9 ms·

I hate to do it but I have to do it, the "String" phenomenon is an out-growth of the academic (industrial?) complex. When you have a group of closely knit scien

I hate to do it but I have to do it, the "String" phenomenon is an out-growth of the academic (industrial?) complex. When you have a group of closely knit scientists from a handful of universities who have a steady stream of cheap labor and fed by a media that bedazzles their untestable hypotheses, when you're propped up by that hype and prestige, the fumes that academics at the top feed off, then you can plunge further into the deep, while offsetting the externalities and opportunity costs onto governments and broken graduate students who eventually find themselves unemployable after about 5 to 6 years. I smelled the stink early on when a project at the LHC I was joining found 6 (plus or minus 4!) possible supersymmetry events in the two years of PBs of LHC data(!) in their specific search. I made the bet against supersymmetry and went for a less hyped field, and now that their funding is drying up, I'm happily taking almost double (or more) the salary compared to other graduate students since I'm in another field. Haven't regretted since. The hype behind string theory and HEP in general needs to die. There are so many interesting problems worthy of investigation that are not High Energy or Quantum Gravity. Yes, few things beat the fun math of HEP and string theory (although there are close contenders in the condensed matter world), few things--except perhaps validation in experiment...you know, the entire point of science in the first place.

ejolto 9y ago
Just curious, what field did you go into? I'll be spending the next year at CERN, as an electronics engineer though not a physicist.
the6threplicant 9y ago
I like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ccXzM3x8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ccXzM3x8A (The case for String Theory). It shows that there is a natural progression to String Theory that very few other theories have.
- ajnin 9y ago
  I'm not a physicist but after watching this I'm utterly unconvinced. Inconceivably large number of possible Universes cited as evidence because our own might well be in there somewhere ? A casual passing mention that there are not 4 but 10 dimensions, and the fact that we can't see them is not proof that the theory is wrong but simply dismissed because they might be very well hidden. To the casual observer that I am it looks like formula-tweaking to fit some mathematical framework better, but with no regard with compatibility with reality.
richmarr 9y ago
Strongly recommend "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin. It highlights how string theory (to use a broad brush) has choked off access to talent, tenure, and funding for competing theories.
orbifold 9y ago
String theory had lots of success just not as a phenomenological theory. Monstorous moonshine, which was proven by Borcherds using techniques developed for String Theory, Witten's Contributions to Chern Simons and Donaldson Theory, and Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture come to mind.
- jackmott 9y ago
  But this would amount to it being "math practice" rather than investigation into how the universe works.
  - paulpauper 9y ago
    from math practice arises building blocks for scientific theory. they complement each other. mathematical theories are analogous to tools that can be used later
- auntienomen 9y ago
  Perelman's proof of Poincare was quite independent of string theory. No need to get greedy.
  - orbifold 9y ago
    The Lagrangian that he used is the effective field theory of a bosonic string, in his first paper he explicitly referred to that fact.
    - auntienomen 9y ago
      Yes, I'm aware of that. I still don't count this as a string theory success. Borcherds proof of the Moonshine conjecture uses the no-ghost theorem in a way which is completely unsurprising to anyone familiar with QFT. Perelman's proof of Geometrization, in contrast, uses the string-frame Lagrangian in a manner which is by no means implicit in the string theory literature. The deep content of those papers comes after he's decided which functional to work with.
Shivetya 9y ago
Cannot this be said by quite a few similar endeavors?
paulpauper 9y ago
When you have a group of closely knit scientists from a handful of universities who have a steady stream of cheap labor and fed by a media that bedazzles their untestable hypotheses, when you're propped up by that hype and prestige, the fumes that academics at the top feed off, then you can plunge further into the deep, while offsetting the externalities and opportunity costs onto governments and broken graduate students who eventually find themselves unemployable after about 5 to 6 years. This sounds conspiratorial. The people who are studying string theory, should the theory not pan out, will find work other in other areas. It's not like majoring in basket-weaving-studies, where there is no value. String theory has a deep mathematical framework, and such mathematics , as well as the superior critical thinking and intellect required to learn string theory and thus signaled, are invaluable for all sorts of professions, some of which pay well: computer science, hedge fund/quant trading, philosophy, teaching physics and math, engineering, etc. The hype behind string theory and HEP in general needs to die. There are so many interesting problems worthy of investigation that are not High Energy or Quantum Gravity. Yes, few things beat the fun math of HEP and string theory (although there are close contenders in the condensed matter world), few things--except perhaps validation in experiment...you know, the entire point of science in the first place. HEP concerns the universe and reality itself. It's a pretty big deal considering the implications.
- chriswarbo 9y ago
  > This sounds conspiratorial. It needn't be. It's a plausible survival strategy, given the incentives (economic or otherwise). This doesn't require anyone to consciously decide on this strategy, let alone do so collectively. Evolution ensures that those who just-so-happen to follow this behaviour (by whatever reasoning, which may be very well intentioned) will survive; those who don't will move elsewhere.
- T-A 9y ago
  String theory has a deep mathematical framework, and such mathematics, as well as the superior critical thinking and intellect required to learn string theory and thus signaled, are invaluable for all sorts of professions, some of which pay well: computer science, hedge fund/quant trading, philosophy, teaching physics and math, engineering, etc. This is the standard party line which faculty will feed you when trying to recruit you. What you eventually grow up to realize is: the superior critical thinking and intellect required to learn string theory and thus signaled: What is actually signals is delusional arrogance and/or cluelessness, leading to 5+ years spent specializing on a topic perfectly well known to offer negligible career opportunities. A prospective employer looking at this argument will simply ask: if you are so intellectually superior, why are you not sticking with string theory instead of trying to mix with us lowbrows? invaluable for all sorts of professions, some of which pay well: computer science: There is very little overlap between the mathematics used in theoretical physics and computer science, beyond what you will already have picked up as an undergrad. hedge fund/quant trading: No. There was a time when physicists in general were considered good quant material. These days there is a lot more competition, and employers have wised up. Look at job offers for such positions, and you will see that those which still mention physics as an adequate educational background will now tend to say experimental physics. The reason is, again, negligible overlap between the mathematics used by HEP theorists and experimenters. The latter, to the extent that they are not building hardware (in which case they are essentially electrical and/or mechanical engineers) are effectively statisticians doing big data work. If you spent years programming computer clusters to look for statistical anomalies in petabytes of LHC data, you can make a good case for having transferable skills useful in finance. If you spent years using Mathematica to explore differential geometry in 11 dimensions, not so much. philosophy: A booming industry? teaching physics and math: This is the real one. Of all the people I've known who went for a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, most ended up teaching math & physics in high school. This is rarely seen as a good outcome. They spent their youth subject to high stress and uncertainty in return for very little money, usually doing not what they may have dreamed of doing but what was considered likely to lead to publication within the time frame of a Ph.D. program and, of course, consistent with their advisor's interests. And for that, they were rewarded with a low-paying job requiring intense interpersonal interactions, pretty much the opposite of the ideal for the kind of personality which is attracted to highly theoretical endeavors. Those who are not miserable have learned to cope by focusing on other aspects of their life than work. engineering, etc.: I can honestly say that I have never known a Ph.D. in theoretical physics who went on to become an engineer. Experimental physicists, sure, lots; they are really engineers with an unusual specialization. But not theorists. I guess you can find them if you look hard enough, but again: the overlap is negligible. If you've been doing string theory, the "switch" essentially amounts to throwing away what you learned in grad school and falling back on your undergraduate core curriculum.
mathgenius 9y ago
Yeah I am sick of the HEP people acting like they are the only game in town.
ylem 9y ago
After undergrad, I was trying to decide to do with my life and was torn between condensed matter theory and string theory. I chose condensed matter (and eventually found my way into experiment) because I wanted a closer connection to experiment. Maybe my university was unusual. When you were admitted, they flew us out to sell us on the department. But for those of us who were admitted who expressed an interest in string theory, the string group basically told us that there were so few positions open in the world that it would be irresponsible for them to take on any graduate students unless they thought they could get one of those rare positions. During my time there, they kept to that promise and many people who wanted to do string theory were unable to find an advisor willing to take them on (one who did became a professor at Harvard). Many found their way into other fields like condensed matter physics or astronomy. It might have seemed harsh at the time, but I admired them for trying to do the right thing.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ronnier 9y ago
What's the biggest discovery or development to come out of the LHC?
- rubidium 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Discovery_of_candidate_boson_at_CERN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Discovery_of_candi...

ejolto 9y ago

Just curious, what field did you go into? I'll be spending the next year at CERN, as an electronics engineer though not a physicist.

the6threplicant 9y ago

I like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ccXzM3x8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ccXzM3x8A (The case for String Theory). It shows that there is a natural progression to String Theory that very few other theories have.

ajnin 9y ago
I'm not a physicist but after watching this I'm utterly unconvinced. Inconceivably large number of possible Universes cited as evidence because our own might well be in there somewhere ? A casual passing mention that there are not 4 but 10 dimensions, and the fact that we can't see them is not proof that the theory is wrong but simply dismissed because they might be very well hidden. To the casual observer that I am it looks like formula-tweaking to fit some mathematical framework better, but with no regard with compatibility with reality.

richmarr 9y ago

Strongly recommend "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin. It highlights how string theory (to use a broad brush) has choked off access to talent, tenure, and funding for competing theories.

orbifold 9y ago

String theory had lots of success just not as a phenomenological theory. Monstorous moonshine, which was proven by Borcherds using techniques developed for String Theory, Witten's Contributions to Chern Simons and Donaldson Theory, and Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture come to mind.

jackmott 9y ago
But this would amount to it being "math practice" rather than investigation into how the universe works.
- paulpauper 9y ago
  from math practice arises building blocks for scientific theory. they complement each other. mathematical theories are analogous to tools that can be used later
auntienomen 9y ago
Perelman's proof of Poincare was quite independent of string theory. No need to get greedy.
- orbifold 9y ago
  The Lagrangian that he used is the effective field theory of a bosonic string, in his first paper he explicitly referred to that fact.
  - auntienomen 9y ago
    Yes, I'm aware of that. I still don't count this as a string theory success. Borcherds proof of the Moonshine conjecture uses the no-ghost theorem in a way which is completely unsurprising to anyone familiar with QFT. Perelman's proof of Geometrization, in contrast, uses the string-frame Lagrangian in a manner which is by no means implicit in the string theory literature. The deep content of those papers comes after he's decided which functional to work with.

Shivetya 9y ago

Cannot this be said by quite a few similar endeavors?

paulpauper 9y ago

When you have a group of closely knit scientists from a handful of universities who have a steady stream of cheap labor and fed by a media that bedazzles their untestable hypotheses, when you're propped up by that hype and prestige, the fumes that academics at the top feed off, then you can plunge further into the deep, while offsetting the externalities and opportunity costs onto governments and broken graduate students who eventually find themselves unemployable after about 5 to 6 years. This sounds conspiratorial. The people who are studying string theory, should the theory not pan out, will find work other in other areas. It's not like majoring in basket-weaving-studies, where there is no value. String theory has a deep mathematical framework, and such mathematics , as well as the superior critical thinking and intellect required to learn string theory and thus signaled, are invaluable for all sorts of professions, some of which pay well: computer science, hedge fund/quant trading, philosophy, teaching physics and math, engineering, etc. The hype behind string theory and HEP in general needs to die. There are so many interesting problems worthy of investigation that are not High Energy or Quantum Gravity. Yes, few things beat the fun math of HEP and string theory (although there are close contenders in the condensed matter world), few things--except perhaps validation in experiment...you know, the entire point of science in the first place. HEP concerns the universe and reality itself. It's a pretty big deal considering the implications.

chriswarbo 9y ago
> This sounds conspiratorial. It needn't be. It's a plausible survival strategy, given the incentives (economic or otherwise). This doesn't require anyone to consciously decide on this strategy, let alone do so collectively. Evolution ensures that those who just-so-happen to follow this behaviour (by whatever reasoning, which may be very well intentioned) will survive; those who don't will move elsewhere.
T-A 9y ago
String theory has a deep mathematical framework, and such mathematics, as well as the superior critical thinking and intellect required to learn string theory and thus signaled, are invaluable for all sorts of professions, some of which pay well: computer science, hedge fund/quant trading, philosophy, teaching physics and math, engineering, etc. This is the standard party line which faculty will feed you when trying to recruit you. What you eventually grow up to realize is: the superior critical thinking and intellect required to learn string theory and thus signaled: What is actually signals is delusional arrogance and/or cluelessness, leading to 5+ years spent specializing on a topic perfectly well known to offer negligible career opportunities. A prospective employer looking at this argument will simply ask: if you are so intellectually superior, why are you not sticking with string theory instead of trying to mix with us lowbrows? invaluable for all sorts of professions, some of which pay well: computer science: There is very little overlap between the mathematics used in theoretical physics and computer science, beyond what you will already have picked up as an undergrad. hedge fund/quant trading: No. There was a time when physicists in general were considered good quant material. These days there is a lot more competition, and employers have wised up. Look at job offers for such positions, and you will see that those which still mention physics as an adequate educational background will now tend to say experimental physics. The reason is, again, negligible overlap between the mathematics used by HEP theorists and experimenters. The latter, to the extent that they are not building hardware (in which case they are essentially electrical and/or mechanical engineers) are effectively statisticians doing big data work. If you spent years programming computer clusters to look for statistical anomalies in petabytes of LHC data, you can make a good case for having transferable skills useful in finance. If you spent years using Mathematica to explore differential geometry in 11 dimensions, not so much. philosophy: A booming industry? teaching physics and math: This is the real one. Of all the people I've known who went for a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, most ended up teaching math & physics in high school. This is rarely seen as a good outcome. They spent their youth subject to high stress and uncertainty in return for very little money, usually doing not what they may have dreamed of doing but what was considered likely to lead to publication within the time frame of a Ph.D. program and, of course, consistent with their advisor's interests. And for that, they were rewarded with a low-paying job requiring intense interpersonal interactions, pretty much the opposite of the ideal for the kind of personality which is attracted to highly theoretical endeavors. Those who are not miserable have learned to cope by focusing on other aspects of their life than work. engineering, etc.: I can honestly say that I have never known a Ph.D. in theoretical physics who went on to become an engineer. Experimental physicists, sure, lots; they are really engineers with an unusual specialization. But not theorists. I guess you can find them if you look hard enough, but again: the overlap is negligible. If you've been doing string theory, the "switch" essentially amounts to throwing away what you learned in grad school and falling back on your undergraduate core curriculum.

mathgenius 9y ago

Yeah I am sick of the HEP people acting like they are the only game in town.

ylem 9y ago

After undergrad, I was trying to decide to do with my life and was torn between condensed matter theory and string theory. I chose condensed matter (and eventually found my way into experiment) because I wanted a closer connection to experiment. Maybe my university was unusual. When you were admitted, they flew us out to sell us on the department. But for those of us who were admitted who expressed an interest in string theory, the string group basically told us that there were so few positions open in the world that it would be irresponsible for them to take on any graduate students unless they thought they could get one of those rare positions. During my time there, they kept to that promise and many people who wanted to do string theory were unable to find an advisor willing to take them on (one who did became a professor at Harvard). Many found their way into other fields like condensed matter physics or astronomy. It might have seemed harsh at the time, but I admired them for trying to do the right thing.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ronnier 9y ago

What's the biggest discovery or development to come out of the LHC?

rubidium 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Discovery_of_candidate_boson_at_CERN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Discovery_of_candi...