I’ve been trying to find time to write about some books I’ve been reading. Maybe later this week. In the meantime, some things that may be of interest:<\/p>\n
Langlands will give a lecture on Wednesday, on the geometric theory, followed by lectures from Jim Arthur and Edward Frenkel (streamed here<\/a>). One would think that this would be a good opportunity for non-Russian readers to find out what Langlands is up to, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Langlands lectures in Norwegian…<\/p>\n This fall the University of Minnesota will host an Abel conference<\/a>, dedicated to Langlands and his work.<\/li>\n One possibility, entertained by a number of leading physicists, is that there are lots of universes, the so-called multiverse, with very different properties and initial conditions. Some of those universes may have started in conditions of maximum disorder, with nothing driving change, no distinction between future and past, where atom-size pottery shards gather themselves up to form atom-size teapots as often as the reverse. But some of these universes would have been created, by accident, with relatively high order. We live in such a universe because otherwise we wouldn\u2019t be here to discuss the matter. The theory of \u201cquantum gravity,\u201d which is still not fully formulated, describes such a continuous creation of universes with random properties and initial conditions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Maybe I’ve missed something amidst the other multiverse mania, but the only person I’ve ever heard use “the multiverse did it” to explain this entropy problem is Sean Carroll, and it always seemed to me that he had never had any success in getting anyone to take that seriously.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Update<\/strong>: Glad to hear from the comment section that Carlo Rovelli “not appreciate at all the current infatuation with the idea of a multi-universe.” Unfortunately the multiverse publicity machine rolls on, with the usual nonsense, see here<\/a>. I don’t agree with Sabine Hossenfelder that the problem is “over-reliance on mathematics”. What’s going wrong here is bad physics and bad science, nothing to do with mathematics.<\/p>\n Update<\/strong>: I’m glad to hear from Glenn Starkman that the Standard Model is also getting a 50th anniversary celebration soon (June 1-4), see here<\/a>. Many of the talks look quite interesting, and there will be a livestream here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Update<\/strong>:The Abel lectures are now online here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I’ve been trying to find time to write about some books I’ve been reading. Maybe later this week. In the meantime, some things that may be of interest: This week in Norway there will be various events in celebration of … Continue reading
\n