Difference between revisions of "Theory of Geometric Unity"

From The Portal Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 49: Line 49:
=== Problem Nr. 2: Spinors are sensitive to the metric ===
=== Problem Nr. 2: Spinors are sensitive to the metric ===


'''Observation:''' Gauge fields not depend on the existence of a metric. One-forms are defined whether or not a metric is present. But for spinors (fermion fields) this is not the case.  
'''Observation:''' Gauge fields do not depend on the existence of a metric. One-forms are defined whether or not a metric is present. But for spinors (fermion fields) this is not the case.  


<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Line 63: Line 63:
=== Proposed Solution ===
=== Proposed Solution ===


== Layman Explanation ==
<blockquote>"We may have to generalize all three vertices before we can make progress."</blockquote>
 
 
 
== Layman Explanations ==


a theory is like a newspaper story
a theory is like a newspaper story

Revision as of 14:40, 21 April 2020

"The source code of the universe is overwhelmingly likely to determine a purely geometric operating system written in a uniform programming language." - Eric Weinstein

Key Ideas

Starting point: three observations by Edward Witten

GU triangle.png
Geometric unity puzzle pieces.png
1. The Arena (<math> Xg_{\mu\nu}</math>) <math>R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} Rg_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \left( \frac{1}{c^4} 8\pi GT_{\mu\nu}\right)</math>
2. <math>G</math> (non abelian)

<math> SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)</math>

<math>d_A^*F_A=J(\psi)</math>
3. Matter

Antisymmetric, therefore light

<math>\partial_A \psi = m \psi</math>

Key guiding question: what are the compatibilities and incompatibilities on the geometric level before the theory is created quantum mechanical.

  • From Einstein's general relativity, we take the Einstein projection of the curvature tensor of the Levi-Civita connection of the metric $$P_E(F_{\Delta^LC})$$
  • From Yang-Mills-Maxwell-Anderson-Higgs theory of gauge fields, we take the adjoint exterior derivative coupled to a connection $$d^\star_A F_A$$


Problem Nr. 1: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is not a proper Gauge Theory

Idea: What if the $$F$$'s are the same in both contexts?

But we're applying two different operators.

Thus the question becomes: Is there any opportunity to combine these two operators?

A problem is that the hallmark of the Yang-Mills theory is the freedom to choose the data, the internal quantum numbers that give all the particles their personalities beyond the mass and the spin. We can allow the gauge group of symmetries to act on both sides of the equation, but the key problem is that: $$P_E(F_{\Delta^{LC} h}) \neq h^{-1} P_E(F_{\Delta^{LC} }) h $$. If we act on connections on the right and then take the Einstein projection, this is not equal to first taking the projection and then conjugating with the gauge action. The gauge rotation is only acting on one of the two factors. Yet the projection is making use of both of them. So there is a fundamental incompatibility in the claim that Einstein's theory is a gauge theory relies more on analogy than an exact mapping between the two theories.

Problem Nr. 2: Spinors are sensitive to the metric

Observation: Gauge fields do not depend on the existence of a metric. One-forms are defined whether or not a metric is present. But for spinors (fermion fields) this is not the case.

"So if we're going to take the spin-2 $$G_{\mu\nu}$$ field to be quantum mechanical, if it blinks out and does whatever the quantum does between observations. In the case of the photon, it is saying that the waves may blink out, but the ocean need not blink out. In the case of the Dirac theory, it is the ocean, the medium, in which the waves live that becomes uncertain itself. So even if you're comfortable with the quantum, to me, this becomes a bridge too far. So the question is: "How do we liberate the definition?" 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."

Problem Nr. 3: The Higgs field introduces a lot of arbitrariness

"The Dirac field, Einstein's field, and the connection fields are all geometrically well-motivated but we push a lot of the artificiality that we do not understand into the potential for the scalar field that gives everything its mass. We tend to treat it as something of a mysterious fudge factor. So the question is, if we have a Higgs field: "why is it here and why is it geometric?""


Proposed Solution

"We may have to generalize all three vertices before we can make progress."


Layman Explanations

a theory is like a newspaper story

  • where/when -> space/time
  • who/what -> fermions/bosons
  • how/why -> rules/what generates the rules (equations and lagrangians)

Frequently Asked Questions

Please help answer these questions!

What will this theory predict?

When will Eric release the next part?

Why hasn't Eric gone through the normal scientific route? Arxiv.org? Academic journals?

Related existing theories

Causal Fermion Systems: [1]