Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Quixote1818

(31,160 posts)
10. Sorry, you don't get 70 peer reviewed papers published if you are faking it
Sat Apr 15, 2017, 08:33 PM
Apr 2017

You do understand the peer review process don't you?

Here is how one physicist describes him:

Michio Kaku made a fundamental and significant advance in physics, he created light-cone string field theory, following Mandelstam's light-cone formulation of string theory, along with Kikkawa. This contribution was central, because it was the first definition of string theory which was Hamiltonian, meaning it could tell you a detailed story of how strings split and join in space time. It also allowed you to produce a detailed description of the Hilbert space of string theory which is not a scattering space.

The thing about physics is that it has become annoyingly politicized, with two branches--- the technical branch which produces all the results, and the popularization branch which gets all the political clout. This division is extremely unfortunate, but it is a byproduct of the fact that nobody in the general public reads the technical literature. So people with immense technical clout, like Georgio Parisi, are incomparably less politically relevant than those with popular books, like Brian Greene.

This is a plea to the general public: please read the technical literature. I mean it. Please read it. It is a precious production of our culture, it is the main thing we will be leaving to future generations. The 20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare, it is our Homer, it is the thing that defines our cultural legacy to the largest extent. It is not acceptable to have this literature be the domain of an elite, it must be universally appreciated.

Under these circumstances, there will be no need for Michio Kaku to go around selling himself to mass media, he would have been appreciated for his technical contributions, without any need for him to become a publicity hound. But since we don't live in such a world, he has become a publicity hound. I think it is a bit of a shame, but it will never take away his earlier achievements. String field theory has receded somewhat from the main focus, now that we have AdS/CFT, since string field theory is not the most fundamental way to view string theory. But it is a valid technique, and it has led to many insights, and it is still the most economical formuation of string theory, and it is still something to celebrate. Michio Kaku might not have written Shakespeare's works all by himself, but he wrote "Macbeth", and I don't know how anyone can speak ill of a person who made such a contribution.

To explain why the other answer here is wrong: while Kaku's contribution to string theory was not as enormous as Mandelstam's, Venziano's, Schwartz's or Scherk's, he did do something important in an important field, at a time when nobody took the field seriously. The people in the field were hounded and rejected, and it is impossible for him to have become a leader of physics based on his string field theory work, because people laughed at string theory in the 1970s.

The "leaders" of the field, Schwarz, Green, these folks were isolated in small departments and had no influence. The other "leaders", like Yoneya, and I'm talking about a whole generation of physicists, were just purged from the field. They were heckled for being crazy, and for denying quarks. Scherk took it to heart, and actually went crazy. It's a terrible story. You can't fault Kaku for being political in late life. While it would be nice if Mandelstam got the public recognition, Mandelstam is a very old man now. Somebody has to be a face for early string theory, and Kaku is as good a choice as any, he made a great contribution.

In terms of technical achievement, string field theory is still useful and relevant, although it is less central than AdS/CFT and holography. So what. It's important.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I want to live in the universe where Hillary is President. caroldansen Apr 2017 #1
Yes! radical noodle Apr 2017 #2
I've read about that, video should be interesting. shraby Apr 2017 #3
Just keep me away from the goatee universe. longship Apr 2017 #4
Oh no! It's Michio Cuckoo! longship Apr 2017 #5
this video is shamefully bad. tomp Apr 2017 #6
That's Michio Cuckoo! longship Apr 2017 #7
And you are.....??? hedda_foil Apr 2017 #9
Sorry, you don't get 70 peer reviewed papers published if you are faking it Quixote1818 Apr 2017 #10
Well, I am sure he'll let us all know when wormholes are discovered. longship Apr 2017 #11
What is your PhD in? Quixote1818 Apr 2017 #12
Well, I know enough to doubt that strings have anything going. longship Apr 2017 #13
You do know that the theory of parallel universes is currently the leading theory then? Quixote1818 Apr 2017 #14
What in the Sam Hell are they parallel to? longship Apr 2017 #15
So if you don't like string theory then which other theory do you like better and why? Quixote1818 Apr 2017 #16
I remember about Hugh Everett. longship Apr 2017 #17
String theory is a subset of quantum theory. Quixote1818 Apr 2017 #18
Strings are not a theory. longship Apr 2017 #19
Hate to break it to you but quantum theory and general relativity don't jive Quixote1818 Apr 2017 #20
Uh! DUH! longship Apr 2017 #21
Well, your posts seem to indicate you didn't know that Quixote1818 Apr 2017 #22
Insults? longship Apr 2017 #23
K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2017 #8
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»The Theory of Parallel Un...»Reply #10