Yet More Math and Physics Items

Various items that may be of interest:

Update: A very recent relevant paper from Joshi is this. It contains a detailed comparison of his point of view with Mochizuki’s, but avoids taking any position on the controversial Corollary 3.12 claimed by Mochizuki.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Yet More Math and Physics Items

  1. Peter Orland says:

    I have no idea what sort of leader of the IAS Nirenberg will be, but in my highly uninformed opinion, he is a serious and interesting scholar. His book “Anti-Judaism” on a store shelf attracted my attention only by its seeming weird. I overruled my prejudices and leafed through it. Then I bought it and I read the thing in a day.

  2. Peter Orland says:

    … and I guess I did not know before that his father was also someone whose papers (on Sobolev inequalities) I had read.

  3. theoreticalminimum says:

    Maybe this could be of interest. Gallimard have published Grothendieck’s R&S in two volumes and a fiction presumably inspired by the story of Perelman.

  4. DKepler says:

    … although some might argue that medieval theology and theoretical physics have seen a convergence in recent years…

    .

    Yes, some might argue the convergence, but it is unfair to drag whole of ‘theoretical physics’ into this. String theory is the ‘only game in town’ – at least in this regard. Your own posts on top string theorists promoting multiverse demonstrate this very well.

  5. Johan Smit says:

    Another physics item: David Tong published lecture notes for supersymmetric field theory, where he indicates that the primary reason for studying the topic is to understand quantum field theory better and find more connections to mathematics, rather than to find beyond standard model physics for which there is no evidence of.

    https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/susy.html

  6. jackjohnson says:

    @ John Smit, Not that there’s anything wrong with that?

  7. Johan Smit says:

    jackjohnson,

    There is nothing wrong with any of this. It’s just more evidence of an ongoing paradigm shift in theoretical physics, where the connections to speculative beyond standard model physics gets de-emphasised (due to the lack of evidence for supersymmetry at the LHC) and the focus is turning towards theoretical quantum field theory and toy supersymmetric models. Ten years ago these lecture notes would probably have dedicated an entire chapter or two to supersymmetric extensions of the standard model like MSSM and possible phenomenology at the LHC.

    String theory is headed in the same direction as well, with the focus turning away from trying to find a theory of quantum gravity or to unify all the forces, and instead studying toy string theory models (or really toy CFT models) and applying the results to other quantum field theories.

  8. jackjohnson says:

    @ johan smit, fair enough, thanks!

  9. anonymous says:

    Kirti Joshi published a part 2 of his Arithmetic Teichmuller spaces paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.04890

Leave a Reply

Informed comments relevant to the posting are very welcome and strongly encouraged. Comments that just add noise and/or hostility are not. Off-topic comments better be interesting... In addition, remember that this is not a general physics discussion board, or a place for people to promote their favorite ideas about fundamental physics. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *