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

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 436: Line 436:
<p>[01:27:23] And this is going to be a really interesting space because it has a couple of properties. One is it has a very interesting subgroup. Now, of course, H includes into G by just including onto the first factor, but in fact, there's a more interesting homomomorphism brought to you by the Levi-Civita connection.
<p>[01:27:23] And this is going to be a really interesting space because it has a couple of properties. One is it has a very interesting subgroup. Now, of course, H includes into G by just including onto the first factor, but in fact, there's a more interesting homomomorphism brought to you by the Levi-Civita connection.


<p>[01:27:49] So this magic being trade is going to start to enter more and more into our consciousness. If I take an element H and I map that in the obvious way into the first factor, but I map it onto the Maurer-Cartan form, I think that's what I, I wish I remembered more of this stuff. Into the second factor. It turns out that this is actually a group homomomorphism and so we have a nontrivial embedding, which is in some sense diagonal between the two factors. That subgroup we are going to refer to as the tilted gauge group, and now our field content, at least in the Bosonic sector, is going to be a group manifold, an infinite dimensional function space [[Lie Group]], but a group nonetheless. And we can now look at G mod, the tilted gauge group, and if we have any interesting representation of H, we can form homogeneous vector bundles and work with induced representation. And that's what the fermions are going to be. So the fermions in our theory are going to be H modules.
<p>[01:27:49] So this magic being trade is going to start to enter more and more into our consciousness. If I take an element H and I map that in the obvious way into the first factor, but I map it onto the [[Maurer-Cartan]] form, I think that's what I, I wish I remembered more of this stuff. Into the second factor. It turns out that this is actually a group homomorphism and so we have a nontrivial embedding, which is in some sense diagonal between the two factors. That subgroup we are going to refer to as the tilted gauge group, and now our field content, at least in the Bosonic sector, is going to be a group manifold, an infinite dimensional function space [[Lie Group]], but a group nonetheless. And we can now look at G mod, the tilted gauge group, and if we have any interesting representation of H, we can form homogeneous vector bundles and work with induced representation. And that's what the fermions are going to be. So the fermions in our theory are going to be H modules.


<p>[01:29:14] And the idea is that we're going to work with vector bundles, curly E of the form inhomogeneous gauge group producted over the tilted gauge group.  
<p>[01:29:14] And the idea is that we're going to work with vector bundles, curly E of the form inhomogeneous gauge group producted over the tilted gauge group.  
Line 448: Line 448:
<p>[01:31:15] So right now, our field content is looking pretty good. It's looking unified in the sense. That it has an algebraic structure that is not usually enjoyed by field content and the field content from different sectors can interact and know about each other. Mmm. Provided we can drag something of this out of this with meaning.
<p>[01:31:15] So right now, our field content is looking pretty good. It's looking unified in the sense. That it has an algebraic structure that is not usually enjoyed by field content and the field content from different sectors can interact and know about each other. Mmm. Provided we can drag something of this out of this with meaning.


<p>[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 G no, let's say to the real numbers. Invariant,  not under the full group, but under the tilted gauge subgroup. 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 Grossman did so much more to begin the theory in that the Lagrangian that got written down was really just an inevitability.
<p>[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 G, let's say to the real numbers. Invariant,  not under the full group, but under the tilted gauge subgroup. 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 Grossman did so much more to begin the theory in that the Lagrangian that got written down was really just an inevitability.


<p>[01:32:38] So just humor me for this talk, and let me call it the Einstein Grossman Lagrangian. Uh. Hubbard'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.
<p>[01:32:38] So just humor me for this talk, and let me call it the Einstein Grossman Lagrangian. Uh. Hubbard'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.
Line 454: Line 454:
<p>[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.
<p>[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.


<p>[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 value in an auxiliary structure, but intrinsic spinors.
<p>[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.


<p>[01:34:00] The toolkit that we have is that the adjoint bundle looks like the Clifford algebra. At the level of vector space.
<p>[01:34:00] The toolkit that we have is that the adjoint bundle looks like the Clifford algebra. At the level of vector space.


<p>[01:34:28] Which is just looking like the exterior algebra on the chimeric bundle. tThat means that it's graded by degrees. 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 $$Omega^i$$ okay valued in the adjunct bundle.
<p>[01:34:28] Which is just looking like the exterior algebra on the chimeric bundle. That means that it's graded by degrees. 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 adjunct bundle.


<p>[01:34:57] There's going to be some element $$Phi_i$$.
<p>[01:34:57] There's going to be some element $$Phi_i$$.


<p>[01:35:05] Which is pure trace. Okay.
<p>[01:35:05] Which is pure trace.


<p>[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, uh, associated variants that come from using the Hodge star operator on the forms. I'm just going to call them for completeness.
<p>[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, uh, associated invariants that come from using the Hodge star operator on the forms. I'm just going to call them for completeness.


<p>[01:35:36] I'm not going to deal with them.
<p>[01:35:36] I'm not going to deal with them.
Line 470: Line 470:
<p>[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 through the 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.
<p>[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 through the 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.


<p>[01:36:04] I can take field content. Epsilon and Pi, where Epsilon, where these are elements of the inhomogeneous gauge group. In other words, Epsilon is a gauge transformation and Pi is an, is a gauge potential
<p>[01:36:04] I can take field content. Epsilon and Pi, where Epsilon, where these are elements of the inhomogeneous gauge group. In other words, Epsilon is a gauge transformation and Pi is an, is a gauge potential.


<p>[01:36:27] and I can start to define operators.
<p>[01:36:27] And I can start to define operators.


<p>[01:36:44] I'm used. 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 lead product. Or because I'm looking at, um, the unitary group, there's a second possibility, which is I can multiply everything by i and go from scew hermitian to hermitian and take a Jordan product using anti commutators rather than commutators.
<p>[01:36:44] I'm used. 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, um, 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.


<p>[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, 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.
<p>[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, 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.


<p>[01:37:34] So for example, I can define a Cieve? operator. Okay. That takes, I forms valued in the adjoint bundle.
<p>[01:37:34] So for example, I can define a Cieve? operator. Okay. That takes, I forms valued in the adjoint bundle.
55

edits

Navigation menu