Background Concerning the Weblog "Not Even Wrong" and Trackbacks to the ArXiv

Academic Background:

Since the legitimacy of my scientific opinions, are at issue,  I should first outline my academic background:

1979  B.A. and M.A. in Physics, Harvard University

1985  Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics, Princeton University
Advisor was Curtis Callan, thesis topic "Topological Charge in Lattice Gauge Theory"
My initial results on this were published in Physical Review Letters 51 (1983) 638.
Further results, in collaboration with N. Seiberg and others were published in Nuclear Physics B230 (1984) 291.

1984-87  Postdoctoral Research Associate, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Stony Brook

1987-88 Visitor, Harvard Physics Department, Adjunct Instructor, Tufts Math Department

1988-89 Postdoctoral Research Associate, MSRI, Berkeley.

1989-93 Assistant Professor, Mathematics Department, Columbia University

1993-2005 Director of Instruction and Computer Manager, Mathematics Department, Columbia University

Currently I have the title of "Lecturer in Discipline" at the Columbia Math department, this is a permanent off-ladder faculty position, with responsibilities involving management of the department computer system, teaching one course a semester, and conducting research in mathematical physics. In recent years I have taught graduate courses in Differential Geometry, Groups and Representations, and Quantum Field Theory.  Some lecture notes and syllabi from these courses are available on my web page.

My current research concerns the relation between quantum field theory and geometric methods of constructing representations. It is outlined in hep-th/0206135, and my web-page contains links to some talks on this work.  While I have not written research papers in string theory, I have spent more than twenty years attending talks and learning about the subject.

"String Theory: An Evaluation"

Over the years from the late 80s on I became more and more concerned about the dominance of string theory in particle theory, a dominance achieved despite increasingly clear evidence that it was a failed idea.  In late 2000 I wrote up a short article, intended for publication in Physics Today.  It was circulated to various physicists, including Philip Anderson who put me in touch with someone at Physics Today, where it was submitted in Feb. 2001.  Around the same time it was posted on the arXiv as physics/0102051.  Initial response from the editors at Physics Today was encouraging, but finally they decided not to publish the article, without giving any scientific reason for this decision.  An editor at American Scientist noticed the article on-line and contacted me about publishing it there.  It appeared in the March-April 2002 issue.

Immediately after the submission of the article to the arXiv I got a huge amount of e-mail about it.  Besides the usual crackpots, this e-mail was overwhelmingly positive, with many professional theorists writing to tell me that they were glad someone was finally publicly criticizing what was going on.  Many of these writers congratulated me on my courage,  saying they were afraid I would suffer professional retaliation.  This seemed surprising to me, since I felt I was making a straight-forward scientific argument, and doing this shouldn't require any "courage".

There were about 40-50 positive e-mails, and exactly two very negative ones.  Both of the negative ones were personally abusive, one was from a graduate student at Berkeley, the second from Lubos Motl, who at the time was a graduate student at Rutgers.  The usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research also contained some reaction to my arXiv posting.  One of the first comments was from Jacques Distler, who wrote in:

I found Woit's paper hilariously funny.  But, as any joke is diminished an attempt at explication, I will refrain from trying to explain *why* it was so funny. Paul Shockley makes some relevant comments elsewhere in this thread. You can probably figure it out from there.

The reference to "Paul Shockley" was to a previous commenter, a graduate student named Paul Shocklee who soon left particle theory, who wrote:

The Woit paper seems more than a bit naive.  He waxes eloquent about gauge theory, the Dirac operator, the Atiyah-Singer index theorem, and K-theory, but he doesn't seem to know that supersymmetry and string theory have given unique insights into and applications of all of these topics.

Being informed by graduate students that I didn't know much about a field I'd been studying since they were in diapers was kind of surreal, but could be chalked up to the enthusiasm of the young. Distler's behavior on the other hand I found exceedingly unprofessional.  He chose to deal with my quite legitimate criticisms of the field he was working in not by addressing them seriously, but by launching a personal attack on my competence.  I had never met him that I can recall before this (although I later found out he was a couple years behind me at Dunster House, where I lived while an undergraduate at Harvard).  His decision to engage in this sort of ad hominem attack was based purely on the fact that I was criticizing string theory.  This was five years ago, and he has certainly been consistent, engaging in the same sort of behavior repeatedly in different internet forums.

At the time I wrote a short response to these criticisms from Distler and the students.  The experience left me convinced that string theory was even more intellectually bankrupt than I had imagined.

Not Even Wrong: the Book

During 2002 I started working on a book length manuscript about the recent history and current situation of particle theory and its relation to mathematics.  For more about this I'll refer to a web-log entry from last summer.  The book is slated to be published by Jonathan Cape in England on June 1, here in the US by Basic Books early in the fall.

Not Even Wrong: the Weblog

Nearly two years ago, in March 2004, I started up a weblog, called Not Even Wrong.   There were two other earlier weblogs related to particle physics that I was aware of: Jacques Distler's Musings (which had been around since late 2002), and Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe (which he started in February 2004).  There also was mathematical physicist John Baez's This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics, which he has been doing since 1993.  My intention was to make this weblog part of my professional activity, discussing topics in mathematics and in physics that I was interested in and that I thought others might find similarly interesting.  Unlike most such efforts, the weblog explicitly avoids topics outside math and physics. There's little or nothing there about my personal life, computers, political views, interests in literature or the arts, etc.

The weblog has been successful beyond my wildest dreams.  The first few months there were a couple hundred connections per day, after a year over a thousand per day, and recently about 7-8000/day.  Quite a few people write in with comments, and while keeping the crackpots under control is a challenge, many of the comments often have something interesting to contribute.

The second posting on my weblog was a critical commentary on a talk about string theory by David Gross that I had just attended. Some people wrote in with comments disagreeing with me, but discussion stuck to the scientific points at issue and seemed to me worthwhile.  My third posting was an attempt to avoid complaining about string theory and write something more positive. It argued that understanding electroweak symmetry breaking was the true Holy Grail of particle physics, not exactly a controversial claim.  I also speculated that this problem might have something to do with the fact that chiral gauge theories are poorly understood outside of perturbation theory.  Mark Srednicki of Santa Barbara wrote in with an abusive message telling me I was "ignorant" and that I should "learn some physics first".  He finally admitted that he had just assumed I was a mathematician who didn't know what I was talking about, and only later realized I had a Ph.D. in the subject from Princeton.  He was soon followed by Distler, who wrote in to say that I was incompetent, "embarassing", etc., basing this on misinterpreting what I had written as well as attributing to me words I never wrote.

Trackbacks at the arXiv

In late August 2005, the arXiv began posting "trackbacks", i.e. links to discussions of arXiv papers appearing on weblogs and elsewhere on the internet.  The software used in my weblog automatically generates requests for such trackbacks to the arXiv, and the arXiv documentation states:

Because of widespread Trackback spam we have a semi-automated editorial process that approves trackbacks for display. Trackbacks from known blogs should become visible in a few minutes, but it may take longer for us to recognize new blogs.

After the trackback system started working, I noticed that while trackbacks to the two weblogs maintained by Distler appeared immediately, trackbacks to my postings didn't, although some finally appeared after a while.   When trackbacks to my weblog stopped appearing, in early October I wrote a posting about this.  Soon after writing this, I received a phone call from someone associated with the arXiv.  This person told me that the issue of allowing trackbacks to my weblog was very controversial, that I should not use their name and that they did not want to put anything in writing, but that they were very opposed to what was going on and would try to get it fixed.  The trackback I was complaining about soon appeared.  About a month later I noticed that another trackback to my weblog had not appeared (to hep-th/0511008).  I wrote to the www-admin address at the arXiv to request the trackback and soon received a one-line e-mail saying it had been done.

That was the last of my trackbacks allowed at the arXiv, since then none have appeared. On November 10 I sent a message requesting two other trackbacks (to postings about papers by John Baez and Steven Weinberg), but never got a response.  I followed up repeatedly on this, on November 21 adding a third and fourth request to the other two.  None of my repeated, polite messages about this received any response whatsoever.

On December 23rd I wrote a message to the arXiv advisory board complaining that it appeared that I was being censored, but that I was in the Kafkaesque position of not even being able to get an acknowledgement that this was going on.  At this point two members of the advisory board contacted me and offered to look into what was going on.  I also heard from a scientist in my field not on the advisory board who told me that he or she had been contacted and asked for advice about whether the arXiv should allow trackbacks to my blog.  This person said that they had offered the advice that trackbacks to my weblog should be allowed, but that their contact with me was off the record.  It was only at this point that I actually had evidence that some sort of evaluation process involving my weblog had taken place.

After repeated follow-ups with those arXiv board members who had offered to try and get me an answer, I finally on February 10 was contacted by Jean Poland, Associate University Librarian at Cornell, who informed me that "Our moderators have not recommended that your trackback be incorporated in"  Confusingly, her e-mail referred to my request for a trackback to hep-th/0511008, which was the one that I had been given a positive response to more than three months earlier.   I wrote back asking for clarification, explicitly asking about three of the trackbacks from three months earlier.  There was no response until after another attempt to follow up on this I finally heard from her on February 21.  In this response she told me that all three of my trackbacks were not accepted and that "we are still developing processes to parallel our submission guidelines."

The three postings involved here are of a very different nature:
about hep-th/0511037
about hep-th/0511086
about math.AT/0511232

The first is about Weinberg's "Living in the Multiverse" paper and concerns a highly contentious issue.  I would disagree with such a policy, but I can imagine that the arXiv might want to not allow trackbacks to controversial postings.  However the second is about a paper by John Baez, which is not at all about anything controversial.  Besides what I wrote in the posting, the comment section contains an interesting discussion of the paper involving Baez himself, one that I believe anyone interested in this paper might find valuable.  The third is about a quite technical and very non-controversial topic in mathematics, a theorem due to Freed-Hopkins-Teleman that I happen to believe  has some relevance to physics and that physicists might find interesting.  The fact that  trackbacks have  not been accepted to any  these three  quite different postings makes it clear that currently the arXiv policy is to suppress any and all links to my weblog.

I've been given no information about this and can only guess who the moderators are and what arguments they are using to justify suppressing links to my weblog.  Knowing that Jacques Distler is a moderator for the arXiv and given my past experience with him outlined above, I have to assume that his continuing efforts to deal with my criticisms of string theory by characterizing me as ignorant and incompetent are part of the story. Another arXiv moderator, mathematician Greg Kuperberg, has on repeated occasions attacked me as incompetent on several different weblogs.  For some examples, see:

Kuperberg admits that he doesn't know much about string theory, but seems convinced that the fact that I disagree with intelligent people like Edward Witten means that I must be wrong. I find his behavior about this bizarre in the extreme, since he repeatedly attacks me as not knowing what I'm talking about, while conclusively demonstrating that he himself doesn't understand the scientific issues at hand.  I've never before seen a professional mathematician publicly go on and on about something they don't understand, while attacking people who do. This is not something I take personally since I've never met Kuperberg, and he also has seen fit to attack in a similar way Nobel prize winning physicist Gerard 't Hooft, see

I have also heard that at least one prominent string theorist has been going around accusing me of something I have never done: describing Steven Weinberg as "senile".  This is a falsehood and I don't know who he got it from.  This undoubtedly comes from my response to a comment on this posting

(which was one of the ones at issue in the trackback story).  If you read my response to the comment you'll see that I was not accusing Weinberg of senility, but rather the opposite, defending him against such accusations by others.

To try and figure out what criteria the moderators are using to reject trackbacks, I have been looking to see what weblogs have been having trackbacks accepted.  In the hep-th area I've only seen trackbacks to five different weblogs:  Jacques Distler's weblog  A weblog run for a group of string theorists by Distler  A group weblog involving string theorist Clifford Johnson  Comments from Alejandro Rivero, often involving numerology of particle masses   The weblog of Lubos Motl

This last one is a stew of fanatical political commentary, together with completely fanatical ranting against anyone skeptical about string theory.  If any impoliteness on my part is being used as a reason for suppressing links to my weblog, it is very hard to understand why links to this one are allowed.  The only thing these five weblogs have in common is that they mostly are run by string theorists, or at least are not critical of string theory.  At this point, it seems to me that there is strong evidence that the arXiv moderators have adopted a policy of suppressing any links to a weblog, purely because it strongly disagrees with their views on string theory.