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 05:59, 11 April 2020
, 11 April 2020→Part IV
| Line 695: | Line 695: | ||
<p>[02:10:02] If you put these equations on a sphere, they wouldn't be satisfied if the T term had a zero expectation value because there would be non-trivial scalar curvature in the swervature terms, but there'd be nothing to counterbalance it. So it's fundamentally the scalar curvature that would coax the on the augmented torsion out of the vacuum. | <p>[02:10:02] If you put these equations on a sphere, they wouldn't be satisfied if the T term had a zero expectation value because there would be non-trivial scalar curvature in the swervature terms, but there'd be nothing to counterbalance it. So it's fundamentally the scalar curvature that would coax the on the augmented torsion out of the vacuum. | ||
<p>[02:10:22] Yeah. To have a non zero level. And if you pumped up that sphere and it's smeared out, the curvature, which you can't get rid of because of topological considerations, let's say from | <p>[02:10:22] Yeah. To have a non zero level. And if you pumped up that sphere and it's smeared out, the curvature, which you can't get rid of because of topological considerations, let's say from Chern–Weil theory. You would have a very diffuse, very small term. And that term would be the term that was playing the role of the cosmological constant. | ||
<p>[02:10:44] So when a large universe, you'd have a curvature that was spread out. And things would be very light and things would get very dark due to the absence of curvature linking the sectors. | <p>[02:10:44] So when a large universe, you'd have a curvature that was spread out. And things would be very light and things would get very dark due to the absence of curvature linking the sectors. | ||
| Line 701: | Line 701: | ||
<p>[02:11:01] And that turns out to be exactly our complex. | <p>[02:11:01] And that turns out to be exactly our complex. | ||
<p>[02:11:07] So in other words, just to recap, starting with nothing other than a four manifold, we built a bundle | <p>[02:11:07] So in other words, just to recap, starting with nothing other than a four-manifold, we built a bundle $$U$$. The bundle $$U$$ had no metric, but it almost had a metric and had a metric up to a connection. There was another bundle on top of that bundle called the chimeric bundle. The chimeric bundle had an intrinsic metric. | ||
<p>[02:11:29] We built our spinors on that. We restricted ourselves to those spinors. We moved most of our attention to the emergent metric on U 14 which gave us a map between the chimeric bundle and the tangent bundle of | <p>[02:11:29] We built our spinors on that. We restricted ourselves to those spinors. We moved most of our attention to the emergent metric on $$U^{14}$$ which gave us a map between the chimeric bundle and the tangent bundle of c. We built a toolkit allowing us to choose symmetric field content to define equations of motion on the cotangent space of that field content | ||
<p>[02:11:57] | <p>[02:11:57] to form a homogeneous vector bundle with the Fermions to come up with unifications of the Einstein field equations, Yang-Mills equations, and Dirac equations. We then broke those things apart under decomposition, pulling things back from $$U^{14}$$ and we found a three generation model where nothing has been put in by hand and we have a 10-dimensional normal component, which looks like the Spin(10) theory. | ||
<p>[02:12:34] I can tell you where there are problems in this story. I can tell you that when we moved from Euclidean metric to Minkovski metric, we seem to be off by a sign somewhere. Or I could be mistaken. I could tell you that the propagation in 14 dimensions has to be worked out so that we would be fooled into thinking we were on a four dimensional world. | <p>[02:12:34] I can tell you where there are problems in this story. I can tell you that when we moved from Euclidean metric to Minkovski metric, we seem to be off by a sign somewhere. Or I could be mistaken. I could tell you that the propagation in 14 dimensions has to be worked out so that we would be fooled into thinking we were on a four-dimensional world. | ||
<p>[02:12:53] There are lots of things to ask about this theory, but I find it remarkable that tying our hands, we find ourselves with new equations unifications and three | <p>[02:12:53] There are lots of things to ask about this theory, but I find it remarkable that tying our hands, we find ourselves with new equations, unifications and three generations. In a way that seems surprisingly rich, certainly unexpected. And I think I'll stop there. Thank you very much for your time. | ||
=== Supplementary Explainer Presentation === | === Supplementary Explainer Presentation === | ||