The physics briefing book for the ongoing update to the European Strategy for Particle Physics is now available, for more see here. This describes the physics that one might hope to do with various proposed new machines. The hard part comes in the next few months: coming up with a proposal that has some chance of getting funded.
There’s an ongoing Cosmic Controversies conference in Chicago this week, which tonight will feature a panel discussion on “Do we need the Multiverse and can it made turned into a scientific theory?”. Tomorrow the panel topics will be more promising: “What more can we learn from particle physics about cosmology?“ and “Convergence or Disruption”. You can find video posted from the conference here including a live stream.
This evening I noticed that a recent documentary about Abdus Salam, entitled Salam: The First ****** Nobel Laureate, has just appeared on Netflix, and I spent some time watching it. The title is a reference to Salam’s membership in the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam, which in Pakistan has been declared heretical, and thus Salam not Muslim.
I enjoyed watching the film, and learned a lot I didn’t know about Salam, but there’s not a great deal in the film about his actual work in theoretical physics. While starting to write more here about the film based on some notes I took while watching it, I noticed that Matin Durrani last year at Physics World wrote an excellent detailed review of the film, and I recommend you consult that for more details.
Among those interviewed are Chris Isham and Michael Duff, who have interesting comments on what it was like to work with him. I was pleased to see that one old photograph had him standing in front of a blackboard that prominently featured “Unitary G-reps”.
Update: For another detailed review of the film, see here.
Photographer Jessica Wynne has been taking photographs of mathematician’s blackboards, and there’s a story about this in the New York Times. Many of her photographs have been taken here at Columbia, where we happen to have, besides some excellent mathematicians, also some excellent blackboards.
A non-Columbia excellent mathematician I’ve sometimes written about here is Bonn’s Peter Scholze. If you want to get some idea of the field he works in (arithmetic geometry) and what he has been able to accomplish, a good place to learn is Torsten Wedhorn’s new survey article On the work of Peter Scholze.
On the string theory front:
Arguments about the failure of string theory as a unified theory have been going on so long that they are now a topic in the history of science. For detailed coverage of many events in the long history of these arguments, you can consult historian of science Sophie Ritson’s 2016 University of Sydney doctoral dissertation. It and some of her other work is available at her academia.edu website.
For the latest in content-free argumentation about the failure of string theory unification, Steve Mirsky has a podcast discussion with string theory fan Graham Farmelo (see discussion of his recent book here), in which Mirsky challenges Farmelo about the problems of string theory. Farmelo has spent a lot of time at the IAS and basically takes the attitude that the point of view of certain unnamed string theorists there is what should be followed. I’d describe it as basically “we’ve given up working on string theory unification, but will keep insisting it is the best way forward until someone proves us wrong by coming up with a completely successful alternate idea.”
For the absolute latest attempt to extract some sort of “prediction” from string theory, see this week’s Navigating the Swampland conference in Madrid. Today there was a discussion session, with results shown of a survey of the views of those attending the conference. Note that, on the contentious topic of the reliability of supposed metastable de Sitter solutions of string theory, the Stanford group defending this reliability does not seem to be represented at the conference. I’ve been trying to understand what picture of physics this research has in mind, given that one main goal is to torpedo the metastable de Sitter solutions, and thus the usual “anthropic string landscape” picture. Looking at page seven, most participants seem to want to replace single field inflation models with more complicated quintessence or multi-field inflation models.
In Hirosi Ooguri’s talk he gives a supposed “unparalleled opportunity for string theory to be falsified”, I gather by claiming string theory somehow implies a small value of r. He quotes Arkani-Hamed as saying that string theorists should have reacted to the bogus BICEP2 measurement of r=.2 by saying “if this is true string theory is falsified.” They didn’t do that. When the topic came up at the time, what they had to say was:
Theoretical physicist Eva Silverstein of Stanford says she disagrees that string theory-based models of inflation are in any sort of trouble. “There is no sense in which we are forced to start over,” she says. She adds that in fact a separate class of theories that involve both axions and strings now look promising.
Linde agrees. “There is no need to discard string theory, it is just a normal process of learning which versions of the theory are better,” he says.
Several physicists now have pieces up explaining why Sean Carroll’s claim that “the Multiverse did it” (i.e. all you have to do is believe in multiple worlds) isn’t a real solution to the measurement problem. Beside the previously mentioned Chad Orzel, there’s also Sabine Hossenfelder and Philip Ball. I agree with Ball’s conclusion:
Here, then, is the key point: you are not obliged to accept the “other worlds” of the MWI, but I believe you are obliged to reject its claims to economy of postulates. Anything can look simple and elegant if you sweep all the complications under the rug.
Update: A video of the discussion session at the Swampland conference is here. It seems that I’m not the only one confused about what assumptions people working on this are making and what they are or are not accomplishing.
I’ve often added material to recent posts as “updates”, while aware that some who might be interested would likely not realize the added material was there. To improve the situation, I’ve just added a “Recently Modified Posts” widget on the right. The ordering is by modification time. I’ll try and figure out how to avoid having the modification time change when I do something like fix a typo (right now some old film reviews are appearing on the list because I recently added a “Film Reviews” category).
Among recent updates, I recommend the updates to this posting. Someone pointed me to a quite remarkable exchange earlier this week between Mike Peskin and Nima Arkani-Hamed.
Multiverse mania seems to have been dying down recently, with this only the third entry in that category here so far this year, after 10 in 2018, 13 in 2017, 10 in 2016, 17 in 2015, 18 in 2014, 12 in 2013, 9 in 2012, 15 in 2011. Bringing up the rear (hopefully…) is The Number of the Heavens, Tom Siegfried’s new book out today from Harvard University Press.
Siegfried is about the worst of the many journalists covering fundamental physics that I’ve run into over the years (only real competition is K.C. Cole). For some of his efforts as a journalist over the years, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. It’s not surprising that his multiverse book is an atrocious piece of propaganda.
It’s basically a compendium of arguments for string theory and the multiverse, with a bit of extra history tacked on. You get to read long sections of all the usual pro-string landscape and multiverse arguments from the usual suspects: Carroll, Deutsch, Guth, Greene, Linde, Polchinski, Rees, Susskind, Tegmark, and Weinberg. There’s the usual chapter on the MWI, ending with the acknowledgement that this has nothing at all to do with what the rest of the book is about. There’s a chapter about the glories of supersymmetry, brane-world scenarios, nothing about negative results from the LHC.
The way Siegfried handles criticism of string theory, etc. is very simple: pretend it doesn’t exist. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing anywhere in the book that even acknowledges that there’s another side to this story: for instance, no Baggott, Hossenfelder, Smolin, Penrose, or any reference to any book at all critical of string theory or multiverse hype. While there’s zero criticism of string theory, there are, as far as I can tell, just two appearances of multiverse critics:
On pages 223-8, remarks by Burt Richter at a panel discussion in 2006 get two paragraphs, followed by four pages of arguments from Linde, Susskind, Polchinski and Carroll explaining why he’s wrong. The prominent multiverse critic David Gross makes a brief appearance in these pages, with no mention of the fact that he is a multiverse critic.
Pages 262-9 are labeled a section on “Multiverse Deniers”, but there’s only one multiverse denialist quoted, George Ellis, with the only source given for his arguments this paper. In these pages short excerpts of his arguments are interleaved with long explanations from the author (as well as Weinberg, Wilczek, Carroll, Donoghue and Rees) about why Ellis is wrong.
Th one thing I can’t figure out about this book is how it got to be published by a reputable university press. My understanding has always been that university presses have some commitment to ensuring scholarly excellence in what they publish, for instance by having a manuscript about a controversy reviewed by experts from both sides. That obviously can’t have happened in this case, so I must be mistaken about how places like Harvard University Press now operate.
Chad Orzel has a piece at Forbes which I like a lot, where he argues that the “Many Worlds” of the MWI interpretation should be taken metaphorically, and thus the MWI really should be the “Metaphorical Worlds Interpretation”. I urge you to take a look (and argue about this with him, not me…).
Update: Natalie Wolchover suggests renaming MWI as the “Many Cakes Interpretation”, since
there’s a lot of having of cakes and eating them as soon as things get awkward.
There was a workshop last week at the Harvard CMSA, focusing on new ideas about physics rooted in topology. Talks are available on the workshop webpage, and those interested in high energy physics might be most interested in the ones from the first session. There was an interesting introductory talk by Dan Harlow, in which he lays out his view (which I think is a very mainstream one) of the current situation of HEP theory.
He begins by noting the problem of building higher energy accelerators (claiming that the problem is that technological limits make the maximum energy of collisions go as the square root of the radius of the machine, but I think really for proton-proton machines it is linear in the radius, for electron-positron machines the fourth root of the radius). Given the lack of new data, he describes one tactic for theorists as to change fields, e.g. to machine learning or biophysics.
If one does want to persist, he argues there still is a list of things incompatible with the Standard Model (gravity, dark matter, neutrino masses, baryogenesis, inflation) and these are not just “aesthetic” problems (here he refers to misunderstandings in the “popular media”, a clear reference to Sabine Hossenfelder and her book). From there he focuses on quantum gravity, essentially arguing that the other problems can be addressed by BSM models, but none of these seem particularly nice, so without new data progress is unlikely.
He describes quantum gravity as the ideal situation for theorists, since according to him there’s no self-consistent theory that fits the data we already have (I guess he’s saying string theory models are inconsistent…). He describes current work on this as based on two main strategies, with AdS/CFT providing a link between them:
“Study the non-realistic corners of string theory where mathematical control is possible”, i.e. pick some non-physical string theory background (e.g. AdS/CFT) where you think you can do self-consistent calculations and do those, hoping to get some more general insight.
“Set aside gravity for the moment, and focus on understanding the mathematical properties of QFT.” He gives a few examples of general questions being studied (which unfortunately have no obvious relevance to addressing the problem of quantum gravity, or basic problems like that of non-perturbative QCD.)
In the question section, there was an exchange between Harlow and Seiberg, based on Harlow’s reference to changing fields because of no data and to something he said during the talk (at 2:06):
Harlow: So then, what are we supposed to do in the meantime, right? You know we need to keep writing papers and posting them to hep-th and so on, so what do we do?
This was a beautiful summary, spectacular, except that one thing was fundamentally wrong and certainly should not be said. It’s not that we’re doing what we’re doing because we have to fill the time (audience laughter). We’re doing what we’re doing because it’s very important (audience laughter). I don’t think about “maybe we should write some books and this and that, until we have more information” I think this is wrong and this should not be [inaudible]
Harlow: I’m doing it, right, I don’t like wasting my time, so, I think it’s worth my time. I do think it’s important. We have this list of phenomena that we can see and can’t explain.
Seiberg: Comments like these have been used against us (audience laughter), in addition to the fact that they are wrong.
Harlow: OK, yeah, yeah, I’m not talking to the New York Times, right. (audience laughter).
Dam Son?: Is it recorded?
Harlow: I don’t know actually (audience laughter), I’ve said much worse things that were recorded, so.
HEP theory is at a very difficult point in its history, and it seems that the older generation struggling with this is not particularly amused to hear what sounds like flippant takes on the problem from the younger generation.
I originally was officially an elementary particle physicist. Elementary particles is not going so well, there’s no new experimental input and nobody knows what to do. It’s sort of reaching a point of, should I call it diminishing returns? It could change, it could easily change. I don’t think it’s doing very well. It’s not the fault of the physicists, it’s just the fact that they’ve reached a barrier, with no possible access experimentally to things that we’re not doing very well figuring out theoretically. So that’s not doing exceptionally well. My guess is the same thing may happen to cosmology. That they will eventually run, and they’re very close to it now, running out of new data, so there may be a barrier there.
Update: This week in Chicago there’s a workshop on the CEPC (proposed large new electron-positron collider in China). The first talk Monday was from Nima Arkani-Hamed. At the end of it, the question period started, with an exchange that resonates with the Harlow-Seiberg one:
Mike Peskin: So, let me make a quick summary of this talk: “my prediction is that when we go to high precision with the Higgs we will see no deviation from the Standard Model, but that will be a good thing because theorists will be inspired to think about these fundamental questions.”
Nima Arkani-Hamed: Absolutely. I’ve said it many times. Many people don’t believe me, but I believe it 100 percent. If we see some deviation, fantastic, great, people will have a lot of fun figuring it out, if we don’t see a deviation that’s a much, much bigger gauntlet thrown down at the feet of theorists to try to figure out what is happening.
Mike Peskin: But on the other hand you’re not promising any concrete discovery, just we reconfirm the Standard Model at a much higher level of energy.
Nima Arkani-Hamed: Reconfirming the Standard Model would just crank up the screws that are put on our theoretical imaginations even more.
Mike Peskin: How many billions of dollars do you expect people to spend to reach this conclusion?
Nima Arkani-Hamed: … However many billions it takes.
I’ll review some arguments that may be well-known to many of us—but which I find are not necessarily well-known to students, some of whom are being taught that there is no motivation to search for BSM physics.
and gives this I think accurate characterization of the problem:
The better way to frame the problem, and the role of fine-tuning, is that we are seeking a theory that explains the origin of the EW scale.
If, within that theory, the EW scale is extremely sensitive to input parameters, it’s not a very good explanation. The theory does not generically describe a universe like the one we live in.
If moving around in parameter space just produces modest changes in the low-energy physics, that’s a compelling theory that predicts a world like ours.
This characterization makes clear what the correct interpretation of the null LHC results should be: they provide significant evidence that the picture of a very high energy scale GUT/string theory with lots of parameters, generically producing the weak-scale physics that we see, is just wrong. There never has been any evidence for this anyway, so the failure of the hierarchy argument was to be expected. To the extent that you believe the hierarchy problem is the motivation for BSM physics, students who are being taught to give up on BSM physics by Harlow and others are not really being misled.
My own take on all of this: what Harlow and Arkani-Hamed get wrong is their claim that thinking about fundamental issues of quantum gravity is some new, exciting question that has just come up post-LHC null results. These issues have been there for decades; they were obvious at the time I was a grad student in the early eighties. The problem is what to do facing several decades of failure by theorists, and I don’t think the answer is to make outrageous claims about how wonderful the current situation is. The motivation for a new collider is the one Reece points to, ignoring the business about the hierarchy problem: we don’t understand at all the origin of the EW scale. This is the best argument for studying the scales just above it that the LHC has started to enter. If we can get some new insight into the EW scale from a detailed study of the scales just above it, that will revolutionize physics (not just be “a lot of fun”). If we can’t, we’re facing a very, very tough time, especially if we insist on pursuing fundamental theory the way it has been pursued in the past.
Last night I went to a showing of Chasing Einstein, a new documentary about the search for dark matter. It’s quite well done, and if you’re near New York, Berkeley or LA, you might want to take the opportunity to go see it in a theater.
The film starts out with a segment on LIGO, talking to Barry Barish and Rainer Weiss. Later on there are scenes from their Nobel celebration ceremony at Caltech and the award ceremony in Stockholm. There are no claims made that LIGO’s results are related to dark matter. Rather, this material functions as a counterpoint to the dark matter material, contrasting a great success story to the rather frustrating lack of success that physicists have had with dark matter.
Attention then turns to Elena Aprile and the Xenon1T experiment. Aprile is in the physics department at Columbia, and attended the screening I was at. I think she’s the great heroine of this film, although a bit of a tragic one. She and her collaborators have done a fantastic job of getting a series of highly sensitive detectors to work. If a WIMP particle responsible for dark matter had existed in the region advertised by many theories, they would have found it and followed the LIGO people to Stockholm. Instead they put a strong limit on the possible properties of such a conjectured particle. The film includes a heart-breaking scene when they unblind their data, quickly realizing that their years of effort haven’t been rewarded with the discovery that they had been hoping for. Aprile has a realistic take on the prospects for future experiments of this kind: they can be make somewhat more sensitive, but it’s hard to be optimistic that the remaining accessible parameter space contains a new particle.
Tech entrepreneur Cree Edwards appears at various points in the film, and I’m guessing that he’s the one who brought together the physicists and filmmakers to make the film (and probably financed it). He has an amateur’s interest in fundamental physics, and his questioning of the physicists reminds one of how people’s fascination with the subject is often deeply connected to their desire to make sense of the world, hoping to find explanations of the great puzzles of human existence. I fear he’s not likely to find much of what he’s looking for in physics, but glad to see that his questioning led to an excellent film.
Finally, the film contains scenes of observing a solar eclipse, an added attraction.
I’m afraid I made a serious mistake in this previous posting discussing Sean Carroll’s new book. Since the book was relatively reasonable, while the jacket and promotional material that came with it were nonsense, I assumed that Carroll was just being ill-served by his publisher. It’s now clear I was very wrong. He’s on a book tour, and the nonsense is exactly what he is putting front and center as a revelation to the public about how to understand quantum mechanics. For a couple examples, here’s what was on the PBS News Hour
The “many worlds” theory in quantum mechanics suggests that with every decision you make, a new universe springs into existence containing what amounts to a new version of you. Bestselling author and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll discusses the concept and his new book, “Something Deeply Hidden,” with NewsHour Weekend’s Tom Casciato.
Using your public platform to tell people that the way to understand quantum mechanics is that the world splits depending on what you decide to do is simply What the Bleep? level stupidity. Those in the physics and science communication communities who care about the public understanding of quantum mechanics should think hard about what they can do to deal with this situation. They may however come to the same conclusion I’ve just reached: best to ignore him, which I’ll try to do from now on.
Discussion in the comment section of the previous blog entry led me to do a little bit of historical research this morning, and I thought I’d write up the results here. First of all, for some interesting comments from people around back then about how attitudes in the physics community changed during the 1970s, see here, here and here.
What I looked into is one specific story, trying to figure out what was behind Sean Carroll’s claim in the New York Times that
For years, the leading journal in physics had an explicit policy that papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics were to be rejected out of hand.
Mark Hillery here notes that this is likely a reference to the Physical Review, and that it very much has not been true for the past 15 years, during which he has been an editor there.
Tracing back where Carroll got this from, I guessed that (since it’s the historical source he recommends in his book) it came from Adam Becker’s book, What is Real?. Looking at that book one finds on page 214:
Physical Review actually had an explicit editorial policy barring papers on quantum foundations unless they could be related to existing experimental data or made new predictions that coulhered be tested in the laboratory.
This matches Carroll’s claim (with the part inconvenient for his case deleted…). Becker’s source notes for this text refer to an editorial in the July 15, 1973 issue of Physical Review D (Particles and Fields) written by Samuel Goudsmit, the editor-in-chief. The editorial is entitled “IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: Regarding Papers about Fundamental Theories”. Goudsmit does not specifically refer to quantum foundations papers, but writes:
The subject matter of these papers usually concerns a fundamental aspect of theoretical physics. Extreme verbosity and vagueness of expression makes these papers hard to read and understand. A paucity of mathematics as compared to wordage distinguishes them from the more conventional theoretical papers. The author proposes new theories, but their specific assumptions are usually hidden behind very lengthy arguments. Sometimes the paper contains a reinterpretation of existing theories which the author considers more satisfactory than the prevailing views, though no new experimental consequences are expected.
He sets forth the following as features expected of articles publishable by the Physical Review:
All implied assumptions must be stated clearly and concisely and as much as possible expressed in mathematical form.
The author must convincingly show
that these assumptions lead to the explanation of hither to unexplained observations, or
that these assumptions expose new relations between known data or theories, or
that these assumptions are simpler and fewer than in existing theories.
Moreover, the author must show that the new assumptions do not contradict existing experimental facts.
He must also investigate possible new consequences of his assumptions and whether these could be tested by new experiments.
Looking some more into this, I realized that I had first seen this story in David Kaiser’s book How the Hippies Saved Physics (see review here), which clearly is Becker’s source (Becker’s next note refers to this). On page 121 Kaiser has:
The longtime editor of the Physical Review… actually banned articles on the interpretation of quantum mechanic. He went so far as to draw up a special instruction sheet to be mailed to referees of potentially offending submissions: referees were to reject all submissions on interpretive matters out of hand, unless the papers derived quantitative predictions for new experiments.
Kaiser goes on to quote John Clauser as pointing out that according to this policy, Bohr’s response to the 1935 EPR paper would not have been publishable. His source notes refer to the Goudsmit editorial and private emails from Clauser on July 8, 2009. The same note also refers to an article by Clauser, Early History of Bell’s Theorem, which has a lot of detailed information about the story of the reception of Bell’s theorem and early efforts to do experimental tests (but nothing about the Physical Review policy). By the way, back in 1964, Bell decided not to submit his important paper to Physical Review, not because of any policy they might have had, but because they had page charges.
So, as far as I can tell, the historical record shows that the documented Physical Review policy didn’t, as the descriptions by Kaiser, Becker and Carroll suggest, explicitly refer to papers on the interpretation of quantum mechanics or quantum foundations. Possibly it was such papers that were annoying Goudsmit and led to his editorial, but I’d be curious to know if anyone knows more about what was specifically bothering Goudsmit. What sort of papers were being submitted to Physical Review D around 1972-73 that would uncharitably fit the negative description he gives quoted above?
Update: In the comments Blake Stacey suggests that the 1972 experiment of Freedman-Clauser may have been what led to papers being submitted to Physical Review that inspired Goudsmit’s July 1973 editorial. Looking more into this, it’s quite possible that the kind of thing Goudsmit was concerned about were the sorts of papers Jack Sarfatti was writing around this time. According to Kaiser’s book (pages 62-63), it was just a few months before this that Sarfatti decided to change the sorts of papers he was writing:
By the early 1970s, having published a few articles in prestigious journals on quantum theory, elementary particles, and even some idiosyncratic ideas about miniature black holes, Sarfatti could list half a dozen distinguished physicists scattered across the United States, Britain and France as references to vouch for the quality of his work…
… Sarfatti began to lose enthusiasm for his position at San Diego State during the early 1970s, and indeed for the sterile direction in which he saw theoretical physics heading. He announced his new plans in a letter to renowned Princeton physicist John Wheeler in the spring of 1973… Sarfatti declared that he would leave his “uninspiring institution” and seek out “the best possible environment to create a great and historic piece of physics. I feel impelled by history – a certain sense of destiny,” he explained. (“I recognize that I may be suffering under some sort of ‘crackpot’ delusion, but I cannot accept that as likely. In any case, I must try,” he averred).
See the comment here for some of the sort of papers Sarfatti was writing at the time, quite possibly submitting them to Physical Review. The opening sentence of Goudsmit’s description of the problem (and the fact that he was publishing it in Phys. Rev. D, Particles and Fields)
The subject matter of these papers usually concerns a fundamental aspect of theoretical physics.
seems to me more likely to be referring to the sort of thing Sarfatti was writing than to papers on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Update: It turns out that Goudsmit’s papers are available online, here. A non-exhaustive search turned up no evidence pro or con for my conjecture about Sarfatti or similar papers. I only found one set of files (Box 50, Folder 45, “Leibowitz refereeing, 1973”) referring to his 1973 editorial. These have to do with this paper, which was published September 1973, after two years of refereeing. This publication led to another author writing a paper criticizing the first, leading to another refereeing problem. Goudsmit weighed in (January 5, 1976) by noting that it was exactly this kind of paper and the problems with refereeing such things that his editorial had been concerned with. Note that the paper in question is NOT an interpretation/foundations paper. Goudsmit writes:
The event shows again clearly the necessity of rapid rejections of questionable papers in vague borderline areas. There is a class of long theoretical papers which deal with problems of interpretation of quantum and relativistic phenomena. Most of them are terribly boring and belong to the category of which Pauli said, “It is not even wrong”. Many of them are wrong. A few of the wrong ones turn out to be valuable and interesting because they throw a brighter light on the correct understanding of the problem. I have earlier expressed my strong opinion that most of these papers don’t belong in the Physical Review but in journals specializing in the philosophy and fundamental concepts of physics.
He then refers to his earlier editorial.
Looking at the exchange in these letters, the referee of the second paper writes “I would suggest that [the author] understands neither relativity nor quantum theory.” This example suggests that the problem Goudsmit had in mind when writing his editorial was not a need for “an explicit policy that papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics were to be rejected out of hand”, but just a need to deal with the common problem that is still with us, for both journals and the arXiv. There are lots and lots of people writing low quality papers claiming to say something new about the foundations of physics, on a continuum from the crank to the not so bad. Refereeing such things is difficult and time-consuming, so a journal needs a policy to deal with them quickly and efficiently, otherwise they end up with the mess described in these letters. Goudsmit’s editorial I think was an attempt to come up with such a policy.
Update: Jorge Pullin wrote to remind me of an earlier Goudsmit story, which I described on the blog here, but had completely forgotten about. In 2008 an undated paper from Bryce DeWitt’s files (he passed away in 2004) was posted on the arXiv. It included a claim much like the ones discussed here that refer to the 1973 editorial, but about a much earlier incident:
Most of you can have no idea how hostile the physics community was, in those days, to persons who studied general relativity. It was worse than the hostility emanating from some quarters today toward the string-theory community. In the mid fifties Sam Goudsmidt, then Editor-in-Chief of the Physical Review, let it be known that an editorial would soon appear saying that the Physical Review and Physical Review Letters would no longer accept “papers on gravitation or other fundamental theory.” That this editorial did not appear was due to the behind-the-scenes efforts of John Wheeler.
I don’t know of any other evidence for this (took a quick look in the Goudsmit online archive, didn’t see anything). It seems highly likely that this claim about Goudsmit and the Physical Review is not accurate. One minor problem with a claimed “mid-fifties” planned editorial for Physical Review Letters is that PRL wasn’t even started until mid-1958. More seriously, the idea that the Physical Review in the mid-fifties would consider banning “papers on gravitation or other fundamental theory” is just completely implausible, and if that phrase is accurate, it surely is very much taken out of context. This story is very similar to the Carroll one about the 1973 editorial, and I’m guessing the true story about the mid-fifties incident is again just that Goudsmit was even then struggling with how to deal with bad “not even wrong” theory papers about fundamental physics.
Update: Steven Weinberg has a version of the “mid-fifties” Goudsmit story, in his biographical notice for DeWitt, in the context of a discussion of the January 1957 Chapel Hill conference on gravity:
Samuel Goudsmit had recently threatened to ban all papers on gravitation from Physical Review and Physical Review Letters because he and most American physicists felt that gravity research was a waste of time.
Again, there’s a problem with this that PRL wasn’t even started until a year and a half later, and he has Goudsmit specifying just GR research, not the wider “gravitation or other fundamental theory” which DeWitt gave in quotes.