{"id":11344,"date":"2019-09-26T15:26:19","date_gmt":"2019-09-26T19:26:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=11344"},"modified":"2019-09-30T09:03:25","modified_gmt":"2019-09-30T13:03:25","slug":"various-and-sundry-30","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=11344","title":{"rendered":"Various and Sundry"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A couple of mathematics items:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Photographer <a href=\"https:\/\/jessicawynne.com\/\">Jessica Wynne<\/a> has been taking photographs of mathematician&#8217;s blackboards, and there&#8217;s a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/09\/23\/science\/mathematicians-blackboard-photographs-jessica-wynne.html\">story about this in the New York Times<\/a>.  Many of her photographs have been taken here at Columbia, where we happen to have, besides some excellent mathematicians, also some excellent blackboards.<\/li>\n<li>A non-Columbia excellent mathematician I&#8217;ve sometimes written about here is Bonn&#8217;s Peter Scholze.  If you want to get some idea of the field he works in (arithmetic geometry) and what he has been able to accomplish, a good place to learn is Torsten Wedhorn&#8217;s new survey article <a href=\"https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/1909.11510\">On the work of Peter Scholze<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>On the string theory front:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Arguments about the failure of string theory as a unified theory have been going on so long that they are now a topic in the history of science.  For detailed coverage of many events in the long history of these arguments, you can consult historian of science Sophie Ritson&#8217;s 2016 University of Sydney doctoral dissertation.  It and some of her other work is available at her <a href=\"https:\/\/uni-klu.academia.edu\/SophieRitson\">academia.edu website<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li>For the latest in content-free argumentation about the failure of string theory unification, Steve Mirsky has a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/podcast\/episode\/the-mathematical-language-of-nature\/\">podcast discussion with string theory fan Graham Farmelo<\/a> (see discussion of his recent book <a href=\"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=11012\">here<\/a>), in which Mirsky challenges Farmelo about the problems of string theory.  Farmelo has spent a lot of time at the IAS and basically takes the attitude that the point of view of certain unnamed string theorists there is what should be followed.  I&#8217;d describe it as basically &#8220;we&#8217;ve given up working on string theory unification, but will keep insisting it is the best way forward until someone proves us wrong by coming up with a completely successful alternate idea.&#8221;<\/li>\n<li>For the absolute latest attempt to extract some sort of &#8220;prediction&#8221; from string theory, see this week&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/workshops.ift.uam-csic.es\/navigating\/program\">Navigating the Swampland<\/a> conference in Madrid. Today there was a discussion session, with results shown of<a href=\"https:\/\/workshops.ift.uam-csic.es\/files\/257\/survey.pdf\"> a survey of the views of those attending the conference<\/a>.  Note that, on the contentious topic of the reliability of supposed metastable de Sitter solutions of string theory, the Stanford group defending this reliability does not seem to be represented at the conference.  I&#8217;ve been trying to understand what picture of physics this research has in mind, given that one main goal is to torpedo the metastable de Sitter solutions, and thus the usual &#8220;anthropic string landscape&#8221; picture.  Looking at page seven, most participants seem to want to replace single field inflation models with more complicated quintessence or multi-field inflation models.<br \/>\nIn <a href=\"http:\/\/150.244.223.31\/videos\/video\/2088\/\">Hirosi Ooguri&#8217;s talk<\/a> he gives a supposed &#8220;unparalleled opportunity for string theory to be falsified&#8221;, I gather by claiming string theory somehow implies a small value of r.  He quotes Arkani-Hamed as saying that string theorists should have reacted to the bogus BICEP2 measurement of r=.2 by saying &#8220;if this is true string theory is falsified.&#8221;  They didn&#8217;t do that.  When the topic came up at the time, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/news\/gravitational-wave-finding-causes-spring-cleaning-in-physics-1.14910\">what they had to say was<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Theoretical physicist Eva Silverstein of Stanford says she disagrees that string theory-based models of inflation are in any sort of trouble. \u201cThere is no sense in which we are forced to start over,\u201d she says. She adds that in fact a separate class of theories that involve both axions and strings now look promising.<\/p>\n<p>Linde agrees. \u201cThere is no need to discard string theory, it is just a normal process of learning which versions of the theory are better,\u201d he says.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Update<\/strong>:  Some more math<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Not just physicists, but mathematicians too can get the ridiculous headline treatment, see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en_us\/article\/8xwm54\/number-theorist-fears-all-published-math-is-wrong-actually\">Number Theorist Fears All Published Math Is Wrong<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li>A recent proof of the twin primes conjecture for [<em>polynomials over<\/em>] finite fields from my Columbia colleague Will Sawin and a collaborator is the subject of a new Quanta article from Kevin Hartnett, see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.quantamagazine.org\/big-question-about-primes-proved-in-small-number-systems-20190926\/\">Big Question About Primes Proved in Small Number Systems<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Several physicists now have pieces up explaining why Sean Carroll&#8217;s claim that &#8220;the Multiverse did it&#8221; (i.e. all you have to do is believe in multiple worlds) isn&#8217;t a real solution to the measurement problem.  Beside the previously mentioned <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/chadorzel\/2019\/09\/17\/many-worlds-but-too-much-metaphor\">Chad Orzel<\/a>, there&#8217;s also <a href=\"http:\/\/backreaction.blogspot.com\/2019\/09\/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html\">Sabine Hossenfelder<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/philipball.blogspot.com\/2019\/09\/just-how-conceptually-economical-is.html\">Philip Ball<\/a>. I agree with Ball&#8217;s conclusion:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Here, then, is the key point: you are not obliged to accept the \u201cother worlds\u201d of the MWI, but I believe you are obliged to reject its claims to economy of postulates. Anything can look simple and elegant if you sweep all the complications under the rug.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>Update<\/strong>:  A video of the discussion session at the Swampland conference is <a href=\"http:\/\/150.244.223.31\/videos\/video\/2098\/\">here<\/a>.  It seems that I&#8217;m not the only one confused about what assumptions people working on this are making and what they are or are not accomplishing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A couple of mathematics items: Photographer Jessica Wynne has been taking photographs of mathematician&#8217;s blackboards, and there&#8217;s a story about this in the New York Times. Many of her photographs have been taken here at Columbia, where we happen to &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=11344\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-swampland","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11344"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11344\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11358,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11344\/revisions\/11358"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}