Deriving 3+1 Metrics from General P+Q Metric

  • Thread starter Thread starter amnoob
  • Start date Start date
amnoob
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I've got the following question: were there any efforts to derive 3+1 metrics from the general p+q one? Any links?

Thanks in advance...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi amnoob,

I came across this paper some while ago

On the origin of the difference between time and space
Authors: C.Wetterich
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/hep-th/0405223


We suggest that the difference between time and space is due to spontaneous symmetry breaking. In a theory with spinors the signature of the metric is related to the signature of the Lorentz-group. We discuss a higher symmetry that contains pseudo-orthogonal groups with arbitrary signature as subgroups. The fundamental asymmetry between time and space arises then as a property of the ground state rather than being put into the formulation of the theory a priori. We show how the complex structure of quantum field theory as well as gravitational field equations arise from spinor gravity - a fundamental spinor theory without a metric.

My personal opinion (feel free to ignore it): I can't make sense out of it, and I can't say I like theories that reqiure groups with 3 digits -- like SO(128, C) :eek:



B.

PS: good question btw
 
amnoob said:
Hi,

I've got the following question: were there any efforts to derive 3+1 metrics from the general p+q one? Any links?

Thanks in advance...

Doesn't it come from the simple fact that there exists the max speed, which module should be preserved in all inertial frames? Then a simple calculus shows what is the invariant element. Heuristically:

(dx/dt)^2=c^2=(dx'/dt')^2 <=> (cdt)^2-dx^2=(cdt')^2-dx'^2


best,
jarek
 
Last edited:
amnoob said:
Hi,

I've got the following question: were there any efforts to derive 3+1 metrics from the general p+q one? Any links?

Thanks in advance...
Hi amnoob,

Two answers :
(a) suppose you would start out with a (2,2) metric, sure you get out a
(1,3) metric by Wick rotation of one of the time coordinates.
(b) the (1,3) (or in general (1,q)) metric is the only one compatible with a partial order - that is causality.

Cheers,

Careful
 
hossi said:
Hi amnoob,

I came across this paper some while ago

On the origin of the difference between time and space
Authors: C.Wetterich
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/hep-th/0405223


We suggest that the difference between time and space is due to spontaneous symmetry breaking. In a theory with spinors the signature of the metric is related to the signature of the Lorentz-group. We discuss a higher symmetry that contains pseudo-orthogonal groups with arbitrary signature as subgroups. The fundamental asymmetry between time and space arises then as a property of the ground state rather than being put into the formulation of the theory a priori. We show how the complex structure of quantum field theory as well as gravitational field equations arise from spinor gravity - a fundamental spinor theory without a metric.
For a work with a similar title attempting to answer a similar question see also
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9901045
 
Thread 'LQG Legend Writes Paper Claiming GR Explains Dark Matter Phenomena'
A new group of investigators are attempting something similar to Deur's work, which seeks to explain dark matter phenomena with general relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity is systems like galaxies. Deur's most similar publication to this one along these lines was: One thing that makes this new paper notable is that the corresponding author is Giorgio Immirzi, the person after whom the somewhat mysterious Immirzi parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity is named. I will be reviewing the...
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09804 From the abstract: ... Our derivation uses both EE and the Newtonian approximation of EE in Part I, to describe semi-classically in Part II the advection of DM, created at the level of the universe, into galaxies and clusters thereof. This advection happens proportional with their own classically generated gravitational field g, due to self-interaction of the gravitational field. It is based on the universal formula ρD =λgg′2 for the densityρ D of DM...
Back
Top