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

Insights Higher Prequantum Geometry I: The Need for Prequantum Geometry - Comments

  1. Sep 29, 2015 #1

    Urs Schreiber

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 29, 2015 #2
    I really like your posts. Extremely interesting. Thank you very much!
     
  4. Sep 29, 2015 #3

    john baez

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A really nice introduction! A few typos:

    behoves |-> behooves

    two bad line breaks:

    More generally, p-brane charges are not quantized in ordinary integral cohomology, but in generalized cohomology theories.
    For instance 1-branes

    and

    homotopy 0-types —
    are generalized to homotopy p-types
     
  5. Sep 29, 2015 #4

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Who are you calling a p-brane?
     
  6. Sep 30, 2015 #5

    Urs Schreiber

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks! Fixed now.
     
  7. Sep 30, 2015 #6

    Urs Schreiber

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Urs says:

    At least on my system there is some odd effect with the comment citations not coming out properly. I have added above some white space such as to hopefully make it discernible who is speaking now.

    This here in reply to the question "Who are you calling a p-brane?"

    The super-p-branes that I am speaking about are precisely those famous from string/M-theory. I have talked about these from a perspective that will be relevant for the present dicussion earlier in the article "Emergence form the superpoint" https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/emergence-from-the-superpoint/ . In two or three further installments here we will see how it all comes together and how the higher prequantization of super-p-branes works and what it tellsus about brane charge quantization conditions in string/M-theory.
     
  8. Sep 30, 2015 #7
    I think you missed the homophone WWGD alluded at, p-brane sounds like a peabrain

    on-topic, I only skimmed the article for now. Its a "little" over my head at this time.
    It looked really nice though.
     
  9. Sep 30, 2015 #8

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sorry, I don't get the joke. Too abstract.

    EDIT: I am just kidding with you, Urs.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2015
  10. Sep 30, 2015 #9

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ditto.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  11. Oct 1, 2015 #10
    Hi. This entails too many fancy mathematical and conceptual steps from quantum to classical to prequantum...nature must be simpler! Gerard 't Hooft thinks the basic building blocks of physics are just cellular automata and the rest (Relativity and QM) unnecessary baggage - although he did not spell it out in so many words!
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548
    Although the level of my physics is primitive as compared to G 't H's , I agree and have a speculative TOE based on spinning spherically-symmetric Bloch sphere type cellular automata. Beautiful Universe (2005)
    http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf
    Cheers
    Vladimir Tamari
     
  12. Oct 3, 2015 #11

    Urs Schreiber

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What appears simple to the macroscopic, wet, warm and untrained mind tends to be vastly complex fundamentally. Conversely, what is simple fundamentally, may seem elusive at first. If there is interest here on PhysicsForums, I may continue the series beyond the point of traditional set-based reasoning and explain how from the fundamental point of view of adjoint modal homotopy type theory all the apparent complexity here follows in simple steps from first principles.
     
  13. Oct 5, 2015 #12
    Urs,

    It is an amazing post. Really well written.
    Could you also add some examples and some exercises here?

    Best,
    Vijay
     
  14. Oct 5, 2015 #13

    Urs Schreiber

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A good exercise to go through is to check my claim that the old prescription of Dirac for deriving magnetic charge quantization, the one that still survives as the "Dirac string" method, is equivalent to what algebraic topologists call the "clutching construction" for complex line bundles. If you get stuck, see the bachelor thesis here http://ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/bachelor+thesis+Eggertsson
     
  15. Oct 7, 2015 #14

    Urs Schreiber

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have added to the text a pointer to CGLW 11 where precisely those higher dimensional WZW models that I keep mentioning as examples for higher prequantization are argued to describe the low energy effective physics of symmetry protected topological phases of matter. Maybe we should have a dedicated article just on this class of examples at some point.
     
  16. Oct 31, 2015 #15
    I get the impression you are using more mathematical specifics and details than is usual when presenting this material in the context of physics -- is that right?
     
  17. Oct 31, 2015 #16

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He is a mathematical physicist. That's what they do.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Higher Prequantum Geometry I: The Need for Prequantum Geometry - Comments
  1. Entanglement Geometry (Replies: 11)

Loading...