How prevalent is geometric algebra/calculus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike706
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometric
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the prevalence of geometric algebra and calculus in contemporary physics research. Participants explore its applications, relevance, and potential future trends within the field, while also considering its integration into educational curricula.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses curiosity about the commonality of geometric algebra/calculus in mainstream physics research and its potential niche status.
  • Another participant notes that while geometric algebra has significant potential, it has not yet gained widespread acceptance in mainstream contexts.
  • It is mentioned that geometric algebra has found applications in computer vision and robotics, suggesting that engineers may adopt it more readily than physicists.
  • A participant highlights that the primary application of geometric algebra in physics is in gauge theory of gravity, particularly at Cambridge, but notes that physicists may resist learning new mathematical formalisms due to publication pressures.
  • Clifford algebras are acknowledged to appear in the Dirac equation and with spinors in particle physics, though some participants suggest this is too peripheral for many physicists to study extensively.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the prevalence of geometric algebra/calculus in physics. There are multiple competing views regarding its acceptance and application in the field.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects uncertainty about the integration of geometric algebra into the physics curriculum and its implications for future research trends. There are also assumptions about the existing knowledge and willingness of physicists to adopt new mathematical frameworks.

Mike706
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am working through Clifford Algebra to Geometric Calculus, and supplementing with Hestenes' other books, as well as Geometric Algebra for Physicists.

I'm not looking for advice on the books or learning materials (feel free to chime in if you have an opinion on the matter, though!). I am just curious how common it is to see geometric algebra/calculus in current mainstream physics research. I'm really enjoying the subject, but I want to know if it is a small niche or widespread. Speculation on future trends of the subject's prevalence would also be appreciated.

I want to make sure I shouldn't be focusing my efforts elsewhere.

Thanks for your help,
Mike
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've not really seen it explicitly brought up in a mainstream context. I think there are a lot o fpossibilities for it, as it can be said to underlie all the stuff we do in 2d (complex analysis), 3d, and 3+1d spaces, and the insight it provides in unifying all the disparate descriptions of these is really powerful, but I don't think it's really "caught on" yet.
 
Applications of Geometric Algebra

Outside of Cambridge geometric algebra has mainly caught on for computer vision and robotics (in adopting something new engineers are usually ahead of physicists).

In physicis the main application is the gauge theory of gravity (Cambridge). The problem in physics is that academic physicists are under such pressure to publish or perish that they cannot take the time to learn a new mathmatical formalism when they already know formalisms that can solve the problems they have even though the new formalism could greatly simplify the solutions.

In order for geometric algebra/calculus to enter the physics mainstream it need to be taught in the undergraduate math ciriculum. If you are interested I have extensive notes (based on Doran and Lasenby) and symbolic GA software (python) at

https://github.com/brombo/GA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford Algebras make an appearance in the Dirac equation (and generally with spinors, which are all over the place in particle physics). But I suppose it's too tangential for a lot of physicists to study in depth.
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
8K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K