Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Hendryk Pfeiffer has a new preprint on arxiv

  1. Apr 22, 2004 #1

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Hendryk Pfeiffer has a new preprint on arxiv, called
    "Quantum Gravity and the Classification of Smooth Manifolds"
    http://arxiv.org./gr-qc/0404088


    ------on page 19-----
    "Scenario for quantum gravity.

    We have reached a first goal: the diffeomorphism gauge symmetry of general relativity on a closed space-time manifold has been translated into a purely combinatorial problem involving triangulations that consist of only a finite number of simplices, and their manipulation by finite sequences of Pachner moves.

    If not only the partition function, but also the full path integral of general relativity in d ≤ 5+1 is given by a PL-QFT, we know that all observables are invariant under Pachner moves.

    The partition function of quantum general relativity is an invariant of PL-manifolds, too, and can be computed by purely combinatorial methods for any given combinatorial manifold.

    A generic expression of such a partition function is the state sum,
    [tex]Z =

    \sum_{ colourings } \prod_{ simplices }
    (amplitudes), [/tex]

    where the sum is over all labelings of the simplices with elements of some set of colours, and the integrand is a number that can be computed for each such labeling. In Section 5 below, we give examples and illustrate that the partition function of quantum general relativity in d = 2 + 1 is precisely of this form.

    If quantum general relativity in d = 3+1 is indeed a PL-QFT, the following two statements which sound philosophically completely contrary,

    • Nature is fundamentally smooth.
    • Nature is fundamentally discrete.

    are just two different points of view on the same underlying mathematical structure: equivalence classes of smooth manifolds up to diffeomorphism."

    also on page 20, right after this, there is a picture which illustrates what are Pachner moves in 2 dimensions and 3 dimensions.

    this paper also points out a feature of 4D that distinguishes 4 = 3 + 1 from other spacetime dimensions.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 22, 2004 #2

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Yesterday I put a link to Pfeiffer's paper in the "surrogate sticky" thread where we are collecting potentially useful LQG links. After reading the paper some more, it seemed like we should have a thread devoted to it in case anyone feels like discussing it. I just printed the paper out. I'm impressed.
     
  4. Apr 22, 2004 #3

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Here is the abstract, which I didnt bother to include in the "surrogate sticky" entry but is a good place to start. Also its interesting what keywords Pfeiffer chose for the article.
    ----quotes----

    Keywords: General covariance, diffeomorphism, quantum gravity, spin foam model

    -------

    Abstract:
    The gauge symmetry of classical general relativity under space-time diffeomorphisms implies that any path integral quantization which can be interpreted as a sum over spacetime geometries, gives rise to a formal invariant of smooth manifolds. This is an opportunity to review results on the classification of smooth, piecewise-linear and topological manifolds.

    It turns out that differential topology distinguishes the space-time dimension
    d = 3 + 1 from any other lower or higher dimension and relates the sought-after path integral quantization of general relativity in d = 3 +1 with an open problem in topology, namely to construct non-trivial invariants of smooth manifolds using their piecewise-linear structure.

    In any dimension d ≤ 5 + 1, the classification results provide us with triangulations of space-time which are not merely approximations nor introduce any physical cut-off, but which rather capture the full information about smooth manifolds up to diffeomorphism. Conditions on refinements of these triangulations reveal what replaces block-spin renormalization group transformations in theories with dynamical geometry.

    The classification results finally suggest that it is space-time dimension rather than absence of gravitons that renders pure gravity in d = 2 + 1 a ‘topological’ theory.
    ---end quote---

    BTW pfeiffer's reference [57] is to a 1962 paper of Steve Smale
    "On the structure of manifolds" Amer. J. Math 84 387-399
    that's what I like about QG, it seems to be unpacking and revealing
    the significance of great classical mid-20th mathematics which
    hitherto was just pure math. Like, if quantum gravity is, at heart,
    a way of continuing the program of classifying manifolds...and if gravity
    theories just provide a new set of invariants for differential geometry...
    well then why didnt Smale just keep on and quantize general relativity
    in 1962 while he was at it? Jeez, here's a reference to Moe Hirsch,
    JHC Whitehead, MO Rabin, Milnor, Baez and Dolan, oops Etera Livine got in
    there too. And a paper of Oeckl about Schroedinger's cat. interesting
    list of references
     
  5. Apr 22, 2004 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Perhaps the thing that this forum should take away from Pfeiffer's paper is that dimension 4 (or 3+1) is characterized as the only one in which a topological manifold can have an infinite number of inequivalent differentiable structures. This is perhaps the best reason yet why we live in a world of those extended dimensions.

    For lower dimensions, topological manifold coincide with differentiable ones - i.e. the toplogy to diff relation is 1:1. For higher dimension the two concepts go their separate ways, and a toplological manifold in general has no differential structure. So it is only in 4 than we can have a "gauge invariance" of differentiability on a topological manifold.
     
  6. Apr 22, 2004 #5
    Hey, that's interesting. May I ask where you are getting your information? Is there a book about this stuff? Thanks.
     
  7. Apr 22, 2004 #6

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Maybe I can't speak to exactly the same points selfAdjoint is making but one way to learn about this stuff is simply to read Pfeiffer's paper, which AFAIK is about as accessible as it gets. Pfeiffer cites John Milnor in this connection----a 1962 paper in the Annals. Milnor is one of a handful of top differential geometers of the last century. For starters at least, I would really recommend Pfeiffer's paper

    E.g. he says on page 16:

    "The most striking result even concerns the standard space R4, [14, 15].

    Theorem 4.1. Consider the topological manifold Rd, d ε N.

    • If d < 4, then there exists a differentiable structure for Rd which is unique up to diffeomorphism.
    • If d = 4, then there exists an uncountable family of pairwise non diffeomorphic differentiable structure for Rd."

    So 4D is distinguished from lower dimension even in the case of ordinary old graph-paper Rn! Pfeiffer then continues and shows how 4D is distinguished from higher dimensions too:

    "Non-uniqueness of differentiable structures persists in higher dimensions, for example, there are 28 inequivalent differentiable structures on the sphere S7, or 992 inequivalent differentiable structures on S11, [ref to the Milnor paper here], but in dimension d ≥ 4 + 1 (d ≥ 5 + 1 if the manifold has a non-empty boundary), there never exists more than a finite number of non-diffeomorphic differentiable structures on the same underlying topological manifold.

    The space-time dimension d = 3 + 1 is distinguished by the feature that there can exist an infinite number of homeomorphic, but non-diffeomorphic smooth manifolds."

    I've also talked about this a little in another thread:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=193370#post193370

    selfAdjoint may know of other good references and even textbooks with this. I don't. But it is not necessary to go that far afield since it is right in the paper we are discussing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2004
  8. Apr 22, 2004 #7

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I've also found the paper to be clear and direct, even in the technical sections. If you know even a little GR it's worth digging into. As they say, read the whole thing.
     
  9. Apr 22, 2004 #8

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    we are so lucky to be on hand with this going on


    Pfeiffer cites a couple of papers by Marco Mackaay that I've been looking at
    (I hadnt heard of Mackaay before)
    http://arxiv.org./abs/math.QA/9805030

    http://arxiv.org./math/9903003

    the references [18, 36] are on page 26

    BTW the second one cites a couple of R. Brown papers
    and mentions Brown in the abstract.
    also cites a bunch of Baez and Dolan

    Mackaay is Portuguese although the name doesnt suggest that.
    Pfeiffer puts him in the acknowledgements
    he seems to be postdoc age (maybe PhD around 2000 or 2001
    just guessing)

    ---added later---
    It turns out that the first of these two Mackaay papers provided the
    opening topic for Baez Week 121
    and the second was part of Week 137
    if I had been a regular reader of TWF back then, I would
    have known who Mackaay is.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2004
  10. Apr 23, 2004 #9

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I have been trying to see if that Robert Brown is my old buddy Robert F. Brown, of UCLA , but I think not. Bob's research has been on fixed point theory, and latterly Nielsen theory.
     
  11. Apr 23, 2004 #10

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    another by Pfeiffer, from last December
    http://arxiv.org./gr-qc/0312060

    Diffeomorphisms from finite triangulations and absence
    of ’local’ degrees of freedom

    some of the same things gone over in a bit more detail
    or in a slightly different light---helpful in reading the more recent paper
     
  12. Nov 27, 2005 #11

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    reading Pfeiffer paper back in April 2004, and then now

    it astonished me a year and half ago that 4D is unique in having infinitely many diff. structures-----it "had" to mean something, but I couldnt guess how it would connect to anything in QG.

    Now we get the TORSTEN-HELGE paper where they show a chart on page 3 rather similar to some of Pfeiffer's charts and they DO something with this that is very interesting.

    they consider the space of all diff. structures and they describe the SPASMS, the sort of "epileptic fits" that get you from one diff structure to another. They even make an ALGEBRA out of the set of all earthquakes that change the DeeEss (diff. structure)

    Maybe we can get helge to teach us about this. It is extremely tantalizing

    Remember that a diff structure is an EQUIVALENCE CLASS of atlases.
    a manif. has to have an atlas of coordinate patches that cover it and where they overlap the transition function has to be SMOOTH. Well once you have one atlas you can always make trivial modifications in it to get other atlases. It is obvious you simply scootch it a little, massage it a little, nothing earthshaking, and you get a bunch of different (equivalent) coordinate systems and a bunch of different atlases. Between two EQUIVALENT atlases you can get back and forth with a simple DIFFEOMORPHISM-----that's what equivalent means, in fact.

    but there are these cataclysmic, earth-shaking changes that get you into a WHOLE OTHER DIFF. STRUCTURE----a whole other NOT equivalent atlas, but on the SAME 4D TOP. SPACE.

    In lower than 4D you cant do this because there arent any alternative structures to go to. But in 4D one topology can have infinite many alternative "diffeologies". so there are spasms that get you from one to the other.
    cool.

    and Torsten-Helge have made a frigging ALGEBRA out of these transformations.

    this has got to be a very very fundamental algebra

    and the kind of scary prospect is that this algebra might have a physical meaning

    because, like, it is so fundamental, shouldn't it mean something? could it be what matter is? (totally confused and speechless)
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2005
  13. Nov 27, 2005 #12
    great marcus - this is a very intuitive summery of the DS idea.
    I will do my best and try to answer all question - but a big part of the mathematical work was done by torsten - he is on holiday until Tuesday - but i think he will join this very great forum then.
    To hear from the Pfeiffer paper is very interresting i dont know it before. It seems there could be a lot of people which are interessed in DS und it usage in QG.
    The amazing fact that there are infinit DS only in 4d was the very reason for torsten and me to start thinking about DS and QG. We believe it can not be an accident that we see a 4d-world and mathematically only a 4-MF has infinit DS. This space of DS has to be the space of quantum states - this was our motivation - and indeed as we have shown in the paper the space of DS is a Hilbert space. QM and GRT are not so different - they describe only different aspects of the same 4-MF - without any extra dimensions ! (To describe everything if one has enough extra dimensions is no big deal - but the space-time has only 4)
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2005
  14. Nov 27, 2005 #13

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    thanks Helge.
    I should go offline now and try to read some more of your paper.
    exciting stuff!
    see you tomorrow maybe:smile:
     
  15. Nov 27, 2005 #14

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And down in the guts of their paper we find that the reason for THAT is that 4-D (i.e. 3-D manifolds) is the first one where you can really do the torus surgery - this also goes to the very special place 3-D manifolds have in geometric topology, the 'geometrization" conjecture/theorem, and I would guess the difficulty of the Poincare conjecture in 4-D.
     
  16. Nov 27, 2005 #15

    Kea

    User Avatar

    good morning

    Correct. He did his PhD a few years ago. Louis Crane was one of his supervisors. His papers are all about monoidal bicategories (= one object tricategories).
     
  17. Nov 27, 2005 #16

    Kea

    User Avatar

    Ah, yes, selfAdjoint. Indeed! And I am most fortunate to be able to attend a workshop/school on this subject in the coming January. Dear me. I spend my life doing that, don't I?

    :smile:
     
  18. Nov 27, 2005 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well, hopefully after you collect all those new toys, you play with them...:biggrin:
     
  19. Nov 27, 2005 #18

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    this appears to be very important. for the general good, we need a pedagogical post about the torus surgery


    I guess the fun thing is you cut a donut out of the middle, and do something tricky with it, and glue it back in----and you think the manifold isnt changed but it is now different in an essential way.

    Please somebody (selfAdjoint or volunteer) expand on this a bit at an introductory level and say why torus surgery, which one can do in 3D, is the key to why in 4D you can have such a great diversity of DeeEsses.
     
  20. Nov 27, 2005 #19

    Kea

    User Avatar

    This is a huge project, Marcus. Look at the slides by R. Stern entitled 4 Dimensional Worlds at

    http://math.uci.edu/~rstern/

    Don't be put off by the zany story at the start! :smile:
    Details appear in http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0502/0502164.pdf
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2005
  21. Nov 27, 2005 #20

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    thanks Kea! the article recommended is

    http://arxiv.org/math/0502164
    Will we ever classify simply-connected smooth 4-manifolds?
    Ronald J. Stern
    17 pages, 2004 Clay Institute Summer School on Floer homology, gauge theory, and low dimensional topology.

    "These notes are adapted from two talks given at the 2004 Clay Institute Summer School on Floer homology, gauge theory, and low dimensional topology at the Alfred Renyi Institute. We will quickly review what we do and do not know about the existence and uniqueness of smooth and symplectic structures on closed, simply-connected 4-manifolds. We will then list the techniques used to date and capture the key features common to all these techniques. We finish with some approachable questions that further explore the relationship between these techniques and whose answers may assist in future advances towards a classification scheme."

    the UC Irvine link given is to papers by Ronald Stern of the team
    Fintushel and Stern, who published for example directions for contructing a lot of exotic 4 manifolds (exotic 4D DeeEsses, what we are talking about) in this paper
    http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GT/9907178
    Ronald Fintushel and Ronald J. Stern
    Constructions of Smooth 4-Manifolds

    "We describe a collection of constructions which illustrate a panoply of 'exotic' smooth 4-manifolds."
    and other papers like those listed here
    http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics,grp_math/1/au:+Fintushel/0/1/0/all/0/1
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Hendryk Pfeiffer has a new preprint on arxiv
  1. New Arxiv stats (Replies: 4)

Loading...