The Langlands Correspondence in Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Kata
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Jim Kata
Messages
197
Reaction score
10
Does anybody understand how to put quantum field theory in terms of the geometric Langlands program? I'm kind of reading Witten's paper Quantum Field theory, Grassmanians, and algebraic curves. Also, the more recent work of Connes shows that his group of diffeographisms is motivic galois group. I have not read Witten and Kapustins mammoth paper. Any ideas about Langlands in physics? Teach me what you know. Mind you, my knowledge is very physics based so if you can't explain in physicsy terms what the ring of adele's is you might lose me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jim Kata said:
Does anybody understand how to put quantum field theory in terms of the geometric Langlands program?

No. Nobody does. Indeed, that's rather like asking "Does anybody have a verifiable theory of quantum gravity?"
 
Jim Kata said:
Does anybody understand how to put quantum field theory in terms of the geometric Langlands program?

Why geometric Langlands? Classical Langlands might be more relevant than the kind of continuum geometry that is studied as a result of, say, string theory prejudices.
 
Thread 'LQG Legend Writes Paper Claiming GR Explains Dark Matter Phenomena'
A new group of investigators are attempting something similar to Deur's work, which seeks to explain dark matter phenomena with general relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity is systems like galaxies. Deur's most similar publication to this one along these lines was: One thing that makes this new paper notable is that the corresponding author is Giorgio Immirzi, the person after whom the somewhat mysterious Immirzi parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity is named. I will be reviewing the...
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
Back
Top