Exploring Ed Witten's Impact on Geometric Langlands & the World of Mathematics

  • Thread starter petergreat
  • Start date
In summary, Witten's research has not led to significant discoveries in the area of real physics, but has instead drawn attention to geometric Langlands theories and their potential to provide a framework for a theory of everything. He still works on Superstring Theory and M-Theory, but does not believe that they provide a consistent and mathematically consistent framework for a theory of everything.
  • #36
tom.stoer said:
Please calm down!

I just want to stress what I had in mind:
- let's compile a (short) list of interesting, long-term and critical (!) questions
- let's find some string theorists here in this forum willing and able to answer
- let's give them a kind of homework: address authorities (*) and come back with their assessment

(*) I do not mean that we do not have authorities here, but I would appreciate to read some (short) answers from Witten, Polchinski, Vafa, ...

Not questions like "do think ST is reasonable?" or "is it possible to calculate the transition rate between different F-theory vacua using perturbative methods. Something like "when and how can string theory provide calculational tools to study low-energy properties of the standard model (e.g. fermion masses and coupling constants)?".

What do you think?

Does string theory offer detailed predictions of Hawking radiation, given it gives correct entropy for extremel BH?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Is this one of the first questions we should ask?
 
  • #38
tom.stoer said:
Something like "when and how can string theory provide calculational tools to study low-energy properties of the standard model (e.g. fermion masses and coupling constants)?".

Isn't the answer to this one "when the right vacuum is found"?

Another question: Assuming the models predicting naked singularities are correct in the sense that either a singularity happens or quantum gravity effects prevent it from happening, without an event horizon obscuring the object/event, can string theory make any predictions on what we would see, without having to know which exact vacuum is ours?
 
  • #39
suprised said:
(...)either on calculations "without numbers" by one person(...) I am working since 20 years in string theory and hardly ever have seen such a concentration of nonsense!

Here are some dictionary definitions of the word "calculation":

- problem solving that involves numbers or quantities

- determining something by mathematical or logical methods [syn: computation, computing]

- to determine by mathematical processes [ex: calculate the rate of acceleration]

- to ascertain by computation; reckon [ex: calculating the area of a circle; calculated their probable time of arrival]

Now, since you mention "by one person", not naming whom you refer to, and since I was one of the people here mentioning the word "calculation" in order to contribute with preciseness (although I did not write anything about "calculations without numbers"), I thought it would be appropriate to clarify the term.

There is one thing however, that bothers me more than anything else. I have already read a lot of "nonsense" in forums, but you cannot expect anything else, since in principle people come here to learn, ask, etc. The thing that bothers me is not "reading nonsense" but hiding behind anonymity. You claim to be working on string theory, but just come here as anonymous apparently to make fun of people in this forum?

I am not afraid to show my name and who I am, my refereed publications can be found online [http://arxiv.org/a/dantas_c_1] . I am a professional scientist who knows very well the meaning of the word "calculation" in a daily working basis. Also, if you read carefully my previous statements, I did not say that "string theorist do not calculate". The main developments are nevertheless towards mathematical structures and proofs. Yes, I know that there are applications in string theory, specially now, more concretely in condensed matter. I am not expert in string theory, but have been following that area (as well as LQG and other quantum gravity approaches) since 2001, when I happened to participate in the M-Theory Cosmology in Cambridge, UK.

Sorry to appear rude, but if you are bothered with "nonsense" and effectively is not ready to really contribute here with your wisdom and knowledge, I suggest that you just go back to your work and make better use of your time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
ccdantas said:
Here are some dictionary definitions of the word "calculation":

- problem solving that involves numbers or quantities

- determining something by mathematical or logical methods [syn: computation, computing]

- to determine by mathematical processes [ex: calculate the rate of acceleration]

- to ascertain by computation; reckon [ex: calculating the area of a circle; calculated their probable time of arrival]

To get a feel for what you mean - do these papers have calculations or not?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0106112
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405231
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0387
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3932
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1352
 
Last edited:
  • #41
atyy said:

Hi atyy,

I cannot tell from the more recent papers (the last two), but I'd say that, yes, the first three examples above involve model building and calculations on it, at varying degrees. The last one appears to use computations from other works, but I'd have to read it some time.


Christine
 

Similar threads

Back
Top