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

|furthercontributors=

Now, why is that? Well, many people confuse a theory of everything, as if they imagine that it's a theory in which you can compute every eventuality, and it is absolutely not that, because the computational power is very different than the question of whether or not the rules are effectively given. I've analogized it to a game of chess, and knowing all of the rules is equivalent to a theory of everything. Knowing how to play chess well is an entirely different question. But in the case of a theory of everything, or a unified field theory if you will, many people also take it to be an answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" And I don't think that this is, in fact, what a theory of everything is meant to be either. Now, why is that? Well, because I believe at some level it is impossible for most of us to imagine an airtight argument, mathematically speaking, which coaxes out of an absolute void a something. However, there's a different question which I think might actually animate us, and which is the right question to ask of a potential candidate. And that is, "How does one get everything from almost nothing?" In the M.C. Escher drawing or lithograph, ''Hands Drawing Hands'', or ''Drawing Hands'', what we see is that the paper is presupposed. That is, if you could imagine a theory of everything, it would be like saying, "If I posit the paper, can the paper will the ink into being, such that the ink gives rise to the pens, and the pens draw the hands, which in fact manipulate the pens to use the ink?" That kind of a problem is one which is of a very different character than everything that has gone before. It is also, in my opinion, an explanation of why the physics community has been stalled for nearly 50 years since around 1973, when the standard model was intellectually in place.

Now, consider this: we have never had, in modern times, a drought where no person working in pure fundamental theory has taken a trip to Stockholm—just as a rough indicator—for contributing to the standard model. No one, in my opinion, since let's see, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilczek Frank Wilczek], who was born in 1951—no one born after that time has in fact contributed to the standard model in a clear and profound way. That is not to say that no work has been done, but for the most part, the current generation of physicists has, for more than 40 years and almost 50 years, remained stagnant within the standard paradigm of physics, which is positing theories that are then verified by experiment. Now my belief, which is relatively radical, is that there is no way to get to our final destination using the tools that have gotten us to where we are now. In other words, what got you here cannot get you there.

<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">$$ SU(3) \text{ (color)} \times SU(2) \text{ (weak isospin)} \times U(1) \text{ (weak hypercharge)}$$</div>  

Which breaks down to \(SU(3) \times U(1)\), where the broken \(U(1)\) is the electromagnetic symmetry. This equation is also a curvature equation—the corresponding equation—and it says that this time, the curvature of an auxiliary structure known as a gauge potential, when differentiated in a particular way is equal, again, to the amount of stuff in the system that is not directly involved in the left-hand side of the equation. So it has many similarities to the above equation, both involve curvature. One involves a projection, or a series of projections. The other involves a differential operator.

There are other possibilities that while each of these may be simplest in its category, they are not simplest in their interaction. For example, we know that Dirac famously took the square root of the Klein-Gordon equation to achieve the Dirac equation—he actually took two square roots, one of the differential operator, and another of the algebra on which it acts. But could we not do the same thing by re-interpreting what we saw in Donaldson theory and Chern-Simons theory, and finding that there are first-order equations that imply second-order equations that are nonlinear and in the curvature? So let's imagine the following: we replace the standard model with a true second-order theory. We imagine that general relativity is replaced by a true first-order theory. And then we find that the true second-order theory admits of a square root and can be linked with the true first-order theory. 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?"

But now, as \(\theta\) changes, the fermions are defined on the chimeric bundle, and it's the isomorphism from the chimeric bundle to the tangent bundle of the space \(U\), which is variant—which means that the fermions no longer depend on the metric. They no longer depend on the \(\theta\) connection. They are there if things go quantum mechanical, and we've achieved our objective of putting the matter fields and the spin-one fields on something of the same footing.

Well, let me just sum this up by saying: between fundamental and emergent, standard model and GR... Let's do GR. Fundamental is the metric, emergent is the connection. Here in GU, it is the connection that's fundamental and the metric that's emergent.

We then choose to add some stuff that we can't see at all, that's dark. And this matter would be governed by forces that were dark too. There might be dark electromagnetism, and dark strong, and dark weak. It might be that things break in that sector completely differently, and it doesn't break down to an \(SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)\) because these are different \(SU(3)\)s, \(SU(2)\)s, and \(U(1)\)s, and it may be that there would be like a high energy \(SU(5)\), or some Pati-Salam model. Imagine then that chirality was not fundamental, but it was emergent—that you had some complex, and as long as there were cross terms these two halves would talk to each other. But if the cross terms went away, the two terms would become decoupled.

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. It 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. 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 \(U^{14}\). We built a toolkit, allowing us to choose symmetric field content, to define equations of motion on the cotangent space of that field content, 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.

Now there's a huge problem in the spinorial sector, which I don't know why more people don't worry about, which is that spinors aren't defined for representations of the double cover of \(GL(4, \mathbb{R})\), the general linear group's effective spin analog. And as such, if we imagine that we will one day quantize gravity, we will lose our definition, not of the electrons but, let's say, of the medium in which the electrons operate. That is, there will be no spinorial bundle until we have an observation of a metric. So, one thing we can do is to take a manifold \(X^d\) as the starting point and see if we can create an entire universe from no other data—not even with a metric. So, since we don't choose a metric, what we instead do is to work over the space of all possible point-wise metrics. So not quite in the Feynman sense, but in the sense that we will work over a bundle that is of a quite larger, quite a bit larger dimension.

So that gets rid of the biggest problem, because the internal symmetry group is what causes the failure, I think, of supersymmetric particles to be seen in nature, which is we have two different origin stories, which is a little bit like Lilith and Genesis. We can't easily say we have a unified theory if spacetime and the \(SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)\) group that lives on spacetime have different origins and cannot be related. In this situation, we tie our hands and we have no choice over the group content.

So just to fix bundle notation, we let \(H\) be the structure group of a bundle \(P_H\) over a base space \(B\). We use \(\pi\) for the projection map. We've reserved the variation in the \(\pi\) orthography for the field content, and we try to use right principal actions. I'm terrible with left and right, but we do our best. We use \(H\) here, not \(\mathcal{G}\), because we want to reserve \(\mathcal{G}\) for the inhomogeneous extension of \(H\) once we move to function spaces.

And then we have an action of \(G\), that is the inhomogeneous gauge group, on the space of connections, because we have two different ways to act on connections. We can either act by gauge transformations or we can act by affine translations. So putting them together gives us something for the inhomogeneous gauge group to do.

And I should say that the Pati-Salam theory, which is usually advertised as, I think as \(SU(4) \times SU(2) \times SU(2)\), is really much more naturally \(Spin(6) \times Spin(4)\) when the trace portion of the space of metrics is put in with the proper sign if you're trying to generate the sector that begins as \(X(1,3)\). Remember \(X^d\), where \(d = 4\), is the generic situation. But you have all these different sectors. I believe that these sectors probably exist if this model's correct, but we are trapped in the \((1,3)\) sector, so you have to figure out what the implications are for pushing that indefinite signature up into an indefinite signature on the \(Y\) manifold. And, there are signatures that make it look like the Pati-Salam rather than directly in the \(Spin(10)\), \(SU(5)\) line of thinking.

Marcus du Sautoy, Peter Thiel, Isadore Singer, Raoul Bott, Michael Grossberg, Adil Abdulali, Harry and Sophie Rubin, Bret Weinstein and family, Heather Heying, and Zach and Toby, Peter Freyd, Scott Axlerod, Nima Arkani Hamed, Luis Alvarez Gaume, Edward Frankel, Dror Bar Natan, Shlomo Sternberg, David Kazhdan, Daniel Barcay, Karen and Les Weinstein, Haynes Miller, Ralph Gomory, John Tate, Sidney Coleman, Graeme Segal, Robert Hermann, and Hira and Esther Malaney.

I do want to leave you with one thought. I really think that we've gotten completely bent out of shape about trying to formalize and routinize science, and it doesn't work. You cannot mandate science as social engineering, you can't decide that science is always in the zeitgeist and done by committee. In fact, it is essential to understand that science will not conform to what you want. One of the things that I'm very proud of, and I think is quite true, is the saying that great science has the scientific method as its radio edit. I don't think that great science is actually done the way we say it's done, and I think that <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-evolution-of-the-physicists-picture-of-nature/">Dirac's 1963 Scientific American article</a> should be read by absolutely everyone.