Foundational Mathematics and Physics?

I reproduce the post written below to Peter's Quantum Gravity Commentary because that basis of determinations supported by John Baez, introduces a new line of thinking, that as a layman, forces me to think about mathematics and physics in their context.

John Baez:

In short: it may be less important to work on physics when there’s a high chance one is barking up the wrong tree and ones work will wind up in the dustbin of history, than to do math that’s clearly good.

This issue, of course, is part of what Peter’s blog is all about
But, I understand the disappointed feelings you are expressing, because physics is a wonderful quest. It’s very hard to give it up, even in times like ours when it’s hard to tell if real progress is being made..

As the thinking of General Relativity unfolded I could not help to consider the developement of geometry through this process. Now, we have interesting physics experiments in relation cosmological questioons. Applicability of the enviroment to particle reductionism and collisions( see Steven Gidding here on blackhole production, or Pierre Auger experiments spoken to by John Ellis) in a modern world.

Corections made here in post after seeing no post their on Peter Woit's site>

Interesting ways in which to measure gravitational deviations?

So do we say, no gravitational differences exist? Two avenues to exploration make themself known and also the question of how we might see landscape abilities spread through interactive phases at levels of energy detrminations that warrant such views relative to physics developement and mathematical forays? I am getting confused.


John Baez said: The existence, number, and character of supergravity theories depends strongly on the dimension of spacetime!

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-07/msg0033897.html

John, you point out the basis of Peter's Blog and assert the basis of math as a lone venture outside of physics. Might it be concievable, that math should have the basis of physics at it's core, as it extends itself in those abtract realms?

Ex:

IN Sylvester surfaces, while it seems these shapes "beautiful", it would have not made more sense if the Dynkin diagrams, a introduction by Nigel Hitchens, would help us see B Field manifestation as interesting outside of the physics, yet related?

In a QG atmosphere, such landscape applicabiltiy would help extend concept developement to math relations you speak of in different weeks?