|
|
| 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]] |
