 3
 1
 Summary

Causal Fermion System and revival of Dirac Sea
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/causalfermionsystemandrevivalofdiracsea.943207/#post5966910 ...
For modern Dirac Sea, there seems to be a revival...
Not of Dirac's original concept; the "causal fermion systems" hypothesis avoids a number of the difficulties with Dirac's original concept. However, that is still a speculative hypothesis at this point, and ... avoid the Dirac sea
What are the specific objections to Felix Finster's Casual Fermion System besides "many objections" and "very exotic, and very, very far from mainstream"?
The comment in the summary above says forget about the Dirac sea.
I am sorry, but CFS is an extension of the Dirac sea idea written in modern QFT, GR language.
Finster's been working on this for many years.
Starting with his paper on CFS as a candidate for a unified field theory is not the easiest place to begin understanding it. If you are not current and fluent with QFT and GR, start with wikipedia's Casual Fermion System article. The details are in Finster's many papers.
Here are a few references:
Finster, F. The Principle of the Fermionic Projector, hepth/0001048, hepth/0202059, hep th/0210121, AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 35, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006.
Finster, F. Causal variational principles on measure spaces, arXiv:0811.2666 [mathph], J. Reine Angew. Math. 646 (2010), 141–194.
Finster, F. Entanglement and second quantization in the framework of the fermionic projector, arXiv:0911.0076 [mathph], J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43 (2010), 395302.
Finster, F. A formulation of quantum field theory realizing a sea of interacting Dirac particles, arXiv:0911.2102 [hepth], Lett. Math. Phys. 97 (2011), no. 2, 165–183.
F. Finster and A. Grotz, A Lorentzian quantum geometry, arXiv:1107.2026 [mathph], Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 16 (2012), no. 4, 1197–1290.
After so much has been done with strings, I don't find CFS exotic.
CFS has simple, specific mental models. As a physicist, I like physical models. But who can say that combining the standard model with GR will involve simple mathematics.
Yes, CFS is speculative, but do we really have a UFT?
Probably not.
So tell me what is wrong with it.
Please, I'd really like to find the errors in Finster's work.
Someone in this world must have some understanding of his work.
I don't need a detailed, time consuming response from a busy physicist, but just a short specific answer will be helpful.
Thanks,
Ed
The comment in the summary above says forget about the Dirac sea.
I am sorry, but CFS is an extension of the Dirac sea idea written in modern QFT, GR language.
Finster's been working on this for many years.
Starting with his paper on CFS as a candidate for a unified field theory is not the easiest place to begin understanding it. If you are not current and fluent with QFT and GR, start with wikipedia's Casual Fermion System article. The details are in Finster's many papers.
Here are a few references:
Finster, F. The Principle of the Fermionic Projector, hepth/0001048, hepth/0202059, hep th/0210121, AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 35, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006.
Finster, F. Causal variational principles on measure spaces, arXiv:0811.2666 [mathph], J. Reine Angew. Math. 646 (2010), 141–194.
Finster, F. Entanglement and second quantization in the framework of the fermionic projector, arXiv:0911.0076 [mathph], J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43 (2010), 395302.
Finster, F. A formulation of quantum field theory realizing a sea of interacting Dirac particles, arXiv:0911.2102 [hepth], Lett. Math. Phys. 97 (2011), no. 2, 165–183.
F. Finster and A. Grotz, A Lorentzian quantum geometry, arXiv:1107.2026 [mathph], Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 16 (2012), no. 4, 1197–1290.
After so much has been done with strings, I don't find CFS exotic.
CFS has simple, specific mental models. As a physicist, I like physical models. But who can say that combining the standard model with GR will involve simple mathematics.
Yes, CFS is speculative, but do we really have a UFT?
Probably not.
So tell me what is wrong with it.
Please, I'd really like to find the errors in Finster's work.
Someone in this world must have some understanding of his work.
I don't need a detailed, time consuming response from a busy physicist, but just a short specific answer will be helpful.
Thanks,
Ed