Some time back we learned that arxiv.org, the physics e-print server that has largely superseded the role of traditional print journals, had taken a major step towards integration with the blogosphere, by introducing trackbacks. This mechanism allows blogs to leave a little link associated with the abstract of a paper on arxiv to which the blog post is referring; you can check out recent trackbacks here. It’s a great idea, although not without some potential for abuse.
Now Peter Woit reports that he has been told that arxiv will not accept trackbacks from his blog. Peter, of course, is most well-known for being a critic of string theory. In this he is not alone; the set of “critics of string theory” includes, in their various ways, people like Roger Penrose, Richard Feynman, Daniel Friedan, Lee Smolin, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Robert Laughlin, Howard Georgi, and Sheldon Glashow. The difference is that these people were all famous for something else before they became critics of string theory; in substance, however, I’m not sure that their critiques are all that different.
Unfortunately, Peter has not been given an explicit reason why trackbacks from his blog have been banned, although his interactions with the arxiv have a long history. It’s not hard to guess, of course; the moderators presumably feel that his criticisms have no merit and shouldn’t be associated with individual paper abstracts.
I think it’s a serious mistake, for many reasons. On the one hand, I certainly don’t think that scientists have any obligation to treat the opinions of complete crackpots with the same respect that they treat those of their colleagues; on a blog, for example, I see nothing wrong with banning comments from people who have nothing but noise to contribute yet feel compelled to keep contributing it. But trackbacks are just about the least intrusive form of communication on the internet, and the most easily ignored; I have never contemplated preventing trackbacks from anyone, and it would be hard for anyone to rise to the level of obnoxiousness necessary for me to do so.
On the other hand, I don’t think there is any sense in which Peter is a crackpot, even if I completely disagree with his ideas about string theory. He is a contrarian, to be sure, not falling in line with the majority view, but that’s hardly the same thing. Admittedly, it can be difficult to articulate the difference between principled disagreement and complete nuttiness (the crackpot index is, despite being both funny and telling, not actually a very good guide), but we usually know it when we see it.
Since I’m not a card-carrying string theorist, I can draw analogies with skeptics in my own field of cosmology. I’ve certainly been hard on folks who push alternative cosmologies (see here and here, for example). But there is definitely a spectrum. Perfectly respectable scientists from Roger Penrose to yours truly have suggested alternatives to cherished ideas like inflation, dark matter, and dark energy; nobody would argue that such ideas are cranky in any sense. Respectable scientists have even questioned whether the universe is accelerating, which is harder to believe but still worth taking seriously. Further down the skepticism scale, we run into folks that disbelieve in the Big Bang model itself. From my own reading of the evidence, there is absolutely no reason to take these people seriously; however, some of them have good track records as scientists, and it doesn’t do much harm to let them state their opinions. In fact, you can sharpen your own understanding by demonstrating precisely why they are wrong, as Ned Wright has shown. Only at the very bottom of the scale do we find the true crackpots, who have come up with a model of the structure of spacetime that purportedly replaces relativity and looks suspiciously like it was put together with pipe cleaners and pieces of string. There is no reason to listen to them at all.
On such a scale, I would put string skepticism of the sort Peter practices somewhere around skepticism about the acceleration of the universe. Maybe not what I believe, but a legitimate opinion to hold. And the standard for actually preventing someone from joining part of the scientific discourse, for example by leaving trackbacks at arxiv, should typically err on the side of inclusiveness; better to have too many voices in there than to exclude someone without good reason. So I think it’s very unfortunate that trackbacks from Not Even Wrong have been excluded, and I hope the folks at arxiv will reconsider their decision.
Of course, there is a huge difference between string theory and the standard cosmological model; the latter has been tested against data in numerous ways. String theory, as rich and compelling as it may be, is still a speculative idea at this point; it might very well be wrong. Losing sight of that possibility doesn’t do us any good as scientists.
Update: Jacques Distler provides some insight into the thinking of the arxiv advisory board.
PK,
I delete comments for various reasons, mostly because they’re off-topic, rude, repetitive, uninformed, nonsensical, etc. Anyone who has any experience managing an active internet discussion area is well aware that this kind of thing is necessary, and typically detailed policies about this are not posted (for instance, I’m sure the proprietors of Cosmic Variance delete comments, and there is no policy posted here).
Any blog owner has the right to deal with this issue however they want. I’m not complaining that Lubos Motl deletes comments from me he doesn’t like. In any case, if someone’s comments are deleted at one blog, they’re welcome to take them to another one that might be friendlier to them. The arXiv issue is completely different. This is not one of a million personal blogs, but a unique federally-financed institution associated with Cornell University that now plays the central role in scientific communication in high-energy physics.
Sure, a public forum has greater responsibilities than a personal blog (and must therefore be more careful). But the principle is the same: in the interest of science, alternative views should not be suppressed. I would think it much better if instead of deleting a comment, you mark it with something like “the host thinks this comment is irrelevant”. It helps the reader skip (long) comments, but it is there to refer to, and no charges of censorship can be brought up.
Obviously, this does not include rude comments and spam. It is good practice to delete these without any warning.
Actually I allow much greater leeway in terms of “rude, repetitive, uninformed, nonsensical, etc.” when comments are critical of me. But when a commenter ignores my third or fourth warning that I’m tired of wasting my time repeatedly responding to the same criticism from them, and that they show no signs of paying any attention to what I am writing or understanding what the issues are, I see no reason I shouldn’t delete further such comments without warning.
woit wrote
To say it again: the suggestion, that when your current interests don’t lie in the material you worked on in the past, you should write, with your knowledge in stringtheory, a scientific review about why the methods of a large number of string phaenomenology papers are that weak as you claim, this was neither repetitive nor rude. And could not be understood as such. To verify if you did not delete this by mistake, I indeed reformulated it in a more friendly voice and postet it again, but you deleted this sentence even if it was as most friendly as one can write.
And since I made this suggestion for the first time, I’m a bit surprised about your allegation that it was repetitive. Since this is simply wrong.
It was, along with the comments of Polchinski et al, a friendly suggestion what you should do, to have your trackbacks allowed in Arxiv.org.
But what I hear from you looks somewhat rude. You claim again and again, that I would not know what is going on here. You delete my comments even if they are friendly and declaring that they are repetitive or nonsensical or rude. Even if I only give similar advice as Polchinski for example (of course you might think he does not know what is going on too).
woit wrote:
This at least is true. And that is the reason why etreme caution should be taken, that only persons able to do real science can entry arxiv.org. Such persons might include those, who are able to write a serious critisism of a research program in form of serious scientific reviews in established journals.
Others, who are only able to produce rather non-scientific blog entries, especially whose only aim is public demolition of struggling researchers, such persons are not among those who should have a place in Ariv.org I think.
I think I have discussed the longest time with woit and this was my last reply on that topic. As additional note: I won’t read the blog of woit anymore. So he will be preserved from my comments in the future
Benni,
Writing technical papers explaining why ST and especially the Landscape is wrong is like nailing a blancmange to a wall.
I mean something else:
Woit says indeed that it is impossible to get something out of the landscape. And he says all papers doing so deal with weak arguments.
I simply asked him why not writing a review of these weak arguments. That is I wrote:
“collect 100 string theory papers and write a review article about why these arguments are wrong or weak”.
Such a review if extensive would be interesting since one could see, where we stand in stringtheory. A researcher, who is oriented at criticism on stringhteory would at least com up with 2 or 4 arxiv papers on that topic. If woit could formulate critisism on a scientifically appropriate level beyond blog postings he would obviously send such a “review of 100 weak stringtheory methods” to phys.rev.lett. He would do this at least because he then would qualify as active researcher.
Woit has written a book on stringhteory. But apparently the amazon recensions say that it is without any formulas.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0224076051/102-2093773-1636106?v=glance&n=283155
I think, when one might have access to Arxiv.org. he should be able at least to formulate his criticisms in a more technical level. That is, he should be able to mathematically explain, why some stringpapers contain weak argumentation and why the proposals are “naive” or unlikely.
But what woit does is:
He looks at the Arxiv, and waits till a stringpaper comes out where a struggeling researcher (like Douglas) writes:
and then woit quotes this in his blog. That is, he waits till other struggle and uses this as ground for personal success by public demolition of others failure.
Scientifically this would go through a review article like:
“1001 weak arguments of stringtheory, -a review of standard stringhteory methods and why many arguments in recent papers are unlikely und weak”
No one except woits inability of doing research prevents him from this.
But this can change. The endorsement system of Arxiv is the method of an “old Boys club”. The idea is “researchers only endorse researchers”. Woit might articulate his critics in scientifically correct form, become a researcher, and Arxiv won’t block him anymore.
That’s an appropriate choice of the moderators, I think.
‘Woit might articulate his critics in scientifically correct form, become a researcher, and Arxiv won’t block him anymore.’- Benni
Wrong. You can’t make “scientifically correct” statements about UFOs, etc., except to ignore it. If you live in a society where unobserved gravitons and superpartners are believed to be “evidence” that string theory unifies standard model forces and “has the remarkable property of predicting gravity” {quoted from stringy M-theory originator Edward Witten, Physics Today, Apr 96}, then your tendency to ignore it is no help. You have to point out that it is simply vacuous.
String theory lacks a specific quantum field theory vacuum, yet as Lunsford says, that doesn’t stop string theory from making a lot of vacuous “predictions”.
String theory allows 10^500 or so vacua, a whole “landscape” of them, and there is no realistic hope of determining which is the right one. So it is so vague it can’t say anything useful. The word “God” has about 10^6 different religious meanings, so string theory is (10^500)/(10^6) = 10^494 times more vague than religion.
Is this the sort of “scientific” dismissal of stringy speculation you need? If you can do better than Woit, Benni, I suggest you write the paper you suggest yourself and try to get it endorsed on arxiv. Don’t go making suggestions to others if you don’t have the balls to undertake them yourself.
Of course you can. Many scientists try to look behind pseudoscience with scientific methods
At first: collect every prediction in litherature, that hasn’t seen yet…
Then clarify wrong oversized statements made in papers by stringtheorists
Then clarify weak derivations that are mathematically invalid etc…
…………
At least you could do more technical than writing a book on which one can say
I am convinced that peter knows enough to articulate his critisism on a more technical leve than in blog postings.
He only had to lengthen them.
In regards to #72, as a layman, I continue to wonder.
What Benni is saying “might have” bypassed the recognition of others in science, as to sustained sweeping generalizations of string theory without proper recourse?
Sentencing the validation of distance measures sought by table tops experiments? Their legitamcy, as to the rules of experimental engagement, from theorectical proposals on gravitational measures, it’s strength and weakness?
Asked in what Benni proposes. Would this do away, with those whose effort it has been to paste a picture of irresponsibility to such conjectures and processes of mathematics? Incorporation in theorectical design, to experimental validation, as being irresponsible people?
One couldn’t help but react to sustained views of those better educated, serving our best interest as students. Maybe, “active researcher” and “student” will have to go hand in hand? 🙂
Benni, you’re missing Woit’s point, which is partly to write a blog bringing to wide scientific attention the popular exaggerations of string theory. This includes people who read arXiv papers with exaggerations. Other people have simply been ignored for giving scientific objections to string theory:
Feynman’s statements in Davies & Brown, ‘Superstrings’ 1988, at pages 194-195:
‘… I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! … I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. … I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. … why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are? All these numbers … have no explanations in these string theories – absolutely none! …’ – http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=272#comment-5295
Larsson has listed the following more recent experts:
Sheldon “string theory has failed in its primary goal” Glashow – http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html
Martinus “string theory is a figment of the theoretical mind” Veltman – http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/981238149X/701-5527495-9406712
Phil “string theory a futile exercise as physics”Anderson
– http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_10.html#andersonp
Bob “string theory a 50-year-old woman wearing way too much lipstick” Laughlin – http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/03/14/MNGRMBOURE1.DTL
Dan “string theory is a complete scientific failure” Friedan – http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0204131
Also note that even Dr Lubos Motl has expressed concerns with the ‘landscape’ aspect of ST, while Dr Peter Woit in his 2002 paper pointed out the problem that ST doesn’t actually sort out gravity:
‘It is a striking fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this complex and unattractive conjectural theory. There is not even a serious proposal for what the dynamics of the fundamental ‘M-theory’ is supposed to be or any reason at all to believe that its dynamics would produce a vacuum state with the desired properties. The sole argument generally given to justify this picture of the world is that perturbative string theories have a massless spin two mode and thus could provide an explanation of gravity, if one ever managed to find an underlying theory for which perturbative string theory is the perturbative expansion.’ — Quantum Field Theory and Representation Theory: A Sketch (2002), http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0206135
In addition, Sir Roger Penrose analysed the problems with string theory at a technical level, concluding: ‘in addition to the dimensionality issue, the string theory approach is (so far, in almost all respects) restricted to being merely a perturbation theory.’ – The Road to Reality, 2004, page 896.
All the arXiv papers against ST and technical discussion of problems gets ignored, which is why Woit is asking for arXiv trackbacks to papers to present a balanced view.
I know that for society he does a good job.
But a blog is not science and never will be.
The rest of your posting does only contain single sentence quotations. They are as nonscientific statements as blog postings are.
I am sure, woit could write a more technical review than his two popular essays. But unfortunately he doesn’t…..
If the impact and direction of science can be affected by a blog statement of some repute, then it effects science?
Why would you ask to have somebody update?
As to quotes. Maybe if you were “selling” another idea, those quotes might come in handy? 🙂
What idea are you selling Plato? Or did you mean I’m trying to sell the idea of unprejudiced discussion? By the way, Jacques censors comments on a discussion about censorship, even if they are within his rules and don’t mention the Woit controversy (Jacques deleted my one comment to his blog after it appeared as below):
“New ArXiv Trackback Policy
“Jacques,
“The vagueness and lack of transparency over trackback policy reflects badly on string theory. You are a principal defender of strings on the arXiv advisory board. It was up to you to make your policy transparent and fair from the word go.
“There is one criterion that determines whether a trackback should occur: objectivity. If authors are allowed to have critical trackbacks removed, that will be a step towards dictatorship by bad ideas. On the other hand, if trackbacks are not fair and objective, they can ridicule fruitful new ideas (ridicule of old, well entrenched ideas is not automatically unfair, just a way of generating some attention on an issue).
“The first trackback from each blog should be reviewed and approved for objectivity. There should also be a mechanism in place to deal with complaints from authors in a transparent and fair way to both authors and blogs.
“Posted by: nigel on March 15, 2006 07:48 AM”
Wonder why he deleted this constructive suggestion?
Jacques is a personal bias maybe, and no time for moderation in regards to your statement? Ask Peter:)
Don’t let that stop you.
Imagine.
In the future, “a spam control process” in the 21st century, and a secret society of scientists who work out of some basement constructing the algorithym that ties them directly to the source? Any IP address less than perfect, can never be attached. A success story on PI day is annouced.
The End
I believe there is always a bit of the “Kernel of Truth” if we go back far enough? If you didn’t have history( no reference) how we would ever make sense of such speculation as string theory and not having moved forward?
I am not the “logical spokesperson” being the layman I am, but somebody has to do it.
Do you have the keys?
Violation of ground rule #4.
Dear Jacques,
Your Rule Four: ‘If you are banned from posting papers to the arXivs, you may have a legitimate grievance. But this is not the place to air such grievances.’ – http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000760.html#more
So people understand what #4 was on Jacques “conditional” moderation blogging requirements.
Here’s a Kernel, From a Possible Future of the Notebook?
Nice to know up front.
Nothing vague or lost in what might be the mood one day, might have been a resolve to maintain a certain reactive tone, on another?
Should one be so easily moved by the wind/weather, emotively like some ball bobbing on the water? 🙂
Such adherence to an open discussion had to have some ground rules, so moderation was not needed on every post to post basis. To have encouraged, more thoughtful/creative response, then statistical analysis of what makes numbers count on the flaming/warring dispositional hits, for tallying blog observation, other then, what should have been for science?
Oh, he was talking about arXivs. Oops.
For the record:
I have a PhD in physics from the University of California.
1. I defend Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.
2. I accept orthodox quantum theory in it’s domain of validity. Where to draw that line in the sand is the issue.
3. I accept the data of precison cosmology.
gr-qc/0602022 14th version including comment on the George Ellis astro-ph/0603266
Title: Emergent Gravity: String Theory Without String Theory
Authors: Jack Sarfatti
Comments: This 14th version corrects typos. It also addresses allegations of Waldyr Rodrigues Jr that do not apply to this version. George Ellis’s objection to Leonard Susskind’s theory of accessing information beyond the different types of horizons is addressed in a way that probably neither will accept, i.e. Antony Valentini’s “signal nonlocality” from the breakdown of “sub-quantal equilibrium” Born probability in emergent macro-quantum condensates with stiff long-range phase coherence
The inflation field is generalized as a local field with eight Goldstone
phases if the Lorentz group is spontaneously broken in the vacuum in addition to an internal symmetry group in the Planck era inflation quantum vacuum ODLRO phase transition. This permits the emergence of the Einstein Cartan tetrad field with the six extra dimensions of the Calabi Yau space associated with a massive torsion field when the full Poincare group is locally gauged. These conjectures also lead naturally to the quantization of area, the world hologram and the prediction that both the LHC and any other DM detectors imaginable will never find any legitimate dark matter particles as a matter of fundamental principle. The dark matter Cambridge estimate of a virial speed of 9km/sec is questioned.
“subquantal”
this sounds like an oxymoron to this layperson.
Jack,
While we might have diverged from what the central issue is, I don’t think you should assume you are responsible?
That’s my thinking. That “alternatives” are less then entertained, if we had gone back and historically looked at what is proposed?
My problem is that there is a resulting outcome in regards to neutrinos and strangelets that have me wonder about your statements. I would fall under the guidance then of those better qualified to answer if they seem it appropriate and wanting, of maintaining the open dialogue of models , irregardless of the position of a string theorist, or, of another, who would offer their alternative.
I think moderation in this case would be up to cosmic variance to decide. Knowing they are “quite liberal” I still believe they would want us to remain close to what science is all about. [Policy # statement here?]
What would be the appropriate format for this, if not here? I speculate and wonder, if held in the Moderators eyes?
What can Physics learn from Continuum Mechanics?Alexander Unzicker
To me, bubble membrane(vacuum) seem really interesting if held to ways/analogies, in which to interpret the spacetime fabric. Yet even here there are difficulties.
Plato,
I believe Mr. Sarfatti has suggested that UFO evidence supports time travel.
You be the judge.
Elliot
My paper is in its 15th edit – the never ending story. 🙂 This version addresses the remarks by David Gross in Nature 5 Jan 2006.
New versions of my paper and Waldyr Rodriigues’s paper now posted on archive.
Note that Waldyr has significantly toned down his initial comments made under duress from some “dozen important physicists” who did not particularly “like” him and who allegedly threatened the funding of his students. Note also that Waldyr explicitly mentions his pattern of critiquing other physicist’s archive papers for what he considers mathematical errors.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract
gr-qc/0602022
From: Jack Sarfatti [view email]
Date (revised v12): Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:18:39 GMT (998kb)
Emergent Gravity: String Theory Without String Theory
Authors: Jack Sarfatti
Comments: This 12th version adds a remark about DeSitter Space and Cartan forms. The formal math objections raised by Waldyr Rodrigues about the first version of this paper that I did not have 4 tetrads and 6 spin connections were based on his misreading of my notation. Professor Rodrigues wrote me that he has made similar formal objections about “twenty” other physicist’s papers. Needs Acrobat 6 or later to read
Abstract
I derive the Einstein 1915 classical field theory of gravity with what resembles both a massive torsion field and the Calabi Yau degrees of freedom from a conjectured eight Goldstone phases of the cosmic inflation field provided that the full Poincare group is locally gauged and its Lorentz subgroup is spontaneously broken in the vacuum. What looks like both the t Hooft Susskind world hologram conjecture of volume without volume and the quantization of area in Planck units given by Bekenstein and Hawking seem to be natural consequences of the conjecture. Just as the Michelson Morley experiment gave a null result, this model predicts that the LHC will never find any viable dark matter exotic particles as a matter of fundamental principle, neither will any other conceivable dark matter detector. The Cambridge IofA dark matter virial speed of 9km/sec is questioned. A way to detect pocket universes in the cosmic landscape beyond all types of horizons bounded by null geodesics is suggested based on the work of Antony Valentini.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602111
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract
gr-qc/0602111
From: Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr. [view email]
Date (v1): Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:17:17 GMT (20kb)
Date (revised v2): Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:57:06 GMT (20kb)
A Comment on Emergent Gravity
Authors: Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr
Comments: 21 pages. In this version some misprints have been corrected, two new references have been added and some (eventual) offensive observations have been deleted
Abstract
This paper is a set of notes that we wrote concerning the first version of Emergent Gravity [gr-qc/0602022]. It is our version of an exercise that we proposed to some of our students. The idea was to find mathematical errors and inconsistencies on some recent articles published in scientific journals and in the arXiv, and we did.
“sub-quantal” is term used by Antony Valentini now at Perimeter Institute. It comes from Bohm’s hidden variable theory developed by J.P. Vigier. PhD physicists writing to each other cannot be constrained by the knowledge limitations of amateurs when it comes to jargon – same in every field.
Look Elliot – it so happens that I consult with top levels of the USG Intelligence Community at CIA and now at NDI on UFOs and have done so for years. It is a national securiity issue and your uninformed opinions are simply that – uninformed. There are many serious and powerful people, both in an out of USG, captains of industry like John Lear (Lear Jet) & Robert Bigelow (Bigelow Aerospace & owner of 80,000 hotel rooms in Las Vegas & South West) very serious about UFOs. Also many top-rank US Miltary some of whom I know who know it’s real. Wake up and smell the coffee.