Comments on: Panel Discussion in Toronto http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:18:29 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Strings for Dummies http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4366 Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Strings for Dummies Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:55:37 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4366 [...] Lykken’s talks are actually unusual for this kind of exercise in expounding string theory to non-string theorists. They begin with a long list of the pros and cons of string theory. I’d disagree with him about some of the “pros” he lists, but it is remarkable that he gives a detailed discussion of the problems with string theory. I’ve never seen a string theorist do that before. During the last few months I’ve been sensing a definite change in the atmosphere surrounding string theory. String theorists are on the defensive, and many science journalists and members of the general public are starting to get the idea that there might be something funny going on. For the first time there was open pessimism and defensiveness expressed at the panel discussion at Strings 2005 and the recent New York Times article about it had a somewhat mocking tone. [...] [...] Lykken’s talks are actually unusual for this kind of exercise in expounding string theory to non-string theorists. They begin with a long list of the pros and cons of string theory. I’d disagree with him about some of the “pros” he lists, but it is remarkable that he gives a detailed discussion of the problems with string theory. I’ve never seen a string theorist do that before. During the last few months I’ve been sensing a definite change in the atmosphere surrounding string theory. String theorists are on the defensive, and many science journalists and members of the general public are starting to get the idea that there might be something funny going on. For the first time there was open pessimism and defensiveness expressed at the panel discussion at Strings 2005 and the recent New York Times article about it had a somewhat mocking tone. [...]

]]> By: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » New York Times on Toronto Panel Discussion http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4318 Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » New York Times on Toronto Panel Discussion Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:16:33 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4318 [...] I didn’t have much luck when I tried here to find out exactly what had happened at the panel discussion in Toronto at Strings 2005 last month. One graduate student (Florian Greimer) commented on Jacques Distler’s weblog that he felt quite depressed after listening to it, earning a slap-down from Jacques, who evidently found it so upsetting that he got up and left halfway through it, and later wrote about why such discussions were a waste of time. [...] [...] I didn’t have much luck when I tried here to find out exactly what had happened at the panel discussion in Toronto at Strings 2005 last month. One graduate student (Florian Greimer) commented on Jacques Distler’s weblog that he felt quite depressed after listening to it, earning a slap-down from Jacques, who evidently found it so upsetting that he got up and left halfway through it, and later wrote about why such discussions were a waste of time. [...]

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4112 Anonymous Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4112 Steve mentioned this link to Sakurai's blog http://makotosakurai.blogspot.com/2005/07/2nd-day-of-strings-2005.html and then you added it, in an update, to the main post. But we never followed up, it seems. Sakurai actually does give some sense of things: ---quote from Sakurai blog--- <b>OK. Again from the panel discussion. "Why is string theory worth trying even today?" (It was phrased in a different way.) Some said "it is mathematically beautiful but phenomenologically poor" and some said "it is the only known consistent theory of gravity" (how do you prove its consistency?). My viewpoint is not equal to them. What do you think?</b> ---endquote--- If anyone has any ideas it might be nice to post them at his blog. So far he has only one very brief reply. It is interesting that he appears to paraphrase the real question being asked by everybody (not what will be the next revolution but) <b> "Why is string theory worth trying even today?" </b> If Sakurai's paraphrase reflects the sense of the discussion and the responses he heard people give were generally as weak as he suggests then it is not surprising that Florian Gmeiner wrote to Distler's blog complaining of depression. Steve mentioned this link to Sakurai’s blog
http://makotosakurai.blogspot.com/2005/07/2nd-day-of-strings-2005.html

and then you added it, in an update, to the main post.

But we never followed up, it seems. Sakurai actually does give some sense of things:

—quote from Sakurai blog—
OK. Again from the panel discussion. “Why is string theory worth trying even today?” (It was phrased in a different way.) Some said “it is mathematically beautiful but phenomenologically poor” and some said “it is the only known consistent theory of gravity” (how do you prove its consistency?). My viewpoint is not equal to them. What do you think?
—endquote—

If anyone has any ideas it might be nice to post them at his blog. So far he has only one very brief reply. It is interesting that he appears to paraphrase the real question being asked by everybody (not what will be the next revolution but)
“Why is string theory worth trying even today?”

If Sakurai’s paraphrase reflects the sense of the discussion and the responses he heard people give were generally as weak as he suggests then it is not surprising that Florian Gmeiner wrote to Distler’s blog complaining of depression.

]]> By: Peter http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4113 Peter Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4113 Sen's slides do seem to have disappeared. There were about half a dozen of them, and they didn't say very much, actually. Sen’s slides do seem to have disappeared. There were about half a dozen of them, and they didn’t say very much, actually.

]]> By: Peter http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4114 Peter Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4114 Hi Anonymous Graduate Student, I didn't mean to imply that all graduate students are impressionable, I'm well aware that some aren't. Only for the impressionable ones would Jacques's hyping of the prospects for string theory be educational malpractice. Actually I'm more and more noticing the last few years that a larger and larger fraction of graduate students are well aware that there's a problem in the field, no matter what people like Jacques are telling them. I hope that by reading what I have to say, what Jacques has to say, what Lubos has to say, etc., that students will have enough information to make up their own minds about what is going on. Hi Anonymous Graduate Student,

I didn’t mean to imply that all graduate students are impressionable, I’m well aware that some aren’t. Only for the impressionable ones would Jacques’s hyping of the prospects for string theory be educational malpractice.

Actually I’m more and more noticing the last few years that a larger and larger fraction of graduate students are well aware that there’s a problem in the field, no matter what people like Jacques are telling them. I hope that by reading what I have to say, what Jacques has to say, what Lubos has to say, etc., that students will have enough information to make up their own minds about what is going on.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4115 Anonymous Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4115 Must say that a virtual blackout of reporting on the panel discussion leaves the field open for people to invent their own scenarios, like for example MODERATOR'S OPENING REMARKS Steven Shenker (moderator of "The Next Superstring Revolution"): "Ladies and gentlemen, I think everyone realizes that if we don't want to start looking silly, we have to decide what we're going to say about all these vacua..." Must say that a virtual blackout of reporting on the panel discussion leaves the field open for people to invent their own scenarios, like for example

MODERATOR’S OPENING REMARKS

Steven Shenker (moderator of “The Next Superstring Revolution”):

“Ladies and gentlemen, I think everyone realizes that if we don’t want to start looking silly, we have to decide what we’re going to say about all these vacua…”

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4116 Anonymous Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4116 Peter you say <i>Update:It looks like Ashoke Sen's slides from the panel discussion are on-line.</i> but I couldnt find anything from the panel discussion there, what i found related to a talk on extremal BH scheduled for later in the week. was there something from the panel discussion posted there earlier? Peter you say
Update:It looks like Ashoke Sen’s slides from the panel discussion are on-line.

but I couldnt find anything from the panel discussion there, what i found related to a talk on extremal BH scheduled for later in the week.

was there something from the panel discussion posted there earlier?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4117 Anonymous Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4117 "Saying things like this to impressionable graduate students is really educational malpractice." Why the assumption that graduate students are impressionable? I'm pretty damn opinionated and also well-informed, if I do say so myself, as are many other grad students I know. -- An anonymous grad student “Saying things like this to impressionable graduate students is really educational malpractice.”

Why the assumption that graduate students are impressionable? I’m pretty damn opinionated and also well-informed, if I do say so myself, as are many other grad students I know.

– An anonymous grad student

]]> By: Peter Woit http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4118 Peter Woit Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4118 Hi Quantum, Quite a while ago I wrote a short piece about this: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0102051 Physics Today refused to publish it, ultimately American Scientist did. Don't believe everything you read about the beauty of string theory.... Hi Quantum,

Quite a while ago I wrote a short piece about this:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0102051

Physics Today refused to publish it, ultimately American Scientist did.

Don’t believe everything you read about the beauty of string theory….

]]> By: quantum http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218&cpage=1#comment-4119 quantum Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=218#comment-4119 Is there any basic book or article or post that would list the reasons why you anti-string theory partisans are so sure of yourself? I want to learn. I thought that string theory is so beautiful it must be right! I'm a layman tho. I've pimped your site over at my blog quantuum.blogspot.com Is there any basic book or article or post that would list the reasons why you anti-string theory partisans are so sure of yourself? I want to learn. I thought that string theory is so beautiful it must be right! I’m a layman tho.

I’ve pimped your site over at my blog quantuum.blogspot.com

]]>