Why not diffeomorphism group representation theory?

In summary: But that's the whole point of QCD, you can't just reduce everything to those rep's! In QCD, the whole point is that the rep's are non-trivial, and that the theory is self-dual.In summary, according to the article, diffeomorphism invariance is not given the same importance in relativistic quantum mechanics as it is in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. This is due to the fact that diffeomorphism invariance is a gauge symmetry. In Loop Quantum Gravity, the representation theory of the diffeomorphism group plays a role in constructing Hilbert space operators, but it is not the only way to do this.
  • #1
lugita15
1,554
15
For some reason, diffeomorphism invariance seems to be treated like a second-class citizen in the land of symmetries. In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, we consider Galilean invariance so important that we form our Hilbert space operators from irreducible representations of the Galilei group. In relativistic quantum mechanics, I think we can do the same thing with representations of the Poincare group. (Could someone back me up on that? How do operators work in Fock space?) But when it comes time to consider quantum gravity, we do not grant diffeomorphism invariance an analogous role, citing the fact that it is a gauge symmetry and thus indicating a mere superfluousness in our mathematical description of physical states.

I have a few issues with that. First of all, gauge symmetries can be quite important; it is the gauge invariance of Maxwell's equation that gives rise via Noether's theorem to (local) conservation of electric charge. What's the Noether charge for diffeomorphism invariance? Second of all, it seems to me that diffeomorphism invariance is more than just a gauge symmetry. Any statement that has rotational invariance, translational invariance, Lorentz invariance etc. (all locally) as it's implications surely has some physical significance. Can't we easily imagine a universe in which the laws of physics looked profoundly different in different coordinate systems?

Has there been any work in building quantum gravity from the representation theory of the diffeomorphism group?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You in Advance.

P.S. Can someone recommend a good book on Lie group representations, direct sums, tensor products, and all that jazz?
 
  • Like
Likes Andre' Quanta
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I have to think more about your questions, but perhaps you like the following two articles:

[*] "Pseudoduality", Van Proeyen and Hull (about the difference between "proper symmetries" and "pseudo symmetries", formulated in terms of sigma models)

[*] Black hole entropy is Noether charge, Robert Wald (about how one could assign a Noether charge to diffeomorphisms, but how to reconcile that with the first article is not yet clear to me)
 
  • #3
When looking at loop quantum gravity it becomes clear that (spatial) diffeomorphisms play a prominent role in its construction. The problem is that this construction is neither complete nor indisputable.
 
  • #4
tom.stoer said:
When looking at loop quantum gravity it becomes clear that (spatial) diffeomorphisms play a prominent role in its construction. The problem is that this construction is neither complete nor indisputable.
In LQG does the representation theory of the diffeomorphism group play a role in constructing Hilbert space operators?
 
  • #5
lugita15 said:
In LQG does the representation theory of the diffeomorphism group play a role in constructing Hilbert space operators?
not in the usual sense
 
  • #6
it is the gauge invariance of Maxwell's equation that gives rise via Noether's theorem to (local) conservation of electric charge. What's the Noether charge for diffeomorphism invariance?

General covariance (or diffeomorphism covariance if you must call it that) can be thought of as the 'local' generalization of the translation group. That is, in place of global translations, xμ → xμ + εaμ, where aμ = const, an infinitesimal coordinate transformation may be written as xμ → xμ + εξμ where ξμ = ξ(x)μ. This is analogous to the gauge groups of electromagnetism we have gauge transformations Aμ → Aμ + λμ which are global or local depending on whether or not λ is a constant.

Question: for electromagnetism, which type of gauge transformation (global or local) generates the conserved current? The short answer is: they both do. But in different ways. And so to state the short answer to the OP, both the general covariance group and the translation group generate the same conserved quantity, namely (EDIT: the stress-energy tensor, and its charge,) the energy-momentum vector.

A very clear exposition of this topic can be found http://nd.edu/~kbrading/Research/WhichSymmetryStudiesJuly01.pdf. The point is that there are, in fact, two Noether theorems. The first deals with constant parameters (global gauge groups) while the second deals with function parameters (local gauge groups). Both of them lead to the same conserved current, but the equations of motion are required to be satisfied in the first case, while in the second case they are not.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
tom.stoer said:
not in the usual sense
So then what is the role for irreducible representations of diffeomorphism group in LQG? If Loop Quantum Gravity doesn't really use it, is there any other approach that does?
 
  • #8
In LQG it is claimed that the final version of the theory is diff. inv. b/c the symmetry has been reduced to the identity; however the way towards this rep. is slightly obscure and the implementation of all constraints including the Hamiltonian is not yet fully understood. Anyway, the diff. inv. symmetry is "unphysical" just like a gauge symmetry, therefore physical obervables and Hilbert space vectors should live in the trivial representation.

Compare this to QCD: yes, you are right, in that case you start with SU(3) representations, quarks live in the triplet, gluons live in the octet, in order to construct the theory. But the hysical states are constrained by the "color Gauss law" which means that all physical states are gauge invariant states i.e.live in the singlet. So even in QCD (when it comes to physical states and observables) no representation but the trivial one is used.

Regarding your last question: I do not know any other theory that uses representation theory of the spacetime diffeomorphims group.
 
  • #9
tom.stoer said:
In LQG it is claimed that the final version of the theory is diff. inv. b/c the symmetry has been reduced to the identity; however the way towards this rep. is slightly obscure and the implementation of all constraints including the Hamiltonian is not yet fully understood. Anyway, the diff. inv. symmetry is "unphysical" just like a gauge symmetry, therefore physical obervables and Hilbert space vectors should live in the trivial representation.

Compare this to QCD: yes, you are right, in that case you start with SU(3) representations, quarks live in the triplet, gluons live in the octet, in order to construct the theory. But the hysical states are constrained by the "color Gauss law" which means that all physical states are gauge invariant states i.e.live in the singlet. So even in QCD (when it comes to physical states and observables) no representation but the trivial one is used.
But SU(3) invariance for QCD really is merely a gauge symmetry reflecting a redundancy in our mathematical description. In contrast, in any quantum field theory we get e.g. the momentum and angular momentum operators by considering irreducible representations of the Poincare group, because the Poincare group is a set of physically meaningful symmetries. But if that is the case, then surely the diffeomorphism group, which contains the Poincare group and much more things (like accelerated frames), should also be thought of in the same way. Is there any way to treat the diffeomorphism group in any way other than as a gauge group?

By the way, how are things done in quantum field theory on curved spacetimes? What is the symmetry group used there to construct Hilbert space operators?
 
  • #10
lugita15 said:
But SU(3) invariance for QCD really is merely a gauge symmetry reflecting a redundancy in our mathematical description. In contrast, in any quantum field theory we get e.g. the momentum and angular momentum operators by considering irreducible representations of the Poincare group, because the Poincare group is a set of physically meaningful symmetries. But if that is the case, then surely the diffeomorphism group, which contains the Poincare group and much more things (like accelerated frames), should also be thought of in the same way. Is there any way to treat the diffeomorphism group in any way other than as a gauge group?

You have to carefully distinguish two concepts:

Global symmetries like e.g. SU(N) flavor and global Lorentz or Poincare invariance in special relativity for which you can construct (well-known) representations; the physical Hilbert can be decomposed accordingly.

Local symmetries like gauge symmetries and diffeomorphim invariance; it is true that you have Poincare invariance in GR, but this becomes a local (gauge) symmetry (I will try to find papers for you). Global or "rigid" Lorentz or Poincare invariance is not a symmetry of GR, only as a special subset of local diffeomorphism invariance.

It should be clear that global Lorentz invariance requires a globally flat spacetime; it is also well-known that the concept of energy, momentum and angular momentum (as integral constants of motion) do no longer exist in GR in general.
 
  • #12
tom.stoer said:
You have to carefully distinguish two concepts:

Global symmetries like e.g. SU(N) flavor and global Lorentz or Poincare invariance in special relativity for which you can construct (well-known) representations; the physical Hilbert can be decomposed accordingly.

Local symmetries like gauge symmetries and diffeomorphim invariance; it is true that you have Poincare invariance in GR, but this becomes a local (gauge) symmetry (I will try to find papers for you). Global or "rigid" Lorentz or Poincare invariance is not a symmetry of GR, only as a special subset of local diffeomorphism invariance.

It should be clear that global Lorentz invariance requires a globally flat spacetime; it is also well-known that the concept of energy, momentum and angular momentum (as integral constants of motion) do no longer exist in GR in general.
Yes, I am aware that nontrivial global symmetries are incompatible with space-time curvature. But are all local symmetries "gauge" symmetries in the pejorative sense, i.e. just indicating mathematical redundancy not physical content? I would think local Lorentz invariance is pretty physically significant; it indicates that space-time is locally Minkowskian. Can't you still use local symmetries to find local conservation laws, and can't you form operators using the representation theory of a local symmetry group?

I think quantum field theory in curved space-time would be relevant to all these issues.
 
  • #13
I found out more information on this now. It seems that the generators of the local diffeomorphism group on a manifold are the vector fields defined on the manifold. Is there any way to interpret these vector fields as operators on the Hilbert space?

This is especially interesting, because wave functions are scalar fields ψ(x,t), i.e. scalar fields on spacetime. So how could you find represent vector fields on a manifold as operators on the space of scalar fields of the manifold ?
 
  • #14
"But are all local symmetries "gauge" symmetries in the pejorative sense, i.e. just indicating mathematical redundancy not physical content?"

For a (philosophical) discussion of this issue, please see 'Gauging What's Real' by Richard Healey, OUP.
 
  • #15
malreux said:
But are all local symmetries "gauge" symmetries ... indicating mathematical redundancy ... ?
Yes; I do not know any counter example.

malreux said:
... not physical content?
No; diffeomorphism invariance has of course a physical content, namely independence of reference frames.
 
  • #16
tom.stoer said:
Yes; I do not know any counter example.


No; diffeomorphism invariance has of course a physical content, namely independence of reference frames.
For the record that was my quote; malreux was quoting me. I'm a bit confused. Some symmetries like translational invariance are said to be physically meaningful, and so the momentum operator is constructed using the representation theory of the local translation group (i.e. the associated Lie algebra). On the other hand, people do not do the same thing for the local diffeomorphism group; their justification for this is to dismiss this as a "gauge symmetry", by which they do not just mean that it is local, but that it is just a redundancy in our mathematical description of the physical world, not something physically meaningful.

But I agree with you: diffeomorphism invariance is a physically significant assertions about the laws of physics taking the same form in all reference frames. Thus it stands to reason that the generators of infinitesimal diffeomorphisms should have irreducible representations as Hilbert space operators.

Am I on the right track concerning vector fields on a manifold being the generators of diffeomorphisms on the manifold? If so, how could you construct Hilbert space operators out of vector fields? Also, am I right to assume that quantum mechanics in curved spacetime is relevant?
 
  • #17
"On the other hand, people do not do the same thing for the local diffeomorphism group; their justification for this is to dismiss this as a "gauge symmetry", by which they do not just mean that it is local, but that it is just a redundancy in our mathematical description of the physical world, not something physically meaningful." -Lugita 15

The book I referenced can clarify some of the issues, such as what is meant when mathematical structure is considered unphysical or 'pure gauge'. It is written from the perspective of philosophy of physics rather than first order physics, but it is very clear with relatively simple formalism (although not toy examples). Its conclusion is basically "'Local' gauge symmetry is a purely formal feature of [e.g. Yang-Mills theories]" (p.155).

This is not tackling what your asking about head on, by any stretch. But I found Healey's examination of classical and quantum field theories, and in particular what the transliteration of Weyl's 'gauge' means in the very different contexts of e.g. QFT and general relativity, very useful, very subtle, and illuminating.

One last thing, there are many nice papers about QFT on curved spacetime, but I don't think I quite follow your reasoning here: "how could you construct Hilbert space operators out of vector fields?"
 
  • #18
malreux said:
"On the other hand, people do not do the same thing for the local diffeomorphism group; their justification for this is to dismiss this as a "gauge symmetry", by which they do not just mean that it is local, but that it is just a redundancy in our mathematical description of the physical world, not something physically meaningful." -Lugita 15
Here's a tip, malreux: if you want to quote someone's post, all you need to do is click the "Quote" button next to the post.
One last thing, there are many nice papers about QFT on curved spacetime, but I don't think I quite follow your reasoning here: "how could you construct Hilbert space operators out of vector fields?"
I'm not doing anything unusual here, just following standard quantum procedure. For example, consider nonrelativistic QM. The laws of physics are invariant under spatial translation, so we look at the representation theory of the translation group. Ultimately we find the generators of infinitesimal translations, and represent these generators as operators on the Hilbert space, in this case the momentum operators. And we find that the laws of physics are invariant under time translation, so we represent the generator of infinitesimal time translations as an operator on the Hilbert space, the Hamiltonian operator. Finally we have rotational invariance, so we construct operators on the Hilbert space, the angular momentum operators, which generate infinitesimal rotations.

In each case, the pattern is clear. We find a continuous set of symmetry transformations, which form a Lie group. We then look at the infinitesimal transformations that are in this group, AKA the Lie algebra. We find the generators of these infinitesimal transformations. Finally we try to find self-adjoint operators on our Hilbert space which correspond to these generators. (I'm skipping a step: we often first try finding unitary operators to represent elements of the whole Lie group, and then we use those to find the self-adjoint operators representing the infinitesimal generators. For instance, we first find the unitary time evolution operators U(t) which represent the Lie group of time translations, then we express the Hamiltonian operator in terms of U(dt).)

In the present case the symmetry we are concerned with is local diffeomorphism invariance, so I would like to similarly construct Hilbert space operators using the representation theory of the diffeomorphism group. Based on some searching, it seems that the generators of infinitesimal diffeomorphisms on a manifold are vector fields on the manifold. So somehow these vector fields have to be represented as operators on the Hilbert space. This is somewhat interesting, because the Hilbert space is the set of wave functions, which are themselves scalar fields on the manifold. So we have to represent vector fields acting on the manifold as self-adjoint linear operators acting on scalar fields acting on the manifold.
 
  • #19
lugita15 said:
But if that is the case, then surely the diffeomorphism group, which contains the Poincare group and much more things (like accelerated frames), should also be thought of in the same way. Is there any way to treat the diffeomorphism group in any way other than as a gauge group?

This is a bit of a tough subject, b/c there are a lot of different viewpoints out there and the literature is diverse (both in philosophy, notation and implementation).
Having not been trained in quantum gravity or as a specialist in GR, this took me awhile to find people who would explain it to me properly, and I am probably mangling it.

Very briefly there are two main points to take away..

The first point is that typically to make sense of Diff(M) as a 'gauge' group, you are going to want to follow a specific procedure. Typically that involves working in the Hamiltonian (ADM) formulation of GR (eg the whole formalism with lapse and shift vectors etc), and you will need to introduce vielbeins. Further, it is often the case that at some stage you need to linearize the theory (b/c it is precisely there, that you see the analogy between the equations of Yang Mills and Gravity explicitly)

So once you have done all of that (the steps can be found in textbooks), in some sense there is a formal analogy that is possible (modulo some important subtleties) and we can define exactly where we use Diff(M) and what it can act on (and in what sense it acts transitively).

Now, in so far as that is concerned, what one gets is a sense in which the group Diff(M,xo) acts on operators in the theory. Of course, since this is a gauge symmetry (a redundancy of explanation), what Tom says is absolutely correct. AT the level of the Hilbert space, just like in gauge theory the representation theory is completely trivial, as it must! Instead of the Gauss law constraint, we will have a diffeomorphism constraint and so forth.

Now, you have to be careful.. One needs to make a distinction between diffeomorphisms that are smoothly (isotopically) connected to the identity at infinity, and ones that are not (to wit they are called 'large diffeomorphisms'). The preceding discussion refers to the former. However, large diffeomorphisms can take physical states to new states! The appropriate group of all nontrivial large diffeomorphisms is given by the quotient of Diff (M)/Diff(M,0). This is called the mapping class group by mathematicians, and is given several different names by physicists depending on the circumstances. See papers by Domenico Giulini for some reviews

You can kind of intuitively see why this must be so. Asymptotic observables like the ADM energy or angular momentum can and will change under the action of this group. It is at this level where 'representation theory' becomes important, and not of the full Diff(M).

It is also at this step where things become incredibly murky and mathematically really challenging and where few exact results are known (2+1 gravity in AdS space is a famous exception).
 
  • #20
Haelfix said:
This is a bit of a tough subject, b/c there are a lot of different viewpoints out there and the literature is diverse (both in philosophy, notation and implementation).
Having not been trained in quantum gravity or as a specialist in GR, this took me awhile to find people who would explain it to me properly, and I am probably mangling it.

Very briefly there are two main points to take away..

The first point is that typically to make sense of Diff(M) as a 'gauge' group, you are going to want to follow a specific procedure. Typically that involves working in the Hamiltonian (ADM) formulation of GR (eg the whole formalism with lapse and shift vectors etc), and you will need to introduce vielbeins. Further, it is often the case that at some stage you need to linearize the theory (b/c it is precisely there, that you see the analogy between the equations of Yang Mills and Gravity explicitly)

So once you have done all of that (the steps can be found in textbooks), in some sense there is a formal analogy that is possible (modulo some important subtleties) and we can define exactly where we use Diff(M) and what it can act on (and in what sense it acts transitively).

Now, in so far as that is concerned, what one gets is a sense in which the group Diff(M,xo) acts on operators in the theory. Of course, since this is a gauge symmetry (a redundancy of explanation), what Tom says is absolutely correct. AT the level of the Hilbert space, just like in gauge theory the representation theory is completely trivial, as it must! Instead of the Gauss law constraint, we will have a diffeomorphism constraint and so forth.

Now, you have to be careful.. One needs to make a distinction between diffeomorphisms that are smoothly (isotopically) connected to the identity at infinity, and ones that are not (to wit they are called 'large diffeomorphisms'). The preceding discussion refers to the former. However, large diffeomorphisms can take physical states to new states! The appropriate group of all nontrivial large diffeomorphisms is given by the quotient of Diff (M)/Diff(M,0). This is called the mapping class group by mathematicians, and is given several different names by physicists depending on the circumstances. See papers by Domenico Giulini for some reviews

You can kind of intuitively see why this must be so. Asymptotic observables like the ADM energy or angular momentum can and will change under the action of this group. It is at this level where 'representation theory' becomes important, and not of the full Diff(M).

It is also at this step where things become incredibly murky and mathematically really challenging and where few exact results are known (2+1 gravity in AdS space is a famous exception).
Haelfix, you're telling me how we CAN treat diffeomorphism invariance as a gauge symmetry, in the sense of being an artifact of our mathematical description. But I want to know whether we can NOT treat the diffeomorphism as a "gauge" group in the pejorative sense, but rather as a physically meaningful symmetry group, the way we treat the Galilei group in nonrelativistic QM. So we should be able to construct operators on our Hilbert space in terms of the representation theory of diffeomorphism group. Just as in nonrelativistic QM we construct the angular momentum operators out of the generators of infinitesimal rotations, I want to construct self-adjoint operators out of the generators of infinitesimal diffeomorphisms. Is that too much to ask? :smile:
 
  • #21
Yes, and my answer is no you cannot. The symmetry given by the invariance of the laws of GR under general coordinate transformations is an example of a dynamic symmetry, it is explicitly not a spacetime symmetry like time translation invariance, rotational invariance etc.

It is only the residual global symmetries that act on physical states of a theory.
 
  • #22
Haelfix said:
Yes, and my answer is no you cannot. The symmetry given by the invariance of the laws of GR under general coordinate transformations is an example of a dynamic symmetry, it is explicitly not a spacetime symmetry like time translation invariance, rotational invariance etc.
Well, what would happen if you did treat it the same way you treat ordinary space-time symmetries?
 
  • #23
Sure.

You could ask what a world would be like if you replaced SL(2,C) with the diffeomorphism group. The answer is you would be left with a theory that has no dynamics at all! The theory would admit no nontrivial solutions, at least not in d=4 as you have overconstrained the solution space.
 
  • #24
Haelfix said:
Sure.

You could ask what a world would be like if you replaced SL(2,C) with the diffeomorphism group. The answer is you would be left with a theory that has no dynamics at all! The theory would admit no nontrivial solutions, at least not in d=4 as you have overconstrained the solution space.
I don't really know what SL(2,C) (all I could gleam from wikipedia is that it bore some connection to Mobius transformations), but tell me this, are you asserting that if we replaced the Galilei group or the Lorentz group with the local diffeomorphism group, then we would have no nontrivial solutions at all? I'm skeptical of that because if the theory was trivial, I'm not sure how you could recover GR in the classical limit.
 
  • #25
The so-called BF theories are related to GR and are purely topological i.e. have no local degrees of freedom; the same applies to GR in 1+1 and 2+1 dim. spacetime; the group of diffeomormphisms is so large that it cancels all local degress of freedom.
 
  • #26
tom.stoer said:
The so-called BF theories are related to GR and are purely topological i.e. have no local degrees of freedom; the same applies to GR in 1+1 and 2+1 dim. spacetime; the group of diffeomormphisms is so large that it cancels all local degress of freedom.
Does the same apply to GR for the diffeomorphism group in 3+1 dimensions? Is the Galilei group not so large that it cancels all the local degrees of freedom for Newtonian mechanics?

Also, could we adopt the same "gauge" attitude to the Galilei group or the Poincare group? For instance, instead of treating rotational symmetry as physical meaningful, could we just treat it as a mathematical redundancy owing to the fact that the same vector is described differently in coordinate systems rotated with respect to each other? In other words, what are the negative consequences that would ensue if we adopted the trivial representation of the Galelei or Poincare group and ignored the nontrivial representations, and why don't those negative consequences also occur when you use the trivial representation of the diffeomorphism group?
 
  • #27
lugita15 said:
Does the same apply to GR for the diffeomorphism group in 3+1 dimensions?
No, GR in 3+1 dimensions has local d.o.f., namely gravitational waves.

The diffeomorphism group is large, but not large enough.

lugita15 said:
Is the Galilei group not so large that it cancels all the local degrees of freedom for Newtonian mechanics?

Also, could we adopt the same "gauge" attitude to the Galilei group or the Poincare group?
They are no gauge groups but global symmetries and do not cancel local d.o.f.

It is possible to re-write GR as a "gauge" theory introducing the so-called first order or Palatini formalism. A famous example is the local Lorentz gauge symmetry in LQG. But then one first introdcuces new d.o.f. which are later reduced by the new local symmeries. The overall counting of d.o.f. is the same in all formalisms - as it must be.
 
  • #28
tom.stoer said:
No, GR in 3+1 dimensions has local d.o.f., namely gravitational waves.

The diffeomorphism group is large, but not large enough.
OK, then perhaps local degrees of freedom is not the right thing to ask about. I was trying to understand this post from Haelfix:
Haelfix said:
You could ask what a world would be like if you replaced SL(2,C) with the diffeomorphism group. The answer is you would be left with a theory that has no dynamics at all! The theory would admit no nontrivial solutions, at least not in d=4 as you have overconstrained the solution space.
What is Haelfix talking about, if not local degrees of freedom? I still want to know what negative consequences would ensue if you treated the diffeomorphism group as a physical symmetry like rotational symmetry, and not a gauge symmetry which is just a mathematical redundancy. What would happen if you worked with nontrivial representations of the diffeomorphism group just like you make the angular momentum operator out of nontrivial representations of the rotation group? Specifically, making self-adjoint operators out of the generators of infinitesimal diffeomorphisms on a manifold, which I think are vector fields on the manifold.
 
  • #29
Lugita wonders what would follow from treating the diffeomorphism group as a physical symmetry as opposed to a (pure) gauge symmetry. I would like to point out one sense in which this is a promising line of enquiry, although it is pitched a more abstract level than Lugita's question.

John Baez [2006] proposes that some of quantum theory's more puzzling aspects might make more sense if we were in a position to consider quantum theory as part of a theory of spacetime. He argues we can only be in such a position if we deal with both quantum theory (QT) and general relativity (GR) at the level of category theory. Recall, that GR makes heavy use of the category nCob, whose objects are (n-1) manifolds representing 'space' and whose morphisms are n-dimensional cobordisms representing 'spacetime'. QT makes heavy use of the category Hilb, whose objects are Hilbert spaces used to describe 'states', and whose morphisms are bounded linear operators used to describe 'processes'. Moreover, the categories nCob and Hilb resemble each other more than either resembles Set, the category whose objects are sets and whose morphisms are functions. In particular, both Hilb and nCob, but not Set, are *-categories with a noncartesian monoidal structure. Baez argues this accounts for some of QT's features e.g. failure of local realism, impossibility of duplicating quantum information, etc. He then deals with a number of cobordisms e.g. stringy worldsheets, spinfoams, spinfoams in an LQG setting, and so forth.

Briefly, the relevance of all this is to suggest that the traditional use of the ever-flexible Set might be misleading. For example, if it seems like we use one logic (classical) to describe ourselves, and another ('quantum') to describe physical systems, then one resolution is to admit a categories internal logic (as in intuitionistic logic where an systems internal logic [topoi] might differ from classical). Stepping down from the lofty heights of category theory back to Lugita's question, I note that since certain approaches in LQG hint that the categories of Hilb and nCob are closer than we might have previously assumed, this might have consequences for quantal dynamics without an ambient spacetime.
 

1. Why is diffeomorphism group representation theory important in physics?

Diffeomorphism group representation theory plays a crucial role in theoretical physics, particularly in the study of general relativity. This theory allows for the mathematical description of the symmetries of spacetime, which are essential for understanding the fundamental laws of physics.

2. What are the main applications of diffeomorphism group representation theory?

Diffeomorphism group representation theory has a wide range of applications, including in the fields of differential geometry, topology, and quantum field theory. It is also used in the study of black holes, gravitational waves, and cosmology.

3. What are the challenges in studying diffeomorphism group representation theory?

One of the main challenges in this field is the complexity of the mathematical concepts involved. Diffeomorphism group representation theory requires a deep understanding of differential geometry and topology, which can be difficult for non-mathematicians. Additionally, the non-linearity of the diffeomorphism group makes it a challenging object to study.

4. How does diffeomorphism group representation theory relate to other areas of mathematics?

Diffeomorphism group representation theory is closely related to other areas of mathematics, including Lie group theory, differential geometry, and topology. It also has connections to algebraic topology and algebraic geometry, making it a rich and interdisciplinary field of study.

5. What are some current research topics in diffeomorphism group representation theory?

Some current research topics in this field include the study of diffeomorphism group actions on manifolds, the classification of diffeomorphism groups, and the relation between diffeomorphism groups and quantum field theory. Other areas of active research include the study of symmetries in string theory and applications of diffeomorphism group theory to other areas of physics.

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
729
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
611
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
830
Replies
6
Views
838
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
996
Back
Top