David Finkelstein's no-field theory

  • Thread starter selfAdjoint
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Theory
In summary, David Finkelstein from Georgia Tech has published a new paper on arXiv that presents a new method of quantization called "homotopic flexing." This method involves using larger dimensional flexible algebras, rather than crude "flat" algebras, to handle quantized histories in a more rigorous way. Finkelstein's approach also addresses the problem of defining and using sums over histories, which has been a challenge in physics. However, his current paper only discusses quantizing gravity and not matter. Finkelstein's work is seen as original and could potentially be useful to others, such as mathematician Garrett Lisi.
  • #1
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,894
11
Has anyone seen http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0608/0608086.pdf" new paper by David Finkelstein at Georgia Tech?

He claims a new method of quantization throught "homotopic flexing" (his new-coined term) of Lie Groups, and the paper includes many goodies, such as only histories are really observable, as Dirac, Schwinger, and Feynman understood but Heisenberg muffed on. But quantized histories are highly nonsingular and ill-defined (e.g. path integration, or see Lubos Motl on spin-foam formalism). BUT, Finkelstein's new flex algebra method replaces crude "flat" algebras which can't handle histories with larger dimensional flexible algebras which have no problem with them.

Finkelstein admits he "stops halfway" in this paper because he quantizes gravity but not with matter (welcome to the club!). Nevertheless, this is a refreshing new way of looking at things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
selfAdjoint said:
Has anyone seen http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0608/0608086.pdf" new paper by David Finkelstein at Georgia Tech?
...

he has a Wikipedia entry with a bit of bio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Finkelstein

his page at Georgia Tech has a picture and a discussion of
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/dfinkelstein.html
some of his main ideas: quantized time, "universal relativity".
some of his ideas seem very original.
glad you called attention to him.
he likes to use the Clifford algebra (conceivably could be an idea or two in his head that Garrett could use, never can tell)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Can anybody make an attempt to summarize the gist of this?
 
  • #4
Farsight said:
Can anybody make an attempt to summarize the gist of this?

Instead of doing it all off the top of my head I'm going to read the paper some more and get back to you. I want to learn it too. But his idea of "flexing" a Lie group boils down to this. There are a skillion different groups out in what they call "group space" which is just math-speak for the set of all the Lie groups there are. So suppose we have such a group given to us by the physics, and suppose it causes us headaches. Finkelstein refers to such a group as "flat", suggesting flat Minkowski spacetime versus curved GR spacetime, or maybe even flat Earth versus round Earth.

So he proposes to go by way of a homotopy, a smooth transition path through the space of Lie groups, from the "flat" one to a more "flexible" one, that because of the nice properties of the homotopy he wants to use, is akin to the flat one, but free of some of the headaches that came of the flatness. And among the problems he says he can clear up by doing this is the problem of rigorously defining and using the sum over history technique, which physicists commonly adress with not much better than hand waving because the given gauge groups are (so Finkelstein says) flat, and not up to the job of handling sums over histories.
 
  • #5
Is there a natural topology on group space?

Edit:
Ah I see he works with the space of Lie Algebras, parametrized by the space of structure functions...
 
Last edited:
  • #6
f-h said:
Ah I see he works with the space of Lie Algebras, parametrized by the space of structure functions...

Isn't that the same as a Lie algebra deformation?

Guess I'll read the paper...
 
  • #7
I like the flexing idea. It portrays a universe that is flat on average [a global thing] but rife with local curvature. The math is pretty difficult [at least for me], but that was my read.
 

What is David Finkelstein's no-field theory?

David Finkelstein's no-field theory is a physical theory that proposes that the fundamental interactions of nature can be described without the use of traditional fields. It suggests that the concept of fields is replaced by the concept of "stuff" that fills space.

What are the implications of David Finkelstein's no-field theory?

The implications of David Finkelstein's no-field theory are significant, as it challenges the traditional understanding of fields and interactions in physics. It suggests that the concept of fields may not be necessary to explain the fundamental interactions of nature, and could potentially lead to a more unified understanding of the universe.

How is David Finkelstein's no-field theory different from traditional theories?

David Finkelstein's no-field theory differs from traditional theories in that it does not use fields to describe the fundamental interactions of nature. Instead, it proposes a different way of understanding these interactions through the concept of "stuff."

What evidence supports David Finkelstein's no-field theory?

Currently, there is no direct evidence that supports David Finkelstein's no-field theory. However, some physicists have suggested that it could potentially explain certain phenomena, such as the behavior of particles near the event horizon of a black hole.

What are the criticisms of David Finkelstein's no-field theory?

Some criticisms of David Finkelstein's no-field theory include the lack of experimental evidence and the difficulty in reconciling it with other established theories, such as quantum field theory. Additionally, the concept of "stuff" is not well-defined and has been criticized for being too vague.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
27
Views
14K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top