Comments on: The Landscape – For Real This Time http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:08:25 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: The String Theory Backlash | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1629 The String Theory Backlash | Cosmic Variance Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:41:51 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1629 [...] Of course, you do have to make the case that your personally favorite approach is a promising one, to the public and to colleagues in other specialties as well as to graduate students. This is not always a job that string theorists have done well. Some of them, I’ve heard rumors, can even occasionally be a mite arrogant. Let’s admit, this is something of an occupational hazard among academics; if universities fired all the arrogant people, the remaining faculty would be stuck teaching twenty courses a semester. And, while I think that an enormous landscape of stringy vacua might very well exist, I think that supporters of the idea have dramatically failed to take seriously the difficulty of actually calculating anything on that basis. Discussions about these crucial issues have all too often degenerated into sophomore-level philosophy-of-science debates, which haven’t done credit to either side. The truth is, we’re not doing science in a new way, it’s the same old way — trying to come up with the simplest possible consistent and coherent framework that explains the phenomena we observe. [...] [...] Of course, you do have to make the case that your personally favorite approach is a promising one, to the public and to colleagues in other specialties as well as to graduate students. This is not always a job that string theorists have done well. Some of them, I’ve heard rumors, can even occasionally be a mite arrogant. Let’s admit, this is something of an occupational hazard among academics; if universities fired all the arrogant people, the remaining faculty would be stuck teaching twenty courses a semester. And, while I think that an enormous landscape of stringy vacua might very well exist, I think that supporters of the idea have dramatically failed to take seriously the difficulty of actually calculating anything on that basis. Discussions about these crucial issues have all too often degenerated into sophomore-level philosophy-of-science debates, which haven’t done credit to either side. The truth is, we’re not doing science in a new way, it’s the same old way — trying to come up with the simplest possible consistent and coherent framework that explains the phenomena we observe. [...]

]]> By: SUSY06 Wednesday Night SmackDown! | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1628 SUSY06 Wednesday Night SmackDown! | Cosmic Variance Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:32:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1628 [...] Well, Wednesday night at the SUSY06 conference featured presentations by Frank Wilczek, Lenny Susskind, Andre Linde, and Burt Richter, and ended with a panel discussion. Slides and notes can be found here. It was about “Naturalness”, and -among other aspects of naturalness- featured a lot of discussion about the Landscape scenario, and the use of Anthropic arguments in fundamental physics. The first three speakers gave excellent presentations of their points of view on the topics, each using Anthropicity (is there such a word?) to varying degrees. You’ve possibly read about the nature of the discussion (especially as it pertains to what some researchers in string theory are pursuing) in an earlier post of mine (see the comments, especially). [...] [...] Well, Wednesday night at the SUSY06 conference featured presentations by Frank Wilczek, Lenny Susskind, Andre Linde, and Burt Richter, and ended with a panel discussion. Slides and notes can be found here. It was about “Naturalness”, and -among other aspects of naturalness- featured a lot of discussion about the Landscape scenario, and the use of Anthropic arguments in fundamental physics. The first three speakers gave excellent presentations of their points of view on the topics, each using Anthropicity (is there such a word?) to varying degrees. You’ve possibly read about the nature of the discussion (especially as it pertains to what some researchers in string theory are pursuing) in an earlier post of mine (see the comments, especially). [...]

]]> By: There’s Gold in the Landscape | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1627 There’s Gold in the Landscape | Cosmic Variance Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:45:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1627 [...] Workers in the field have found that (keep the above caveat in mind) there are apparently very very many solutions, making up a whole “landscape” of possibilities. (See my earlier, more technical post on this.) [...] [...] Workers in the field have found that (keep the above caveat in mind) there are apparently very very many solutions, making up a whole “landscape” of possibilities. (See my earlier, more technical post on this.) [...]

]]> By: Is our universe natural? | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1626 Is our universe natural? | Cosmic Variance Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:31:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1626 [...] Hey, has anyone heard about this string theory landscape business, and the anthropic principle, and some sort of controversy? Hmm, I guess they have. Perhaps enough that whatever needs to be said has already been thoroughly hashed out. [...] [...] Hey, has anyone heard about this string theory landscape business, and the anthropic principle, and some sort of controversy? Hmm, I guess they have. Perhaps enough that whatever needs to be said has already been thoroughly hashed out. [...]

]]> By: Duff on Susskind | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1625 Duff on Susskind | Cosmic Variance Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:59:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1625 [...] Background (and my humble opinion) on the issue of the Landscape in string theory research can be found in an article I wrote here. (Tread carefully through the 172 (to date) comment bloodbath tagged on the end.) [...] [...] Background (and my humble opinion) on the issue of the Landscape in string theory research can be found in an article I wrote here. (Tread carefully through the 172 (to date) comment bloodbath tagged on the end.) [...]

]]> By: Einstein’s Discovery of General Relativity, 1905-1915 | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1624 Einstein’s Discovery of General Relativity, 1905-1915 | Cosmic Variance Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:01:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1624 [...] This is an excellent lesson that these struggles can take a long time, and you cannot know how close you are to the end. Ten years could easily have been twenty…or more. This is what I meant in previous posts and comments when I say without embarrasment that it is too early to condemn the program of research into string theory. Nobody knows if it is right or wrong. Screaming loudly on blogs here, there, and elsewhere, and making spectacles in, and appeals to, the popular press won’t change that fact. I personally do not think that it is yet ready to compare to Nature. We don’t understand it at all well enough yet. Although it would be nice if we were lucky, and we do need guidance from attempts to do so, and so this is why it is important to have phenomenological programs within the field. But we should not be surprised if those programs are not yet conclusive if we do not even understand the theory well enough to say what it is. Rather, we should be encouraged -given the tantalizing hints that the theory has given us so far- that we might be onto understanding something rather profound that arises in Nature when you combine gravity and the quantum. We shall see, but let’s not be hasty. One day, I hope, we will get it into the right shape to make a set of predictions that we can challenge with experimental and/or observational data. And then we will know, one way or another if it is right or wrong. (And in the meantime, the other benefits of this program of research in physics and mathematics have been numerous, and will no doubt continue to accumulate.) [...] [...] This is an excellent lesson that these struggles can take a long time, and you cannot know how close you are to the end. Ten years could easily have been twenty…or more. This is what I meant in previous posts and comments when I say without embarrasment that it is too early to condemn the program of research into string theory. Nobody knows if it is right or wrong. Screaming loudly on blogs here, there, and elsewhere, and making spectacles in, and appeals to, the popular press won’t change that fact. I personally do not think that it is yet ready to compare to Nature. We don’t understand it at all well enough yet. Although it would be nice if we were lucky, and we do need guidance from attempts to do so, and so this is why it is important to have phenomenological programs within the field. But we should not be surprised if those programs are not yet conclusive if we do not even understand the theory well enough to say what it is. Rather, we should be encouraged -given the tantalizing hints that the theory has given us so far- that we might be onto understanding something rather profound that arises in Nature when you combine gravity and the quantum. We shall see, but let’s not be hasty. One day, I hope, we will get it into the right shape to make a set of predictions that we can challenge with experimental and/or observational data. And then we will know, one way or another if it is right or wrong. (And in the meantime, the other benefits of this program of research in physics and mathematics have been numerous, and will no doubt continue to accumulate.) [...]

]]> By: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1623 From the Sublime to the Ridiculous | Cosmic Variance Wed, 09 Nov 2005 06:17:12 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1623 [...] I know this might seem like a disgruntled string theorist’s view of things, but I assure you that it is not. As you may know from reading my posts and comments in discussions on this blog (see e.g. here, and here, and in comments), I welcome and encorage honest and informed debate about the program of research in string theory and related topics. I’ve welcomed well-known nay-sayers to come and have their say on this blog. This is because the debate is important. We do not know if string theory is correct. More research is needed. Discussion is healthy and important, etc. But what I do not like to see is outright deliberate distortion of what the research is about in order to sell books, or serve any other agenda. And as I’ve said it is especially disturbing when it is about a praciticing scientist who actually knows that he is misrepresenting things. [...] [...] I know this might seem like a disgruntled string theorist’s view of things, but I assure you that it is not. As you may know from reading my posts and comments in discussions on this blog (see e.g. here, and here, and in comments), I welcome and encorage honest and informed debate about the program of research in string theory and related topics. I’ve welcomed well-known nay-sayers to come and have their say on this blog. This is because the debate is important. We do not know if string theory is correct. More research is needed. Discussion is healthy and important, etc. But what I do not like to see is outright deliberate distortion of what the research is about in order to sell books, or serve any other agenda. And as I’ve said it is especially disturbing when it is about a praciticing scientist who actually knows that he is misrepresenting things. [...]

]]> By: News From The Front, II | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1622 News From The Front, II | Cosmic Variance Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:47:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1622 [...] In fact, most of what you’ve heard about in various places about the exciting stuff that’s going on in string theory and what it promises for describing Nature are, in my humble opinion, early efforts in the game. Incredibly valuable endeavours….. but only the beginning. See my comments about what I think about some of the current issues here. Be sure to read my comments in the discussion part of that thread too. Furthermore, much of what we have learned pertains to the critical string theories, a rich class for study of course, but after all of the non-perturbative lessons that we have learned in the last decade, the fact that as a field we mostly still linger in the critical domain should be regarded as nothing more than the force of habit; so much historical baggage. [...] [...] In fact, most of what you’ve heard about in various places about the exciting stuff that’s going on in string theory and what it promises for describing Nature are, in my humble opinion, early efforts in the game. Incredibly valuable endeavours….. but only the beginning. See my comments about what I think about some of the current issues here. Be sure to read my comments in the discussion part of that thread too. Furthermore, much of what we have learned pertains to the critical string theories, a rich class for study of course, but after all of the non-perturbative lessons that we have learned in the last decade, the fact that as a field we mostly still linger in the critical domain should be regarded as nothing more than the force of habit; so much historical baggage. [...]

]]> By: Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1621 Cosmic Variance Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:28:48 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1621 <strong>Physics and Precipitation in Vancouver</strong> Yesterday morning I flew to Vancouver, arriving mid-afternoon, in advance of today’s theory seminar at the University of British Columbia. Last night I stayed at Green College, which is on the UBC campus, and is supposed to have breathtaking vie... Physics and Precipitation in Vancouver

Yesterday morning I flew to Vancouver, arriving mid-afternoon, in advance of today’s theory seminar at the University of British Columbia. Last night I stayed at Green College, which is on the UBC campus, and is supposed to have breathtaking vie…

]]> By: Bad Physics Joke Explained, Part I | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/comment-page-2/#comment-1620 Bad Physics Joke Explained, Part I | Cosmic Variance Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:49:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/08/14/the-landscape-for-real-this-time/#comment-1620 [...] Why the name “Holographic”? Well, it is a bit like what happens in optics to make those holograms that you see a lot in advertising and toys. They are two dimensional objects which (by clever storage of inteference data) can store and reproduce the appearance of three dimensional objects. In the quantum gravity context, the three dimensional physics is realized two dimensionally. It has led the field to wonder if our entire four (i.e., 3+1) dimensional description of our universe is redundant in some sense, and we need only work in one dimension fewer, but nobody has yet figured out the whole story yet. We’ve probably to wait for better grasp of our formulations of quantum gravity before we can address that. I’ve also spoken a lot about that on this blog, for example in the comment stream of this post on the Landscape. [...] [...] Why the name “Holographic”? Well, it is a bit like what happens in optics to make those holograms that you see a lot in advertising and toys. They are two dimensional objects which (by clever storage of inteference data) can store and reproduce the appearance of three dimensional objects. In the quantum gravity context, the three dimensional physics is realized two dimensionally. It has led the field to wonder if our entire four (i.e., 3+1) dimensional description of our universe is redundant in some sense, and we need only work in one dimension fewer, but nobody has yet figured out the whole story yet. We’ve probably to wait for better grasp of our formulations of quantum gravity before we can address that. I’ve also spoken a lot about that on this blog, for example in the comment stream of this post on the Landscape. [...]

]]>