
Theorists with a Swamp, not a Theory - chmaynard
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10460
======
danharaj
Anyone have insight into how theoretical quantum field theory is developing
outside of string theory? Not just high energy physics but also condensed
matter physics. I'd imagine understanding quantum field theory more deeply
leads to more efficient modelling and computation, but that sort of
incremental advancement doesn't get much public exposure.

~~~
ssivark
The breadth of your question makes it difficult for any one person to give a
representative answer. I'll give a few examples, biased by my limited
background.

1\. Amplitudology: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-
geometry-...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-
underlying-particle-physics-20130917)

2\. Conformal bootstrap: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/using-the-bootstrap-
physicist...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/using-the-bootstrap-physicists-
uncover-geometry-of-theory-space-20170223)

3\. Tensor networks:
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2164](https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2164)

~~~
auntienomen
I'd say all three of these are topics related to string theory and worked on
by string theorists. I don't think of them as part of string theory exactly,
but it's roughly the same set of people doing the research. What does that
mean? The two possibilities that occur to me are a) that the age when one
could make a career purely as a string theory specialist is ending, and b)
that knowing string theory is a competitive advantage for anyone doing formal
theory.

~~~
ssivark
I would say that all three of those topics are being worked on by researchers
who have also worked on string theory (among many other people), but string
theory is not directly relevant to most of the work in those topics.
Especially tensor networks, which is largely driven by condensed matter
physics and thus far has limited relation to string theory. Eg: most of the
research at the interface between tensor networks / high-energy physics is
restricted to a particular tensor network known as MERA, and its association
with holographic spacetime [1].

If I might make a sociological observation, people who work on "string theory"
have had to do the hard work of understanding quantum field theory in its many
contortions, and the "good researchers" among them often have a thorough
understanding of a good chunk of ideas in fundamental physics and related
math. This also puts them in a position to capitalize on any related research
avenues which they consider promising, even if those topics have little to do
with string theory as such. So, IMHO (b) definitely carries weight, and I do
not have a complete enough picture to comment on (a).

[1] PS: I have worked on this topic. Also, FWIW, I wouldn't claim to have a
string theory background, but I did learn a little string theory in grad
school.

------
fusiongyro
I enjoy Peter Woit's writing and especially loved his book "Not Even Wrong." I
also enjoy shitting on string theory from the comfort of my armchair. Maybe
this is "productive," in the sense that getting people to stop investing in
string theory will get them to work on investing in something else, but again
from my armchair, I just don't see what _positive_ work is happening. It feels
like there are not enough holes in the standard model that need plugging and
no big theory trying to supplant it or handle gravity gaining ground.

~~~
mahranch
His book contains _several_ factual inaccuracies that he either has failed to
correct or refuses too (as of last year). It makes me think a lot less of him
and his position on string theory. It makes me wonder what else has he
misrepresented in his criticisms.

Keep in mind science is not free of "agendas"; people in competing areas love
to bash the competition because they're competing for funding, aka their
livelyhood.

~~~
fusiongyro
Can you point me to something about these inaccuracies?

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Bored medieval philosophers speculated on how many angels could dance on the
head of a pin. Bored modern philosophers peculate on string theory. Neither
put forth experimentally testable hypotheses, so one is about as scientific as
the other.

~~~
21
Well, if angels are physical in the slightest, modern philosophers have
computed an upper bound of how many of them could dance on the head of a pin,
before they collapse into a black hole

