Timeline for Number theory and physics
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 2019 at 19:07 | answer | added | wonderich | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 25, 2018 at 3:46 | comment | added | vzn | some deep refs/ papers on the riemann hypothesis + QM (need to revise stay tuned) vzn1.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/… | |
| Mar 31, 2016 at 11:25 | comment | added | Jon Bannon | (cont.) this said, the functional analytic approach he proposes is not mainstream (I'm not sure how Peter Sarnak would view it, e.g.). Nevertheless, Connes has expressed that he believes that the key to RH will require ideas from quantum field theory. A very high level reason why these ideas may be involved with number theory is that the positive real numbers with respect to multiplication is a so-called "noncommutative space"...a "quotient" by the subsemigroup of natural numbers is pathological (becomes a point, topologically) and so noncommutative geometry ideas are needed to study this. | |
| Mar 31, 2016 at 11:21 | comment | added | Jon Bannon | I'm not prepared to give an answer of the quality the question requires, but Alain Connes finds an interesting connection between the classification of factors (which involves deep ideas connected with quantum statistical mechanics) and the Riemann Hypothesis: alainconnes.org/docs/imufinal.pdf | |
| Mar 31, 2016 at 9:25 | answer | added | Aswin | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 16:04 | comment | added | user25309 | from a circle of ideas which are only partly mathematically well founded, which have been developed by physicists and which have evolved continuously from a "real" physics problem along an often complicated history. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 15:56 | comment | added | user25309 | This question seems to partly relies on the difference between "real" and "unreal" physics. I don't think that a mathematician should care about what is "real" in physics. When someone says "the motivation comes from physics", he probably means theoretical physics and it is maybe what "unrealistic physics" is. But the fact that the part of theoretical physics in question is "real" or not, which probably means "directly related to the experience", is irrelevant from the mathematician point of view. In general, "come from physics" does not mean "come from a precise experimental fact" but come... | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 15:32 | answer | added | Jeff Harvey | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 8:50 | answer | added | Markus Scheuer | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 25, 2015 at 17:00 | answer | added | Meng Cheng | timeline score: 19 | |
| Nov 25, 2015 at 16:10 | comment | added | jjcale | see also : physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26856/… | |
| Nov 25, 2015 at 9:35 | history | edited | Ofra | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 635 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2015 at 18:06 | comment | added | Ofra | @FranzLemmermeyer yes I heard about the book... Should I buy it ? :) | |
| Nov 23, 2015 at 15:39 | comment | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | Do you know Frenkel's book "Love and Math"? | |
| Nov 22, 2015 at 21:10 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | this question was answered in great detail here: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414/… | |
| Nov 22, 2015 at 18:59 | answer | added | Andreas Rüdinger | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 22, 2015 at 18:57 | answer | added | Myshkin | timeline score: 17 | |
| Nov 22, 2015 at 18:56 | comment | added | mick | Im no expert but i know that primes are often used as a toy model. The number of ways to reach a state can be unique Up to different interactions , but not Unique for the order of those actions. In such a case labelling primes to the actions and integers to the states we get " Unique factorization ". | |
| Nov 22, 2015 at 18:35 | history | asked | Ofra | CC BY-SA 3.0 |