Comments on: String Theory is Losing the Public Debate http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:17:33 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: How to Debate Beauty « Combinatorics and more http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-87003 How to Debate Beauty « Combinatorics and more Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:30:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-87003 [...] variance. Gina Says: May 10th, 2007 at 6:18 am ] The issue of beauty and physics is quite prominent in this discussion. Lee Smolin warns against [...] [...] variance. Gina Says: May 10th, 2007 at 6:18 am ] The issue of beauty and physics is quite prominent in this discussion. Lee Smolin warns against [...]

]]> By: William Shaw http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-27114 William Shaw Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:13:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-27114 Caught this discussion just now. I will write up the complexified string quantization via twistors at some point - I should point out meantime that there is indeed a quantum Virasoro algebra that matches the classical Poisson brackets precisely, and that arises from considering complexified strings and their first quantization in twistor space. The seminar where this is discussed is downloadable from: http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~shaww/web_page/strings/strings.pdf One should also note the point of view discussed there that the standard bosonic string quantization is incomplete: the classical phase space is missing the complex forms of the classical ground state , i.e. complex null geodesics corresponding to spinning systems. Caught this discussion just now. I will write up the complexified string quantization via twistors at some point – I should point out meantime that there is indeed a quantum Virasoro algebra that matches the classical Poisson brackets precisely, and that arises from considering complexified strings and their first quantization in twistor space. The seminar where this is discussed is downloadable from:

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~shaww/web_page/strings/strings.pdf

One should also note the point of view discussed there that the standard bosonic string quantization is incomplete: the classical phase space is missing the complex forms of the classical ground state , i.e. complex null geodesics corresponding to spinning systems.

]]> By: Cartoons and cutting-edge physics « Entertaining Research http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-27113 Cartoons and cutting-edge physics « Entertaining Research Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:46:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-27113 [...] potential buyers might do well to read some of the criticisms of Smolin’s critique at Cosmic Variance and the Storm in a tea cup series at Asymptotia before buying [...] [...] potential buyers might do well to read some of the criticisms of Smolin’s critique at Cosmic Variance and the Storm in a tea cup series at Asymptotia before buying [...]

]]> By: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » The Empire Strikes Back http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-27112 Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » The Empire Strikes Back Fri, 25 May 2007 20:02:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-27112 [...] last month’s posting at Cosmic Variance about how String Theory is Losing the Public Debate, Sean Carroll seems to have decided to go on the offensive (or defensive…), with a piece in [...] [...] last month’s posting at Cosmic Variance about how String Theory is Losing the Public Debate, Sean Carroll seems to have decided to go on the offensive (or defensive…), with a piece in [...]

]]> By: Eric http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-27101 Eric Mon, 14 May 2007 00:01:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-27101 I think that Woit considers most models derived from string theory to be ugly and contrived, not necessarily stirng theory itself. I generally disagree with this, although it may be true of some flux compactifications, which seem rather unnatural to me. I think that Woit considers most models derived from string theory to be ugly and contrived, not necessarily stirng theory itself. I generally disagree with this, although it may be true of some flux compactifications, which seem rather unnatural to me.

]]> By: B http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-27063 B Sun, 13 May 2007 16:31:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-27063 <I>as you said, Bee, we should be able to predict Peter's answer on this particular matter <b>without</b> asking him.</i> I definitely did not say that. In fact, most of the time I ask questions for the reason that I can not predict the answer. The reason why I don't ask Peter whether or not he considers something ugly is that it doesn't matter to me. I want to hear the scientific arguments. Whether or not somebody perceives these as ugly or beautiful is a subjective judgement. I didn't count the amount of times he used the word 'ugly', and the repetitive use of the word is probably not a very good writing style, but then he never meant to qualify for the Nobel Prize in literature. Best, B. as you said, Bee, we should be able to predict Peter’s answer on this particular matter without asking him.

I definitely did not say that. In fact, most of the time I ask questions for the reason that I can not predict the answer. The reason why I don’t ask Peter whether or not he considers something ugly is that it doesn’t matter to me. I want to hear the scientific arguments. Whether or not somebody perceives these as ugly or beautiful is a subjective judgement. I didn’t count the amount of times he used the word ‘ugly’, and the repetitive use of the word is probably not a very good writing style, but then he never meant to qualify for the Nobel Prize in literature.

Best,

B.

]]> By: Gina http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-26813 Gina Sat, 12 May 2007 20:12:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-26813 Dear Bee and Anon, Bee, Peter Woit's discussion of beauty in physics (Chapter 13 in his book) is also quite reasonable, although I do not agree with his opinion that superstrings are not beautiful. In this thread, Peter refers to string theory as "ugly" ten times. (While criticism and skepticism are overall healthy and welcomed, the amount of repetitions here and elsewhere makes Peter skeptical style (also regarding other parts of the debate) a sort of "skeptical harassment," which is, in my opinion, a rather problematic style of skepticism.) I think that seriously thinking about the role of beauty in physics or science can be of interest. The evaluation of supersymmetry can be a good test case. If Peter indeed described a clear <strong> approach </strong> regarding beauty of physics theories, as you said, Bee, we should be able to predict Peter's answer on this particular matter <strong> without </strong> asking him. (But, of course, I did ask him and he just did not reply, (which is perfectly OK).) Peter's description of supersymmetry (Chapter 12 in his book) is very good and support my view that this is a very beautiful idea/theory. Anon wrote: "If you want to argue FOR the beauty of string theory, a real scientific argument for it would be useful, too. (Science as in empirical reality and not just something that you wish to be true.)" The issue is precisely how to discuss beauty. If 'beautiful' is just the same as 'empirically valid', there is no point to talk about beauty at all. If ugly is a synonym for difficult or complex, again there is no point to discuss it as a separate concept. Bee wrote: "In my subjective perception for example the length of this comment section is ugly." I am not sure, B. It may be true that we are well 'over the hill' here, but it is always nice to hope otherwise, no? Dear Bee and Anon,

Bee, Peter Woit’s discussion of beauty in physics (Chapter 13 in his book) is also quite reasonable, although I do not agree with his opinion that superstrings are not beautiful. In this thread, Peter refers to string theory as “ugly” ten times. (While criticism and skepticism are overall healthy and welcomed, the amount of repetitions here and elsewhere makes Peter skeptical style (also regarding other parts of the debate) a sort of “skeptical harassment,” which is, in my opinion, a rather problematic style of skepticism.)

I think that seriously thinking about the role of beauty in physics or science can be of interest. The evaluation of supersymmetry can be a good test case. If Peter indeed described a clear approach regarding beauty of physics theories, as you said, Bee, we should be able to predict Peter’s answer on this particular matter without asking him. (But, of course, I did ask him and he just did not reply, (which is perfectly OK).) Peter’s description of supersymmetry (Chapter 12 in his book) is very good and support my view that this is a very beautiful idea/theory.

Anon wrote: “If you want to argue FOR the beauty of string theory, a real scientific argument for it would be useful, too. (Science as in empirical reality and not just something that you wish to be true.)”

The issue is precisely how to discuss beauty. If ‘beautiful’ is just the same as ‘empirically valid’, there is no point to talk about beauty at all. If ugly is a synonym for difficult or complex, again there is no point to discuss it as a separate concept.

Bee wrote: “In my subjective perception for example the length of this comment section is ugly.”

I am not sure, B. It may be true that we are well ‘over the hill’ here, but it is always nice to hope otherwise, no?

]]> By: B http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-26885 B Sat, 12 May 2007 19:26:50 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-26885 Hi Gina, how about you ask Peter? You are the one who wrote he regards string theory as very ugly. I meant to say he has written a whole book that clarifies his opinion. That doesn't mean you have to share it. In my subjective perception for example the length of this comment section is ugly. Best, B. Hi Gina,

how about you ask Peter? You are the one who wrote he regards string theory as very ugly. I meant to say he has written a whole book that clarifies his opinion. That doesn’t mean you have to share it. In my subjective perception for example the length of this comment section is ugly. Best,

B.

]]> By: Arun http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-26793 Arun Sat, 12 May 2007 17:06:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-26793 <I>"(The moral is that if you want to argue against the beauty of string theory your best chance is, as Clifford Johnson often say in his tea-cup series, to come up with a real scientific argument against it. Of course, in such a case, the whole beauty issue becomes of secondary importance.)"</I> If you want to argue FOR the beauty of string theory, a real scientific argument for it would be useful, too. (Science as in empirical reality and not just something that you wish to be true.) “(The moral is that if you want to argue against the beauty of string theory your best chance is, as Clifford Johnson often say in his tea-cup series, to come up with a real scientific argument against it. Of course, in such a case, the whole beauty issue becomes of secondary importance.)”

If you want to argue FOR the beauty of string theory, a real scientific argument for it would be useful, too. (Science as in empirical reality and not just something that you wish to be true.)

]]> By: Gina http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-26874 Gina Sat, 12 May 2007 09:06:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/31/string-theory-is-losing-the-public-debate/#comment-26874 Dear Bee, You wrote regarding the beauty issue "Lee as well as Peter, have made it more than clear what exactly they mean with that" If Peter's approach is more than clear, is it clear to you, B, if Peter regards supersymmetry as beautiful or as ugly? (Lee's approach to beauty and physics is oveall quite reasonable.) Dear Bee,

You wrote regarding the beauty issue “Lee as well as Peter, have made it more than clear what exactly they mean with that”

If Peter’s approach is more than clear, is it clear to you, B, if Peter regards supersymmetry as beautiful or as ugly?

(Lee’s approach to beauty and physics is oveall quite reasonable.)

]]>