Category theory and beyond the standard model

  • Thread starter CarlB
  • Start date
  • #26
CarlB
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,214
12
My problem is that I have worked in restaurants.
As far as thinking about physics, the best work I've ever had is driving truck. There is nothing like that endless white line to give your mind time to contemplate. On the other hand, some of the other folks on the road might beg to differ. Honk! Honk!
 
  • #27
312
0
Hi all

Since you are talking about something I can understand, that is, jobs and the lack thereof, I thought I'd chime in as an expert on the subject. Currently unemployed, but soon to fall beneath that category as well, as my meager fund runs out of, well, funds.

We are all good writers, I guess. There is substantial interest among the public in the areas we study. It seems like we should be able to make a buck publishing to our respective local media. Or even internet stuff. (here overdub the music to "Beautiful Dreamer, waken to me....."

Oh well. Good luck and best wishes to all in the New Year!

The old Nightcleaner,

R
 
  • #29
Kea
859
0
There is nothing like that endless white line to give your mind time to contemplate.
Very David Lynch. Don't drive myself. Good to hear from you Richard! Well, the earnest young man logged me on to the government's job search webpage and then flicked through my CV. I'm guessing he didn't actually read it though, because his first question was: so do you understand how to use the internet? On the subject of Category Theory, it appears that I might actually be ready now to submit a thesis.

:smile:
 
  • #30
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738
I need to find a way to include 'naive' in my tag line. Isn't symmetry breaking merely a geometric extension of relativity? I like the geometry part and can see how you can derive relavativistic reference frames in any coordinate system. But, symmetry breaking, as conventionally portrayed, appears suspect. Symmetries merely converge, IMO.
 
  • #31
CarlB
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,214
12
I've sometimes found that exhibiting just a touch of madness helps when dealing with the government and other authorities, depending on the effect desired. For example, explaining that Einstein was wrong, you've found the unified field theory, and are working on it at home does wonders.
 
  • #32
CarlB
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,214
12
I need to find a way to include 'naive' in my tag line. Isn't symmetry breaking merely a geometric extension of relativity? I like the geometry part and can see how you can derive relavativistic reference frames in any coordinate system. But, symmetry breaking, as conventionally portrayed, appears suspect. Symmetries merely converge, IMO.
I don't believe in symmetry breaking, but I'm having trouble figuring out the rest of your post. How is symmetry breaking a geometric extension of relativity? One is in QM, the other GR, and they're not combined. And what does "Symmetries must converge" mean in more detail?
 
  • #33
arivero
Gold Member
3,304
59
Aww, I wish I could have taken a category theory course when I was a teenage undergraduate. :cry: (Or even have heard of it!)
Well, there is not yet undergraduate category for physicists, but mathematicians are a lot more conversant on it than ten years before.

the next buzzword is "scheme"
 
  • #34
George Jones
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,350
923
Well, there is not yet undergraduate category for physicists, but mathematicians are a lot more conversant on it than ten years before.
But there is! At least in book form - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226288625/?tag=pfamazon01-20, by Robert Geroch. Geroch purposely and provocatively chose his title to indicate that, these days, mathematical physics includes topics other than those covered in more traditional mathematical physics courses. He starts with a few pages on category theory and and uses category theory as framework for discussing many topics.

Geroch's book contains a broad survey of abstract algebra, topology, and functional analysis, and it does a wonderful job at motivating (mathematically) mathematical definitions and constructions. However, its layout is abominable. Surprisingly, since Geroch is an expert, it contains no differential geometry.

This book was first published over twenty years ago, and is based on a course Geroch gave at the University of Chicago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Kea
859
0
This book was first published over twenty years ago, and is based on a course Geroch gave at the University of Chicago.
Yeah, cool. Of course, being at Chicago (one of the founding centres of Category Theory) one would find it difficult to escape categories.

:smile:
 
  • #37
Kea
859
0
Lubos got a little interested in Centauros...
Goodness knows why. It's hard to imagine he's thinking what you're thinking ...
 
  • #38
CarlB
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,214
12
Oh no, it's just clear that cosmic rays are where the next new physics comes from, if it's not the LHC.
 
  • #39
Kea
859
0
...it's just clear that cosmic rays are where the next new physics comes from, if it's not the LHC.
Well, there's a whole host of exciting possibilities. They just spotted a black hole at the centre of a globular cluster - only the second one they looked at.
 
  • #40
CarlB
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,214
12
I would think that finding a black hole in the center of a globular cluster would put new wind under the MOND sails. By the way, I just realized that when I wrote "new physics", being a particle guy, I automatically meant new particle physics, and was thinking in terms of detectors rather than obesrvatories.
 

Related Threads on Category theory and beyond the standard model

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
148
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
676
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
692
Top