On 1 Dec 2003, Thomas Larsson wrote on sci.physics.research:

You have repeatedly declared that you hate new and advanced mathematics,
such as groupoids, category theory, etc.

That's right. I don't like them - just like other physicists (try to ask
Nima Arkani-Hamed what he thinks about the groupoids!) :-) - because there
is almost no contents in these things. It's just a fancy language to
describe very simple ideas, and it is undefendable and sort of arrogant to
call these mathematical constructs "advanced mathematics". There is
nothing advanced about them except for the advanced level of emptiness.

As I have explained to you before, this cocycle has even been
considered in string theory; many string theorists have a different
attitude towards advanced math than you have.

You know, we are using cocycles at various places in CFT. But the generic
type of a cocycle is just a concept searching for an application which
probably does not exist, and all attempts to show the converse have so far
been unsuccessful.

The reason that it has not appeared in physics is of course that most
physicists don't know about it.

No, the true reason is that there is no physically interesting content in
these constructions; it is not because the physicists are dumb.

Thus the Kassel cocycle is non-zero for the standard model. So it cannot be
an anomaly, or else the standard model is anomalous.

That's right.

It's certainly not anomaly in 4 dimensions. In 2 dimensions, anomalies are
"diangles" instead of "triangles" - for example conformal anomaly - but in
that case it is also possible to have negative contributions to the
anomaly. In two dimensions, you can also have the opposite sign of
contributions from the left-movers and the right-movers: while the two
chiralities are related by complex conjugation in 3+1 dimensions (because
of the CPT theorem), they are independent in 1+1 dimensions.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
E-mail: fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
phone: work: +1-617/496-8199 home: +1-617/868-4487
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Superstring/M-theory is the language in which God wrote the world.

Lubos Motl wrote:
On 1 Dec 2003, Thomas Larsson wrote on sci.physics.research:
You have repeatedly declared that you hate new and advanced mathematics,
such as groupoids, category theory, etc.
That's right. I don't like them - just like other physicists (try to ask
Nima Arkani-Hamed what he thinks about the groupoids!) :-) - because there
is almost no contents in these things.

And they teach this frame of mind at Harvard? Well, it's probably too
much to expect there to be more than one Princeton in the Ivy League.

The sci.physics.research moderators must be finally cracking down.
The reply's been demoted to sci.physics, going by what line #2 says.

Lubos Motl wrote in message ...

Superstring/M-theory is the language in which God wrote the world.

Lubos,

I am interested in how infomration can be translated to us from what
is presently existing in the bulk.

With this in mind, it was important to understand events in the early
universe having allowed this information to depart from its source in
gravity waves, and to be picked up by us now? LIGO I II,

Having said this, I looked at orbitals configurations and cosmological
events as in the Bose Nova jets(its dynamics of negative energy), and
was amazed to think of the ability of this shape to be translated in
the dynamics of its movement and to be reconstructed somewhwere else,
like earth now.

The problem then is I see is that the orbital and cosmological events,
seem to have some relationship by appearance(?) that saw the very
large(GR) connected to the very smallQM. This has been discounted(?)
and I just wanted to know what you think.

Sol

(sol) wrote:
Lubos Motl wrote:
Superstring/M-theory is the language in which God wrote the world.
Lubos,
I am interested in how infomration can be translated to us from what
is presently existing in the bulk.

...Numerous fascinating and esoteric questions deleted...

You got all of that out of that one line up above?

Wow. There must be a lot packed into that short comment.
It is an interesting view of things, to say the least.

The perspective is, in fact, very similar to the one that led long ago
to a well-known argument about a certain body of divine revelation
that everything in it was valid, everything that agreed with it was
redundant and could be done away with, and everything else was either
wrong or of no interest and so could be disposed of.

These unifying perspectives help greatly simplify the curricula at
institutes of higher learning. However, given the historical precedent,
it might be time to get some fire insurance on the library facilities at
Harvard.

I wonder how fast gravity moves, according to String Theory. That
PBS special said gravity can jump off the bread slices, and with
all that jumping around it's not going to be going very far that
fast. But I thought they already proved gravity goes at light
speed last year or something.

(Lydia Marie) wrote in message om...

Lubos Motl wrote:
On 1 Dec 2003, Thomas Larsson wrote on sci.physics.research:
You have repeatedly declared that you hate new and advanced mathematics,
such as groupoids, category theory, etc.
That's right. I don't like them - just like other physicists (try to ask
Nima Arkani-Hamed what he thinks about the groupoids!) :-) - because there
is almost no contents in these things.

And they teach this frame of mind at Harvard? Well, it's probably too
much to expect there to be more than one Princeton in the Ivy League.
The sci.physics.research moderators must be finally cracking down.

I smell fun...
Accountants make lousy CEO's. Physics requires
initiative. Math follows the concept. Sci.phy.research
is really a math site, and so the topic Mr. Motl
discusses would be unwelcome, but his idea has value,
as Einstein suggests "Mathematical Torment" has no
physical content.

Analogy, *A carpenter is as good a his tools*,
therefore, a house is better built if he has a
bigger dump truck, of course not - because he
needs a better electron microscope first.

IMO physics in mission orientated, and math is
useful frugally. But I think every student should
be exposed to the foundation of tensor analysis
in grade school, as a means of relating points
of view and seeing the equality of these views.

1 inch = 2.54 cm

is a grade school 1D 1st rank transform between
CS's. Volume is a third rank tensor that's easy to
visualize and stimulates imagination. The foundations
of General Covariance and Democracy follow
from tensor analysis.

Groupoids...
is there physical content in a constellation pattern?
(I think constellations may be the first non-terrestrial
formations of shared groups invented and generally
used by humans across cultures).

Pattern Recognition and Catagorization...
sounds groupy.
Well someone will need to program the AI
software for the robots that serve us as we
explore super-groupy AI algorithms, I hope
it never ends.

For Conception Dynamics
Ken S. Tucker

(Lydia Marie) wrote in message . com...
(sol) wrote:
Lubos Motl wrote:
Superstring/M-theory is the language in which God wrote the world.
Lubos,
I am interested in how infomration can be translated to us from what
is presently existing in the bulk.

...Numerous fascinating and esoteric questions deleted...

You got all of that out of that one line up above?

No not really Lydia.

http://www.apscenttalks.org/pres_mas....cfm?nameID=96

Happy listening and reading.

Sol