Theory of Geometric Unity: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_aN8NnoeO0 PBS SpaceTime]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_aN8NnoeO0 PBS SpaceTime]
<div style="float:right;padding:20px;">__TOC__</div>
<div style="float:right;padding:20px;">__TOC__</div>
<blockquote style="width:80%;max-width:500px">"The source code of the universe is overwhelmingly likely to determine a purely geometric operating system written in a uniform programming language." - Eric Weinstein </blockquote>
 
<blockquote style="width:80%;max-width:500px">''The source code of the universe is overwhelmingly likely to determine a purely geometric operating system written in a uniform programming language.''
- '''Eric Weinstein'''
</blockquote>


== Some Key Ideas ==
== Some Key Ideas ==
Line 56: Line 59:
How do we get the metric out from its responsibilities? It's been assigned far too many responsibilities. It is responsible for a volume form; for differential operators; it's responsible for measurement; it's responsible for being a dynamical field, part of the field content of the system."
How do we get the metric out from its responsibilities? It's been assigned far too many responsibilities. It is responsible for a volume form; for differential operators; it's responsible for measurement; it's responsible for being a dynamical field, part of the field content of the system."
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:1000px; overflow:auto;">
<div style="font-weight:bold;line-height:1.6;">Comments</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''Mark-Moon:''' Can anyone explicate Eric's point about spinor fields depending (in a bad way) on the metric in conventional theories, in a way that is no longer the case in GU? I feel like this is the original idea in GU that I'm closest to being able to understand, but I don't think I quite get it yet.
'''Chain:''' Yeah I was wondering this as well, as far as I was aware you just need a spin structure, which only depends on the topology and atlas on the manifold and not on the choice of metric [https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2836814/dependence-of-spinor-bundle-on-choice-of-metric]. Perhaps the point is that although each choice of metric yields an isomorphic spin structure, perhaps there is not a canonical isomorphism in the same way as in GU where the bundle of metrics Y (U in the talk) is isomorphic to the Chimeric bundle C, but the choice of isomorphism is given by a choice of connection on Y. Although I don't know why the chimeric bundle would come with a canonical choice of spin structure either, which seems to be Eric's claim
to define spinors you would need a clifford bundle and hence a choice of metric on the chimeric bundle
</div></div>


=== Problem Nr. 3:  The Higgs field introduces a lot of arbitrariness ===
=== Problem Nr. 3:  The Higgs field introduces a lot of arbitrariness ===
Line 116: Line 108:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>


== Frequently Asked Questions ==
What will this theory predict?
When will Eric release the next part?
On the Lex Fridman Podcast, Eric states that he may release a paper on April Fool's day, 2021
on the topic of Geometric Unity.
Why hasn't Eric gone through the normal scientific route? Arxiv.org? Academic journals?
Answer: He is planning on releasing his theory through the traditional route of publishing
an academic paper in the near future. He is unlikely to publish in any academic journal that
has a paywall - he has voiced concerns over price gouging that many academic journals engage
in.


[[Category:Geometric Unity]]
[[Category:Geometric Unity]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Physics]]