What does the 70 percent drop in string research mean?

[Martin]

According to the Spires HEP database there has been a drop-off

in string-related research publication.

 

edit: they havent finished cataloging the 2003 papers so it is not

as big a drop-off as it looked like at first

 

In 2002 it was 1677 papers

and in 2003 it was down [edit: not clear how much the drop will be]

 

 

from 1986 to 2002 there was a fairly steady rise in string research output

(in the peer-reviewed publications that Spires tracks)

and this sudden drop is without precedent.

 

 

Something like this must have an explanation.

 

What do you suppose the decline in string research could mean?

What basic physics issues could it be related to?

 

If you want to check the numbers yourself look down a couple of

posts, where there are links connecting you to the Spires HEP database

and using keywords to find

string

brane

M-theory

papers----the Spires keywords are "string model"

"membrane model" and "matrix model".

 

Spires is based at Stanford SLAC and Fermilab and several

other national research institutions. It is an excellent database

and worth knowing how to use---for following other research

as well as string.

[Sayonara]

Isn't this pretty much the same as your other thread?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4345

[Martin]

Isn't this pretty much the same as your other thread?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4345

 

research quantity is different from quality

I would like this thread to focus solely on the

number of papers published each year

 

I want to highlight the 70 percent drop, from 2002 to 2003, which

I think is amazing----I just learned about it today----and I would like

to get other people's ideas as to why this may have happened

 

 

There is also the issue of citations. A kind of measure of quality.

The decline in quality is a different issue and could have

different explanations.

 

I will go to the Citations thread and edit it to remove discussions of

quantity.

[Martin]

Here's the Spires data on that sharp drop-off in

numbers of string papers

Listing is by hardcopy publication year, not arXiv pre-print year, so the crest comes a year or so later than it does with preprints.

Here are the results of a search for string, brane, and M-theory papers

which means using the Spires keywords

string model

membrane model

matrix model

(spires librarians use a definite set of keywords and tag

articles in the database)

 

[edit: they are still cataloging 2003 papers, so the total number is changing---substantial drop-off but not clear what it will be]

 

I have put the links afterwards so you can check for yourself

directly with the spires search engine

 

 

String, brane, M-theory related papers by publication year
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   [edit: unclear what its going to be]

--------

this is by putting

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

into spires

 

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=

 

[edit: the 2003 number has been changing, try it for yourself]

[Skye]

So what does it mean to you Martin?

[Martin]

So what does[/i'] it mean to you Martin?

 

Skye I only found out the drop-off was that big today, or yesterday, cant remember.

It took me by surprise.

 

Last year Lubos Motl, a fervent string believer, was moaning about the decline in string research on SPR (sci.physics.research) but I didnt know how big a decline he was talking about.

there was a long thread on SPR about "the break-up of string theory"

 

But those were insiders talking. Today it was like the other shoe falling from that "the string theory crack-up" thread on SPR.

 

What I want is a fresh perspective. I would like to know what other people think about it.

 

If you really want I can hunt up some danger-signal quotes from string leaders.

I am reluctant to because it would be an unknown amount of work to find the quotes.

There is a recognized crisis in the field

having to do with lots of technical things:

the 10¹⁰⁰ vacuum states

the lack of real predictions to test the theory with

the anthropic principle

the unrealized goal (declared in 1992 by Witten) of background independence which Tom Banks has now said is a chimera.

Lubos Motl has made a serious statement about the urgency of background independence----but it has proven very difficult to get anything like the real thing in a string context.

David Gross has scoffed at braneworld cosmology. Lubos Motl warns that string cosmology is "premature". there seems to be a small number

of serious people who reject the anthropic principle and want solutions to core problems----but are making little or no progress----and a larger number who have run off in speculative and self-indulgent directions.

 

Oh, and there are the critics like Peter Woit, with his website "Not Even Wrong". To paraphrase his essay, since Stringy theories make no predictions by which they could be either verified or nullified, they dont mean anything. String is not even wrong. Instead it's just some elaborate mathematical fairyland. He says cut the funding till they get a version that is able to make some hard numerical predictions. Something that has, in the past, been expected of physical theories.

 

(I should say Witten, TomBanks, David Gross, Lubos Motl are the stalwarts.

Their misgivings expressed indoors to colleagues are most the worrisome symptoms. The outside critics like Woit are another business.)

 

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

this is just off the top of my head.

basically, i know there is an intellectual crisis in string

a crisis of really major proportions.

 

But i knew that already last year.

 

What I did not know or expect was such a big drop in papers.

70 percent is huge.

I am still wondering if there is some problem with the numbers.

something about the spires database that I'm not taking into account.

[Martin]

So what does[/i'] it mean to you Martin?

 

I asked first. I would like to know some other takes on it.

 

but since you turned the question around I will try to get my thoughts in order about this.

 

it's a really big development involving not just string but the whole

of HEP

 

a huge move seems to be under way of people out of HEP (particularly string) and into astrophysics

 

the spires database has had to expand its definition of what is HEP to include more astrophysics

simply to keep its numbers up

or as they say "since so many of us have switched over, we will change the definition"

 

so the map of research areas is changing and people are changing their career lines.

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

 

another thing is history----up to mid 80s HEP was on a roll

theorists would predict something and a few weeks or months later experimentalists would find it

 

since mid 80s that hasnt been happening---the difference is like day and night

 

people like Witten talk about HEP getting "off track"

he gave a talk at Fermilab in 2003 which is not available at the usual arXiv site where he said such and such result would maybe put HEP "back on track". It was a hopeful vision for the future. IIRC he said little or nothing about string. I found the talk in the Fermilab library and will get you the link if you want.

 

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

or if anyone shows up at SFN who IS interested in current developments in HEP and reasons for the sharp decline of string research

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

 

basically I dont see any obvious answers, but a lot of interconnected things

one problem is the field is overhyped and experienced a sort of stock market bubble---tulip mania among the theorists

 

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

this quote from Brian Greene seems relevant

(although certain of his statements may be misleading or "premature")

 

 

The Elegant Universe, pg 231 and Pg 232

 

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Riemannian geometry is the mathetical core of general relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Riemannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

 

I will let you know if more thoughts occur to me.

[[Tycho?]]

Wow, that is an incredible drop. Did someone just sit down and say "this sting stuff is bull shit"? If the theories were encountering problems, it would seem that it would drop off slightly at first, and then get more severe as more people abandoned/rethought it. But for such an incredible drop to occur after a period of sustained growth is bizzare. I would guess a very profound problem was found, one big enough to either confuse people enough to get them to stop writing papers, or just cause them to stop writing papers period.

 

Most strange.

[Martin]

']Wow' date=' that is an incredible drop. Did someone just sit down and say "this sting stuff is bull shit"? If the theories were encountering problems, it would seem that it would drop off slightly at first, and then get more severe as more people abandoned/rethought it. But for such an incredible drop to occur after a period of sustained growth is bizzare. I would guess a very profound problem was found, one big enough to either confuse people enough to get them to stop writing papers, or just cause them to stop writing papers period.

 

Most strange.[/quote']

 

Tycho it is strange. But there are several possibilities to keep in mind.

It could bounce back next year.

Maybe for some reason a lot of people just postponed the papers they would have written.

 

Also there may be some problem at the spires database that they arent telling us about.

 

when I first saw it I thought it might be one of their computers not working right.

 

So let's keep watching.

 

But whatever is with Spires we know things arent normal in string research because there are other signs like the arxiv database at Cornell (with several mirrors at places like Los Alamos etc) also shows a decline---arxiv is for preprints, not published papers so it is a different but related dataset

 

you can tell I'm pretty confused by it, your guesses are certainly as good as mine right now

[Martin]

it's too much bother to have two threads about the recent decline in string-type research, so I'm going to let this one drift off and concentrate on the one where the citations are the primary focus----unless someone decides to continue this one

 

edit: it now looks like the decline might be as little as 13 percent from 2002 to 2003

and (looking at the 2003 preprints as a leading indicator) only about 13 percent from 2003 to 2004

 

so it could only amount to about 25 percent drop spread over two years

still significant but much less than it looked at first