Understanding string theory research in its environment David van den Berg Supervised by: dr. Sebastian de Haro Oll´eand prof. Hans Radder Second corrector: dr. Federica Russo October 2020 Abstract This thesis explores string theory research and its practice through Ziman's (2000) lens of post-academic science. Starting from a thor- ough analysis of Ziman's concept, the work changes course and looks at the recent history, the pre-history, the methodology and the epi- stemic issues surrounding string theory research. Thereafter it weighs Ziman's claims, where string theory functions as a case study. But although Ziman's claims are weighed, this thesis is not primarily in- terested in agreeing or disagreeing with Ziman's text. Rather, it tries to identify the forces from inside and outside the university that shape string theory research, and the extent of their influence. From the many narratives that are encountered in the analysis of string theory research, history and post-academic science, I fo- cus on the narratives of: technoscience, neoliberalism and finan- cialisation|because of their strong entanglement with string theory research. I conclude that there is a complex but strong connec- tion between all these narratives and string theory research. A part of string theory research cannot be described as `pure' science but should rather be identified as technoscience (Latour, 1987). String technoscience has an intimate relationship with the prevailing neolib- eral order, and especially with the related rise of financial capital. Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Some notes on method . .6 1.2 Using the Web of Science Core Collection . .7 2 Academic and post-academic science 9 2.1 Academic science . 10 2.2 The academic ethos . 10 2.2.1 Communalism . 11 2.2.2 Universalism . 11 2.2.3 Disinterestedness, humility . 12 2.2.4 Originality . 13 2.2.5 Scepticism . 13 2.3 From academic to post-academic science . 14 2.3.1 Specialisation and collectivisation . 14 2.3.2 Tenure . 15 2.3.3 Academic science in society . 16 2.3.4 Growth . 17 2.3.5 Politics . 17 2.3.6 Industry . 18 2.3.7 Bureaucracy . 19 2.3.8 Evolutionary science . 19 2.4 Post-academic science . 20 2.5 The post-academic ethos . 21 2.5.1 From communal to proprietary . 21 2.5.2 From universal to local . 22 2.5.3 From disinterested to authoritarian . 23 2.5.4 From original to commissioned . 24 2.5.5 From sceptical to expert . 25 3 String theory and its prehistory 26 3.1 Antecedent: quantum theory . 26 3.1.1 War, migration and the American style . 27 3.1.2 European foundations: ontology and epistem- ology of Einstein and Bohr . 35 3.2 The aim and ontology of string theory . 37 3.3 The method of string theory . 41 4 Is string theory within the realm of post-academic sci- ence? 47 4.1 Informal communication structures . 47 4.2 Epistemic pollution; is string theory linked with private and political entities? . 51 4.3 Local, specialised and technical knowledge . 60 4.4 Working in projects; is the variety of ideas within the string community hampered? . 70 4.5 A career in string theory . 73 2 5 Conclusion; post-academic science and complementary narratives 75 A A brief technical history of the development of string theory 82 Bibliography 87 3 I would like to thank Hans Radder for his many very close readings of my drafts and for teaching me, amongst many other things, the importance of the meanings of words. I owe a lot of insight into the string community, as well as into much else to Sebastian de Haro Oll´e. I would like to thank Federica Russo for giving her insightful, non-masculine views on this work. 4 1 Introduction Physicist and philosopher John Ziman (1996a, p. 752) states: \. what counts as scientific knowledge at any given moment { is obvi- ously influenced by how science is organised. ". And, also: \Changes in the social framework of science eventually lead to changes in its philosophical principles". The organisation of science changes over time. Notably, according to a number of authors, a shift occurred in the way research is organised somewhere in the second half of the twentieth century. New notions have been introduced to understand the novel research culture. These include post-academic science (Zi- man, 2000), Mode 2 science (Gibbons et al., 1994) and technoscience (promoted by Hottois and Latour, 1987, see: Nordmann et al., 2011). This shift in how knowledge is produced is, of course, not the first in the western academic tradition; academic science itself succeeded another system. The narrative central to this thesis, Ziman's (2000) post-academic science model, identifies the academic science culture originating in the 17th century, induced by Newtonian empirical and mathematical physics (Ziman, 2000). Although Ziman (1996a, p. 754) identifies a number improve- ments that postacademic science can accomplish, he is worried about other, related developments. Especially a suspected decline in re- spect for objectivity: `The complex fabric of democratic society is held together by trust in this objectivity, exercised openly by scientific experts. Without science as an independent arbiter, many social con- flicts could only be resolved by reference to political authority or by a direct appeal to force.' Indeed, understanding research culture is vital for producing good science. Although often portrayed as an endeavour isolated from subjectivity, it seems that basic science and its organisation are not immune to the new trend in research culture. According to Gibbons et al. (1994, p. 100): It has even been argued that control of the natural sci- ences has never been wrested for any length of time from the hands of restricted interest groups|which supposedly explains why revolutions in science and technology, unlike those in the humanities and some social sciences, have never posed a threat to the existing order. The separ- ation from politics which the natural sciences strove to maintain over centuries and which the humanities and the social sciences were never able to enjoy is no longer tenable. And on the latter point Ziman (1996a, p. 753) agrees: `even the most basic research does not take place in a power vacuum. '. String theory research has been built on the foundations laid by quantum field theory research. A field that came into existence in a time in which the size, the geography and the structure of theor- etical physics changed dramatically. The second world war and the 5 cold war saw physics and quantum field theory get access to nearly inexhoustible funds. This soon changed the scale of departments and, in retrospect, has put a significant mark on the way theoretical physics is done, even today. Indeed, a `basic' science that was prac- ticed and constructed in all but a `power vacuum'. But, when funds evaporated at the end of the cold war, at least some disinterested physics revived (Kaiser, 2011). This thesis is an analysis of where we stand now. In short, it explores string theory research and its practice through Ziman's (2000) lens of post-academic science. Starting from a thorough analysis of Ziman's concept (I follow Ziman (2000) quite literally), the work changes course and looks at the recent history, the pre- history, the methodology and the epistemic issues surrounding string theory research. Thereafter it weighs Ziman's claims, where string theory functions as a case study. But although Ziman's claims are weighed, this thesis is not primarily interested in proving or disprov- ing|agreeing or disagreeing with|Ziman's text. Rather, to learn in what relation string theory research stands to the world and (re- search) culture. It looks for the many kinds of forces from inside and outside the university that shape string theory research, and the ex- tent of their influence. Beyond Ziman's (2000) work, this thesis tries to place string theory research in, find relations with, other narratives from without the natural sciences. From the many narratives that are encountered in the analysis of string theory research, history and post-academic science, I focus on the narratives of: technoscience, neoliberalism and finanacialisation—because of their strong entangle- ment with string theory research. I conclude that there is a complex but strong connection between all these narratives. A part of string theory research cannot be described as `pure' science but rather as technoscience. String technosciene has an intimate relationship with the prevailing neoliberal order, and especially with the related rise of financial capital. 1.1 Some notes on method This document is mainly (not exclusively) the result of a personal learning trajectory in thoughts thought by scholars engaged in the fields of philosophy, history and sociology of science, over the last century. Starting from an education that was focused on theoretical and mathematical physics I encountered unchartered territory. In a sense, this thesis is thus mostly written for myself. The fruits picked up along the way can, however, be of interest both to scholars whose daily work is in string physics and also to scholars from outside the string community who try to wrap their head around the mysterious worlds of strings and branes; as for example has been done by two scholars who started their learning trajectory in biology: Haraway (1994) and Pigliucci (2019). The educational character of this thesis reveals itself most prom- 6 inently in its method, as it is primarily based on literature, little on fieldwork. New data have been gathered but only through an of-the- shelf bibliometric analysis tool. In the selection of literature that is referenced throughout this text I chose lines of thought that reson- ated with my own, but|unable to evade the subjective in selection while condensing broad and complex academic discourses to concise and convincing narratives|these views are not always subscribed to by everyone (see for example: Galison, 2017, p.