Not Even Wrong

During the past year Erik Verlinde has made a splash (most recently in the New York Times). with his claim that the reason we don’t understand gravity is that it is an emergent phenomenon, an “entropic force”. Now he and Peter Freund are taking this farther, with a claim that the Standard Model is also emergent. Freund has a new paper out on the arXiv entitled “Emergent Gauge Fields” with an abstract:

Erik Verlinde’s proposal of the emergence of the gravitational force as an entropic force is extended to abelian and non-abelian gauge fields and to matter fields. This suggests a picture with no fundamental forces or forms of matter whatsoever.

Freund thanks Verlinde, who evidently has much the same idea:

I wish to thank Erik Verlinde for very helpful correspondence from which it is clear that he independently has also arrived at the conclusion that not only gravity, but all gauge fields should be emergent.

He remarks that this new theoretical idea is remniscent of Geoffrey Chew’s failed “bootstrap program” of the sixties:

It is as if assuming certain forces and forms of matter to be fundamental is tantamount (in the sense of an effective theory) to assuming that there are no fundamental forces or forms of matter whatsoever, and everything is emergent. This latter picture in which nothing is fundamental is reminiscent of Chew’s bootstrap approach [9], the original breeding ground of string theory. Could it be that after all its mathematically and physically exquisite developments, string theory has returned to its birthplace?

It’s very unclear to me why this is supposed to be a good thing. In his Nobel prize lecture, David Gross, a student of Chew’s explains:

I can remember the precise moment at which I was disillusioned with the bootstrap program. This was at the 1966 Rochester meeting, held at Berkeley. Francis Low, in the session following his talk, remarked that the bootstrap was less of a theory than a tautology…

As the date for announcement of the 2010 Fields Medals approaches, gossip about who the winners might be has been circulating. Math Overflow is by far the best internet site for authoritative discussion between knowledgeable mathematicians, but, unlike this site, they have a “no gossip” rule, leading to the closing of discussion threads like this one.

You can bet on who the Fields Medalists might be here. I assume there’s no bet possible for Ngo since he’s a sure thing…

Update: It’s Ngo and Villani, also Elon Lindenstrauss and Stanislav Smirnov. For the announcement and information about the work of the prize winners, see here. Accurate rumors about this don’t seem to have started circulating until the ICM announced the winners to the press late Tuesday. This information was embargoed until today, breaking the embargo didn’t seem sporting…

Update: Best blog by far for following this is that of Timothy Gowers, who was on the committee that picked the Fields medal winners, and promises to tell us about Cedric Villani’s outfit.

Update: One more. There’s a very informative long piece by Stephen Hawking here about his scientific career.

Update: See Resonaances for more about the “It’s On” paper.

In conjunction with his receipt of the Newton Medal, Edward Witten gave a public talk in London (now available on-line here), and an interview (available as part of a pod-cast here).

Witten’s talk was a rather polemical argument for string theory, in which he laid out his reasons for still feeling that string theory is on the right track. The video is in two parts, with the first part not especially interesting since it is pretty much word-for-word the standard arguments for string theory that he and others have been making since the mid-eighties. The second part has some more interesting content, including Witten’s comments on the evolution of his own personal relationship to the subject. This started in the early eighties, before the 1984 “First Superstring Revolution”, when he began studying string theory, feeling that it was an approach to unification that deserved more attention than it was getting.

A recurring theme in his talk is that “string theory” has gone through unexpected changes in perspective over the 30 years he has been working on it, with the unspoken argument being that some new change in perspective may yet make the current deadly problems of string unification go away. He takes an ambiguous attitude towards attempts in recent years to argue for a change in perspective to the pseudo-scientific “landscape”, explaining the arguments of proponents while not signing on to them. In the podcast he says “I don’t know if this is the right picture of the universe”, in the talk it’s “to my thinking we still need more clues to have a better picture whether that is the right interpretation.”

It’s interesting to compare Witten’s pro-string theory arguments to the somewhat similar ones of his much less mild-mannered thesis advisor David Gross (see here for a posting about a recent talk by Gross). Unlike Witten, Gross is clear where he stands on the anthropic landscape, denouncing it as pseudo-science. One other crucial difference has to do with their discussion of upcoming LHC results. Here, Gross argues strongly that the LHC will see supersymmetry, and is willing to put money on the table to back this up. Witten’s talk barely refers to the LHC, and while he argues that a point in string theory’s favor is its relation to supersymmetry, all he’s willing to say about supersymmetry or extra dimensions at the LHC is “it might happen if we’re fortunate enough.” The next interesting part of the string theory story may very well be what happens in 2013-4 when it becomes clear that supersymmetry and extra dimensions are not going to be seen at LHC energies. After paying off his debts, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Gross take this as an opportunity to back off from the idea of string theory unification. On the other hand, in his talk Witten seems to be positioning himself for carrying on as before, by now making arguments for string theory that don’t at all involve low-energy supersymmetry.

Witten ends his talk with the argument that we still know very little about what string theory is, and this implies that it remains an excellent subject for young physicists to start to work on. I suspect he sees all too well that among physicists the tide has changed, with students turning to other subjects as jobs in string theory dry up and prospects for progress on string theory unification look increasingly dismal. He’s trying to counter this by restating the arguments that have continued to keep him interested in the subject.

Update: Clifford Johnson has some very interesting and accurate comments on Witten and on how others react to him here.

The Clay Mathematics Institute today announced that Perelman has turned down the one million dollar Millennium prize:

On June 8-9 CMI held a conference in Paris to celebrate the resolution of the Poincaré conjecture by Grigoriy Perelman. Dr. Perelman has subsequently informed us that he has decided not to accept the one million dollar prize. In the fall of 2010, CMI will make an announcement of how the prize money will be used to benefit mathematics.

There are various media stories appearing about this, based on an AP report, with a bit more detail:

Jim Carlson, institute president, said Perelman’s decision was not a complete surprise, since he had declined some previous math prizes.

Carlson said Perelman had told him by telephone last week of his decision and gave no reason. But the Interfax news agency quoted Perelman as saying he believed the prize was unfair. Perelman told Interfax he considered his contribution to solving the Poincare conjecture no greater than that of Columbia University mathematician Richard Hamilton.

“To put it short, the main reason is my disagreement with the organized mathematical community,” Perelman, 43, told Interfax. “I don’t like their decisions, I consider them unjust.”

…

Carlson said institute officials will meet this fall to decide what to do with the prize money. “We have some ideas in mind,” he said. “We want to consider that carefully and make the best use possible of the money for the benefit of mathematics.”