That is interesting work… More after reading the wikidot page.

]]>I tried to read this on “Science ” but couldn’t, thanks for the reference and for summing up the physicists contribution to this problem. I’m still not clear about the initial problem – BY saying a bunch of pictograms, do you mean each symbol -fish or cow’s head or whatever would be an isolated drawing, which is not in any definite sequence?

–Shubashree

]]>One could wonder whether the appropriate “background” for quantum

field theories should be a “non-Euclidean lattice” in order to more

closely mimic curved space.

One problem is that in a purely hyperbolic lattice correlations weaken

much faster than in usual lattices and so it might make the physics

less interesting. So an appropriate lattice may be something like

SL(n,Z) for n>2 which is not hyperbolic but semi-hyperbolic (called

CAT(0) among the cognoscenti).

Also, the people who are looking for gauge theory in curved space,

want gravity and so (I think!) they are usually looking for positive

curvature — which leads to compact-ness. Compact simply-connected

objects are not interesting from a coarse geometry point of view

since the loose constants of quasi-isometry can “swallow” all compact

behaviour.

There may be work on this in the literature (some of it by Gromov!)

but I am not really “in” the area, so I don’t know.

As far as the physics and HEP, I wish I knew enough to know what the data means, which is not to say that’s all I need to know. I’ve thought about how at the atomic and sub-atomic levels, there’s some major indirect-observation going on. I’d like to know how they know how they know they’re getting meaningful data. Like where’s the threshold between noise and something that means something.

]]>