结束与展望

奥运还没有结束,但很快就结束了,也许那些选择不看开幕式的人今晚会看闭幕式。
另一个聚会也结束了,这是发生在欧洲核子中心的Strings 08。欧洲即将启动的人类历史上规模最大的实验似乎与我们没有任何关系。奥运伸展人类的身体极限,LHC则伸展人类科学和技术的极限。
22号我们去了水立方看了花样游泳规定动作的比赛,目睹了中国队历史性地拿到第三名,昨天自选动作也拿到了第三名。
插播广告:
科学松鼠会计划每周翻译新科学家的封面和纽约客的科学文章,请大家关注
奥运说白了只是一次娱乐大餐。一次成功的奥运首先娱乐了全世界,其次展示了一个国家的实力。但这种展示也是有限的,并不能改变我们需要关闭一些工厂、实行单双号才能使得北京的空气基本达标这个事实,也改变不了大约有五亿人一天的收入在20元人民币左右这个事实(NBC开幕式的解说是一天2个美元)。同样,我们应该忘记仅仅是一百天前发生的那次人类大灾难吗?
一个国家在明显前进的态势中,更多的人需要谨慎地乐观,而不是像我们在网上看到的一些人的狂欢。
奥运公园的确很大很漂亮,不论是规模还是现代化的程度远远超过很多年前我在罗马看到的罗马奥运公园。目睹这个奇观,就像我前些天看到北京的蓝天,总有点觉得不真实,总害怕这是时空中的局部现象。
50块金牌和100块奖牌,也不能调动我在观看亚特兰大奥运时的那种感觉,那时我为中国每一块金牌感动。看到熊倪在三米板上的最后一跳,我高兴得趴在当时我们在East Providence家里的地毯上,半天爬不起来。我将所有的跳水比赛从预赛录到决赛,后来不断地看,甚至看慢镜头。昨天,男子十米跳台决赛,我和老婆两人在看了第一跳之后居然在沙发上齐齐睡着了。到了倒数第二跳,我才醒。
金牌的多少已经没有多大关系了。我觉得这是最大的进步,我们已经不需要少数人的金牌来提高自信,也许这个国家的很多人自己有了独立的自信。
至于展望,我想拷贝一下吕木头那里的David Gross对弦论的展望。奥运不需要去展望,只要人类还没有消失,就会有奥运,同样也会有战争,如同这届奥运开幕时一场战争同时在北方发生了一样。
下面是吕木头总结的Gross的展望(Strings 2008: Friday):
David Gross looks in the future and he was the optimal choice for a public talk. He starts by thanking the organizers for a wonderful conference, especially for the great review talks in the morning. Gross won’t thank that he was asked to speak.
Gross decided to be completely revolutionary and he won’t use any PowerPoint, blackboard etc. (Also because he had no time to prepare them - but he is still a revolutionary!) Someone else was able to speak about planets without any tools: it was a tour de force. Gross says that others like Elias know Gross as the last grandfather who remembers interactions of theory and experiment.
![]()
David recalls that 40 years ago, CERN was a center of theory while the centers of experiments were elsewhere, e.g. SLAC. David wrote one of the first papers to generalize Veneziano’s formula. The paper had a contrived name and it was a failure. It’s nice to see that CERN and string theory survived for 40 years and are both flourishing. It’s amazing and a lot of things have happened.
Both survival stories are fascinating. CERN is pretty much the only lab that survived. Also, only one theoretical umbrella survived in theoretical physics and it has eaten everyone else. So we can see people like string theorist Andrei Linde here, string theorist Lance Dixon, …
The only discipline that string theory has not yet eaten is loop quantum gravity but Gross is not sure whether we want to!
Needless to say, crackpots are appalled by Gross’ comments!
String theory will of course never be buried because it already includes the Standard Model and it is a working model of quantum gravity and a unifying theory, much like a tool for nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, mathematics. No one expected that 40 years ago when it was a half-baked theory to describe the nuclear force.
Much like other string meetings, it’s been extraordinarily exciting. Unlike other conferences, there have been no great revolutions. There have been a couple of minirevolutions, or as Jeff says, insurrections.
Someone can’t understand how they can do experiments with 2,000 collaborators, and Gross is not certain either. But it’s because it’s not one experiment but one world of experiments. And string theory is kind of similar.
Gross was also excited to see the LHC that will run in two weeks and feed us with new data. When it comes to string theory, the progress in the calculation of gauge-theory quantities is remarkable. They were beautifully reviewed and discussed and the progress both for QFT and string theory was enormous. Gross was really impressed by fermionic T-duality explanation for the dual superconformal symmetry. Ah! It’s so obvious when we see it.
Together with the unbelievable advances in integrability of the closed sector of the N=4 theory, we are gaining evidence that the planar limit will be solved. We may be close to it. Janik’s calculation of the Konishi operator anomaly is just stunning.
And the membrane BLG-ABJM is just beautiful and will lead to hundreds of papers in the two years. A lot of tools and applications. Progress in string phenomenology is beautiful. It’s great to see Cumrun transformed into a phenomenologist - a bottom-up one.
![]()
Things were not discussed here: there was no talk on string field theory and the only anthropic talk was moved after a dinner. So he doesn’t have to talk about them and he won’t.
But let’s ask: what do we really want to learn from the LHC? We will discover SUSY because much like your humble correspondent, Gross has a lot of bets on it, too.
SUSY will be extremely important to learn about but it won’t be enough to crack the deep questions or to prove that string theory is right as the “candidate”.
We might be lucky to produce black holes (whispering) but it is very unlikely. Nature owes us something - something totally unexpected. Of course, we will abruptly realize that the unexpected thing was an obvious prediction of string theory. Condensed matter physicists found the Hall effect “obvious” once it was seen but even at that time, they were not visionary enough to predict the fractional one.
Gross is going to be critical. String theorists in Hiroši’s 1,2,3,4 were following the lamppost strategy. There are thousands of lampposts. They’re really lasers, not old-fashioned lampposts, and not enough work is dedicated to connecting the lasers and build new lampposts. Gross was disappointed not to hear about three kinds of things. (Young people, go to the darkness!)
Gross wanted to hear an alternative to the anthropic principle, which we know is wrong, right. (Yes, of course,
David!) But to do better, we must explain the cosmological constant differently. Gross wanted to hear more about time dependence, besides Simeon, including string cosmology. Stationary/BPS lampposts are safer and good cosmological lampposts are not available.
Third, what is string theory? Everyone is testing AdS/CFT. Maybe it’s time to admit that it’s true. There’s no value of further tests. No one has any doubt that it is true. When someone says “this is another test”, people should ask “what is it good for?” Maybe, can you use the tests to answer What is string theory?
AdS/CFT is the equivalence between two rich, but not impossible, structures. That makes it priceless. We have other, less useful dualities where one side is trivial and the other is hard. For example, there’s a duality between perturbative string theory (for 4 decades) which is easy and classically solved (Veneziano) and a theory - Matrix theory - that’s impossibly hard to calculate.
If we fully solve the planar limit in a few years, have we solved string theory? No, only classical string theory. If you manage to go to finite N, is it a solution to string theory? Well, if you made it independent of the background and go e.g. to the flat space, by adding higher-dimension operators (moving you away from the horizon). It seems impossible right now to allow the motion in all directions. Non-commutative theories perhaps give us hints of some safe directions where you can move.
This was about the question What is string theory? What fundamental equations govern all of it? These are the future topics he would love to hear. But Gross doesn’t want to end up with a pessimistic mood. It’s, in fact, fantastic that we have such great questions. The history of the field assures us that it will remain rich and dynamic for many years. And we should be assured to get some hints, and maybe crucial ones, from Nature.


2008年8月27日 8:55:42
李老师,请教您个问题。RS模型中,4位引力恢复依赖于bulk的宇宙学常数,
,l 是ads半径,与膜张力无关。但rs膜的宇宙学中,
other terms, sigma是膜张力 所以4位引力的恢复依赖于膜张力,与bulk宇宙常数无关。这里有没有矛盾?
2008年8月27日 9:37:14
晃晃:其实因为不断有人打击我,哈哈,可能你以前的专业就是物理学或者强相关的学科,我以前的专业是心理学,大家让我去搞哲学。我说哲学不用搞不用学,我到50岁花10年时间写一本10万字的哲学体系就行了。我还是想系统的学习几年物理学,我的想法其实跟你差不多,出不出成果对我自己来说不重要,就是好奇害死猫。而且现在搞哲学不系统学习物理学,说实话我个人认为不是真正的搞哲学,我基本上可以肯定这种搞法绝对超不过苏格拉底老子这帮人,还搞个什么劲啊。
我喜欢你这种纯粹的学者。
比较同意你101楼的意见。我的看法是,美国或者希腊传承式民主不能简单用于中国。这一点已经毋庸置疑了,甚至,我在一定程度上怀疑这种民主是否根本就不能用于中国。说到底,适合中国的现代化人文道路仍然没有找到,我们目前的文化仍然处于断层期。过快的提改革只能让既得利益集团抱得更紧,意识形态收得更紧。
2008年8月27日 10:06:58
对不起,刚才写错了,
2008年8月27日 10:25:11
李老师您好!无意中发现了您的博客,立刻被吸引了,呵呵。我虽然是工科的研究生,但是对物理也很感兴趣。以后会多多来看看~^-^~
2008年8月27日 11:58:57
中国加油,奥运加油,晃晃加油!
问个隐私问题,晃晃兄有老婆孩子吗?
2008年8月27日 12:42:06
leaver:
不会有矛盾,因为膜张力与引力常数之间满足一个关系,见RS2方程5。
2008年8月27日 12:44:41
jessica:
欢迎。
2008年8月27日 13:09:16
on_time:
没孩子,短期内也不想要。
2008年8月27日 16:38:43
考槃在涧:
我本科是物理学专业的
“过快的提改革只能让既得利益集团抱得更紧,意识形态收得更紧”,确实如此。不过有一点,许多改革的倡议者并没有意识到改革不能损害权力集团的利益这个可以被权力集团所接受的前提条件。当你提出的改革方案损害权力集团利益的时候,就必然受到镇压,而这种损害甚至不是显而易见的。例如你的方案可能会引起民众对权力集团统治的合法性产生广泛的质疑,这事实上也就对权力集团产生了威胁,而权力集团对这种威胁比是非常敏感的。
当年邓在进行经济体制改革的时候,他也一样是通过买断权力集团中既得利益群体的权力的方式才得以成功的。如果当年他直接跟权力集团之内的既得利益群体对抗,即便是以他当年的巨大影响力,也肯定是死路一条。
中国许多事情确实未必得跟在西方后面。打个比方比如修地铁,我们没有必要再去使用发达国家由于历史遗留而仍然在大量使用的古老的技术,而一步到位地采用现在最先进的技术。民主也一样,其实现代西方国家的制度里面,也有很多很多历史遗留的垃圾,这些我东西不需要一并拿来。这就是所谓的后发优势。另一方面还要特别警惕后发劣势,当我们由于后发优势而取得一些成功的时候,千万不要误以为这些成功是由于我们制度的优越性所带来的,以至于制度的问题被成绩所掩盖。我们今天经济的高速增长基本完全来源于后发优势,只要我们开放,经济就必然会高速增长,而这种后发优势带来的高速增长假象在极大程度上掩盖了制度的缺陷。
2008年8月27日 17:40:38
继续103楼的画法:
空间维度, 在特殊情形下, 在图形表示中往往可以省略1维甚至2维.
这时可以画出空间实轴与时间虚轴的正交图形.
当然各维也可以不是用正交轴而是用斜交轴表示. (这时在每一个点, 任何轴与轴的的关系都可由度量系数表示出来.)
2008年8月27日 19:48:59
谢谢李老师
2008年8月29日 18:40:57
我现在很愤怒,到李老师这里吐吐恶气。在环球网上看到一则评论:“刘瑜:民主就可以反腐?”http://taiwan.huanqiu.com/opinion/2008-08/211419.html
我在下面的评论框想发表意见,可是怎么也不被接受,换了几个不敏感的字倒是立刻接受了。原来是自动屏蔽!
我现在将发不了的评论写在这里:
难道民主不能反腐么?陈水扁不是被台湾人民选下去了么?台湾的民主虽然不成熟,可是台湾的民主是有希望的!看看我们的官僚害怕谁?怕庶民么?恐怕他们只害怕上级领导!领导可以了解所有下级么?领导会读心术么?领导是万能的么?
在李老师这里再加两句:1难道我们中国就那么需要领导么?没有领导我们就不能活么? 2防民之口甚于防川?堵吧,看看能堵到什么时候!!!
说完了!
2008年8月29日 20:18:53
schmidt:
大多数同胞不是需要领导,而是崇拜权力,因为他们的梦想是有一天有这样的权力。
2008年8月29日 21:00:54
严重同意李老师!!这个是我们文化上的问题,所以砸烂孔家店从文化革新的意义上是有道理的。
我的意思是中国什么事都是领导决定,常常是外行领导内行,而且这种领导决定一切的制度只对上负责而视庶民如粪土。虽然胡温是关心百姓的,可是不是各级领导都心系百姓。革命战争年代那些舍命参加党的先烈心里是国家和人民,可是现在的入党的是胸怀人民的人么?我的大学同学里入党的大多是想为仕途发展准备,甚至有些人很猥琐和卑鄙。培养知识分子的大学里都这样,可想一般的基层是什么情况!时代变了,可国家权利机构的用人制度却和革命战争年代一样,怎么能不出问题?
改革开放三十年了,主要是在经济体制上动手脚。随着大批的富裕阶层的出现和他们公民意识的觉醒,用马克思哲学的观点看,这些人必然在政治上提出要求。如果在人事任用的问题上不作改革,依我的观点可能要出大问题。人事任用制度直接影响公务员向谁负责的问题。如果理顺了人事任用制度,政府不作为,效率低下会迎刃而解。正确的人事制度是什么?唯有民主选举才可以,但不一定和美国人一样。
今天看了奥巴马的演说,感觉美国的依然先进和强大,我们要作的努力仍然很多。
唉,好累,以后多谈谈物理吧。
2008年8月30日 11:26:22
当今世上,只有最无耻最邪恶的势力,只要那些为了维护一己私利不惜祸国殃民的势力,才会极力丑化和抵制民主。
2008年8月30日 12:22:26
TO schmidt :
是否误解刘瑜了?你读完全文了没?
2008年8月30日 14:26:33
二毛 :
我当然看完了全文,我也没有误解。刘瑜肯定了民主作为制度对腐败的作用,也提醒大家看到民主制度不能立刻解决所有问题。我认为他的观点是全面的。
但是你要注意环球网编辑把文章放在栏目“海峡时评”栏目里的用意。是让我们全面看待民主制度,还是想刻意强调台湾和其他地区即使施行民主制度还是弊案连连,一团糟糕?如果是真心提醒大家全面看待问题,那么如何解释评论框里要屏蔽那些敏感的文字呢?我们说的是粗口么?是分裂国家的言行么?
2008年8月31日 16:22:41
to schmidt:
俺反对‘砸烂’,败家子的作派,祖上留下得的产业,俺们只能想着咋样分辨哪些是优质资产,然后咋经营、咋发展、咋扩大地盘,这才是正途,俺愿意再重复自己的看法,对俺们文化的价值体系,即使不需要‘革命’也是需要改良的;可惜的是,俺们看到–俺们本来应该‘学来’当‘秤砣’的东东,比如‘德先生’和‘赛先生’,被人忽悠着让俺们‘拿来’当‘其它实用工具’了,所以怎么‘使’都脚得不顺手,怎么着都别扭,木办法给忽悠反了,还得忽悠回去才成,这tmd更累人,俺决定痛苦的把脸扭向一边,干脆不看了
2008年8月31日 18:34:24
xexz :
我记得,好像有些人批评鲁迅先生反传统有点矫枉过正。而鲁迅先生解释到:中国人行事总是中庸,作什么都是打折扣,所以如果不“矫枉”恐怕结果连“正”也得不到。(这应该不是原话)
我原意不是否定一切传统,也没有考虑到鲁迅先生说的中国人的中庸。我只是反对中国人对权利的崇拜,反对“官本位”文化。用“砸烂”是这个意思。也许用词不精确,但是这样用很平常。这就好比你说:我今天过的不爽!其实你原意是今天碰到了一些讨厌的事,但不是今天所有的事都是令你厌烦的。
2008年8月31日 18:47:53
上面有句话写错了,应该改为:所以如果“矫枉”不过“正”,恐怕结果就不是“正”了。
以后小心。