Round Table Talk: Peter Goddard with Hitoshi Murayama and Hirosi Ooguri

Peter Goddard Professor, the School of Natural Sciences, the Institute for Advanced Study Hitoshi Murayama Kavli IPMU Director Hirosi Ooguri Kavli IPMU Principal Investigator

How the Newton Institute Got Off nancially turbulent periods. So, I in Cambridge, realized that the the Ground think we have a lot to learn from country didn’t have such institutes. Ooguri: Thank you for joining us for your experience. The areas you have We realized that there was a growth this conversation today. worked on are also quite relevant in such institutes because the Institute Goddard: It’s my pleasure. for this institute. In fact, tomorrow, for Advanced Study had been playing Ooguri: You were the Deputy Director you’re going to give a colloquium a particular role worldwide for many of the Newton Institute which is about the interdisciplinary research years and that had inspired various now one of the leading institutes in between mathematics and physics̶ people to start other institutes. For mathematical science in the world that would be another subject that example, Hirzebruch’s Institute in and you have been responsible in we would like to talk about today. Bonn is one famous example, and starting that institute, including the Murayama: I’d love to hear about the the IHES (Institut des Hautes Études designing and the construction of the story of how the Newton Institute got Scienti ques) near Paris is another building. off the ground̶how you actually that was inspired by the IAS. Goddard: With other people, yes. had a vision for the institute and how Ooguri: And there is RIMS (Research Ooguri: You were also the Director you tried to bring people in. Institute for Mathematical Sciences in of the Institute for Advanced Study Goddard: Well, I think that in the Kyoto). and led the expansion of programs. middle of 1980s, I and many of my Goddard: So, often people who had You guided the institute through colleagues in the UK, and particularly been at the IAS had seen there were

14 Kavli IPMU News No. 26 June 2014 things that they could emulate in their preferentially where there were of people who initiated it. Peter own countries̶they didn’t usually crossovers between disciplines or Landshoff, Martin Rees, and others. make replicas. In the United States between sub-disciplines. Then you Murayama: Oh, Martin Rees? the MSRI (Mathematical Sciences had a greater added value from Goddard: Yes, Martin Rees was Research Institute) in Berkeley and an institute because you could involved all the way through, ITP (Institute for Theoretical Physics), bring together people, who would and Peter Landshoff played an now the Kavli ITP, in Santa Barbara not normally have the time to important role along with me. We were started. I think many of us get together in universities, from did most of the donkeywork, as they found that we were spending our different disciplines. I think one of the say. Then there were very skilled sabbaticals and our vacations in reasons that institutes have grown in mathematicians, John Coates and... these institutes because they were importance̶and it was one of the Ooguri: Is that because of the British very good places to go to intersect founding principles of the institute tradition that theoretical physicists are with lots of people and to be in a in Princeton even back in the 1930s, regarded as part of the mathematics research intensive environment. But that the modern university, and I department? there really wasn’t any such institute think this is true all over the world, Goddard: It was partly that, because in the United Kingdom. We thought is now a busy place. It’s a place in the initial push for this came from that it was excellent that we should which the academics are expected the Faculty of Mathematics which go and help run a program in Santa to be entrepreneurial, not a place in included the Department of Applied Barbara or take part in the workshop which they’re expected to sit in their Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. in Oberwolfach (The Mathematisches of ces and have the detachment to Ooguri: It included many of the Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach), or think about fundamental questions. leading theoretical physicists like what have you, but it’s important to They don’t, in general, have the time yourself and Martin Rees. have a two-way ow and to be able to interact with their colleagues in Goddard: Yes. Then we got support to bring people to the UK and, of the next department. They’re more from other Faculties as well. The course, to Cambridge. Some people likely to interact with colleagues dominant push came from inside had already started thinking about from other disciplines when they’re the Faculty of Mathematics. I was a this in London. Michael Green was in other places, when they don’t professor of theoretical physics in the involved, but they hadn’t managed to have to go to meetings̶I think Faculty of Mathematics. get off the ground. And we saw an that has been one of the reasons Ooguri: I have a question regarding opportunity in Cambridge because, for the growth of institutes like the scope of the institute. You at that particular moment, we could ours worldwide. We saw all those mentioned several mathematics see that there might be resources reasons as good reasons. The idea institutions existed before your available in the colleges rather than was that if we had a broad institute, institute. But there are different kinds. in the university, in Trinity College it would gain perhaps more support For example, places such as IAS and and Saint John’s College, and that it from a wider range of colleagues IHES have their own strength in the might be possible then to convince and, secondly, that it would have faculty. They have leading scholars in the UK research councils to match the opportunity then to operate in the area, and they are the attractions. the resources that Cambridge cross disciplinary areas: not that the On the other hand, the places like was nding for itself, to make an things that happened in the Newton MSRI have only a very lean faculty, international institute there. Then we Institute had to be cross disciplinary, basically just the director, and the Round had to decide what the appropriate but in each program, in comparing strength of their program attracts Table scope of the institute, and what the one with another, one looks at what people. You chose the MSRI mode. appropriate model of operation of is the added value of having this Goddard: Yes. the institute should be. We felt that happen in this institution. Ooguri: What has led to that kind of the scope should be very broad and Murayama: Who initiated this choice? this would help get broad support, discussion? Was it Michael Atiyah or Goddard: There was a discussion but also many of us thought that you or...? among those people who were the interesting areas were perhaps Goddard: Well, there were a number forming the institute̶and this is at

15 the end of the 1980s. [We started Ooguri: That’s a dif cult decision, driving school is to have a very quality thinking in about ’88.] There were right? You have to take risks to do controlled result and if you looked a number of points if you look at that. at choosing between driving schools, the taxonomy, if you like, of these Goddard: Yes, you have to explain you’d just select the one that had the institutes, their various structural to people that that is the whole highest passed rates, whereas̶this aspects. And this is an important one. point. That it is much preferable to is the complete antithesis of this̶ Do you have a permanent faculty have an institution in which there we’re not trying to produce people or do you not have a permanent might be one or two people who who can drive cars. We’re trying to faculty? There are arguments each are not as great as you might like, change the way people think, and so way. One of the issues for an institute though I don’t think this is true of the it doesn’t matter if there are one or in particular is“, how do you gain a institute, but even if it were true, that two bad results. body of support for it?” How do you would be better, because alongside Ooguri: I recognize that“. I shouldn’t have a group of people who care that there are people like Edward make a mistake” alone is not a good about it? One way, of course, is to Witten, Pierre Deligne, and so on, way to approach this recruitment. have leading academics be faculty who are completely recon guring Goddard: You shouldn’t if you got members. I think this is true of ITP in how we understand whole areas of very few appointments. Then if you Santa Barbara, and so on. The other intellectual activity. You should be make a mistake, that’s a real problem. issue you have there if you have a more concerned about that than But I don’t think it’s possible to have permanent faculty is that you could you have nobody who falls below a an attitude that you’re trying to avoid make some wrong appointments. certain standard. The analogy I used risks and still really, really do dramatic Now, in fact, if you take something to take, it probably works in Japan things. like the Institute for Advanced Study, as well, is̶if you want to take the Ooguri: But in the case of the I think it has a remarkable record of driving test, you go to the driving Newton Institute, you decided not to not making wrong appointments. school, presumably. go that way, but rather... Ooguri: You can’t afford to make Murayama: In Japan, yes. Goddard: Yes. There were a mistake at places like this. Goddard: Then all you’re concerned number of reasons but I think the with is passing the test. fundamental one was really related Taking Risks to Do Things That Murayama: Right. There is a to the sort of model of programmatic Change How People Think minimum threshold. Other than that, activity that we decided on, which Goddard: Well, I think the problem is you don’t care. was based on, let’s say, particularly ̶the way I would say is and when I Goddard: There’s a very precise thing Santa Barbara. We decided that a was director at the institute I would that you want. You don’t care... permanent faculty wasn’t necessary try to explain to trustees is the Murayama: You don’t care whether for this model of operation. It would following. Even if we make a mistake, you take 100̶yes, that’s right. be quite expensive. It would also we’re making them extremely rarely, Goddard: You don’t want to get arouse jealousy in the sense that and it is more important that people a perfect score. That’s not really in Cambridge, by and large, nearly do groundbreaking work. What one relevant. everybody is teaching. If we were has to try to get across is that we Murayama: That’s not necessary. to try to create positions in the are not trying to do quality control Goddard: You don’t go home and university, which were completely here. We’re not trying to be in a risk- boast to your spouse or your parents free of teaching like this, or even if free environment. What is important that you have a perfect score. You ones which would in some sense be is that we do things that change don’t go there to have your life seen as privileged in this institution, how people think, that we change changed. You might expect when this would arouse some opposition. the nature of the subject, that we you go to a university, perhaps at 18, I think one of the considerations we make break throughs, if the choice is that your life will be changed and have to have̶I don’t know whether between doing that and doing very that it will be a formative experience. this applies very much in Japan; good research that doesn’t really But that’s not the purpose of the it applies much less in the United change anything. driving school. The purpose of the States I think than in the UK̶is that

16 Kavli IPMU News No. 26 June 2014 there is a danger when you try to because it’s located right next to the Goddard: What we perceived was make such an institute other people, math department and within this that if we put it in the center, the outside Cambridge, would be jealous mathematics complex. departments might have to move because it’s in Cambridge, and inside anyway, at some point, and that Cambridge people might be jealous The Institute Constructed outside probably we should force the because it was being given such the Traditional Univ. Area: The issue. Then fortuitously, my college, Faculty of Math Moved There special terms. St. John’s College, had a eld of Ooguri: I think, you can argue in Goddard: It is now, yes. We had to seven acres available. It had been both ways. In the case of Santa make a decision at some point as reserved for the expansion of one Barbara, there could be people who to whether we would try to get a of the colleges that was further out, are jealous, but most of the faculty building in the middle of Cambridge. Girton College, to come more into members who are not at ITP would In that case it would be a preexisting Cambridge. It had been kept empty recognize that this is an excellent tool building. We already thought that for a few decades actually when it to recruit people like Joe Polchinski it was very important to design might have been developed. It was and Lars Bildsten. this building so as to encourage earmarked for college or university Goddard: Of course, they had some interaction, and if we had the existing purposes so that when we talked good people like Jim Hartle, John building, it would almost certainly inside the college about whether the Cardy and Bob Sugar and so on, be impossible to do that very well, college had any land that might help before, but I think it must be true because it’s very expensive to rip with this process, the Bursar of the that the standing of Santa Barbara apart an existing building and to college, Chris Johnson, mentioned as a graduate school in physics has recon gure it inside. this particular site. We saw that changed enormously. Ooguri: Was it why you decided actually the whole of the faculty Ooguri: For the university as a to move outside of this traditional would t in this site. whole, they bene ted by having Cambridge University area? Ooguri: So, you already had the this, so probably most of the people Goddard: That was probably the vision of eventually building this recognize the value there. major consideration. The second mathematics complex there. Goddard: Yes. But, at Cambridge, one was that the buildings of the Goddard: We thought it would it is more dif cult to get that to be faculty of the two departments probably take more years. But as recognized, I think, because there (theoretical physics and applied soon as the institute was opened are already so many good things mathematics, and pure mathematics) and I was there running it day to day happening. were overcrowded, so that we were for Michael Atiyah, we felt that one Ooguri: So they might argue“, We inhibited in doing new things or even mile from the old faculty buildings don’t need that because we are having very many visitors in comfort was a real disadvantage. People at Cambridge and we are already because every space was already would not just pop over to go to the excellent.” over-occupied. talks, and then they wouldn’t feel so Goddard: Some people would argue Ooguri: I remember your previous supportive or get so much value from that. location at Silver Street. it. In some sense actually a mile is a Ooguri: So it sounds like it was a Goddard: Yes. very bad distance because somebody political decision. Ooguri: That was some kind of a will make a special effort to go to

Goddard: It was partly a political factory or something like that. London but they don’t necessarily Round decision, yes, and it was partly Goddard: You’re very discerning. make a special effort to go a mile. So Table nancial. But it was a challenge to get It was a book factory! It was the we decided that, very soon after we the resources together anyway. And building in which the University Press opened the Newton Institute, that we to get these resources as well, and actually printed the books. should seek to move the faculty next with these political considerations, Ooguri: So then, it’s interesting that to the... we decided at least to put the issue the institute was constructed outside Ooguri: And you succeeded in doing off. and the math department followed it that. Ooguri: It is functioning very well and moved to that location. Goddard: Yes. Then we had to raise

17 money. So, Peter Landshoff and I, You said that there are different maybe four. We got these rms with help from people like Martin sorts of institutes in which different together for a day and we showed Rees, set about raising the money things happen and you distinguished them the existing departments. We funding those buildings. whether there was faculty or not, but talked about what was happening Murayama: It’s a along with that also goes whether there that we wanted to happen in a doubly expensive you’re bringing people there to new place, what was not happening proposal to do interact or whether you’re bringing well there, and we spent the whole that, right? You people there to do their own thing. day talking to them about the issues. started a new At the institute in Princeton, basically We gave them a formal document institute and at people do their own thing though as well. Then we asked them to the same time were working to move some schools are more interactive come back in a month, and each to the mathematics faculty. than others. Natural Sciences is make a presentation for an hour or Goddard: But we had already started more interactive perhaps than, say, two to us about how they would the institute. So the fundraising then Historical Studies, and Social Science tackle what we were after. The rm was for these new buildings. is a bit more interactive perhaps than that won came with a model and Murayama: I see. Historical Studies. It just depends on the model was conceptually very the style of the particular school, but like the institute that you came to. It the institute can accommodate those had a central mezzanine oor and it The Institute’s Building Designed to Promote Highly Interactive differences of style. If you go into emphasized the fact that you would Activities IHES, it’s more like IAS, in terms of know what was going on in the Ooguri: Now, since people sitting in their of ces. But we building. One way I think about this is we are talking decided̶so it was a choice̶that that people’s experience of buildings about buildings, I we should have activities going on has a characteristic timescale that want to ask you at the Newton Institute that would depends on what you’re doing there. this. When I rst be highly interactive. There would be If you come to be a student in the went to the programs and we would speci cally mathematics complex in Cambridge, institute, I immediately fell in love tell people that you’re not meant to your experience there is on a with the building. It really worked come here and write your book or timescale of 2, 3, and 4 years. If you’re like a dream. You have the central your paper. You’re coming here to a faculty member, it’s ten years. Now, interaction area and you come discuss. As you say, you must have if you’re coming to this institute, the out and you’re in the middle of the opportunity to go to your private timescale is 2 to 3 months. And that discussion. But if you want to focus room and work out your calculations effects how your experience of the on your research, you can just retire if you want, but there will be a building should be. For example, if to your of ce. It’s very well thought tendency to interact. We put all of you’re coming somewhere for 2 or out, and it works very well. these into the brief... 3 years, you can spend time learning Goddard: Thank you. Ooguri: So, that probably also how to get around the building. Ooguri: It has been subsequently has to do with the focus on Ooguri: It should be more intuitive if emulated by many institutions, interdisciplinarity that was already you only have a short time. including this one. What was the there from the beginning of the idea Goddard: Yes, exactly. It should be process of coming up with this kind of the institute. immediate. If somebody takes you on of design? Goddard: Yes, exactly, to bring ten-minute tour of the building, you Goddard: We wrote a brief for together people who weren’t will already know it. That goes along architects. We listed all the things we normally talking to one with the interactivity because you can felt we needed, what were important another. We wrote down a whole see everything that’s happening in to try to achieve. And, in particular, series of considerations about this that building once somebody shows we explained that we needed to and then we selected with the help you around and takes you to your encourage interaction. I should say of the central university authorities, of ce. You’ve already seen where the there was one prior aspect to this. a number of architectural rms̶ coffee is, you can see into the two

18 Kavli IPMU News No. 26 June 2014 seminar rooms, you can see where like that, and it was very intuitive step away. I actually planned then to the library is. Now, the mathematics and so it would naturally be in the go on sabbatical to IHES. faculty buildings are built next door middle of a discussion when I go Ooguri: Just to be intentionally away ̶they’re built more on a three-year out of the of ce. Also, I like some of from the institute. timescale, and you’ll take some time the playful elements of the building Goddard: Yes, for the next year. But to learn all the nooks and crannies. such as having a small blackboard then my colleagues in my college It’s not so transparent. It’s also the in the elevator. I remember when I elected me master of the college so case that at Newton Institute, if you was there, somebody wrote“, I found that thwarted my ambition to get go to your of ce, there’s basically a remarkable proof of the Fermat’s away. only one way you can do that, and Last Theorem, but the elevator ride is Ooguri: So, what’s your view of the that way involves going through the too short to write it.” And, of course, institute now? Has it turned out central area, whereas in the faculty it was soon afterwards that the in exactly the way you anticipated buildings, you can get to your of ce proof was actually announced at the it would be, or were there any in one of a number of ways. Newton Institute. surprises? Ooguri: Sometimes you may want to Goddard: Only one year afterward. Goddard: I went back there for the do that. Somebody wrote that very early. 20th anniversary. We had a short Goddard: You Ooguri: So the remarkable proof was meeting and they asked me to can either walk almost there. give a talk, so I surveyed what had through the main Goddard: Yes. happened, and I felt very content concourse and about the model. At the start, I advertise your One Should Have an Idea of thought that you should have an presence ... you Timescale for an Academic Institute idea of timescale for the institute̶ know, like in Italy, they have this Ooguri: You were the deputy director at least that particular institute, and practice in the evening in the cities of the institute. For how many years? Peter Landshoff and I and the others of walking through the streets, Goddard: For three years, formally. felt con dent that what this model of families walk through the streets in For one year before that I was doing the Santa Barbara and MSRI type of Florence or in Siena, and advertise it in practice. So, I was really looking interactions, which had really become their presence to see people and so after it for two years before it opened much more prevalent in the previous the Newton Institute makes you do and then two years after. I decided 20 years, I would say, would be a very that. I don’t know if I already told you after a year of its operating, it would good model for the next 20 years̶ the story about Vladimir Arnold. He actually be good to leave after two 50 years, perhaps, who knows? But was a very lively character. He was years and let somebody else continue. at least 20 years. Let’s think that this a member of the rst program and If you start something like that, your place would exist for 20 years and it after a while, he stopped me and experience may be different, but mine should function well for that period, he said“, You know this building is was that it’s probably good for the and after that one could revise one’s terrible for my health.” I said“ What’s person who starts it not to continue view, and so you acquire permanent wrong? Nobody is complaining.” too long because it’s like you have a xtures, etc., thinking about that He said“, Well, you see, I come in parental relationship and it’s good to timescale. And so, after 20 years was here, I have a cup of coffee and let go. a good point to review it since it had then after an hour, I need to go to Ooguri: At some point, you have to reached that point and I think now Round the men’s room. So I go out of my let go of your kids. they still think a 20 years’ horizon Table door, I go to the men’s room, and Goddard: Yes, I think so. Since is a good horizon and are striving immediately somebody stops me and I had been dealing with all the to get more endowment. I think it’s then I manage to get past them and practicalities, many of the things approaching £10 million. It really then somebody else talks to me and started as a le on my desk in my needs at least £20 million together eventually there is going to be some academic of ce, and now there was with grant income, too. But I think it’s terrible problem.” the whole building, and so on, and I made valuable contributions. So, I’m Ooguri: Yes. My experience was just felt it would actually be good to pleased that it worked.

19 As Governments Are More and World War meant there was crisis in on the other hand there are bene ts More Dirigiste, Private Grants Are Cambridge and Oxford at that point. of private philanthropies such as̶ Very Important And the government started giving well, I’m in a private university in Ooguri: You mentioned the raising money to the universities initially the US and Berkeley is almost like a of funds and you did that while through university commissioners private university. in Cambridge in building this which separated the government Murayama: Yes, only 10% public mathematical science complex in from the process in the sense that funds these days. particular and then subsequently, the giving of money was not meant Ooguri: We do recognize, for you moved to the Institute for to be an instrument of government example, that if there are new Advanced Study and I imagine you policy with government inuencing breakthroughs, sometimes we have been heavily involved in that. It the university. That arrangement cannot wait for the government seems to me that this kind of private was eroded from the 70s and 80s funding to follow. If you have private philanthropy in helping basic science in particular into the situation now funding at your discretion, you can is very much in the Anglo-Saxon or that the government certainly takes pick low-hanging fruit, which may British-American tradition. the view that it gives money to not be easy to do if you wait for Goddard: Yes, in recent decades, universities in order that they should government to react. I guess it goes the last century or so, it’s been do things the government would like. both ways. The Kavli IPMU is sort particularly American. If you look Ooguri: Are there incentives? of unusual in Japan in that we have back over the centuries, there was Goddard: Yes. From about 1990, in been successful in getting private a long, strong tradition in the UK. particular, a big emphasis started fundings. That’s how Oxford and Cambridge on wealth creation as an objective Murayama: Right. You wanted to, in particular had got their resources rather than saying that we just let for example, start a workshop on and the extent of independence that universities do what they want, and a wall-crossing formula and then they have, through the resources that they should be an independent force immediately, I could allocate some people gave to the colleges. That has in society. And so, that change has funds to get the workshop started, become eroded as the sole method meant that government nancing and that would produce lot of of nance. tends to come with strings. Also activities afterwards. Ooguri: In the UK, you say. because government, at least in the Ooguri: That’s what’s pretty amazing. Goddard: In the UK, it has, from UK, and I think in the United States, It was a workshop that I proposed about the beginning of the 20th has become more short term in its to Hitoshi because I wrote some century, as a result of a combination perspective. It’s more responsive to paper with Masahito Yamazaki who of the expansion and the public opinion. It’s more concerned is now a postdoc at the Institute diversi cation of higher education, with getting reelected and that for Advanced Study and that was which meant that you needed means that it’s looking for results starting a new eld, so we wanted to university laboratories, in particular. on a timescale of two or three years have a workshop quickly. I talked to It was getting more expensive to because otherwise you can’t inuence Hitoshi and he immediately granted teach and do research in universities the next election. All of those features funding and then the workshop was because until the middle of the inuenced us when we needed new put together within 3 months or so. 19th century, people were doing the buildings and so on. We decided that Usually, those kinds of workshops traditional curriculum or they were we needed to raise the money for take a year to prepare but, thankfully, studying mathematics or classics. Cambridge because you just couldn’t we had the funding, we had a very These were not expensive things. But rely on the government coming up talented and dedicated team of from the middle of the 19th century, with funds. international of ce and so we were you needed laboratory facilities, the Ooguri: Yes. It’s a very interesting able to have this workshop and that Cavendish laboratory and so on, for trend. It goes both ways. There was was very, very helpful for my research research. On the graduate level, you an article in the New York Times as well as many other researchers needed more and more resources recently about danger of relying too at the IPMU. And so those kinds of and that combined also with the First much on private philanthropies, but things make a big difference.

20 Kavli IPMU News No. 26 June 2014 Murayama: Right. Flexibility is very to a senior professor to do research. Ooguri: On the other hand, there important indeed, yes. What I was asked to do was to report are lots of unintended applications Goddard: Yes. So I certainly came to on what this person had done. I was of the results that you obtained by the conclusion that private grants sent all of the details of the papers wandering through this process. would be very important because he had written and so on. And I Goddard: Yes. It even goes for governments, everywhere, I think, remember that the rst question was, practical results, I mean, if you think are more and more dirigiste. They’re “Has he done what he said he was about one of the things that has more and more trying to set agendas going to do?”̶and I said“, No,” of changed, more than anything else, and these agendas are often short course. the way we live our lives, or many of term. There’s this other aspect that Ooguri: What was the issue? us live our lives, and it’s made more goes along with that, managerialism Goddard: Of course, what he said commercial possibilities available than ̶the idea that you can address he was going to do was interesting anything else, is the worldwide web, issues by managerial action: suppose, but as you would have hoped, he and that was not the result of some hypothetically, you have decided has done things that were far more R&D department in some company that the UK was weak in functional interesting. I think this is something in sitting down and thinking: we have analysis, I don’t know that it is, which the bureaucratic arrangements the Internet now; how can we make then you put in a few million for a that fund science in many countries this a commercial possibility or how few years and then you can turn it consistently fail to be able to grasp. can we make it more useful! It was around. But it doesn’t happen like Ooguri: Open-ended research ... the result of scienti c challenges. that. That isn’t the way that you build Goddard: Yes. The way I would put up strengths academically. You may it to incoming members of institute Relationship between Mathematics make some short term effect but the was that if you know what you’re and Fundamental Physics idea that by managerial action, you going to do and how you’re going Ooguri: I also wanted to ask you can make, on a timescale of 2 or 3 to do it and when you’re going to about your view on interdisciplinary years, important developments in do it by, it is not going to be truly research between mathematics and academia, I think is just wrong. But, original research. We are nding physics. I guess in the UK, the division the bureaucrats have to believe in out things we couldn’t imagine. The between physics and mathematics that because that’s their raison d’être. excitement is that we may have fertile is somewhat different from that in imaginations, but what happens is far the continental mathematics. Has Progress of Science Is Far More more miraculous than we could have that inuenced your view on the Exciting Than We Could Have anticipated. If you look at the great interdisciplinary activities? In the UK, Anticipated writers of science ction, Jules Verne the interaction between physics and Goddard: Then the other aspect that and H. G. Wells, they were writing mathematics is tighter in the sense accompanies this is the audit culture these marvelous stories at the end that some of the physicists are even ̶the idea that you have to be able of the 19th, and the beginning of regarded as mathematicians. to justify to the taxpayer that you the 20th century. And if you think of Goddard: I think always the boundary have spent the money on what it was what actually happened in science is arti cial and determined by the intended to be spent on. The problem compared to what they wrote about, local culture. It has been a tradition with that is that it implies that, at the it’s far more exciting. in the UK that you can approach time you get the money, you should Ooguri: Right. The progress of science physics in various ways, particularly in know what is going to be spent on, surpassed their imagination. So, Cambridge. You can trace it back into but we don’t know what we’re going you cannot plan those fundamental the history of the organization of the Round to do. I remember just after I left researches ahead, especially the goal university which was, say, different in Table the UK and went to Princeton, I was of the research. Cambridge from Oxford and other asked to report on somebody who Goddard: Right. If you look at the places. In Cambridge, the dominant had held a senior fellowship from development of string theory at subject from the 18th century one of the research councils in the any stage, it was never what people onwards was not actually classics UK. This gives money for ve years would… but mathematics. The rst honours

21 examinations in Cambridge were in In Early 70s, Marriage between grasp of the singularities and their mathematics. Mathematics and Physics Ended in discontinuities in the physical region, Ooguri: Is that for all students you Divorce? but attempts within the context of mean? Ooguri: Right. Well, I guess I perturbation theory to get a handle Goddard: Yes. From the 18th century remember there was an article on complex singularities had been onwards, they developed special written by Freeman Dyson. That was limited and so it was suggested that examinations in mathematics, and so written probably in early 70s... I should think about singularities if you wished to obtain the highest Goddard: Missed opportunities? outside the physical region and honours, you would have to take Ooguri: Yes, Missed Opportunities, complex singularities. There was work mathematics. That was true up until where he says“, the marriage on this using homological techniques about 1820 when classics became between mathematics and physics, and so on, but very few people knew available as a rst honours subject which was so enormously fruitful in about it and when you spoke about to study alongside mathematics. past centuries, has recently ended in it, you really had to, in some sense, It meant that people like William divorce.” translate all of that. Wordsworth, the poet, studied Murayama: Yes, that’s right. Did it Ooguri: That was not a standard mathematics. He didn’t do very well, elaborate on what the cause of the language? even though he came to Cambridge divorce was? Goddard: It was not a standard with a scholarship in mathematics. Ooguri: It was partly because language at all. In fact, it was slightly But then it meant that great gures elementary particle physics was suspect. At various times, people in the later part of the 19th century chaotic. That was before the standard have worked things out in one came out of mathematics and went model of particle physics was language and then translated them into the Cavendish; from James Clerk established and the gauge theory into another. There’s argument Maxwell onwards. Then even people became the main stream. about to what extent this is true like Maynard Keynes, the economist, Murayama: That’s interesting. in Newton. He wrote everything in started off in mathematics at the very Goddard: It was odd timing because classical geometry, the geometry of beginning of the 20th century. That I would say that the time when ... the Greeks̶Apollonius and so on̶ tradition was always there in the Ooguri: It was just about the time and didn’t write it using calculus. But, background. Now you have to dig when gauge theory actually started that’s how he had worked things out. down to nd it but it has inuenced to y. He suppressed the calculus because the way that things have grown up. Goddard: Well, the triumph of gauge what people spoke was classical Ooguri: That’s very interesting. theory came along with Gerard geometry. Goddard: That’s a Cambridge ’t Hooft in the 70s, 71 or 72. Then it Then, Dirac at some point says phenomenon but within the went on from there to the building of that he used geometry in his work. mathematics framework, then, people the standard model, but the dominant And there’s an argument there about split off in various ways. I think inuences that really, I think, started exactly how did he use geometry. He the main thing that has changed changing things here were the work used geometry to think about space over time, viewed internationally, in the mid-1970s of Michael Atiyah and time, to think about with the is that the relationship between and others, and then the sort of relativistic equations, and so on. Did mathematics and fundamental growing inuence of Edward Witten. he also use it in the context of the physics has changed just enormously, I think that that really changed how Hilbert space? Probably it was the clearly. people perceived what is regarded as former rather than the latter. Anyway, Ooguri: What’s your view? How has a reasonable amount of mathematics he does say at some point that he it changed? for a physicist to learn. For example, thought geometrically but translated Goddard: I think if in the 1960s, when I was a graduate student, the that into algebra because that’s what there were very few people who initial problem that I studied was ... knew very much mathematics of the the singularities of the scattering Ooguri: That’s what people sort that is now taken for granted in matrix in the complex plane. It was understand. your seminar, for example. thought that there was a reasonable Goddard: ...understand. These

22 Kavli IPMU News No. 26 June 2014 processes go on at various points but, going to give them a new problem from this kind of development have now... to work on and open new areas and been useful in building models that Ooguri: Now, we don’t have to hide. also connect the different areas of you had not thought about before, Goddard: No, we don’t have to. It is mathematics. like large extra dimensions and ... no longer terribly suspect. So what Murayama: Going back in history, for do you think about the relationship Now Mathematics and Physics example, when Gell-Mann came up of mathematics and physics? Have Areas Developing with the quark model then that’s the Ooguri: Clearly, it has been very, very Simultaneously rst time people started using bigger productive in both ways. I think that, Goddard: You have areas developing group than SU(2). That was the rst as you’ve said, modern mathematics in mathematics and in physics now time, right? People complained about has very much strengthened our simultaneously. In some sense, group theory fever. Apparently that understanding of gauge theory and it seems fortuitous that they are was the people who would not be string theory and other areas for developing at the same time. For able to catch up with this level of fundamental physics, but I think example, the theory of in nite group theory. And then language the insight from physics has also dimensional Lie algebras and how was felt to be left out, but that inuenced mathematics in a positive that related to ideas in physics actually turned out to be the right way and provided them, for example, and vertex operators and so on. language, not just for the quark avor conjectures to prove or a new way These developments happened in symmetry, but also for the gauge to think about geometry. Especially parallel, but they started completely symmetry, and so forth. Without that, the quantum nature of geometry is independently of one another in I don’t think particle physics would something that the mathematician, a completely unrelated way, but have existed the way we know now. of course, didn’t know about but at the same time. I always nd it Goddard: That’s true, but I think now very much in the common trend fascinating to wonder whether those also the other side of that. I think, in the forefront of mathematics, things are really accidents, or there somewhere in the 1950s, when Gell- especially in the area of geometry is something you don’t understand. Mann realized that having introduced and representation theory. So it has What would have been true in the strangeness and so on, you needed been very, very bene cial for both I 70s and perhaps the 80s is that a bigger group than SU(2), some think. It’s quite natural that, whenever people who were interested in the people started talking about SU(2) × we try to understand more and more more mathematical questions would SU(2), and so on. They didn’t know of fundamental laws of nature, which is be prepared to use it in talking about this to be compact Lie groups. They one of the things we are doing at this physics but people interested in more didn’t immediately go and ask̶they institute, the existing mathematics phenomenological questions would didn’t know who to ask, I guess. Gell- is often not useful. Newton had to not, tending to create a certain gulf. Mann, at one point, said that he sat invent calculus, Maxwell had to use But, now, that seems to have eroded there trying to work it out himself. I the partial differential equations, because many of the people who think he gave up when he got seven and Einstein had to use Riemannian ̶like you, Hitoshi, who are also generators. geometry. interested in phenomenological Murayama: So, it could have been

Goddard: But that existed already. questions and are also very prepared like G2. Ooguri: It existed already, but at to talk in ways that relate to Goddard: So, it’s amazing when you that time it was quite modern mathematics. So things really have think back to that. Now, you only mathematics. It is very natural that changed in that sense, I think. have to say something and you go when we try to push the boundary Ooguri: I think for people, like and look at Borel’s work or whatever Round of human knowledge in that way, Hitoshi, who built a model of on the classi cation, the spaces and Table there is no guarantee that the elementary particle which you hope so on. We immediately plug in to the existing mathematics could be useful. to actually test experimentally̶ mathematical literature. So, interactions between physicists maybe I’m putting words into your Ooguri: Yes. So we got remarried. and mathematicians can be useful mouth̶but it seems that the ideas Goddard: No, I think the divorce for both. For mathematicians, it’s and the mathematics that come out didn’t ...

23 Ooguri: ...didn’t happen? Goddard: I think also that places like actually a British invention? Goddard: No, I think it was a trial CERN and the people concerned with Goddard: Yes. But it has to go along separation. funding them in the various countries with explaining to people that it’s Ooguri: It was kind of a probation for had realized that they had to do important that opportunity is given to a while, then. more in explaining to the taxpayers people to do things where you don’t Goddard: I think that, of course, and others what was going on. So know what the outcome is going is a very good argument for your they couldn’t just let this be the press to be, where you can’t imagine that institute. I mean this is now not of ce putting out some press release. outcome. That is what will change just some esoteric or small group It had to be a whole process of our understanding of the universe interest. It’s part of the culture that’s getting people to understand what and will change in the end the generally accepted by people of was about to happen. That all feeds practical aspects of lives. But there’s various inclinations. Whether they in to, I think, the position of institutes no easy prescription for this, I think. want to think about very theoretical like ours in the public perception, But I think it is incumbent on all of us problems or whether they want to in that they’re much more likely to who feel any ability or any inclination really understand the latest results understand what we are about. The to do it to engage in that. So at the from the LHC, everybody has more of attitude that existed many years ago, institute in Princeton, I’m sure Robbert a common culture. 50 years ago or 80 years ago, was (Dijkgraaf, Director) will continue this Murayama: How do you think we that you really needed to have ivory even more, putting increasing effort can protect this kind of area which towers. If you look at the history of into our publications and our public doesn’t have an immediate impact on the institute in Princeton, I think in the dissemination of research. In fact, the society? early decades, people in the institute compared to the institute I went to in felt that there wasn’t anything wrong ’74, which was a marvelous place, but Basic Science Has a Valuable with practical applications but this there wasn’t very much of this going Cultural Impact Though Not Having was not what happened here and on, now it’s going on all the time. an Immediate Practical One in order to make sure this was an It’s not the case that at the institute Goddard: It doesn’t have an environment in which people stayed you can’t go and be quiet, you can’t immediate practical impact in terms pure, so to speak, you had to have an go into a room, you can’t walk in the of producing what might be a cure ivory tower with polished walls and woods and have those peaceful and for some disease but it obviously people couldn’t come in. inspiring experiences. But at the same does have a valuable cultural impact. Now the attitude is everywhere, time, the institute is interacting more I am conscious of it talking to my I think, different. That is to say, it is or less continuously with the outside friends who are not academics. important to protect the academic world. They now know more about what is environment in that we need to Murayama: That’s an important point. happening in basic science. It’s very give space to people and not ask Maybe the last question I would like much more than it would have been them all the time to produce a to ask. Now that you oversaw the 30 years ago. Look at the interest practical result tomorrow. But that founding of a new institution in the in the discovery of the Higgs, it is is completely compatible with our Newton Institute and oversaw the absolutely enormous compared explaining what we do to people progress of the Institute for Advanced with, say, what arguably had more outside, inviting them in, giving them Study in Princeton, you gained some importance in conceptual terms, the talks, and discussing what we do insight on what should not be done discovery of the W and the Z. I mean, with them, because we don’t have to to run a truly tremendous academic we’d all have had a collective mental isolate ourselves into some monastic institute. I’d like to hear your lessons breakdown if they hadn’t been there. community that has no contact with about that. Maybe you never fell in I think that was partly because we the outside world. It’s actually good any pitfalls? were decades waiting for this event, for us and it’s good for the outside the discovery of the Higgs. world to have this contact. A Truly Academic Institute Should Murayama: Yes, that’s right. So, a Murayama: But that’s in the UK, Stay Focused within a De ned historic event. right? The science café̶that was Mission

24 Kavli IPMU News No. 26 June 2014 Goddard: No, I’ve been there. pay for your time, and you can’t be Probably, there’ve been lots of pitfalls duplicated. I mean, everything that but I think that, along with what I happens in the end impinges on the just said, it’s possible to have these administration. It impinges on the interactions with the outside world director. It impinges on the institute. I but still to make sure that priority think it’s very important to be broad is given to having an environment but to stay focused within that where science can happen. I see here mission but not to do arbitrary things. that you made great efforts, very Murayama: That’s a profound advice successful efforts, to make sure that I would say. Thank you. the bureaucracy that surrounds any Ooguri: Thank you very much. institution doesn’t intrude because it Goddard: Thank you for the can have a major impact particularly discussion and I’m really, really on people coming for a few months impressed with this place. It’s a great somewhere. I think the other aspect development, I think, for Tokyo, for is that in funding, when seeking Japan, and for the world, actually. support̶this is in the American and Each of these institutes makes a UK context̶you have to be very statement about what is important, careful about sticking to the mission and so together, the network is really because one thing that happens, saying something about what the when you try to raise money is important ideals are. Thank you. that you have objectives and then Murayama, Ooguri: Thank you, Peter. somebody comes along and offers money which is only partly for what you want. Maybe it isn’t really even for what you want, but you want to make your fundraising target and so you accept money to do things which weren't your main objective. These may be very good things to do. But, in the end, I think in an institution like this, there are only a limited number of things that you can do. There may be excellent things that people suggest, but they aren't part of what the institute is for, and I think then one has to say“, Well, let’s try and nd someone else for you to do that.” Murayama: That’s important. Goddard: I think it is important to have a de ned mission and not just Round do everything that’s good. Table Ooguri: Yes. There can be opportunity cost. Goddard: Yes. Now, I think somebody can come along and say“, Well, I’ll pay for your time,” but they can’t

25