Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 17th 2019
    • (edited Oct 17th 2019)

    added doi-link to

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 17th 2019

    added publication data for this:

    • Samuel Lomonaco, The modern legacies of Thomson’s atomic vortex theory in classical electrodynamics, in: Louis Kauffman (ed.) The Interface of Knots and Physics, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics Volume 51 (1996) (pdf, doi:10.1090/psapm/051)

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2020

    Added pointer to

    • Filipp N. Rybakov, Julien Garaud, Egor Babaev, Kelvin knots in superconducting state, Phys. Rev. B 100, 094515 (2019) (arXiv:1807.02509)

    Also added cross-link to the entry Skyrmion. I thought I had had a comment here that Skyrmions effectively realize the idea of “votex atoms”, but apparently I didn’t. Maybe later…

    diff, v12, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2020

    Ah, found this:

    According to Ranada-Trueba 01, p. 200:

    Skyrme had studied with attention Kelvin’s ideas on vortex atoms.

    If anyone else has something on Skyrme channeling Kelvin, I’d be grateful for a pointer.

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2022

    Put the references at the bottom of the page.

    Do we really want

    the failure of the vortex atom theory has been used to warn of too much hope into string theory?

    And I don’t see why the lengthy discussion of how this picture is slightly similar to, but quite different from, Descartes’ plenum. Any objection to me removing that?

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2022

    While I don’t have any time to comment, a real quick reaction:

    The sentence you quote starts out with

    faint shadows of Kelvin’s original idea have been argued to be visible in string theory

    Looks like I wrote this in 2014 (rev 3). Today I would add some clarification:

    First, the usual argument that people make is not about “faint shadows” of one theory inside the other, but instead asserts that Kelvin’s research attitude was as in string theory: guided by compelling-seeming mathematical structures more than by observation.

    On the other hand and somewhat ironically, there is indeed a shadow of Kelvin’s intuition emergent in string theory, albeit remaining widely underappreciated: This is what the comment on Skyrmions further below in the page is getting at (these appear automatically in stringy holographic QCD).

    But given the remarkable success of Skyrmion theory with describing hadrons, this understanding turns the usual criticism on its head, as it shows that Kelvin’s intuition was entirely correct, just the dimensionality of his topological model was off by one.

    Regarding the paragraph on Descartes (apparently also written by myself, in rev 4): I have now re-read that with interest. :-) The quote there is maybe not as pronounced as it could be, but seems relevant.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2022

    Added attribution of the theory jointly with Tait. As in my chapter listed there, it was very much a joint project. Tait showed Thomson how smoke rings bounced off each other. The classification of knots was vital to establish a correspondence between chemical elements and knot types.

    diff, v18, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2022

    Re Descartes in #6, in an ideal world we’d have an historical account of changing conceptions of the plenum, through to Faraday, Maxwell, etc. and on into the 20th Century.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2022

    Urs #6

    Regarding the paragraph on Descartes (apparently also written by myself, in rev 4): I have now re-read that with interest. :-) The quote there is maybe not as pronounced as it could be, but seems relevant.

    You added after I brought up that quote in some nForum discussion. I thought it might help to examine what we said back in 2014 then but I can’t find it now by Google searching on.

    vortex site:nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion

    Google isn’t working very well right now. That search doesn’t even turn up this thread.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • (edited Sep 20th 2022)

    Finally found some time to spare:

    I have (reworked the first few lines of the entry and) expanded out the above comment (#6) to a substantial new subsection: “Impact – Similarity to the Skyrme model for baryons” (now here)

    diff, v19, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)