14.10.2013 Views

Annual Report 2005 - Fields Institute - University of Toronto

Annual Report 2005 - Fields Institute - University of Toronto

Annual Report 2005 - Fields Institute - University of Toronto

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Shiraz Minwalla <strong>of</strong> the Tata <strong>Institute</strong> and Harvard <strong>University</strong><br />

explained recent work on relating “plasma balls”<br />

(bubbles <strong>of</strong> deconfined phase within a confining gauge theory)<br />

to black holes. This was another example <strong>of</strong> the ability<br />

<strong>of</strong> the AdS/CFT correspondence to relate gravity and gauge<br />

theory in interesting ways. Antoine Van Proeyen <strong>of</strong> K.U.<br />

Leuven gave on overview <strong>of</strong> supergravity theories. Jerome<br />

Gauntlett <strong>of</strong> Imperial College described recent progress<br />

in obtaining new AdS solutions for use in the AdS/CFT<br />

correspondence. Renata Kallosh <strong>of</strong> Stanford <strong>University</strong><br />

discussed new ideas for stabilizing moduli to obtain realistic<br />

solutions in string theory. Sumit Das <strong>of</strong> the <strong>University</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong> Kentucky talked about a toy two-dimensional version <strong>of</strong><br />

string theory, and its use in understanding cosmological<br />

and black hole physics.<br />

But <strong>of</strong> course, the most interesting outcome <strong>of</strong> any workshop<br />

is the *new* research that it generates. Already, a<br />

number papers have appeared on the arxiv acknowledging<br />

the importance <strong>of</strong> the workshop in their generation, but as<br />

usual one expects that the best is yet to come.<br />

Speakers:<br />

Miguel Costa (Porto U.)<br />

Chronology protection in string theory<br />

Sumit Das (Kentucky)<br />

Time dependent backgrounds in 2D string theory<br />

Bernard de Wit (Utrecht)<br />

Variational principles for BPS black hole entropy<br />

Henriette Elvang (UCSB)<br />

Non-supersymmetric black rings<br />

Roberto Emparan (Barcelona)<br />

Nutty black rings and 4D black holes<br />

Jerome Gauntlett (Imperial College)<br />

AdS solutions and some deformations<br />

Gary Horowitz (UCSB)<br />

Holographic description <strong>of</strong> a cosmological singularity<br />

Renata Kallosh (Stanford)<br />

A simple example <strong>of</strong> moduli fixing<br />

Alex Maloney (SLAC & Stanford)<br />

T h e m a t i c P r o g r a m s<br />

Stringy resolution <strong>of</strong> null singularities<br />

David Mateos (Perimeter)<br />

Microscopics <strong>of</strong> black rings<br />

Shiraz Minwalla (Tata Inst. & Harvard)<br />

Plasma balls in confining large N gauge theories<br />

Harvey Reall (UCSB)<br />

Supersymmetric black rings<br />

Simon Ross (U. Durham)<br />

Non-supersymmetric smooth geometries and D1-D5-P bound<br />

states<br />

Eva Silverstein (Stanford)<br />

The uses <strong>of</strong> tachyons<br />

Antoine Van Proeyen (K.U. Leuven)<br />

The geometry and landscape <strong>of</strong> supergravity<br />

Workshop on Schubert Calculus and Schubert Varieties<br />

June 8–12, <strong>2005</strong><br />

Held at the <strong>Fields</strong> <strong>Institute</strong><br />

Organizers: Lisa Jeffrey, Megumi Harada, and Alistair Savage<br />

(<strong>Toronto</strong>); and Alexander Yong (UC Berkeley)<br />

The topics <strong>of</strong> this workshop are at the intersection <strong>of</strong> algebraic<br />

geometry, representation theory, symplectic geometry,<br />

and combinatorics. Although the basic questions <strong>of</strong> the<br />

field trace back to the earliest roots <strong>of</strong> algebraic geometry,<br />

exciting and fundamental developments are in full swing<br />

today.<br />

Here is a simple prototypical problem <strong>of</strong> Schubert calculus:<br />

how many red lines R 1 and R 2 in 3-space (think real, then<br />

complex, then projective) intersect given “random” blue<br />

lines B 1 , B 2 , B 3 , B 4 ? The answer is 2.<br />

In the 19th century, the “pro<strong>of</strong>’” would be as follows: move<br />

B 1 and B 2 until they intersect, and do the same for B 3 and B 4 .<br />

Then R 1 is defined by the two points <strong>of</strong> intersection and R 2<br />

is defined by the intersection <strong>of</strong> the two constructed planes.<br />

The claim is that one can “degenerate” the general situation<br />

to this special situation without changing the answer.<br />

Justifying such claims for this problem and many others<br />

became the topic <strong>of</strong> Hilbert’s 15th problem (which is now<br />

mainly solved, thanks to decades worth <strong>of</strong> developments in<br />

intersection theory).<br />

<strong>Fields</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>2005</strong> ANNUAL REPORT 30

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!