{"id":39,"date":"2004-06-17T20:53:40","date_gmt":"2004-06-18T00:53:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=39"},"modified":"2004-06-17T20:53:40","modified_gmt":"2004-06-18T00:53:40","slug":"the-stupendous-landscape-of-sting-theory-vacua","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=39","title":{"rendered":"The stupendous Landscape of sting theory vacua"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>At an early stage in the Los Alamos preprint archive it was split up into hep-th (for more formal or speculative work not directly relevant to experiment) and hep-ph (for &#8220;phenomenological&#8221; papers directly related to experiment).  Susskind has just come out with his <A href=\"http:\/\/www.arxiv.org\/abs\/hep-ph\/0406197\">latest<\/A> and now seems to feel that his ideas about the &#8220;Landscape&#8221; are directly of interest to experimenters and so belong in hep-ph.<\/p>\n<p>The preprint is riddled with typos, for instance the third paragraph starts like this:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;During the last couple of years an entirely new paradigm has emerged from the ashes of a more traditional view of string theory.  The basis of the new paradigm is the stupendous Landscape of sting [sic] theory vacua &#8212; especially the non-supersymmetric vacua. These vacua appear to be so numerous that the word <I>Discrtuum<\/I> [sic] is used to describe the spectrum of possible values of the cosmological constant&#8230;..&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>You get the idea.<\/p>\n<p>Some high points of the article:<\/p>\n<p>1. &#8220;low energy supersymmetry &#8211; an ugly solution&#8221; to the naturalness problem.  Now he tells us. From what I remember the &#8220;beauty of supersymmetry&#8221; has always been one argument made in its favor.<\/p>\n<p>2. &#8220;the ashes of a more traditional view of string theory&#8221;.  It seems that the picture of the world according to string theory that has been heavily sold for the last twenty years has burned down to the ground.<\/p>\n<p>3. The argument in his <A href=\"http:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/blog\/archives\/000027.html\">last paper<\/A>, such as it was, was wrong. Now he&#8217;s got a new one with a similar conclusion.<\/p>\n<p>4. &#8220;&#8230; a prediction that supersymmetry will not be seen at the TEV scale seems warranted&#8221;.  OK, string theory is finally making a prediction.<\/p>\n<p>5. &#8220;If it turns out that low energy supersymmetry is a feature of TEV physics, then we will have to conclude that other considerations outweigh the counting of vacua on the Landscape&#8221;.  So, even though string theory predicts no low energy supersymmetry, if it is found it doesn&#8217;t mean string theory is wrong. Got it?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>At an early stage in the Los Alamos preprint archive it was split up into hep-th (for more formal or speculative work not directly relevant to experiment) and hep-ph (for &#8220;phenomenological&#8221; papers directly related to experiment). Susskind has just come &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=39\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=39"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=39"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=39"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=39"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}