Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,852 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Is Witten's new method of quantization useful for geometric complexity theory?

+ 6 like - 1 dislike
1292 views

The Kempf-Ness theorem (see e.g. arXiv:0912.1132) - that the algebraic quotient of geometric invariant theory is also a symplectic quotient - suggests (to me) that certain physical constructions used to compute equivariant cohomologies might be useful to Mulmuley et al's geometric complexity theory. Edward Witten is the wellspring of these ideas and his latest paper (arXiv:1009.6032) continues to develop them. My main concern is that they might not carry across to the objects of interest to complexity theory (e.g. the "class varieties" of arXiv:cs/0612134). But the power of the quantum techniques, and the diversity of approaches possible within GCT, leads me to keep looking...

Cross-posted to TCS StackExchange.

Edit: Witten maps a nonrelativistic quantum theory (on a 2n-dimensional phase space) onto a (1+1)-dimensional field theory (actually, an "A-model" topological string theory whose target space is the complexification of the previous theory's phase space). The objective is just to make path integrals of the first theory tractable. But we end up working in the loop space of the complexified phase space, and this looks like a promising domain in which to prove properties of interest to GCT. (Here I draw inspiration from Ben-Zvi & Nadler, arXiv:1004.5120.) The challenge is to see if any of the conjectures in GCT (e.g. about quantum groups) can be posed in a form amenable to such a mapping.


This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-25 10:42 (UTC), posted by SE-user Mitchell Porter

asked Oct 3, 2010 in Theoretical Physics by Mitchell Porter (1,245 points) [ revision history ]
retagged Nov 9, 2014 by dimension10
Witten's paper came out last Thursday, so this is almost certainly an open question.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-25 10:42 (UTC), posted by SE-user userN
It might be useful if you provide a bit more background for readers like me that find the question intriguing, but find the preprints cited daunting.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-25 10:42 (UTC), posted by SE-user j.c.
You can always ask questions of the form, "What happens if you rub together well-known researchers A and B?" What if Deligne talked to Perelman? Do Gromov's ideas apply to the Tate conjecture? It is true that Mulmuley seems a bit pretentious in this sort of way, but Witten (incredibly) is not really pretentious at all. No, Witten is not THE wellspring of THESE ideas, although he is A wellspring of many ideas. So, I don't see a real question here.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-25 10:42 (UTC), posted by SE-user Greg Kuperberg
Very few mathematicians currently really understand Mulmuley's program. Very few people understand Witten's brand new paper. The intersection of these sets, which is the number of people who can answer your question, is extremely likely to be 0. Maybe there's a connection, but it is likely to be years before anything really comes out of it.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-25 10:42 (UTC), posted by SE-user Peter Shor
"algebraic quotient of geometric invariant theory is also a symplectic quotient" may be he is looking at enlarging the possible tools to use in GCT!

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-25 10:42 (UTC), posted by SE-user user16007

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysi$\varnothing$sOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...