You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Spinning the Superweb: Essays on the History of Superstring Theory has come to its end. Many thanks for reading the essays, sending comments to me, and taking part in the polls. You can continue reading this website for free (there are almost two hundred pages online). Any updates will be posted on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SpinningSUWEB. If you have any comments, please do not hesitate to contact me: spinningthesuperweb [at] gmail.com. Remember that all essays are copyrighted material. © Copyright 2006-2012 by Oswaldo Zapata M.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, gdo not copy its content.**************You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Humans are like spiders in that they act within the framework of the-admittedly invisible-webs they have woven. Of course, human webs are the product of interaction, not of solitary weaving; they are worlds of meaning, whose horizons delimit human action, experience, and remembrance. Without these horizons organized human activity would be unthinkable.
J. Assmann
J. Assmann
Spinning the Superweb: Essays on the History of Superstring Theory has come to its end. Many thanks for reading the essays, sending comments to me, and taking part in the polls. You can continue reading this website for free (there are almost two hundred pages online). Any updates will be posted on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SpinningSUWEB. If you have any comments, please do not hesitate to contact me: spinningthesuperweb [at] gmail.com. Remember that all essays are copyrighted material. © Copyright 2006-2012 by Oswaldo Zapata M.
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, gdo not copy its content.**************You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Visit my new blog:IL SAGGIATORE, PASSAGES IN THE HISTORY OF PHYSICSClick here!
The first blog entirely devoted to the history of physics.
Anecdotes, philosophical issues, great discoveries, and much more from first-hand participants.A blog for lovers of the history of physics.
Abstract: In essay 1, “On Facts in Superstring Theory,” I described part of the process by which I think the AdS/CFT correspondence became widely thought of as a scientific fact. I devoted special attention to the discourses sustaining that idea and stated that a strict differentiation among participants was needed in order to understand the function of such discourses: experts/non-experts; members/non-members; insiders/outsiders. The strongest claim put forward was that discourses around the conjecture moved freely from the “in” to the “out,” and from the “out” to the “in,” given rise eventually to the fact. In this essay, instead, I focus more on persons rather than on discourses. The idea is to highlight the collective nature of the process leading to a string theory fact. This will be illustrated by considering the participation of some individuals whose contributions to the acceptance of a scientific fact are currently discarded as irrelevant. The final aim, then, is to show that the boundary between the “in” and the “out” so far assumed is quite artificial. It is the huge network of coordinate activities involving social and ideational links between the “in” and the “out” what in the end determines what string theory is. This approach to the history of string theory defines what I have been calling the “Superweb.”
Abstract: In essay 1, “On Facts in Superstring Theory,” I described part of the process by which I think the AdS/CFT correspondence became widely thought of as a scientific fact. I devoted special attention to the discourses sustaining that idea and stated that a strict differentiation among participants was needed in order to understand the function of such discourses: experts/non-experts; members/non-members; insiders/outsiders. The strongest claim put forward was that discourses around the conjecture moved freely from the “in” to the “out,” and from the “out” to the “in,” given rise eventually to the fact. In this essay, instead, I focus more on persons rather than on discourses. The idea is to highlight the collective nature of the process leading to a string theory fact. This will be illustrated by considering the participation of some individuals whose contributions to the acceptance of a scientific fact are currently discarded as irrelevant. The final aim, then, is to show that the boundary between the “in” and the “out” so far assumed is quite artificial. It is the huge network of coordinate activities involving social and ideational links between the “in” and the “out” what in the end determines what string theory is. This approach to the history of string theory defines what I have been calling the “Superweb.”
Abstract: In essay 1, “On Facts in Superstring Theory,” I described part of the process by which I think the AdS/CFT correspondence became widely thought of as a scientific fact. I devoted special attention to the discourses sustaining that idea and stated that a strict differentiation among participants was needed in order to understand the function of such discourses: experts/non-experts; members/non-members; insiders/outsiders. The strongest claim put forward was that discourses around the conjecture moved freely from the “in” to the “out,” and from the “out” to the “in,” given rise eventually to the fact. In this essay, instead, I focus more on persons rather than on discourses. The idea is to highlight the collective nature of the process leading to a string theory fact. This will be illustrated by considering the participation of some individuals whose contributions to the acceptance of a scientific fact are currently discarded as irrelevant. The final aim, then, is to show that the boundary between the “in” and the “out” so far assumed is quite artificial. It is the huge network of coordinate activities involving social and ideational links between the “in” and the “out” what in the end determines what string theory is. This approach to the history of string theory defines what I have been calling the “Superweb.”
Abstract: In essay 1, “On Facts in Superstring Theory,” I described part of the process by which I think the AdS/CFT correspondence became widely thought of as a scientific fact. I devoted special attention to the discourses sustaining that idea and stated that a strict differentiation among participants was needed in order to understand the function of such discourses: experts/non-experts; members/non-members; insiders/outsiders. The strongest claim put forward was that discourses around the conjecture moved freely from the “in” to the “out,” and from the “out” to the “in,” given rise eventually to the fact. In this essay, instead, I focus more on persons rather than on discourses. The idea is to highlight the collective nature of the process leading to a string theory fact. This will be illustrated by considering the participation of some individuals whose contributions to the acceptance of a scientific fact are currently discarded as irrelevant. The final aim, then, is to show that the boundary between the “in” and the “out” so far assumed is quite artificial. It is the huge network of coordinate activities involving social and ideational links between the “in” and the “out” what in the end determines what string theory is. This approach to the history of string theory defines what I have been calling the “Superweb.”
Abstract: In essay 1, “On Facts in Superstring Theory,” I described part of the process by which I think the AdS/CFT correspondence became widely thought of as a scientific fact. I devoted special attention to the discourses sustaining that idea and stated that a strict differentiation among participants was needed in order to understand the function of such discourses: experts/non-experts; members/non-members; insiders/outsiders. The strongest claim put forward was that discourses around the conjecture moved freely from the “in” to the “out,” and from the “out” to the “in,” given rise eventually to the fact. In this essay, instead, I focus more on persons rather than on discourses. The idea is to highlight the collective nature of the process leading to a string theory fact. This will be illustrated by considering the participation of some individuals whose contributions to the acceptance of a scientific fact are currently discarded as irrelevant. The final aim, then, is to show that the boundary between the “in” and the “out” so far assumed is quite artificial. It is the huge network of coordinate activities involving social and ideational links between the “in” and the “out” what in the end determines what string theory is. This approach to the history of string theory defines what I have been calling the “Superweb.”
Abstract: In essay 1, “On Facts in Superstring Theory,” I described part of the process by which I think the AdS/CFT correspondence became widely thought of as a scientific fact. I devoted special attention to the discourses sustaining that idea and stated that a strict differentiation among participants was needed in order to understand the function of such discourses: experts/non-experts; members/non-members; insiders/outsiders. The strongest claim put forward was that discourses around the conjecture moved freely from the “in” to the “out,” and from the “out” to the “in,” given rise eventually to the fact. In this essay, instead, I focus more on persons rather than on discourses. The idea is to highlight the collective nature of the process leading to a string theory fact. This will be illustrated by considering the participation of some individuals whose contributions to the acceptance of a scientific fact are currently discarded as irrelevant. The final aim, then, is to show that the boundary between the “in” and the “out” so far assumed is quite artificial. It is the huge network of coordinate activities involving social and ideational links between the “in” and the “out” what in the end determines what string theory is. This approach to the history of string theory defines what I have been calling the “Superweb.”
