*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
The discourse of superstrings
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
So far we have seen in some detail how results in superstring theory stabilize. This process of stabilization, that at first appears to be purely theoretical, is actually more complex: it necessarily involves a flow of ideas and people across the diffuse boundary separating the inside from the outside. In this manner, I have argued, string theorists have created their own, yet unproven, reality. However, the picture is not complete. We have yet to consider the contributions from the out-out and the out-in discourses. The former is a discourse constructed by outsiders and aimed, in principle, only at outsiders. This is the traditional view of popular science. The latter expresses the possibility of a certain influence of the external discourse on the internal research. By way of example, consider the next extract from an article which appeared in The New York Times:
In this article, which I assume was read by tens of thousands of people since it was published in The New York Times, Maldacena’s proposal is presented in its own world: quantum gravity, unification, D-branes, extra dimensions, and so on. In addition, the author affirms that thanks to Maldacena’s correspondence the unification program may be ‘‘closer to realization.’’ This article, and many others of the same sort, reinforce, willingly or not, the social belief that superstring theory is ‘‘on the right track.’’ In this case, the circle of believers is expanded thanks to the participation of non expert actors: science writers and interested readers. This sympathetic environment, which will be illustrated further in the next essays, has been vital for the development of the theory. It must be mentioned that this out-out discourse does not originate independently from professional string theorists. In general, it simply reproduces the in-out discourse of the experts. I do not mean to suggest that string theory popularizers are scientifically illiterate, I just want to highlight that the substance of what they say reflects the opinion and enthusiasm of string theory specialists. In such an abstract area, things could not be any other way. As a consequence of this discourse, a favourable disposition regarding superstrings has permeated into the public domain. The lay public’s attitude functions as a support for the internal discourse. What is more, the layman’s view of superstrings is sometimes internalized by experts on the theory and then works as a reconfirmation of the old belief. To put it differently: the out-out discourse is not only oriented to popular audiences but towards experts as well; the out-out discourse is also an out-in discourse. Consequently, “non-pure” conceptions penetrate and modify the theoretical development of the field. I will call this the in-out-in process. Notice that unlike the in-out-•••-in process explained above, the in-out-in process only concerns the movement of ideas (of course, persons are also involved here, but not in the sociological sense meant before). In this way, with contributions from the in and the out, the creeping belief in the accomplishments of superstring theory is gradually confirmed.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Examples of what I mean by out-in discourse can be found in books and magazines intended for the general public, and in many newspapers. Dennis Overbye, who works for The New York Times, regularly writes on superstring theory.
Maldacena’s exploit was also reported by Time magazine:
The effects of these kinds of comments on the theory are two-fold. On one side they create a favourable background for the theory to develop, on the other they send a clear message to string theorists that they are doing right, that nature is really as they think it is. I must confess that this hypothesis is hard to prove. However this is what the next essays try to do. Before moving on to these more detailed discussions, I would like to observe something that a string theorist would be unlike to deny: when a newspaper says that colleagues at Harvard are dancing ‘‘La Maldacena,’’ they feel more confident about their own results. Something similar occurred when David Gross was honoured with the Nobel Prize for physics in 2004. My experience was that the general mood among string theorists was very optimistic. They felt that this award was somehow recognition of their own efforts in string theory. Evidence in support of this claim is varied: from technical seminars to public speeches, and from published articles to forwarded emails.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
I hope I have convincingly shown that string theory is much more than the collection of arcane equations usually stamped in technical papers and textbooks. It is also all the other things that are said and written about it in the non-expert milieu: a classroom or a best-selling book, an advertisement or a photograph. This broad discourse has been an essential ingredient in the development of the theory. I have also mentioned that when string theorists publicize their understanding of the natural world they are not communicating to others how nature really is, as people usually understand scientific objectivity, but only the imaginary world they have created in their minds. As a leading string theorist puts it: ‘‘Clearly, these theories exist only in our imagination at present. However, we look forward to the next generation of high-energy experiments and in particular to the most powerful machine, the LHC.’’[source]
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
________________________________________________________________________
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 1 (IV)
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 1 (IV)
________________________________________________________________________
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.**************You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
The discourse of superstrings
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
So far we have seen in some detail how results in superstring theory stabilize. This process of stabilization, that at first appears to be purely theoretical, is actually more complex: it necessarily involves a flow of ideas and people across the diffuse boundary separating the inside from the outside. In this manner, I have argued, string theorists have created their own, yet unproven, reality. However, the picture is not complete. We have yet to consider the contributions from the out-out and the out-in discourses. The former is a discourse constructed by outsiders and aimed, in principle, only at outsiders. This is the traditional view of popular science. The latter expresses the possibility of a certain influence of the external discourse on the internal research. By way of example, consider the next extract from an article which appeared in The New York Times:
And D-branes are an essential part of the choreography of the mathematical dance called the Maldacena ["You start with the brane / and the brane is BPS / Then you go near the brane / and the space is AdS / Who knows what it means / I don’t, I confess / Ehhhh! Maldacena!"], in which string theory and field theory pirouette on the same floor. Dr. Maldacena used D-branes to construct a quantum field theory similar to Q.C.D., in the ordinary four dimensions.*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
He also used D-branes to build a 10-dimensional string theory (with 5 of the dimensions curled up and hidden away). By their nature string theories include gravity. Thus the excitement when Maldacena showed that the two theories were intimately related. The unification of all four forces may now be a step closer to realization.[source]
In this article, which I assume was read by tens of thousands of people since it was published in The New York Times, Maldacena’s proposal is presented in its own world: quantum gravity, unification, D-branes, extra dimensions, and so on. In addition, the author affirms that thanks to Maldacena’s correspondence the unification program may be ‘‘closer to realization.’’ This article, and many others of the same sort, reinforce, willingly or not, the social belief that superstring theory is ‘‘on the right track.’’ In this case, the circle of believers is expanded thanks to the participation of non expert actors: science writers and interested readers. This sympathetic environment, which will be illustrated further in the next essays, has been vital for the development of the theory. It must be mentioned that this out-out discourse does not originate independently from professional string theorists. In general, it simply reproduces the in-out discourse of the experts. I do not mean to suggest that string theory popularizers are scientifically illiterate, I just want to highlight that the substance of what they say reflects the opinion and enthusiasm of string theory specialists. In such an abstract area, things could not be any other way. As a consequence of this discourse, a favourable disposition regarding superstrings has permeated into the public domain. The lay public’s attitude functions as a support for the internal discourse. What is more, the layman’s view of superstrings is sometimes internalized by experts on the theory and then works as a reconfirmation of the old belief. To put it differently: the out-out discourse is not only oriented to popular audiences but towards experts as well; the out-out discourse is also an out-in discourse. Consequently, “non-pure” conceptions penetrate and modify the theoretical development of the field. I will call this the in-out-in process. Notice that unlike the in-out-•••-in process explained above, the in-out-in process only concerns the movement of ideas (of course, persons are also involved here, but not in the sociological sense meant before). In this way, with contributions from the in and the out, the creeping belief in the accomplishments of superstring theory is gradually confirmed.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Examples of what I mean by out-in discourse can be found in books and magazines intended for the general public, and in many newspapers. Dennis Overbye, who works for The New York Times, regularly writes on superstring theory.
Recently it has painted a picture of nature as a kind of hologram. In the holographic images often seen on bank cards, the illusion of three dimensions is created on a two-dimensional surface. Likewise string theory suggests that in nature all the information about what is happening inside some volume of space is somehow encoded on its outer boundary, according to work by several theorists, including Dr. Juan Maldacena of the Institute for Advanced Study and Dr. Raphael Bousso of the University of California, Berkeley.[source]*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Maldacena’s exploit was also reported by Time magazine:
When Maldacena transformed his string-theory black hole into something resembling conventional particle physics, his colleagues reacted first with disbelief, then with delight, dancing and singing (in a spoof of the Macarena), ‘‘A’hhhh, Maldacena!’’[source]*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
The effects of these kinds of comments on the theory are two-fold. On one side they create a favourable background for the theory to develop, on the other they send a clear message to string theorists that they are doing right, that nature is really as they think it is. I must confess that this hypothesis is hard to prove. However this is what the next essays try to do. Before moving on to these more detailed discussions, I would like to observe something that a string theorist would be unlike to deny: when a newspaper says that colleagues at Harvard are dancing ‘‘La Maldacena,’’ they feel more confident about their own results. Something similar occurred when David Gross was honoured with the Nobel Prize for physics in 2004. My experience was that the general mood among string theorists was very optimistic. They felt that this award was somehow recognition of their own efforts in string theory. Evidence in support of this claim is varied: from technical seminars to public speeches, and from published articles to forwarded emails.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
I hope I have convincingly shown that string theory is much more than the collection of arcane equations usually stamped in technical papers and textbooks. It is also all the other things that are said and written about it in the non-expert milieu: a classroom or a best-selling book, an advertisement or a photograph. This broad discourse has been an essential ingredient in the development of the theory. I have also mentioned that when string theorists publicize their understanding of the natural world they are not communicating to others how nature really is, as people usually understand scientific objectivity, but only the imaginary world they have created in their minds. As a leading string theorist puts it: ‘‘Clearly, these theories exist only in our imagination at present. However, we look forward to the next generation of high-energy experiments and in particular to the most powerful machine, the LHC.’’[source]
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
________________________________________________________________________
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 1 (IV)
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 1 (IV)
________________________________________________________________________
