's talk is in 15 May blog "The Landscape at Davis"

 

if you have any trouble getting to the slides, please ask again and i will

get the precise link

[Martin]

What has Witten been up to?

 

You are in luck! Today's N.E.W. blog comments on Witten's latest paper

and gives a link to it.

Check out

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/

the 3 June post has a link to an article by Witten on

electroweak symmetry breaking ( and dark energy and the Higgs mass)

that is in the latest issue of the journal Nature.

[Phi for All]

Many thanks, Martin! Witten is amazing. I'll crack loose some time later today to check out the links.

[Martin]

Many thanks, Martin! Witten is amazing. I'll crack loose some time later today to check out the links.

 

Bad news! The actual witten article in Nature is only available for

subscribers

but Woit's blog is of course free

and the latest issue of Nature is at the nearest public library