In the long run, I'm cautiously pessimistic. The problems here are now clear enough to identify as fundamental; we'll need something vastly more than ingenuity and optimism to get past them. And, worst of all, it seems very doubtful whether we'll ever know if we've got it right.
-
-
The existing theories of quantum gravity are so bad that it's very easy for me to imagine that someday people will come up with a vastly better one... and we'll all say "Duh! Why didn't anyone think of that sooner?"
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @johncarlosbaez @MathPrinceps and
We are SO constrained by the scient. authorities of the "fathers" of EM, the quantum, and gravitation, that we don't investigate critically enough the phys-math foundations of their theories. Having so many fundamental questions unanswered, the times are ripe to do it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisPapavasili @johncarlosbaez and
I wonder about that too. Is there an account of the standard model suitable for a mathematically trained non-expert that doesn't just say what it is but also gives you a good idea of why it was inevitable, given the experimental data, that we would come up with it?
5 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @wtgowers @ChrisPapavasili and
@wtgowers - I suggest the historical introductions to physics here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html … The information in these not sufficient for what you want, but it's necessary (and fascinating).2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @johncarlosbaez @wtgowers and
To this I would only add: read Mackey, read Mackey, he is the master of us all. For anyone who longs for a mathematical understanding of physics, Mackey's pellucid expositions are inestimably precious. Sternberg is also good, but Mackey is a deity.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @wtgowers and
When I was a grad student around 1987, George Mackey was one of the few living mathematical physicists that my thesis advisor, Irving Segal, actually respected. (He was a very critical fellow.) And thus I got to meet him.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @johncarlosbaez @wtgowers and
It was at about this same time (I was a grad student then as well) that I enjoyed several lengthy telephone conversations with Mackey. I was struck by how closely his spoken discourse resembled his writings: he was clear, helpful, comprehensive, and penetrating. Also very nice.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @johncarlosbaez and
Alas, I was never so fortunate as actually to meet Mackey (and I wept when I learned of his passing; we shall not soon see his like again.) I like to think that his personal influence is present in Sternberg's many superb contributions to the mathematical explication of physics.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @wtgowers and
They were both at Harvard so they probably talked a bunch at some point. I never saw them do it, but I would mainly see them when they came to MIT. Sternberg would mainly come there to talk to Guillemin.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Fascinating that Guillemin was Sternberg's first PhD student (and that Sternberg was so very young himself when he took Guillemin on.) They were ever after enthusiastic colleagues and collaborators.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.