Martin Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 "depression and desperation" are Leonard Susskind's terms for what some fellow string theorists are now experiencing. The field is ailing and Susskind was one of the earliest people to work in it---one of the initiators of string over 30 years ago. It is very interesting to watch the decline of stringy research, which has been underway since beginning of 2003 (with publication of the KKLT paper) I thought this series of comments was sort of eloquent so I will post it. It shows the decline in morale and shift in attitudes. After a 18 February 2005 (quite recent) informational post by Peter Woit there is some feeling commentary by others. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000156.html ------- Well if I were still a string theorist, Susskind's antics would certainly have driven me to depression and despair by now. Posted by: at February 18, 2005 01:25 PM ------- Perhaps in time physicists will look back and remember "the Landscape" as being but a pathological feature of string theory that eventually got sorted out, just like the infinities of quantum field theory were. But Susskind does remark:"Ed Witten worked very hard to show that there was only one or a small number of legitimate solutions to the theory and he failed--failed totally". However, that does raise the obvious question: what chance does anyone else have of success then? It is noticable too that terms like "string", "brane", "M-theory" are not turning up in Witten's preprints as of late. Posted by: at February 18, 2005 02:14 PM ------------ It is really puzzling how any serious physicist can listen to this nonsense. I think that the field was unintentionally brought down by "outsiders" who started proposing "n'importe-quoi", as we say, ideas based on "everything goes": large extra dimensions, brane-worlds, which have nothing to do with strings but for general public appear far more comprehensible and sexy than superstring dualities etc. Split supersymmetry is another example of pure nonsense. Even if it takes more than 20 years to figure out what (if any) is the physical content of superstring theory, serious scholars will keep working... while clowns will keep entertaining the public. Jean-Paul Posted by: Jean-Paul at February 18, 2005 05:32 PM ----------- Jean-Paul said: Even if it takes more than 20 years to figure out what (if any) is the physical content of superstring theory, serious scholars will keep working... while clowns will keep entertaining the public. Hmmm, that's easy to say for a physics purist who lives stricly in the physics world. It's much harder to say for those of us living in the real world, where congressional budgets, public opinion, and academic politics reign supreme. Personally, I haven't a dog in the quantum gravity race, but I understand the value inherent in wowing the publics imagination, and framing research in terms of societal benefits. It could be reasonable to question a clown's contribution to pure research, but to question their global value...??? Posted by: ksh95 at February 19, 2005 11:40 AM ------------- ksh95 -- you are making a good point. But one of the main reasons why too many young people went into this type of pure research was hype and "false advertising" made under the pressure of your "public opinion". The rise and fall of superstring theory is a fascinating social phenomenon that's certainly worth a book or two -- I assure that they would sell much better than "The Cosmic Landscape". Jean-Paul Posted by: Jean-Paul at February 19, 2005 03:19 PM ------------ Jean-Paul said: "...The rise and fall of superstring theory is a fascinating social phenomenon that's certainly worth a book or two..." Definitely fascinating, but in my opinion, not that surprising. An aptitude for complex mathematics is not an exemption from the hard wired instincts governing the rest of society. What's the difference between Britney Spears wears blue shoes so we all wear blue shoes, and Ed Witten works on twistors so we all work on twistors. This is absolutely no differnent that pet rocks, or the communist scare, or the Micheal Jackson moonwalk. More on topic, It's also not surprising that Susskind would rather tear down the few hundred year old edifice of predictable testable science, than admit to himself that his lifes work and deepest beliefs are misguided. We should just hope Susskind doesn't succeed. History is rife with examples of highly intelligent people who, based soley on ego, pissed away a lot more. Posted by: ksh95 at February 20, 2005 12:50 PM ------end quotes from the commentary---- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 These comments were to a 18 February post by the Columbia mathematician Peter Woit http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000156.html I will include his original post for completeness: ----quote from Woit's blog--- Depression and Desperation In a Stanford University press release today, Susskind promotes the "Landscape", calling each different vacuum state a "pocket universe". Referring to people like David Gross who oppose the idea, Susskind says: "More and more as time goes on, the opponents of the idea admit that they are simply in a state of depression and desperation". I'm wondering exactly which string theorists have admitted to him their depression and desperation. It seems that Susskind's new book coming out in a couple months isn't about the Landscape, but rather black holes and holography. He's writing another one now, to be called "The Cosmic Landscape". In other news, Witten will be giving a Distinguished Lecture Series in April at the Fields Institute in Toronto as part of their year-long program on the geometry of string theory. Witten seems to have decided that there's not much to say about string theory these days, since the topics of his talks are listed as "Relativistic Scattering Theory", "Gauge Symmetry Breaking", and "The Quantum Hall Effect". Posted by woit at February 18, 2005 12:53 PM ---end quote--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 The last group that I can recall doing this type of "physics by press release" was Pons and Fleischmann announcing their discovery of "cold fusion". But I'm being rather unfair to Pons and Fleischmann grouping them with Susskind. Unlike Susskind's meta-physics, their result was testable. Nor was the purpose of their press release to engage in emotional diatribes or ad hominem attacks. It was to announce what they, mistakenly, believed to be a new physical phenomena. As a physicist, I may not be driven to depression an despair by Susskind's sillines, but I certainly am embarrassed. Posted by: Not a Nobel Laureate at February 21, 2005 12:52 AM --------------- http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-2/ gives a fascinating account of a previous dead end in field theory. Mind you he's writing about events 80 years ago so it's fairly easy to get a sense of perspective. Who knows how long it will take before a similar account can be written of the current era? Posted by: John Rennie at February 21, 2005 08:08 AM ---------------- Umm, ST is based on one such dead end, KK theory. It was "dead before arrival". -drl Posted by: D R Lunsford at February 21, 2005 08:59 AM ------------------- What's the difference between Britney Spears wears blue shoes so we all wear blue shoes, and Ed Witten works on twistors so we all work on twistors. The difference is that Witten's work on twistors has lead to concrete expressions for Yang-Mills amplitudes, many of which could not be computed before. There is a reasonable hope that this line of attack could lead to *closed*form* expressions for all one loop Yang-Mills amplitudes. That would be very useful, particularly in the LHC era, where huge QCD backgrounds will be the norm. Posted by: Matthew at February 21, 2005 09:44 AM ------------------------------ The expressions may be concrete, but they are probably physically irrelevant (i.e. SUSic), and probably wrong on the loop level, no? Posted by: Thomas Larsson at February 21, 2005 10:14 AM ------------------------------- Matthew said "...The difference is that Witten's work on twistors has lead to concrete expressions for Yang-Mills amplitudes, many of which could not be computed before..." I'm not talking about YM amplitudes or the scientific usefulness of twistors. I'm talking about a herd mentality. You say: Everyone follows Witten because his utilization of twistors has guided us towards deeper understanding in the very important field of physics. My wife says: Everyone follows Brittney because her utilization of blue shoes has guided us towards deeper understanding in the very important field of accesorizing. ...I'm still not sure I see a difference in mentality. Posted by: ksh95 at February 21, 2005 10:14 AM ------------------------- SSC was the last challenge for perturbative QCD -- by early 1990's all QCD amplituted needed for the next 100 years of collider physics were known. The twistor business may be interesting in itself, but if you ask a honest QCD professional, he/she would tell you that it is completely useless for LHC jet simulations etc. The real challenge is to understand the fragmentation processes, i.e. soft physics related to quark confinement. Now coming back to the interesting difference between blue shoes and twistors. By working on twistors, or in general, on the "hottest" (but in long-term completely irrelevant) topics a whole generation of high energy physicists were able to secure jobs at top ivy league institutions. To conclude -- you don't get rich or famous by wearing Britney's shoes but you do if you follow Ed the Piper. Jean-Paul Posted by: Jean-Paul at February 21, 2005 11:14 AM -------------------------- I forgot the reference: http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~jonas/piedpiper.html Posted by: Jean Paul at February 21, 2005 11:37 AM -------------------------- Dear Jean-Paul, I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that all relevant QCD amplitudes were known in the early 1990s. There is a nice talk online which compares the (poor) theoretical status http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/collider_c04/campbell/oh/13.html to "An Experimenter's Wishlist" http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/collider_c04/campbell/oh/05.html Posted by: anonymous at February 21, 2005 12:46 PM ------------------------------ Hi, I am completely sure that current string-M theory is wrong. My doubt is when this will be admited by string-M theorists themselves. What will happen then? A revolution in public perception of science? A new regime of ultraconservative funding of new ideas? Posted by: Juan R. at February 21, 2005 12:52 PM --------------------------- I don't know the person who gave a talk at KITP listing what experimenters want to know about QCD etc. If you need a solid assertion, you should ask people like Kunszt, Keith Ellis, Mangano, Al Muller... who have no stakes in twistors. We won't miss Higgs because of a miscalculated QCD background! More precision in hard scattering is completely washed out by our ignorance in soft fragmentation. To the anonymous QCD practitioner -- stop wasting your time and move to non-perturbative QCD... unless you need a faculty position this Fall. Jean-Paul Posted by: Jean-Paul at February 21, 2005 01:15 PM --------------------------------- Good question, what will come next? One thing that won't happen - those who attacked string theory from the outset, and who have been proven abundantly correct, will get no credit. This has really been an interesting episode in the history of science. We who were young in the 80s were in some sense not allowed a "championship season", or even a career, but we got to see a timeless result proven with great force and clarity - you can be absolutely brilliant and have no Earthly f*cking idea what is really going on Whatever physics is, mental horsepower is only one part of it. That in itself made it worth the ride. Good judgment still counts. -drl Posted by: D R Lunsford at February 21, 2005 01:21 PM ----------------------- http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000156.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Witten's latest work on twistors is really quite exciting I think. Some comments: "...The difference is that Witten's work on twistors has lead to concrete expressions for Yang-Mills amplitudes, many of which could not be computed before..." This is just a wrong statement. They have not been used to calculate things that we couldn't calculate before (yet). They give much neater derivations though. I don't know the person who gave a talk at KITP listing what experimenters want to know about QCD etc. If you need a solid assertion, you should ask people like Kunszt, Keith Ellis, Mangano, Al Muller... who have no stakes in twistors. We won't miss Higgs because of a miscalculated QCD background! More precision in hard scattering is completely washed out by our ignorance in soft fragmentation. To the anonymous QCD practitioner -- stop wasting your time and move to non-perturbative QCD... unless you need a faculty position this Fall. This guy is just an idiot. First of all, twistors could potentially give us really amazing insights into the structure of the theory itself. Secondly, things like W+2 jets at the LHC really need to be calculated at NNLO if we was to do anything beyond simple discovery. Go ask Mangano - I know he will agree with me. (In fact, I am faily sure they all would, even Kunszt.) PS: The author of "The experimenter's wishlist" was an usher at my wedding.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 PS: The author of "The experimenter's wishlist" was an usher at my wedding.... John Campbell I take it. BTW congratulations to you and your wife. I was already impressed that you know Michael Peskin who does the annual Spires "What's hot in high energy physics" review. I dont have personal firsthand of these HEP people but respect Peskin as having solid judgment as well as mucho smarts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 John Campbell I take it. BTW congratulations to you and your wife.I was already impressed that you know Michael Peskin who does the annual Spires "What's hot in high energy physics" review. I dont have personal firsthand of these HEP people but respect Peskin as having solid judgment as well as mucho smarts. Well, it was 8 years ago! I actually personally know most of the names mentioned in this post. John's first ever paper was written with me in fact. Peskin is very impressive - I have a lot of respect for his physics. I have met him at a few conferences (and at CERN) and had dinner with him a few times, and he is a nice guy. Never met Susskind though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 ... Never met Susskind though. makes sense since (my impression is) you and your friends do real physics that is either experiment or closely connected to experiment in real time-----there is a whole other bunch that call themselves theoretical physicists that are more into things you cant check and arent guided by experiment I really liked Peskin's general talk for nonspecialists at the KITP 25 birthday conference. it was very "grounded"---foreward-looking but not speculous. Severian this thread at Woit's blog goes on, raising some issues that you know about (though I not) and may wish to comment. I am putting the posts in chron. order: ----------quote------- Matthew, I didn't realize that SYM facilitates physical YM calculations. One is never too old to learn, and now the interest in super-twistors makes a lot more sense. However, when I said that the twistor amplitudes are "wrong at the loop level", I didn't meant that they disagree with YM, but that they disagree with SYM, due to various anomalies and connection to nonunitary conformal supergravity. At least, this is the impression I get from Witten and Berkovits, and especially from Motl. If Motl says that something is a problem in string theory, one can be sure that this problem is HUGE. Posted by: Thomas Larsson at February 22, 2005 04:40 AM -------------------- I think it is important to point out- that with all the Britney bashing many have forgotton that her work in blue shoes has led to important understanding concerning the uses of octonions in fashion Posted by: /:set\AI at February 22, 2005 06:42 PM --------------------- /:set\AI, I absolutely agree. Five years ago non-commuting catwalks would have been unthinkable. Now they are commonplace. Who do we thank for that? Britney Spears, of course! Posted by: Chris Oakley at February 23, 2005 05:21 AM ---------------------- D R Lunsford said, "Good question, what will come next? One thing that won't happen - those who attacked string theory from the outset, and who have been proven abundantly correct, will get no credit." Sincerely, I hope that you are "wrong" in this aspect (I suspect that your comment was ironic here). String theorists are "heroes" for people. I believe that is the direct result of string community propaganda. I predict a new era of further restrictions on funding of basci science on favor of enginnering and "applied" research (medicine, electronic, etc.). I also believe that people will look science carefully saying "perhaps this new book about the theory X is a fiasco as string theory was". Will be the era for autolitarism, fanatic religion, and anti-thecnologists? How can we recover the image of science, so bothered by the string propaganda? Posted by: Juan R. at February 23, 2005 05:58 AM --------end quote-------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 It is not even controversial that there is no compelling experimental demonstration of superstring theory. Superstring theory has many beautiful mathematical implications that make it a very interesting candidate for a better theory of Nature. For example, superstring theory unifies quantum theory and gravity in what seems to be a completely consistent way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now