7
$\begingroup$

There was some positive feedback on the previous question, so let's give it a try.

Brief introduction:

  • Journal Club is intended to be a whole day meeting (with 3 meet-up sessions to seed the discussion) on chat where we discuss some paper and its theoretical/practical surroundings.
  • The paper must be OpenAccess or a (p)reprint suggested previously on a meta thread like this one and selected in voting. It should be both interesting and understandable (at least in idea) for a broader audience.
  • We (mods) will try to invite the author(s).

So, please suggest papers (each in one answer) and/or upvote propositions you like. The deadline for voting is 1.28.2011 23:59UTC and the first approximation of the JC itself is 2.4.2011.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ May I suggest we don't count downvotes? After all, that is how real polls work. $\endgroup$
    – Malabarba
    Jan 28 '11 at 3:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Bruce Good point; the aim is to optimize the number of participant, so I would say most upvoted wins, downvotes resolve ties. $\endgroup$
    – user68
    Jan 28 '11 at 7:57
  • $\begingroup$ what's the plan for the JC? $\endgroup$
    – Deepak Vaid
    Feb 4 '11 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ We (mods) have discussed this matter and we agreed that the topic is so narrow and JC so fresh that participation may be too small for a "full size" JC. Thus it will be probably shortened to a 1-2h meeting next Friday. $\endgroup$
    – user68
    Feb 4 '11 at 22:15
3
$\begingroup$

I would like to suggest a trio of papers centered around the topics of non-commutative field theory and its relationship to the quantum hall effect. These are:

  1. The Quantum Hall Fluid and Non-Commutative Chern Simons Theory, L. Susskind, hep-th/0101029.
  2. Quantum Hall states as matrix Chern-Simons theory, A. Polychronakos, hep-th/0103013
  3. Quantum Hall physics = noncommutative field theory, S. Hellerman and M. V. Raamsdonk, hep-th/0103179
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Also, the previous NCG approach to quantum hall effect can be read online, pages 356 ff of alainconnes.org/docs/book94bigpdf.pdf $\endgroup$
    – arivero
    Jan 24 '11 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ @arivero, I know of that book. But his writing is close to impenetrable :? $\endgroup$
    – Deepak Vaid
    Jan 24 '11 at 12:28
  • $\begingroup$ @space_cadet. It is intimidating. But I am not sure if J. Bellissard. "Ordinary quantum Hall effect and noncommutative cohomology" is better. $\endgroup$
    – arivero
    Jan 25 '11 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ @arivero they are birds of a feather :) $\endgroup$
    – Deepak Vaid
    Jan 25 '11 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ This one wins; I have some doubts about its length and specificity, but for a first time... $\endgroup$
    – user68
    Jan 29 '11 at 11:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hooray! Victory due to lack of participation :D $\endgroup$
    – Deepak Vaid
    Jan 29 '11 at 13:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well I looked over the answers but didn't have any strong opinion one way or another. So I participated by doing nothing :) $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Jan 29 '11 at 21:47
2
$\begingroup$

Brouder, Christian (2000), "Runge–Kutta methods and renormalization", Eur.Phys.J. C12: 521–534, arxiv:9904014

It is a "so what" paper, even if true one is left asking "ok, and so what?". But by studying it we can link to all the series of Dirk Kreimer (and Connes-Kreimer) on perturbative renormalisation and eventualy to the rigorization of Renormalisation Group Methods. And if some people here comes from computer science, perhaps we could get some input on the real role of Butcher group in numerical methods.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Wow, sometimes it amazes me that we end up thinking the same obscure things are cool. $\endgroup$
    – Carl Brannen
    Jan 30 '11 at 0:51
  • $\begingroup$ Not so obscure at all! I told yesterday to one of my IT students, who is taking a graduate in maths, and he told me that Cayley trees were studyed the first month in numerical analysis. $\endgroup$
    – arivero
    Jan 30 '11 at 4:33
2
$\begingroup$

Is it spacetime or, is it space + time? How sure we are?

Is it space expansion or a matter shrinking scenario? How sure we are?

We assume that the atom sizes are absolute. This presumption is an obfuscation to understand the universe and time properties. This paper analyses the effects that arise from the perspective of an 'instant observer', splitting spacetime into space + time. The derivation of the Einstein Special relativity is presented.

This paper extends on the consequences of the first one, and presents a model of our Universe that is scale-invariant (self-similar) where Dark Energy is not invited. This paper is easier to follow.

I'm friend of the author Alfredo and, maybe, I can persuade him to appear.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

A critical overview of Loops and Foams arXiv:1009.4475

There have been some great discussions on LQG on the main site. This paper is a very pedagogical explanation to some of the basic notions. It also happens to be written by two "outsiders" who are quite frank about the problems LQG faces and the work required to overcome them. In other words for those interesting in learning about the subject, but are understandably hesitant given the bad reviews of the subject floating around, this paper might provide an acceptable middle ground. To quote from the abstract:

A particular emphasis is given to the issue of diffeomorphism and local Lorentz symmetries at the quantum level and to the discussion of new spin foam models.

in other words catnip for the curious mind :)

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.