Science > Physics > Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology in Physics Pro-and-Con Critique 4: Investigation of arXiv and Front
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2006 05:10:01 PM |
| Object: |
Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology in Physics Pro-and-Con Critique 4: Investigation of arXiv and Front |
From Osher Doctorow
Although investigation of arXiv and Front for the Mathematics ArXiv is
one way of obtaining knowledge about the roles of algebraic geometry
and algebraic topology in string/superstring/brane theories, such
investigation is far less decisive than the fact that most fundamental
results related to these physics theories (including 't Hooft's
Holographic Principle) can be derived most simply and directly by
Probable Influence/Causation (PI). To get some ideas about the latter
fact, see my postings on sci.physics over the last few years.
I've chosen the following researchers to investigate here
(alphabetically): Goto, Michael Green, Brian Greene, Y. Nambu, John H.
Schwarz, A. Strominger, Cumrun Vafa, G. Veneziano, and Edward Witten.
Believe it or not, almost no papers out of hundreds of papers of these
authors are categorized in the topics of algebraic topology (AT) or
algebraic geometry (AG) in either forum. The only exceptions are 2
papers by Edward Witten out of 125 papers by him in arXiv and 16 papers
by him in Front for the Mathematics ArXiv, and about the same number by
Brian Greene out of 36 papers by him in arXiv and 6 papers by him in
Front for the Mathematics ArXiv.
What's going on here? We know that several of these prominent
string/superstring/brane theorists use algebraic topology and/or
algebraic geometry, including Schwarz (algebraic geoemtry), Witten
(especially algebraic topology), etc. But Veneziano and Nambu and
Goto, who came in arguably earliest in string theory, got their
inspirations elsewhere, and everybody got their inspirations from
experimental physics. What I think happened, and still happens, is
that what we know as the "superstring revolutions 1 and 2" were
basically retranslations of previous results into algebraic geometry
and/or algebraic topology and retranslations of new results into these
"languages".
Since translation into probability-statistics, logic, geometry without
algebraic geometry, and topology without algebraic topology would have
been simpler and more intuitive for example, the causes which I
isolated in my previous threads on these topics arguably were
operating, including obsession with over-complication, lack of interest
in cause-effect, etc. Conformity arguably played a major role once
the first few papers of the "revolutions" were presented in the new
algebraic topology or algebraic geometry frameworks. Publish-or-perish
was easier in the same "languages" once the first few papers were
accepted by "peer reviewers" in major journals, almost none of whom
("peer reviewers") came from a large pool of mathematical experts in
algebraic topology and algebraic geoemtry.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology in Physics Pro-and-Con Critique 4: Investigation of arXiv and Front |
08 Feb 2006 05:25:14 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Most of the papers in string, superstring, and brane theory which did
appear in arXiv or Front by the above authors were in various branches
of physics, while only a very small minority of even papers in
mathematics were in algebraic topology or algebraic geometry.
What this indicates is that the authors were and/or are oriented toward
physics far, far more than toward either algebraic geometry or
topology, and arguably that they didn't even use those branches of
mathematics intuitively in daily practice. Only Greene, Schwarz, and
Witten even bothered to contribute to Front for the Mathematics ArXiv,
with respectively 6, 27, and 16 papers there, far less than their usual
contributions to arXiv (the physics arXiv).
If you're obsessed by something and you publish, you probably will
publish in whatever you're obsessed with. But most of them didn't, or
when they did they hardly did.
It doesn't really matter what journal you publish in if you're a
Creative Genius, since nobody has arguably heard about the topic
before. My wife Marleen and I published on Probable
Influence/Causation (PI), which we called Probability of Material
Implication or Causal Probability in those days, in 1980-81 and 1983 in
philosophy journals. That was before the superstring "revolutions".
Marleen wasn't even in physics or mathematics but psychology, where she
still is. The only journals that were in the slightest interested were
philosophy journals, and even there not the very top ones. But we were
interested in publishing in physics and mathematics because the
applications and the intuitive fundamental mathematics were in those
fields.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology in Physics Pro-and-Con Critique 4: Investigation of arXiv and Front |
08 Feb 2006 05:54:36 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
One correction: Michael Green did publish one paper in Front for the
Mathematics ArXiv, on Dynamical Systems (DS).
Let's take a look at what categories John Schwarz' Front papers are
listed in. Excluding overlaps with arXiv that are in categories hep-th
(high energy physics theory), Schwarz published in Mathematical Physics
(math-ph), symplectic geometry (math.SG), QA (quantum algebra),
funct-an (functional analysis), Applied Physics (math.AP), computer
science (cs.IT), general or geometric topology (I haven't checked
which) (math.GT).
Edward Witten in his corresponding Front papers added two papers on
Algebraic Geometry (alg-geom) and nothing on his main "interest"
Algebraic Topology, did a math.HO paper which isn't algebraic geometry
or algebraic topology but whose category slips my memory (I'll look it
up), and otherwise stayed in math-ph (Mathematical Physics) except for
overlaps with arXiv.
Brian Greene did one paper on Algebraic Geometry (alg-geom) among his 6
Front papers, in 1993 (his first one there), and his other 5 papers
were just overlaps with arXiv in the category hep-th (High Energy
Physics).
Unless their papers were rejected by peer reviewers (always possible
given the Ingenious Imitators among peer reviewers), the above authors
cannot even be described based on Front as deeply obsessed or
intuitively "dedicated" to algebraic geometry or algebraic topology.
The more likely alternative is that they were simply dedicated to
publishing in physics like the usual publish-or-perish crowd. Witten
should have had more independence as a member of the Princeton
Institute, but he had his own troubles in retaining or attaining
permanent advanced status there according to various biographies and
internet forums like the former Superstringtheory.com. Today he's in
CalTech, apparently "permanently", with Schwarz.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology in Physics Pro-and-Con Critique 4: Investigation of arXiv and Front |
08 Feb 2006 06:03:12 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Oh yes, what was the name of Marleen and my paper in 1980-81 and 1983?
It was "On the nature of causation." Speaking of criticizing
algebraic topologists and algebraic geometers as lacking interest in
cause-effect, I might say that my argument "rests" (see the earlier
parts of this thread). However, there's no time to rest. There's
work to be done.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Probable Influence/Causation Versus Algebraic Geometry/Topology 3: Conditional Probability vs Scheme
Algebraic Chaos: Von Neumann vs Dirac
Classification error, algebraic integer issue
Scientific method, mathematics, ring of algebraic integer
Dimensional Analysis and Cosmology vs Heisenberg, Algebraic Topology, and Algebraic Geometry 2: Why Princeton, Harvard, etc. are Tops
Probable Influence/Causation Versus Algebraic Geometry/Topology 4: Elliptic Curves
Probable Influence/Causation Versus Algebraic Geometry/Topology 2: PI vs Scheme
Probable Influence/Causation Versus Algebraic Geometry/Topology 5: Alternating Series
| Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology in Physics Pro-and-Con Critique 3
Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology in Physics Pro-and-Con Critique
langlands, higgs bundles, hypergeometrics, and algebraic curve physics
Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology in Physics Pro-and-Con Critique 5.1 The Doctorows Return in Early 1990s
Algebraic Statistics (Statistica Sinica)
Dimensional Analysis and Cosmology vs Heisenberg, Algebraic Topology, and Algebraic Geometry
Algebra shows algebraic integer limitation
|
|
|
