What can gauge theory learn from S-matrix theory? (contd.)

0:00 The difference in results comes from differences in methodology and research motivation. Look downward and try to find some fundamental entities at a deep and deep level to explain what they have observed. Third, hypothetically, fundamental entities are arbitrarily introduced for subject to modifications, and hence the whole conceptual framework is flexible enough to be able to fit the experimental ethics. Look not vertically but transversely. And try to find out the tight-contained structure of the network of observed bands. The requirement of self-consistency in mathematics comes from a unified view of nature and a physical result in the unified picture of nature. Concerning the ultimate relationship between gauge-share and astrophysics program, who suggested that you implement such program? These were achieved by synthesizing Einstein's geometrical program and the quantum field theory program, which has led up to a new program, the gauge field program. I would say that the first program in theoretical physics was achieved by a new synthesis, a synthesis of the gauge field program and the mathematics program. I think there are a number of programs and mathematical physicists do like all mathematical physicists and spend a lot of time studying the gauge theory in the last three years.

2:30 I still retain questions about mathematical physicists. I have listened to a lot of the people who couldn't explain, they couldn't explain that you should have studied that. And most of my colleagues believe that gauge theories will come. In fact, a lot of progress has already been made on that, with computer calculations, space-time, type of speed structure, lattice structure, so that you can put the calculation on a computer, and people who do that, and also the rest of us who look at what they do, think that they have already made certain amount of progress towards When the techniques get better, when the computers get more powerful, one hopes that that will get a lot better. So I think it's premature to say that gauge theory don't have explanations for these things. It's rather a lack of ability to handle the equation. So I think we've again done the fact that you're not getting a memorability of all data for that gauge. Well, that is what the lattice gauge theory is. It's a monotonic method. There are several rumors about them, and they're common, but each of them would be a way to bring them back for the KDPF, because the numbers are ever-changing, and then it's very difficult to get them in the don't-touch-the-off-the-wall.

5:00 You write the theory as a form of action, and then to do the integration, you have to replace the multiples by sums of lots of discrete volumes. And so you have huge computers, and unfortunately, these aren't quite there yet. But all the education that we can spend actually millions of dollars on this, because it looks so imperative. So in one way or another, I'm not quite so eager to depend on the general assumption for quantum mathematics, you know. Well, if you want to try and expose to real life, you try and live with quantum, but it might not be that good. And now that there are a million of them, you've got to distinguish between analytics, which you want to be very good at. I think it's quite extrapolation to get back to the continuum of extrapolating all that moment as you said before. This much of the theory was out of your field theory. That was a check and choose. It was true, I thought, of what you were saying at the beginning. But here, I'm trying to say that if they had made this program, I would buy it. Mathematical theory is not just a field of work as mathematics is supposed to be, but you find that in the central program, the difference between quantum physics and mathematics, what is important, the concept of what is important is different from what is done in science. Well, I have a question about the concept of mathematics.

7:30 I'm going to make it seem as if you're playing a game in which you lay down rules, and I'm going to forget about field theory, I'm just going to pretend to work on what F2 originally wanted you to do, and we've come on since then, we do try and put the two together, and the thing that didn't come out at all in our talk was that the present situation is that the force between the two particles, we have to treat very differently depending on whether we're interested in... And then we have to use the experience and the vision theory. When we're interested in phenomena that depend on a logarithm, we use rather what we call estimators for that, because it comes with an estimator. And the aim has got to be to bring these two together. And the other thing which, the idea that quarks exist. But it is a fact that if you do experiments where these four quarks have a proton, If you don't knock quarks out, then all the other forms you see explode most simply by saying there are quarks inside the program. If you take that, you can all use it to calculate, predict, and repeat other experiments that I don't. I don't know whether I think quarks exist. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. How do we bring together the lower end of the spectrum?

10:00 I'm not sure if that's my idea. Maybe I'll say something. I'd say, in Gainesville, they want to understand what is the observed event in hydroponics. By introducing quarks and quarks, with the development of Gainesville, we get a new ontology, new energy. Then I'd also say, in Kessler, they want to understand the observed event of hydroponics. We can find that all these parameters are in browns, are green, particles are, everything is green. Because so many bigger questions, he's working for, well forget it, forget it, there are six supporters, but there are so many, I will not say all of them are not existing, but that's the truth. I think there was a transverse, there was an undercurrent in what you were saying. But somehow, the looking verdict of the semester is somehow methodologically inferior or different. Because the knowledge of mathematics is so popular, so I must say something for mathematics. Then I can advise physicists to do their work with an open mind, open to mathematics.

12:30 Then they can get some experience from mathematics. Some of the things you did say, did you have a preference? I mean, you were painting the gauge sphere and statements like... This is also a methodology, very wonderful. The difficulty, I did perhaps, I was wrong in getting this on the phone. I started from the observable. You didn't want to make any of your statements... It's very similar to one... He said that Geyser is only a computer way, but it's a special model, and you see S-matrix is just like a set of backpacks, and Geyser is a special conjecture, a model for what is happening. So you mean a backpacks, but you do want to see one of them in some sense at least more fundamental. You want to see the S-matrix approach as... So it's a different way of looking at the data. Some of the things you say indicate that you don't want to make any logical distinctions. Sometimes you can say that estimate is much more than math. But they are much more difficult to understand. And Geyser is easier to get started with.

15:00 It seems to me that the glory of quantum physics, the general glory of it, It was the generalization of the virtual protocol to provide the control of a vast experimental program, which, for the discovery of the Belgian particles, seemed to be dependent on taking the quantum theory of life ontologically very seriously, and that, too, the dependency of your talk was to treat the milk theory approach as somehow a kind of helpful This is a device for thinking about the abstract formulations of its matrices. There's an experimental program, there's a success of this program, there's a test of which you can't be logical. It's very serious, because it's just that approach which is controlled all the way, all the way down. It's highly successful, it's very much shown to support the uneasy feeling, and it's worse. But again, that's because you're... Yes, exactly. Yeah, and that's in glamorous physics as well. The knowledge of the analytic properties of composition and attitude is that the manuals have a useful presentation page for looking at the course of time and the style of applications of analytic properties. But the trouble with that program was that the physics really actually tried out to answer exactly what the analytic properties were of the aspects of analysis. And so what happened, learning with Chew, as he collaborated with others, he was able to find tests for other people to find things by honest toil.

17:30 And so he said, let's talk hyper-cultivate, heat-invade, and so on. Let's just introduce a new postulate, a new analogy structure of the expectation. Contained singularities that are necessitated by the problems that humans have been causing, and we don't have any other singularities at all. So they just put that in as a kind of new posture. And what we're going to do about expectations there is, of course, design, so to say, the expectations, but to a degree, use that as a kind of, so to say, promise, aptitude, the expectations that they talk to all about. What was new was this idea of turning the program on its head, so to speak, and introducing the analysis hypothesis as a kind of axiom. Well, now, the question then arose, what was the future of the axiom? Well, again, from the beginning, people thought that algebra was related to the causality of the rules of carbon, so that you can make laws that provide connections. But once you get to the kind of algebraic hypothesis that was made by Einstein in the 1960s, nobody pretended that... If you get that amount of information about the singularities of factors, you can make it analytical, or maybe you can look at the physical profile of the causality. So, gradually, people can not talk about causality, and can't use it to motivate the answer. But then you get to say things like, well, there's a principle of maximum smoothness in nature, and analytic functions... There are a number of schools which you can get to a requirement to accomplish a fitness book, a different form of action, some sort of thing to look at. In fact, the Danish learners as well, they are kind of, I think, have physically motivated tasks. They really don't think through the whole thing. They don't talk about relating what to do. But I mean, these are all these false changes that I want to hide. But at least it has the key to have some real physical verification. What about the aspect of the axiom? The allegory is the axiom. The algorithm is the first one.

20:00 There are two different kinds of axes, because they operate not in the world of physics, but in the world of extending mathematical structure in which the actual physics is invented, so to speak. And of course, they play in the course of these kits with all kinds of things. Those axes are only operating under an extended mathematical structure, so there's a way to, of course, achieve that goal. The question is whether I should try to justify some sort of physical behind the action. I mean, that's one of the important theological differences in how you regard your talk. The talk will happen later on, I think. Again, it's a little bit of a theoretical theory, but what we've definitely disproved, and it's probably very common, it's perhaps not possible to directly count it, but it's proven by some crucial experiment, it's not invariably seen, but I think that mathematically it's totally practicable, and I think that's really what happens in the executive staff, although they seem to refer to it as a small group of students or a large group of people. My impression is, and I don't think any expert in this field would want to demonstrate this, but my impression is that quantum physics is a very interesting thing, because there's a lot of hand-waving data on mathematics, and they're saying that they can get all kinds of data out of it, but I'm not convinced that they can get all kinds of data out of it. You know, it's almost the same thing right here. It's not very true in the case of James Jerry, although it seems kind of strange, you know, the idea, you know, that Jerry happens to be the other end of the whole thing, you know, in fact, the fact is that Jerry can't really be killed.

22:30 For example, if the attractor is string theory, what the model is in terms of the normalizing formula is what the first example of physics is. For example, if you talk about that phenomenon, you say, well, it's finite here, and this is rarely finite. So this doesn't mean they're having all the right actions, and they're all just finite people. So it's totally, totally different from having all the right decisions, you know, you've got to take care of people. Introducing re-organizability of the criteria for the conceptual theory, which is kind of a down-to-earth case here. So now, the distinction between re-organizing and non-re-organizing is coming up. And it comes to the question as to whether you need the full detail of how that fine-tuning is achieved by mixing in all these things. And the re-organizable theory is the actual prediction about their energy. The key term is about the way that time-outness is brought back, but that comes in the non-middle-time of the theory, and you will get, I think, some of the interpretive sensitivities of the way that time-outness is brought back, and you will get some of the interpretive sensitivities of the way Theoretical physics always runs into this conflict in the end of the day. Nobody knows what the theoreticians would say, you know, who have kind of good say and hopeful indications of what they might say. So let me come and prove, you know, the nice mathematical rigour of their quantum issues. So I'm going to have an in-depth comment on the world of mathematics, and I have a real expert with me.

25:00 I'm going to have to focus quite a lot on the mathematics. Thank you. Professor, do you have any questions? The extent to which you are satisfied with what you want, a condenser of quantum mechanics, is enabled you to calculate the quantity of things with a rate greater than or equal to the count of better than anything else in physics. So you've got two levels of trial. You've also got two levels of a very real problem in the ultimate. In the first phase of the second phase, we talk about DC, which is a big triangle, which is squared together in electron and positron, which will bind into certain fractional elements, which we calculate in bonds, which is either two jets or not, but in most events are three, based on the number, and the properties of the third jet are practically as predicted on the basis that it is possible. The blue one we have on the left is the source of the blue one. Although the blue one at the end of this will be 7 cents, Producers, chairmen, and many other properties wanted to know what it would look like if you did a test. No, no, no, no, actually we would do a course with, you know, the biggest, the third lecture. We'd know what it would look like. But when you get, like, we're getting up with all the lectures, telling you what type of a lecture to do, I mean, that looks pretty well. So there's a kind of trainer, you know, who's following the age of physics to look at it in a way that is individual related. But I was just going to tell you that I'm very, just, honestly, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very. What would you put there? What would you talk about? I don't think you're a pretty strong one. Well I thought I was a pretty strong one. You might put it more strongly. I don't think you're emphasizing that the moment of the gap is the thing between the two.

27:30 Yeah, of course, but I don't think it's the only thing that might be negative. Yes, I don't think it's the only thing that might be negative. There are two areas of transcendence in the world around us that we have to learn from each other. There is no problem with that. No, no, no. The thing is, we're on the other side. That's what it is. It's pretty dangerous. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. It's the right way of doing it. I was told that science is taking measurements in a theory of the question of solving life, but at the moment, geometry and so on have got away from that. In nature, it's talking about things that are so enormous that they can't help you anymore, or that they can't help you to do anything. Don't worry, I don't know what to say. But I don't mind going back and doing that.

30:00 It's just like a little tool set that you'll get in small schools, saying, this is the right approach, and all the words that you're going to get are going to be very useful to them, of course. It's very clear that if you try mathematical physics, it almost takes you to physics, then. In particular, it's very simple. Inside there, it's not the trial. It's the usual picture of the particle, of the straight lines. And the metal lines, it's not the rough lines. No, they're not all explained. They're all stopped because people then want to do more out there, they don't want to have to do it. But I'm not exactly prepared to tell you what to do, I'm actually getting screwed. People have been doing it for a long time, they've known it for a long time. People are saying that if you were on time, you weren't as extreme. I mean, everybody knows they want to do it harder, I know they want to do it easier. That's very, very different from the original idea of doing it for a long time. Would you agree with that? I mean, there's a lot of models there. I mean, the heuristic came out by its own analogies. There is. What I'm trying to tell you is that behind the least analogies, there is some way or thought for a logarithmic connection, so that everything is regarded as an analogy, not just a statement of what we do. For example, what is the electron-magnetic field? At first, there are some electric lines, and gradually these things become more and more independent, or formulating.

32:30 There is a lot of progress that has been made in the field of mathematics, in general law, rather than in mathematics and mathematics and all that. But all of that is not formally to take away the validation. The problem with it is that it is not described formally. But in a way, I think it might be okay. Excuse me, who was the first person? I mean, who was the first person? There is a common analogy for quantum mathematics. There is one algebra called Hawking and there is another algebra called Perseverance. Isn't that right? I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. All of the aspects of the humanities and other people will be more active and important.

35:00 And I wonder, I mean, is this, also this package, I mean, is this an operation, is that, is this trash, I mean, what does it mean to, I mean, is this just, you know, a refusal to... You can ask any questions about what happens in these types of spaces, and the fact that everything, like yours, is the absolute opposite of space, and the dimensions of the absolute opposite of space, and somehow what we would end up doing would be to try to make this a place where we would never come to the point where it happens in these types of spaces. This is the reality that we might have here in the lab, but I'm not going to talk about that. I'm not going to talk about that. I'm just going to talk about that. I'm just going to talk about that. I'm just going to talk about that. Well, okay. At least address this question. That's what you're doing. Mathematics and philosophy, very much, very specifically. Mathematics and philosophy is not in mathematics and algebra. Oh, but you can fix that in a little bit. If something happens in a bunch of conditions, then you can get a better solution. Well, that, I think, I think it's more intuitive. I mean, that's the way it is to respect the idea that you can do it. You might have the right to do that. It's very accurate. There is no reason not to do that. You can do it in a certain sense of the word. If it was said, for example, that you could check the way that described processes, there is no distinction between the methodology of asking what sort of measures can you do, what kind of measures can you do,

37:30 and the methodology of the test, what is the reality, or what sort of ideas can you do. We don't make it difficult to collect. They do not do the same thing, but I think that's the situation. I'm very interested in what you really did, and I think you forever will list out on any kind of campus, I think you've got something of interest in that as well. Do you think it's a good thing? Oh, I do think it's a good thing. Yeah, I mean, I think, philosophically, it's somehow, you know, not due to the whole distinction between ethics and scientific practice. There's differences in what I think is important to be doing. It was justified in the operational and technical space, but it was also, in some respect, perhaps, in terms of the general standard of development, certainly not in terms of the capacity of processing across every major scale, which for me, I think, is a strong fear, because it seems to me that it has to be done that way. Interpolation. You want to talk, basically. Talk about interpolation. Thank you for your attention. In this case, you can look at it from a different point of view. One is that you may have so much hypothesis about what is happening in the universe.

40:00 Another thing is that you can make observations about the things that happen outside. If you have a unified view of nature, you think that the events that happen outside are connected with the things that happen within the platform. Even if you just do a meta study about the things outside, you can get some knowledge about what is happening in the black box. This is the approach of the meta. This is a meta. If you just say, by studying what happens outside, you can then find out what happens in the box. I mean, that's what quantum theory is. Nobody who works on what happens inside the black box forgets about what happens outside the black box, they can't see, they can't really understand. We confine ourselves to studying what happens, what comes out of the black box, and then after we have understood all that we can get some conclusion on what happens inside. You can combine outside the black box, by definition, but you must not be combining outside the black box, because what does the word black box mean? There are two attitudes that one takes to picture what's inside a black box, I mean a picture. One attitude would be, well it's just a way of helping us think about the organization of the external inputs and outputs.

42:30 But the thrust of your paper was to suggest a gauge theory for providing pictures. Pictures can be tested for a stellar symmetry. But the external aspect is also taken seriously as a visual insight factor. Now I wasn't sure, and I think we're all being a bit unsure, as to which attitude you favor. That is, is the experience a way of making this matrix very attractive to certain kinds of minds, those you then call the role of each other, or English minds? Or is it a way of getting in there... We have an experimental program to open up the jolly text. I wasn't quite clear myself, and I think most of us are, but just what do you actually mean?