I Strings 2025 conference

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter mitchell porter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Topology
mitchell porter
Gold Member
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
777
The annual big string theory conference took place last week. I thought I would make a thread about it, partly because the most prominent post about it anywhere, is probably Peter Woit dismissing it as worthless.

I skimmed the live video (links here to slides, videos, and posters). What did I personally find to be of interest?

Lara Anderson gave a talk about topology change in heterotic vacua, i.e. transitions between different Calabi-Yau manifolds in the extra dimensions, which turn out to be mediated by the appearance of five-branes. For me there was something classical about this topic, reminiscent of the glory days of the early 1990s when all the different string theories were being unified via duality under the aegis of M-theory. In this case one is trying to go further, and understand how all the different vacua of the string landscape are connected. Brian Greene had some interest in this topic in the late 1990s, and then thanks to Susskind, the landscape was important in the 2000s, but more because that was how the anthropic principle entered the mainstream of string theory.

Apparently there is a revival of the "IKKT model", a matrix model from Japan. The best known matrix model is BFSS, which is a model of M-theory. IKKT, on the other hand, is supposed to be a model for the emergence of the time dimension. I haven't studied it at all.

There was a session on the topic of von Neumann algebras in quantum gravity; Witten spoke in this session. Hong Liu addressed a topic of AdS/CFT - why is physics local in the emergent dimensions - by introducing a "subalgebra-subregion duality", between subalgebras of the CFT on the boundary, and subregions of the emergent bulk spacetime.

During the panel discussions on the final day, Renata Kallosh said that there would soon be more data on the tensor-to-scalar ratio in the CMB, and seemed to think that a particular string model would favor Higgs inflation or Starobinsky inflation (which was the original form of inflation suggested in Russian physics literature).
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes ohwilleke, rimelius, pines-demon and 2 others
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn’t watch the whole thing, but Lara Anderson's talk about topology changes sounds intriguing. It feels like there’s so much to unpack with those different Calabi-Yau manifolds. I’m a bit lost on the matrix models, though. IKKT? BFSS? Honestly, I’m not sure where to start with that. Witten’s session on von Neumann algebras seemed like a deep dive too... did I miss something there? And Kallosh's comment about new data is interesting, but I'm not sure how it ties together with everything else.
 
Well, as far as I know M and F "theory" aren't really as of yet theories so to call.
As warren Siegel said here:
http://media.scgp.stonybrook.edu/video/2018/20181022_2_qtp.mp4

Are M, F theories even theories?
Everybody are waiting for the next Einstein to resolve the 90's and 00's conjectures...
It sometimes feel as if all this field is a bit cranky...:-)
 
mad mathematician said:
Well, as far as I know M and F "theory" aren't really as of yet theories so to call.

String "theories" in general are not theories. That is a know "problem", at least to those who focus on the words. And I do, because as a teacher I think wording is important. Laypeople can dimiss real theories (like QFT), beacuse it's "just a theory".
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and Paul Colby
weirdoguy said:
String "theories" in general are not theories. That is a know "problem", at least to those who focus on the words. And I do, because as a teacher I think wording is important. Laypeople can dimiss real theories (like QFT), beacuse it's "just a theory".
QFT has the same inconsistencies as RQM that's for sure.
And the methods used there are dubious at best, as Feynman once said that he believes the methods employed in QED will one day be proven inconsistent mathematically.
 
mad mathematician said:
QFT has the same inconsistencies as RQM that's for sure.

For sure it has not. The very reason people don't want to teach RQM but QFT instead is that it does not have the inconsistencies RQM has. You clearly haven't studied none of them.

mad mathematician said:
And the methods used there are dubious at best

So? QED is experimentally verified to an overwhelmly wide extent. And, again, physics is an experimental science. What is your point, in general? That everything we know is not true? Because that what it looks like, regarding all your postings here.

mad mathematician said:
as Feynman once said that he believes the methods employed in QED will one day be proven inconsistent mathematically.

I see that you have read a lot about physics, but did you read the physics itself? Feynman died quite a long time ago, so he's not very knowledgable about modern developements of mathematics of QFT. E.g. perturbative QFT has been formalized, to some extent. We had some Insights here on PF about that. It's not pretty, nor it's useful for physicists, but it is there. What is not known, is that non-perturbative QFT in 4D exists. But physicists don't care. Experiments agree with theory on and on. And that is why we call it theory.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes romsofia and berkeman
weirdoguy said:
For sure it has not. The very reason people don't want to teach RQM but QFT instead is that it does not have the inconsistencies RQM has. You clearly haven't studied none of them.



So? QED is experimentally verified to an overwhelmly wide extent. And, again, physics is an experimental science. What is your point, in general? That everything we know is not true? Because that what it looks like, regarding all your postings here.



I see that you have read a lot about physics, but did you read the physics itself? Feynman died quite a long time ago, so he's not very knowledgable about modern developements of mathematics of QFT. E.g. perturbative QFT has been formalized, to some extent. We had some Insights here on PF about that. It's not pretty, nor it's useful for physicists, but it is there. What is not known, is that non-perturbative QFT in 4D exists. But physicists don't care. Experiments agree with theory on and on. And that is why we call it theory.
pQFT has been formalized? really?
What are the axioms/postulates of pQFT?
 
mad mathematician said:
QFT has the same inconsistencies as RQM that's for sure.
And the methods used there are dubious at best, as Feynman once said that he believes the methods employed in QED will one day be proven inconsistent mathematically.
Feynman was wrong. The problems he believed might be inconsistent mathematically were, after decades of being used by physicists on a regular basis, ultimately rigorously proven to be valid mathematically.

I don't have a citation readily at hand, but read a less popularized account of this breakthrough that referenced his earlier skepticism (maybe on Science Direct) about a decade ago.
 
Back
Top