Wu-Yang Dictionary: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[File:Wu-Yang-1975-dictionary.png|thumb]] | [[File:Wu-Yang-1975-dictionary.png|thumb]] | ||
{{ | {{Tweet | ||
{{ | |image=Eric profile picture.jpg | ||
{{ | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/4118990218 | ||
{{ | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=In Econ. Krugman is the master chef who can start with deadly pufferfish and dependably prepare elegant fugu thats safe to eat. | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/4118385737 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=There are three careers in modern physics of which I am envious. The other two are Yang and Dirac. In math: [[Isadore Singer|Singer]], [[Ed Witten|Witten]], Attiyah, [[Raoul Bott|Bott]]... | |||
|timestamp=5:05 AM ยท Sep 20, 2009 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/4118560452 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=And what about Jim Simons? Other than Chern Simons he did amazing stuff. Wu-Yang ...and that holonomy theorem of Berger was first rate. | |||
|timestamp=5:18 AM ยท Sep 20, 2009 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/4118623731 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=Anyone else appreciate that [[Jim Simons]] redoing Berger's list of holonomy groups to prove intrinsic sphere transitivity? An artist's theorem. | |||
|timestamp=5:23 AM ยท Sep 20, 2009 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/4118705638 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=Someone else I admire: [[Dan Freed]] at Austin. Dan never gets all the credit he deserves. Every paper nails some loose end for the community. | |||
|timestamp=5:29 AM ยท Sep 20, 2009 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=5:51 AM ยท Sep 20, 2009 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980687868648566784 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=END/ I am sorry that this was a bit technical for lay folks and not technical enough for experts, but it's twitter. I may begin to say more in the weeks and months ahead that may be clarifying. | |||
If you are interested, do stay tuned. Until then, I thank you for your time. | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980669687313850368 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=1/ APRIL FOOLS' SCIENCE: Theory into Practice. | |||
I was challenged by someone as to why I wasn't taking my own medicine referenced in the sub-tweet below this April 1st.ย Ok. Here goes. | |||
What I believe about the universe that is quite different and why I don't talk about it much... https://t.co/RjqRGc5J9m | |||
|timestamp=4:54 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980671434153275393 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=2/ When I was around 16-17, I learned of a story that fascinated me much more than it seemed to captivate any other mathematician or physicist. It was the story of the discovery of the [[Wu-Yang Dictionary|"Wu-Yang" dictionary]] around 1975-6, involving 3 super-minds: [[Jim Simons]], [[CN Yang]] & [[Isadore Singer|Is Singer]]. | |||
|timestamp=5:01 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980673146398244865 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=3/ What was learned was that the Quantum of Planck, Bohr | |||
& Dirac was built on an internal Geometry, just as surely as [[General Relativity]] was built on an external geometry of space-time. Only the two geometries weren't the same! One was due to B Riemann; the other to C Ehresmann. | |||
|timestamp=5:07 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980674834215481344 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=4/ Further the 2 geometries had different advantages. Riemann's geometry allowed you to compress the curvature & measure the 'torsion' while Ehresmann's encouraged "Gauge Rotation"... as long as you didn't do either of those two things. So I asked could the geometries be unified? | |||
|timestamp=5:14 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980677084094783489 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=5/ This would be a change in physics' main question. Instead of asking if Einstein's gravity could fit within Bohr's quantum, we could ask "Could Einstein's structures peculiar to Riemann's geometry be unified & rotated within Ehresmann's?" The answer was almost a 'No!' | |||
Almost. | |||
|timestamp=5:23 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980680721353199618 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=6/ While physicists said the Universe was known to be chiral, I came to believe it was fundamentally symmetric. While we seemed to observe there being 3 or more generations of matter, I came to believe that there were but 2 true generations, plus an improbable "imposter." etc... | |||
|timestamp=5:37 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980682507107602432 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=7/ In short a great many things had to be slightly off in our picture of the world in the 1980s to get the two geometric theories into a "Geometric Unity." Then in 1998, it was found that neutrinos weren't massless! This started to tip the scales towards the alterations I needed. | |||
|timestamp=5:45 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980683552487440384 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=8/ In short the April 1st "trick" that is being played on me is that I see a *natural* theory where chirality would be emergent (not fundamental), the number of true generations would be 2 not 3, there would be 2^4 and not 15 Fermions in a generation, and the geometries unify. | |||
|timestamp=5:49 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980686736375164928 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=9/ I spoke on this nearly 5 years ago; I have been slow to get back to it as I found the physics response bewildering. I have now decided to return to this work & to disposition it. So over the coming year, I'll begin pushing out "Geometric Unity" (as a non-physicist) to experts. | |||
|timestamp=6:01 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
|media1=DZwWjUgUMAAcOnr.jpg | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=6:06 AM ยท Apr 2, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
== Related Pages == | |||
* [[CN Yang]] | |||
* [[Einstein's Revenge: The New Geometric Quantum (Edge Essay)]] | |||
* [[Jim Simons]] | |||
* [[Gauge Theory and Inflation: Enlarging the Wu-Yang Dictionary (YouTube Content)]] | |||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Chen-Ning C. N. Yang on Wikipedia] | * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Chen-Ning C. N. Yang on Wikipedia] | ||
* [http://www.math.stonybrook.edu/events/simons/general.html XIII Geometry Festival (Stony Brook)] | * [http://www.math.stonybrook.edu/events/simons/general.html XIII Geometry Festival (Stony Brook)] | ||
[[Category:Concepts]] | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
[[Category:Mathematics]] | [[Category:Mathematics]] | ||
Revision as of 18:13, 26 November 2025
And what about Jim Simons? Other than Chern Simons he did amazing stuff. Wu-Yang ...and that holonomy theorem of Berger was first rate.
Anyone else appreciate that Jim Simons redoing Berger's list of holonomy groups to prove intrinsic sphere transitivity? An artist's theorem.
Someone else I admire: Dan Freed at Austin. Dan never gets all the credit he deserves. Every paper nails some loose end for the community.
In Econ. Krugman is the master chef who can start with deadly pufferfish and dependably prepare elegant fugu thats safe to eat.
1/ APRIL FOOLS' SCIENCE: Theory into Practice.
I was challenged by someone as to why I wasn't taking my own medicine referenced in the sub-tweet below this April 1st. Ok. Here goes.
What I believe about the universe that is quite different and why I don't talk about it much... https://t.co/RjqRGc5J9m
2/ When I was around 16-17, I learned of a story that fascinated me much more than it seemed to captivate any other mathematician or physicist. It was the story of the discovery of the "Wu-Yang" dictionary around 1975-6, involving 3 super-minds: Jim Simons, CN Yang & Is Singer.
3/ What was learned was that the Quantum of Planck, Bohr & Dirac was built on an internal Geometry, just as surely as General Relativity was built on an external geometry of space-time. Only the two geometries weren't the same! One was due to B Riemann; the other to C Ehresmann.
4/ Further the 2 geometries had different advantages. Riemann's geometry allowed you to compress the curvature & measure the 'torsion' while Ehresmann's encouraged "Gauge Rotation"... as long as you didn't do either of those two things. So I asked could the geometries be unified?
5/ This would be a change in physics' main question. Instead of asking if Einstein's gravity could fit within Bohr's quantum, we could ask "Could Einstein's structures peculiar to Riemann's geometry be unified & rotated within Ehresmann's?" The answer was almost a 'No!'
Almost.
6/ While physicists said the Universe was known to be chiral, I came to believe it was fundamentally symmetric. While we seemed to observe there being 3 or more generations of matter, I came to believe that there were but 2 true generations, plus an improbable "imposter." etc...
7/ In short a great many things had to be slightly off in our picture of the world in the 1980s to get the two geometric theories into a "Geometric Unity." Then in 1998, it was found that neutrinos weren't massless! This started to tip the scales towards the alterations I needed.
8/ In short the April 1st "trick" that is being played on me is that I see a *natural* theory where chirality would be emergent (not fundamental), the number of true generations would be 2 not 3, there would be 2^4 and not 15 Fermions in a generation, and the geometries unify.
9/ I spoke on this nearly 5 years ago; I have been slow to get back to it as I found the physics response bewildering. I have now decided to return to this work & to disposition it. So over the coming year, I'll begin pushing out "Geometric Unity" (as a non-physicist) to experts.
END/ I am sorry that this was a bit technical for lay folks and not technical enough for experts, but it's twitter. I may begin to say more in the weeks and months ahead that may be clarifying.
If you are interested, do stay tuned. Until then, I thank you for your time.
