A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look: Difference between revisions
A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look (edit)
Revision as of 15:06, 10 April 2020
, 10 April 2020→Introduction to GU
Line 304: | Line 304: | ||
<p>[00:58:50] This would be a program for some kind of unification of Dirac’s type, but in the force sector. The question is, does this really make any sense? Are there any possibilities to do any such thing? | <p>[00:58:50] This would be a program for some kind of unification of Dirac’s type, but in the force sector. The question is, does this really make any sense? Are there any possibilities to do any such thing? | ||
===== Introduction to GU ===== | ===== Introduction to Geometric Unity (GU) ===== | ||
<p>[00:59:12] So what I'd like to do is I'd like to talk a little bit about what the Geometric Unity proposal is. | <p>[00:59:12] So what I'd like to do is I'd like to talk a little bit about what the Geometric Unity (GU) proposal is. | ||
<p>[00:59:34] So we have a division into intrinsic theories and auxiliary theory. | <p>[00:59:34] So we have a division into intrinsic theories and auxiliary theory. | ||
<p>[00:59:44] Between physics and mathematics. More specifically, geometry. And intrinsic physical theory would be general relativity. An auxiliary physical theory would be the Yang-Mills theory with the freedom to choose internal quantum numbers | <p>[00:59:44] Between physics and mathematics. More specifically, geometry. And intrinsic physical theory would be general relativity. An auxiliary physical theory would be the Yang-Mills theory, with the freedom to choose internal quantum numbers. | ||
<p>[01:00:20] | <p>[01:00:20] At the mathematical level, an intrinsic theory would be, let's be a little fastidious: the older semi-Riemannian geometry. The study of manifolds with length and angle. But auxiliary geometry is really what's taken off of late since the revolution partially begun at Oxford when Is Singer brought insights from Stony Brook to the U.K. | ||
And so we're going to call this fiber bundle theory or modern gauge theory. Geometric Unity is the search for some way to break down the walls between these four boxes. What's natural to one theory is unnatural to another. Semi-Riemannian geometry is dominated by these projection operators as well as the ability, uh, to use the Levi-Civita connection. | |||
<p>[01:01: | <p>[01:01:08] Now, some aspects of this are less explored. Torsion tensors are definable in semi-Riemannian geometry, but they are not used to the extent that you might imagine. In the case of fiber bundle theory, the discovery of physicists that the gauge group was fantastically important. [This] came as something of a shock to the mathematicians who had missed that structure, and have since exploited it to great effect. | ||
<p>[01:01:54] So our perspective | <p>[01:01:34] So what we'd like to do is we'd like to come up with some theory that is intrinsic, but allows us to play some of the games that exist in other boxes. How can we fit? How can we try to have our cake eat it. And use all the full suite of techniques that are available to us? | ||
<p>[01:01:54] So our perspective is that the quantum that may be the comparatively easy part and that the unification of the geometry, which has not occurred, may be what we're being asked to do. So let's try to figure out what would a final theory even look like? | |||
===== A research program for a Unified Theory ===== | |||
<p>[01:02:12] When I was a bit younger, I remember reading this question of Einstein, which he said, I'm not really interested in some of the details of physics. What really concerns me is whether the creator had any choice in how the world was constructed. And some people may have read that as a philosophical statement, but I took that as an actual call for a research program. | <p>[01:02:12] When I was a bit younger, I remember reading this question of Einstein, which he said, I'm not really interested in some of the details of physics. What really concerns me is whether the creator had any choice in how the world was constructed. And some people may have read that as a philosophical statement, but I took that as an actual call for a research program. | ||
Line 326: | Line 330: | ||
<p>[01:02:47] We talked a lot about unification, but we hardly ever actually imagine if we had a unified theory, what would it look like? | <p>[01:02:47] We talked a lot about unification, but we hardly ever actually imagine if we had a unified theory, what would it look like? | ||
<p>[01:02:57] Let us imagine that we cannot figure out the puzzle of why is there something rather than nothing. But if we do have a something that that's something has | <p>[01:02:57] Let us imagine that we cannot figure out the puzzle of why is there something rather than nothing. But if we do have a something that that's something that has as little structure as possible, but it still invites us to work mathematically. So to me, the two great theories that we have mathematically and in physics are calculus and linear algebra. | ||
<p>[01:03:17] If we have calculus and linear algebra, I mean, imagine that we have some manifold, at least one of dimension four, but it's not a spacetime. It doesn't have a metric. It's not broken down into two different kinds of coordinates, which then have some bleed into each other, but still maintains a distinction. | <p>[01:03:17] If we have calculus and linear algebra, I mean, imagine that we have some manifold, at least one of dimension four, but it's not a spacetime. It doesn't have a metric. It's not broken down into two different kinds of coordinates, which then have some bleed into each other, but still maintains a distinction. | ||
Line 332: | Line 336: | ||
<p>[01:03:36] It's just some sort of flabby proto-spacetime, and in the end it has got to fill up with stuff and give us some kind of an equation. So let me write an equation. | <p>[01:03:36] It's just some sort of flabby proto-spacetime, and in the end it has got to fill up with stuff and give us some kind of an equation. So let me write an equation. | ||
<p>[01:04:13] So I have in mind differential operators parameterized by some fields, omega, which when composed are not of second order, if these are first order operators, but as zeroth order in some sort of further differential operator saying that whatever those two operators are in composition is in some sense harmonic. | <p>[01:04:13] So I have in mind differential operators parameterized by some fields, $$\omega$$, which when composed are not of second-order, if these are first-order operators, but as zeroth-order in some sort of further differential operator saying that whatever those two operators are in composition is, in some sense, harmonic. | ||
<p>[01:04:41] Is such a program even possible? So if the universe is in fact capable of being the fire that lights itself, is it capable of managing its own flame as well | <p>[01:04:41] Is such a program even possible? So if the universe is in fact capable of being the fire that lights itself, is it capable of managing its own flame as well and closing up? What I'd like to do is to set ourselves an almost impossible task, which is to begin with this little data in a sandbox, to use a computer science concept. | ||
<p>[01:05:11] So if here this physical reality. | <p>[01:05:11] So, if here this physical reality. | ||
<p>[01:05:20] Standard physics is over here. We're going to start with the sandbox and all we're going to put in it is $$X^4$$. And we're going to set ourselves a straight jacketed task of seeing how close we can come to dragging out a model that looks like the natural world that follows this trajectory. | <p>[01:05:20] Standard physics is over here. We're going to start with the sandbox and all we're going to put in it is $$X^4$$. And we're going to set ourselves a straight-jacketed task of seeing how close we can come to dragging out a model that looks like the natural world that follows this trajectory. | ||
<p>[01:05:56] While it may appear that that is not a particularly smart thing to do, I would like to think that we could agree that it is quite possible. That if that were to be the case, we might say that this is what Einstein meant by a creator, which was his anthropomorphic concept for necessity and elegance and design having no choice in the making of the world. | <p>[01:05:56] While it may appear that that is not a particularly smart thing to do, I would like to think that we could agree that it is quite possible. That if that were to be the case, we might say that this is what Einstein meant by a creator, which was his anthropomorphic concept for necessity and elegance and design having no choice in the making of the world. | ||
===== Four flavors of GU with a focus on the endogenous version === | |||
<p>[01:06:19] So with that, let us begin to think about what we mean today by Geometric Unity. GU comes in four flavors, but I'm only getting one shot to do this, so I'm going to do the most exciting of them to me. There's a completely exogenous flavor. | <p>[01:06:19] So with that, let us begin to think about what we mean today by Geometric Unity. GU comes in four flavors, but I'm only getting one shot to do this, so I'm going to do the most exciting of them to me. There's a completely exogenous flavor. | ||
Line 346: | Line 352: | ||
<p>[01:06:42] What I'm gonna do is I'm going to take the concept of observation and I'm going to break the world into two pieces. A place where we do our observation and a place where most of the activity takes place. And I'm going to try and do this without loss of generality. So in this case, we have $$X^4$$ and it can map into some other space, and we are going to call this an observerse. | <p>[01:06:42] What I'm gonna do is I'm going to take the concept of observation and I'm going to break the world into two pieces. A place where we do our observation and a place where most of the activity takes place. And I'm going to try and do this without loss of generality. So in this case, we have $$X^4$$ and it can map into some other space, and we are going to call this an observerse. | ||
<p>[01:07:15] The idea of an observerse is a bit like a stadium. You have a playing field and you have stands. They aren't distinct entities, they're coupled. And so fundamentally we're going to replace one space with two. Exogenous model simply means that U is unrestricted, although larger than $$X^4$$ so any manifold of four | <p>[01:07:15] The idea of an observerse is a bit like a stadium. You have a playing field and you have stands. They aren't distinct entities, they're coupled. And so, fundamentally, we're going to replace one space with two. Exogenous model simply means that U is unrestricted, although larger than $$X^4$$, so any manifold of four dimensions or higher that is capable of admitting $$X^4$$ as an immersion. | ||
<p>[01:07:41] The next model we have is the bundle-theoretic, in which case, U sits over X, as a fiber bundle. | |||
<p>[01:07:58] The most exciting, which is the one we'll deal with today, is the endogenous model where $$X^4$$ actually grows the space U, where the activity takes place. So, we talked about extra dimensions, but these are, in some sense, not extra dimensions. They are implicit dimensions within $$X^4$$. | |||
And last, to proceed without loss of generality, we have the tautological model. In that case, $$X^4$$ equals U. And the immersion is the identity. And without loss of generality, we simply play our games on one space. | |||
Okay? Now we need rules. The rules a choice of fundamental metric. So we imagine that Einstein was presented with a fork in the road, and it's always disturbing not to follow Einstein's path, but we're in fact going to turn Einstein's game on its head and see if we can get anywhere with that. Right. It's also a possibility that because Einstein's theory is so perfect that if there's anything wrong with it, it's very hard to unthink it because everything is built on top of it. So let's make no choice of fundamental metric. | |||
<p>[01:09:16] And in fact, let's go more ambitious. And let's say we're going to reverse the logic of Einstein. Einstein. The metric is fundamental, but the Levi-Civita connection from which we deduced the curvature is emergent, right? So the fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry is, is that every connection, uh, causes every metric causes a connection to emerge. | <p>[01:09:16] And in fact, let's go more ambitious. And let's say we're going to reverse the logic of Einstein. Einstein. The metric is fundamental, but the Levi-Civita connection from which we deduced the curvature is emergent, right? So the fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry is, is that every connection, uh, causes every metric causes a connection to emerge. |