Comments on: String Theory by Press Release http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:18:29 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: JC http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-409 JC Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-409 I always felt a lot of that stuff which attempted to connect QCD with a string theory, looked kind of "ad hoc" and never really appeared to be all that convincing. When Maldacena's AdS-CFT stuff first came about it looked like a more sophisticated version of that "ad hoc" QCD string stuff, which initially I thought looked promising. After many years of folks working out the consequences of the AdS-CFT duality, I'm less convinced today of it's promises. Attempting to do string loop calculations on the AdS side seems to be a difficult problem, which so far hasn't produced many convincing results. In the end, that Maldacena AdS-CFT stuff may very well be just another "ad hoc" result in a long line of other "ad hoc" QCD string models. I always felt a lot of that stuff which attempted to connect QCD with a string theory, looked kind of “ad hoc” and never really appeared to be all that convincing. When Maldacena’s AdS-CFT stuff first came about it looked like a more sophisticated version of that “ad hoc” QCD string stuff, which initially I thought looked promising. After many years of folks working out the consequences of the AdS-CFT duality, I’m less convinced today of it’s promises. Attempting to do string loop calculations on the AdS side seems to be a difficult problem, which so far hasn’t produced many convincing results.

In the end, that Maldacena AdS-CFT stuff may very well be just another “ad hoc” result in a long line of other “ad hoc” QCD string models.

]]> By: Alejandro Rivero http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-410 Alejandro Rivero Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-410 JC, Search for "QCD String" in both hep-th and hep-ph. It started to be propagandised with the new century. I saw this campaign, then, as a way to drive people back into physics. Sort of leaving a scape gate. JC,

Search for “QCD String” in both hep-th and hep-ph. It started to be propagandised with the new century. I saw this campaign, then, as a way to drive people back into physics. Sort of leaving a scape gate.

]]> By: JC http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-411 JC Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-411 Speaking of weird string papers, just noticed this paper "Hadron pair photoproduction within the Veneziano model" hep-ph/0406267 In 2004, I never would have thought anybody was still doing the string theory or dual resonance model stuff with respect to hadronic physics. The last time anybody took this stuff seriously, was when "California Dreamin" was still a top 40 hit song? A time warp back in time, to a more innocent and naive time period in physics history. Speaking of weird string papers, just noticed this paper

“Hadron pair photoproduction within the Veneziano model”
hep-ph/0406267

In 2004, I never would have thought anybody was still doing the string theory or dual resonance model stuff with respect to hadronic physics. The last time anybody took this stuff seriously, was when “California Dreamin” was still a top 40 hit song?

A time warp back in time, to a more innocent and naive time period in physics history.

]]> By: Peter http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-412 Peter Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-412 Thanks, I'm glad to hear that that you find the material here interesting, and I've been pleasantly surprised by how many people take and interest in it and make comments. But I'd rather not get involved in adding anything more elaborate to the site, mainly because I don't want to put any more time into it than I already do. That said, if you or anyone else wants to set something up and manage it themselves, I'll certainly set up links from here. Thanks, I’m glad to hear that that you find the material here interesting, and I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how many people take and interest in it and make comments. But I’d rather not get involved in adding anything more elaborate to the site, mainly because I don’t want to put any more time into it than I already do.

That said, if you or anyone else wants to set something up and manage it themselves, I’ll certainly set up links from here.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-413 Anonymous Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-413 OT request - would it be possible to implement a discussion section? Or desirable from your point? Some of us have a homemade board that runs on software written by one of our gurus (based on Zope and MySQL) that would be easy to implement for someone who knows Linux. I find this place more interesting than sci.physics.*. OT request – would it be possible to implement a discussion section? Or desirable from your point?

Some of us have a homemade board that runs on software written by one of our gurus (based on Zope and MySQL) that would be easy to implement for someone who knows Linux.

I find this place more interesting than sci.physics.*.

]]> By: raj http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-414 raj Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-414 Maybe string theorists are adopting the techniques of the "creation science" crowd. And just when they caught the attention of US "public television." Witness Nova's series in the last year or two about string theory. Maybe string theorists are adopting the techniques of the “creation science” crowd. And just when they caught the attention of US “public television.” Witness Nova’s series in the last year or two about string theory.

]]> By: JC http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-415 JC Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-415 Thomas, Some folks are willing to make all kinds of weird long term bets. Since they are not betting large amounts of money, if any money at all for that matter, they're simply not "putting their own money where their mouth is". If their bets end up being correct, they'll claim victory. If their bets end up being incorrect, they'll just "whitewash" it away by saying something like "I was young and stupid, but now I'm wiser", etc ... or some other amusing excuse. There's no huge monetary losses on their part, regardless of whether they are right or wrong in the end. If they're wrong in the end, the most that will happen to them perhaps would be the depressing realization that they wasted a large portion of their working lives on something that was garbage in the end. It would be like "waking up" from a bad dream of being a member of a weird religious cult. Thomas,

Some folks are willing to make all kinds of weird long term bets. Since they are not betting large amounts of money, if any money at all for that matter, they’re simply not “putting their own money where their mouth is”.

If their bets end up being correct, they’ll claim victory. If their bets end up being incorrect, they’ll just “whitewash” it away by saying something like “I was young and stupid, but now I’m wiser”, etc … or some other amusing excuse. There’s no huge monetary losses on their part, regardless of whether they are right or wrong in the end.

If they’re wrong in the end, the most that will happen to them perhaps would be the depressing realization that they wasted a large portion of their working lives on something that was garbage in the end. It would be like “waking up” from a bad dream of being a member of a weird religious cult.

]]> By: Thomas Larsson http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-416 Thomas Larsson Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-416 For the last 20 years, Ed Witten has repeatedly stated that string theory makes one postdiction, gravity, and one prediction, supersymmetry. Alas, the natural signatures of supersymmetry have *already* been ruled out by experiments - this is what people mean when they say that supersymmetry requires finetuning at the percent level, isn't it? Thus, unless one gives up naturality (which was the only experimental motivation for SUSY in the first place), Witten's one string theory prediction has *already* been proven wrong. Pretty much bottom line. For the last 20 years, Ed Witten has repeatedly stated that string theory makes one postdiction, gravity, and one prediction, supersymmetry. Alas, the natural signatures of supersymmetry have *already* been ruled out by experiments – this is what people mean when they say that supersymmetry requires finetuning at the percent level, isn’t it? Thus, unless one gives up naturality (which was the only experimental motivation for SUSY in the first place), Witten’s one string theory prediction has *already* been proven wrong. Pretty much bottom line.

]]> By: Peter http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-417 Peter Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-417 The Fermilab story is about results of a fixed target experiment called SELEX, see hep-ex/0406045. They stopped taking data in 1997, but recently went back to reanalyze their old data to look for to see if they could find evidence for the new states Babar was claiming. They seem to have pretty good evidence for a new meson with a strange and charm quark, and supposedly much narrower than theoretical predictions. I really don't know how reliable the theory of the spectrum for such states is, so don't know how surprising this is. Perhaps this is the kind of thing that could be confirmed and studied in more detail at SLAC or Cornell. Maybe there is something unexpected lurking in the physics of these mesons. The Fermilab story is about results of a fixed target experiment called SELEX, see hep-ex/0406045.
They stopped taking data in 1997, but recently went back to reanalyze their old data to look for to see if they could find evidence for the new states Babar was claiming.

They seem to have pretty good evidence for a new meson with a strange and charm quark, and supposedly much narrower than theoretical predictions. I really don’t know how reliable the theory of the spectrum for such states is, so don’t know how surprising this is.

Perhaps this is the kind of thing that could be confirmed and studied in more detail at SLAC or Cornell. Maybe there is something unexpected lurking in the physics of these mesons.

]]> By: JC http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-418 JC Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=42#comment-418 The string theory advocates and "fanatics" over the years have sounded very similar in "spirit" to those folks who were ranting and raving about the "New Economy" during the 1990's dotcom bubble. After the dotcom bubble bursted in 2000, there were still many folks ranting about the "New Economy" for several years after, thinking that the Nasdaq "correction" was just temporary and that "prosperity" was just "around the corner". After about a year or so, the more level headed folks "woke up" and became more skeptical and less willing to "suspend disbelief". With time many of the advocates finally came to accept the notion that the "new economy" was just overblown hype, while the "fanatics" to this very day are still steadfast in their beliefs and refuse to capitulate. With time even some of the "fanatics" will eventually come to their "senses". For many folks, it would be very difficult emotionally to invest one's self in movements or ideas which don't work in the long term, especially when there's a huge investment of time, money, and ego involved. A very similar sort of pattern happened the years before and after the 1929 stock market crash too. Frequently movements or ideas that are built up by hype and overblown promises, end up following speculative "bubble" type behavior with the bubble frequently "bursting" after awhile when the hype deviates too much from reality to be sustainable in convincing many people to "suspend disbelief". The string theory advocates and “fanatics” over the years have sounded very similar in “spirit” to those folks who were ranting and raving about the “New Economy” during the 1990’s dotcom bubble. After the dotcom bubble bursted in 2000, there were still many folks ranting about the “New Economy” for several years after, thinking that the Nasdaq “correction” was just temporary and that “prosperity” was just “around the corner”. After about a year or so, the more level headed folks “woke up” and became more skeptical and less willing to “suspend disbelief”. With time many of the advocates finally came to accept the notion that the “new economy” was just overblown hype, while the “fanatics” to this very day are still steadfast in their beliefs and refuse to capitulate. With time even some of the “fanatics” will eventually come to their “senses”. For many folks, it would be very difficult emotionally to invest one’s self in movements or ideas which don’t work in the long term, especially when there’s a huge investment of time, money, and ego involved.

A very similar sort of pattern happened the years before and after the 1929 stock market crash too.

Frequently movements or ideas that are built up by hype and overblown promises, end up following speculative “bubble” type behavior with the bubble frequently “bursting” after awhile when the hype deviates too much from reality to be sustainable in convincing many people to “suspend disbelief”.

]]>