A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look: Difference between revisions

Line 479: Line 479:
==== Toolkit for the Unified Field Content ====
==== Toolkit for the Unified Field Content ====


[01:31:38] Now, what would it mean to be able to use a gauge group in an intrinsic theory like this? We would be talking about something like an action. Let's say a first-order action. And it would take the group $$\mathcal{G}$$ let's say to the $$\mathbb{R}$$. Invariant, not under the full group, but under the tilted gauge subgroup, $$\mathcal{H_{\tau}}$$.  
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5498" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5498">01:31:38</a>''<br>Now, what would it mean to be able to use a gauge group in an intrinsic theory like this? We would be talking about something like an action, let's say a first-order action. And it would take the group \(G\), let's say to the real numbers, invariant, not under the full group, but under the tilted gauge subgroup.


[01:32:13] And now the question is, do we have any such actions that are particularly nice? And could we recognize them the way Einstein did by trying to write down, not the action. And Hilbert was the first one to write that down. But I, you know, I always feel defensive, uh, because I think Einstein and Grossmann did so much more to begin the theory in that the Lagrangian that got written down was really just an inevitability.


[01:32:38] Just humor me for this talk, and let me call it the Einstein-Grossmann Lagrangian. Hilbert's certainly done fantastic things and has a lot of credit elsewhere, and he did do it first. But here, what we had was that Einstein thought in terms of the differential of the action, not the action itself. So, what we're looking for is equations of motion or some field, $$\alpha$$ where $$\alpha\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{G})$$.
<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ S_1:\mathcal{G} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $$</div>


[01:33:22] Now in this section of GU unified field content is only one part of it, but what we really want is unified field content plus a toolkit.


[01:33:43] So we've, we've restricted ourselves to one gauge group, this big unitary group on the spinors using whatever sort of inner product naturally exists on the spinors. And not spinors valued in an auxiliary structure, but intrinsic spinors.
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5533" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5533">01:32:13</a>''<br>And now the question is, do we have any such actions that are particularly nice, and could we recognize them the way Einstein did, by trying to write down not the action—and Hilbert was the first one to write that down but I, you know, I always feel defensive, because I think Einstein and Grossmann did so much more to begin the theory, and that the Lagrangian that got written down was really just an inevitability. So, just humor me for this talk, and let me call it the Einstein-Grossmann Lagrangian. Hilbert's certainly done fantastic things and has a lot of credit elsewhere, and he did do it first. But here, what we had was that Einstein thought in terms of the differential of the action, not the action itself. So, what we're looking for is equations of motion or some field \(\alpha\), where \(\alpha\) belongs to the one-forms on the group.


[01:34:00] The toolkit that we have is that the adjoint bundle, $$ad(P_{U(128)})$$ looks like the Clifford algebra, $$Cl$$, at the level of vector space.


[01:34:28] Which is just looking like the exterior algebra, $$\wedge^{*}(C)$$ on the chimeric bundle; that means that it is graded by degrees. [The] chimeric bundle has dimension-14, so there's a zero-part, a one-part, a two-part, all the way up to 14. Plus, we have forms in the manifold. And so the question is if I want to look at $$\Omega^i$$ valued in the adjoint bundle, there's going to be some element $$\Phi_{i}$$, which is pure trace.
<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ dS_1 = \alpha \in \Omega^1(\mathcal{G}) = 0 $$</div>


[01:35:12] Right? Because it's the same representations appearing where in the usually auxiliary directions as well as the geometric directions. So we get an entire suite of invariance together with trivially associated invariants that come from using the Hodge star operator on the forms. I'm just going to call them for completeness, $$\tilde\Phi_{i}$$, I'm not going to deal with them.


[01:35:41] Now, this is a tremendous amount of freedom that we've just gained. Normally we keep losing freedom, but this is the first time we actually begin to see that we have a lot of freedom and we're going to actually retain some of this freedom to the end of the talk. But the idea being that I can now start to define operators which correspond to the "Ship in the Bottle" problem.
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5602" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5602">01:33:22</a>''<br>Now in this section of GU, unified field content is only one part of it. But what we really want is unified field content plus a toolkit. So we've restricted ourselves to one gauge group, this big unitary group on the spinors using whatever sort of inner product naturally exists on the spinors. And not spinors valued in an auxiliary structure, but intrinsic spinors.


[01:36:04] I can take field content: $$\epsilon$$ and $$\pi$$ where these are elements of the inhomogeneous gauge group. In other words, where $$\epsilon$$, is a gauge transformation and $$\pi$$ is a gauge potential.
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5640" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5640">01:34:00</a>''<br>The toolkit that we have is that the adjoint bundle looks like the Clifford algebra at the level of vector spaces, which is just looking like the exterior algebra on the chimeric bundle.


[01:36:27] And I can start to define operators.


[01:36:44] So in this case, if I have a $$\Phi$$, which is one of these invariants in the form piece, I can either take a contraction or I can take a wedge product. In the Lie algebra piece, I can either take a Lie product or because I'm looking at the unitary group, there's a second possibility, which is I can multiply everything by $$i$$ and go from [[Skew-Hermitian]] to [[Hermitian]] and take a [[Jordan product]] using anti-commutators rather than commutators.
<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ \text{ad}(P_{U(128)}) \overset{vect}{=} Cl^* = \wedge*(C) $$</div>


[01:37:15] So I actually have a fair amount of freedom and I'm going to use a "magic bracket" notation, which in whatever situation I'm looking for, [the operator] knows what it wants to be, is does it. Want to do contraction? Does want to do wedge product, Lie product, Jordan product? But the point is, I now have a suite of ways of moving forms around.


[01:37:34] So, for example, I can define a Shiab ("Ship in a bottle") operator that takes [$$\Omega^{i}$$] $$i$$-forms valued in the adjoint bundle to much higher-degree forms valued in the adjoint bundle.  
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5674" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5674">01:34:34</a>''<br>That means that it's graded by degrees. [The] chimeric bundle has dimension 14, so there's a zero-part, a one-part, a two-part, all the way up to 14. Plus, we have forms in the manifold. And so the question is, if I want to look at \(\Omega^i\) valued in the adjoint bundle, there's going to be some element \(\Phi_i\), which is pure trace.


[01:38:00] So, for in this case, for example [where i = 2], it would take a two-form to a d-minus-three-plus-two or a d-minus-one-form. So, curvature is an ad[joint]-valued two-form. And, if I had such a Shiab operator, it would take ad[joint]-valued two-forms to ad[joint]-valued d-minus-one-forms, which is exactly the right space to be an $$\alpha$$ coming from the derivative of an action.


[01:38:38] This is exactly what Einstein was doing. He took the curvature, which was large, and he bent it back and he sheared off the [[Weyl curvature]] and he took that part and he pushed it back along the space of metrics to give us something which we nowadays call [[Ricci Flow]] and ability for the curvature to direct us to the next structure.
<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ \Omega^i(ad) \ni \Phi_i $$</div>


[01:38:59] Well, we're doing the same thing here. We're taking the curvature and we can now push it back onto the space of connections.


[01:39:28] Can you just clarify the index on the Shiab is? So you take i-forms to d-minus-three-plus-1? [No,] d-minus-three-plus-i.
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5712" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5712">01:35:12</a>''<br>Right? Because it's the same representations appearing where in the usually auxiliary directions, as well as the geometric directions. So we get an entire suite of invariance, together with trivially associated invariants that come from using the Hodge star operator on the forms. I'm just going to call them, for completeness, \(\tilde{\Phi}_i\). I'm not going to deal with them.


[01:39:43] So, in this case, the idea is, is that we've actually got something for our magic beans. We have an ability now to get equations of motion, which go along the group. In some sense, it's as if it was a gradient vector field, except we're using forms rather than vectors. But now what are the transformation properties?
===== Ship in a Bottle (Shiab) Operator =====


[01:40:08] Well, because the curvature... so, you have Shiab. Because the curvature of a connection hit by a gauge transformation is equal on-the-nose to the adjoint action on the Lie algebra of the curvature. We know that if we have two possible actions of conjugation under a bracket and the bracket respects the action of the gauge group, we know that this is going to be well-preserved. In other words, we're going to get a form that is gauged invariant relative to the tilted gauge group.
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5741" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5741">01:35:41</a>''<br>Now, this is a tremendous amount of freedom that we've just gained. Normally, we keep losing freedom, but this is the first time we actually begin to see that we have a lot of freedom, and we're going to actually retain some of this freedom to the end of the talk. But the idea being that I can now start to define operators which correspond to the "Ship in the Bottle" problem. I can take field content \(\epsilon\) and \(\pi\), where these are elements of the inhomogeneous gauge group. In other words, \(\epsilon\) is a gauge transformation, and \(\pi\) is a gauge potential.


[01:41:08] And so, as a result, we now have the possibility for equations of motion, which are well-defined even though they involve projection operators, because we've built the symmetries into the theory and we're working on a group manifold to begin with.


[01:41:26] What about the torsion, $$T_{\epsilon, \pi}$$? Can we rescue the torsion? Here again, we have good news. The torsion is problematic. But if I look at a different field which I'm going to call the augmented torsion and I define it to be the regular torsion, which would be $$\Pi$$ minus this expression. Okay? This turns out to be beautifully invariant again.
<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ (\epsilon, \pi) \in \mathcal{G} $$</div>


[01:41:58] So, neither this term nor this term is invariant. But they fail to be gauge invariant in exactly the same way. So, an important principle of life, which I took too long to realize is that if you have one disease, you're in real trouble. But if you have two diseases, you always have the possibility of having one disease kill the other disease.


[01:42:16] This is true in [[Renormalization theory]]. It's true in [[Black-Scholes]] theory. It's true all over the place. So, what we have here is we've gotten more diseases into the theory, but an even number of diseases allow us to have no disease at all. So, now we have two great tensors. We've got one tensor coming from the curvature and Shiab operator.
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5787" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5787">01:36:27<br></a>''And I can start to define operators:


[01:42:34] We have another tensor coming from the torsion and its augmentation.


[01:42:54] We're doing okay.
<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ \bigcirc\kern-0.940em\circ\kern-0.58em·\text{}\kern0.3em_\epsilon \eta = [\text{Ad}(\epsilon^{-1}, \Phi), \eta] $$</div>
 
 
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5804" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5804">01:36:44</a>''<br>So in this case, if I have a \(\Phi\), which is one of these invariants, in the form piece I can either take a contraction or I can take a wedge product. In the Lie algebra piece, I can either take a Lie product, or because I'm looking at the unitary group there's a second possibility, which is I can multiply everything by \(i\) and go from skew-Hermitian to Hermitian and take a Jordan product using anti-commutators rather than commutators. So I actually have a fair amount of freedom, and I'm going to use a "magic bracket" notation, which in whatever situation I'm looking for, [the operator] knows what it wants to be. Does it want to do contraction? Does want to do wedge product, Lie product, Jordan product? But the point is, I now have a suite of ways of moving forms around.
 
''<a href="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5854" data-type="URL" data-id="https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5854">01:37:34</a>''<br>So for example, I can define a '''shiab operator '''(ship in a bottle operator) that takes i-forms valued in the adjoint bundle to much higher-degree forms valued in the adjoint bundle.
 
 
<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ \bigcirc\kern-0.940em\circ\kern-0.58em·\text{}\kern0.3em_\epsilon \Omega^i(ad) \rightarrow \Omega^{d-3+i} $$</div>
 
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5880 01:38:00]''<br>
So for this case, for example, it would take a two-form to a d-minus-three-plus-two or a d-minus-one-form. So curvature is an ad-valued two-form. And, if I had such a shiab operator, it would take ad-valued two-forms to ad-valued d-minus-one-forms, which is exactly the right space to be an \(\alpha\) coming from the derivative of an action.
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5918 01:38:38]''<br>
This is exactly what Einstein was doing. He took the curvature which was large, and he bent it back and he sheared off the Weyl curvature, and then he took that part and he pushed it back along the space of metrics to give us something which we nowadays call Ricci flow, an ability for the curvature to direct us to the next structure. Well, we're doing the same thing here. We're taking the curvature and we can now push it back onto the space of connections.
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5968 01:39:28]''<br>
'''Audience Member:''' Can you just clarify what the index on the shiab is? So you take i-forms to d-minus-three-plus-1?
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5978 01:39:38]''<br>
'''Eric Weinstein:''' Three-plus-i.
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=5983 01:39:43]''<br>
So in this case, the idea is that we've actually got something for our magic beans. We have an ability, now, to get equations of motion which go along the group, in some sense—it's as if it was a gradient vector field, except we're using forms rather than vectors. But now what are the transformation properties?
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=6008 01:40:08]''<br>
Well, because the curvature... so, you have shiab—because the curvature of a connection hit by a gauge transformation is equal on the nose to the adjoint action on the Lie algebra of the curvature, we know that if we have two possible actions of conjugation under a bracket, and the bracket respects the action of the gauge group, we know that this is going to be well-preserved. In other words, we're going to get a form that is gauge invariant relative to the tilted gauge group.
 
 
<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ F_Ah = h^{-1}(F_A)h $$</div>
 
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=6068 01:41:08]''<br>
And so as a result, we now have the possibility for equations of motion which are well-defined, even though they involve projection operators because we've built the symmetries into the theory and we're working on a group manifold to begin with.
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=6086 01:41:26]''<br>
What about the torsion? Can we rescue the torsion? Here, again, we have good news. The torsion is problematic, but if I look at a different field—which I'm going to call the '''augmented torsion''', and I define it to be the regular torsion, which would be \(\pi\) minus this expression, this turns out to be beautifully invariant again.
 
 
<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ T_{\epsilon, \pi} = \pi - h^{-1}d_{A_0}h $$</div>
 
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=6118 01:41:58]''<br>
So, neither this term nor this term is gauge invariant, but they fail to be gauge invariant in exactly the same way. So, an important principle of life which I took too long to realize is that if you have one disease, you're in real trouble. But if you have two diseases, you always have the possibility of having one disease kill the other disease. This is true in renormalization theory, it's true in Black-Scholes theory, it's true all over the place. So what we have here is we've gotten more diseases into the theory, but an even number of diseases allow us to have no disease at all. So now we have two great tensors: we've got one tensor coming from the curvature and shiab operator, we have another tensor coming from the torsion and its augmentation.
 
[Eric checks his notes]
 
''[https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg?t=6174 01:42:54]''<br>
We're doing okay.
 


==== GU III: Physics ====
==== GU III: Physics ====