@9:10 physicists are in fact looking at mathematical symmetries, in the Lie groups. The "unification" is not truly well-defined because no one knows what the final structure of elementary particles must be, but since we have all the low energy broken symmetries we know what possibilities there are for larger groups. The groups are nothing but the instructions for how one particle "rotates" into another (in a topological space sense, not a literal spacetime sense). The proper unification in physics is to unite gravity with the SM of QM. That's also about groups too, since we'd need to know if gravity is purely global and has no need for a graviton, if it's all just gravitons then it requires a special difficult sort of theory (it is non-renormalizable, so cannot be "computational," and no one knows of a way around that, except by postulating maybe gravity is more global/classical and there are no gravitons). Note, if there are no gravitons then it'd be a good thing, since then the SM and gravity are already as united as they can get. Then spin-2 fields get left out of the Lorentzian path integral. Elementary particles can be in superposition, but not spacetime itself. There is a super cool unification then, the parameters in the group for GR vacuum have 36 gauge fields, they are particle-less (have no propagating modes) so are pure pure vacuum. BUt if the Hiiggs particle is actually composite, so not elementary, then these 36 zero-dimension fields would explain precisely why there are three generations of fermions. _Precisely._ I take this as a decent hint gravity should not be re-quantized (it is already a quantum theory, just not for gravitons). However, having a few gravitons is no problem, provided they are particles, not fields and so few of them there is no effective field theory for them. In this case graviton do not mess up the prediction of three generations, since the graviton is not a fermion. This is all just to say, if any mathematician reading this want a far simpler puzzle than Langlands, talk to me! The physics prizes are deeply mathematical. All about Lie groups. Contrary to popular myth, quantum mechanics is _more_ continuous than classical mechanics, not more "discrete". The discrete arises in QM because of topology/homology, but it is still smooth spacetime.
13:41 "There's gonna be two, you can see what to do..." I thought he was going for a little rhyme there. That would've been nice. In all seriousness though, great talk, I enjoyed it very much. Amazing channel.
Like most mathematicians, James Artur apologizes to mathematicians for having to put the subject's ideas in laymans' terms and then proceeds to cover much of the topic in terms only mathematicians will understand. It's a common disability (or inside joke) among that group.
I don't think you understand just how technical this talk would have been if he'd allowed himself to use notions he'd expect every mathematician, but not every layperson, to know.
So... if the two pillars are 'motives' (from Algebraic Geometry) and 'Automorphic Forms'(from Harmonic Analysis) where does the Arithmetic actually enter?
One way it enters from the algebraic geometry side is the following: The example Arthur brings up of the motive of an elliptic curve tells you about the number of solutions to an equation like y^2+y=x^3-x^2 modulo primes, using the Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula. This bounds the number of honest integer solutions (i.e. the left hand side is equal to the right hand side and not only to the right hand side plus some multiple of a prime), as any integer solution gives you a solution modulo every prime.
I have watched several videos and I always get lost when they start talking about the actual langlands program. It would be easier if they use EXAMPLES FIRST and THEN explain the abstract thing. This is why I never understood and always hated Theory of Categories. Very similar to what makes people hate math.
' motives ' & " motifs " convey his general perceptual ' abstract inuendos ' but definition wise they mean discretely different things....if I were going to describe the visuals of an afterdeath experience and stated there exist no.proper language to adequately describe....the motive/motif dichotomy would best represent the divide WITH the qualification that one understand from maths perspective THAT of the implied " motive "
What a load of rubbish..two mathematians construct two different ivory towers and try to get from one to to the other without going all the way down and climbing up the other..even a cursory analysis shows that There is an infinite number of possible towers and no one is more relevatory than the other. This was shown by Godel over a century ago
Can you tell me what Gödel's work has to do with this? Sure, some theorems might be undecidable but why would it not be worth it to investigate whether some interesting conjectures are true?
@Gringohuevon You mistake Gödel for having shown ( or having intended to show) that mathematics is futile, but he has shown that mathematics essentially is incomplete and not omniscient. That leaves an infinite space of research and challenges for mathematicians to tackle. Langlands program is fascinating as it unveils intrinsic correspondences or dualities of otherwise - or at least traditionally seen as - unrelated mathematical structures
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
@9:10 physicists are in fact looking at mathematical symmetries, in the Lie groups. The "unification" is not truly well-defined because no one knows what the final structure of elementary particles must be, but since we have all the low energy broken symmetries we know what possibilities there are for larger groups. The groups are nothing but the instructions for how one particle "rotates" into another (in a topological space sense, not a literal spacetime sense). The proper unification in physics is to unite gravity with the SM of QM. That's also about groups too, since we'd need to know if gravity is purely global and has no need for a graviton, if it's all just gravitons then it requires a special difficult sort of theory (it is non-renormalizable, so cannot be "computational," and no one knows of a way around that, except by postulating maybe gravity is more global/classical and there are no gravitons).
Note, if there are no gravitons then it'd be a good thing, since then the SM and gravity are already as united as they can get. Then spin-2 fields get left out of the Lorentzian path integral. Elementary particles can be in superposition, but not spacetime itself. There is a super cool unification then, the parameters in the group for GR vacuum have 36 gauge fields, they are particle-less (have no propagating modes) so are pure pure vacuum. BUt if the Hiiggs particle is actually composite, so not elementary, then these 36 zero-dimension fields would explain precisely why there are three generations of fermions. _Precisely._ I take this as a decent hint gravity should not be re-quantized (it is already a quantum theory, just not for gravitons). However, having a few gravitons is no problem, provided they are particles, not fields and so few of them there is no effective field theory for them. In this case graviton do not mess up the prediction of three generations, since the graviton is not a fermion.
This is all just to say, if any mathematician reading this want a far simpler puzzle than Langlands, talk to me! The physics prizes are deeply mathematical. All about Lie groups. Contrary to popular myth, quantum mechanics is _more_ continuous than classical mechanics, not more "discrete". The discrete arises in QM because of topology/homology, but it is still smooth spacetime.
Very enjoyable talk.
13:41 "There's gonna be two, you can see what to do..." I thought he was going for a little rhyme there. That would've been nice. In all seriousness though, great talk, I enjoyed it very much. Amazing channel.
Like most mathematicians, James Artur apologizes to mathematicians for having to put the subject's ideas in laymans' terms and then proceeds to cover much of the topic in terms only mathematicians will understand. It's a common disability (or inside joke) among that group.
😂😂😂
I don't think you understand just how technical this talk would have been if he'd allowed himself to use notions he'd expect every mathematician, but not every layperson, to know.
Authorship what does it mean
Logic is here part of arithmetic? Russell?
So... if the two pillars are 'motives' (from Algebraic Geometry) and 'Automorphic Forms'(from Harmonic Analysis) where does the Arithmetic actually enter?
One way it enters from the algebraic geometry side is the following:
The example Arthur brings up of the motive of an elliptic curve tells you about the number of solutions to an equation like y^2+y=x^3-x^2 modulo primes, using the Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula. This bounds the number of honest integer solutions (i.e. the left hand side is equal to the right hand side and not only to the right hand side plus some multiple of a prime), as any integer solution gives you a solution modulo every prime.
@@ludvigm n mm
Think he is referring to graphite
The noise at 41:15 gives me a heart attack
ikr it's horrible
I have watched several videos and I always get lost when they start talking about the actual langlands program. It would be easier if they use EXAMPLES FIRST and THEN explain the abstract thing. This is why I never understood and always hated Theory of Categories. Very similar to what makes people hate math.
14 15
' motives ' & " motifs " convey his general perceptual ' abstract inuendos ' but definition wise they mean discretely different things....if I were going to describe the visuals of an afterdeath experience and stated there exist no.proper language to adequately describe....the motive/motif dichotomy would best represent the divide WITH the qualification that one understand from maths perspective THAT of the implied " motive "
math is more like 'music/art'. I get it
Was he breathing helium?
What a load of rubbish..two mathematians construct two different ivory towers and try to get from one to to the other without going all the way down and climbing up the other..even a cursory analysis shows that There is an infinite number of possible towers and no one is more relevatory than the other. This was shown by Godel over a century ago
Can you tell me what Gödel's work has to do with this? Sure, some theorems might be undecidable but why would it not be worth it to investigate whether some interesting conjectures are true?
Academic hater
@Gringohuevon You mistake Gödel for having shown ( or having intended to show) that mathematics is futile, but he has shown that mathematics essentially is incomplete and not omniscient.
That leaves an infinite space of research and challenges for mathematicians to tackle.
Langlands program is fascinating as it unveils intrinsic correspondences or dualities of otherwise - or at least traditionally seen as - unrelated mathematical structures
This might be the most disrespectful comment about fundamental science ever written.
..you need make more than a cursory analysis of the Langlands Program