Smolin: Extending dualities to trialities (deepens dynamics)

[marcus]

Looks like something special happening here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01424
Extending dualities to trialities deepens the foundations of dynamics
Lee Smolin
(Submitted on 4 Mar 2015)
Dualities are often supposed to be foundational, but they may come into conflict with background independence, because a hidden fixed structures is needed to define the duality transformation. This conflict can be eliminated by extending a duality to a triality. This renders that fixed structure dynamical, while unifying it with the dual variables.
To illustrate this, we study matrix models with a cubic action, and show how breaking its natural triality symmetry by imposing different compactifications yields particle mechanics, string theory and Chern-Simons theory. These result from compactifying, respectively, one, two and three dimensions. This may explain the origin of Born's duality between position and momenta operators in quantum theory, as well as some of the the dualities of string theory.
12 pages

 

[marcus]

Background independence emerges as a key issue.
From the conclusions paragraph:
==quote Smolin 1503.01424 ==
This [i.e. matrix Chern-Simons theory] is a theory based on a fundamental triality. This illustrates our main claim, which is that the basic dynamics of relativistic particles and strings follows from breaking that basic triality, which holds at a background independent level, to a duality.
The breaking from a triality to a duality introduces background structures which allow the dynamics of string and particles to be defined ...
==endquote==

 

[Paulibus]

...To find string theory, we compactly on a two-torus...
Now we compactly on a three-torus,...

Please, somebody, translate for me what seems to me to be an illiterate phrase in an interesting article.

 

[marcus]

the spell checker does not know the mathematical term "compactify" which means to make compact.

I just tried to write that word and the spell checker quickly changed it to "compactly".

sometimes when one is typing one does not notice that the spell checker has changed what one has typed to stuff that does not make sense

 

[marcus]

Notice the terms in the abstract related to that verb:
=======
...To illustrate this, we study matrix models with a cubic action, and show how breaking its natural triality symmetry by imposing different compactifications yields particle mechanics, string theory and Chern-Simons theory. These result from compactifying, respectively, one, two and three dimensions...
========
A simple example of a compactification in point-set topology is the "one point compactification of the real line" by adding a point at infinity. The real line ℝ is not compact (a technical term Wikipedia probably has a definition) but with one point added, which takes the role of both plus and minus infinity, it becomes topologically equivalent to the circle.

by the way, try typing "trialities" if your spell checker is like mine it will change it to "trivialities"

do you know how to turn off the spell checker?

 

[wabbit]

Oh dear. This [Smolin's article] sounds so reasonable, deep, and powerful. But I have so very little hope of actually understanding it, that in a way I'm almost hoping it isn't true : ) - or at least that someone will find a way to make it accessible to mere mortals...

 

[wabbit]

by the way, try typing "trialities" if your spell checker is like mine it will change it to "trivialities

Now waiting for the press release : "World-renowned physicist claims trivialities deepen the foundations of physics : a ray of hope for amateur theorists ?"

 

[Jimster41]

Can you please expand a bit on why this is so interesting... it feels like it's kindof a dramatic proposal w respect to fundamentals of formalism.

 

[wabbit]

Background-independent quantum mechanics.
The easiest bits (p-q-t triality) may not be deeper than the parametrized view of QM where time becomes a dynamic variable, but the approach seems so broad and general...
And also, background-independent string theory.
Probably other things, but the wabbit is impressed. Not understanding it, but impressed.
Now if someone (hint hint) would find a way to elaborate as you say, I'm all ears !

 

[Jimster41]

okay, so I think I'm connecting to this topic, when I say I groaned in the Susskind "Theoretical Minimum" book when he sort of said, "pay no attention to the assumption of the 3+1 decomposition" (pq+t). And I keep wishing he would explain how increasing Entropy is included in the Lagrangian.

 

[Demystifier]

I'm all ears !

Not unusual for a wabbit.

 

[wabbit]

￣(∵)￣

 

[Demystifier]

￣(∵)￣

\ /
(∵)

 

[wabbit]

Back on the topic, Demystifier have you had a chance to look at the article ? Any thoughts ? The crowd is gathering here and waiting to hear from someone knowledgeable : )
Thanks !

 

[Demystifier]

I looked at the paper and I wasn't impressed. It looked too vague and speculative to me. But of course, it is very likely that I haven't understood it correctly.

 

[wabbit]

Oh OK perhaps I got carried away by not understanding enough of it, but since I am eagerly awaiting the Second Coming of Quantum Mechanics and the Revelation about the Unification of QM and GR, this sort of things is bound to happen : )

 

[marcus]

I wonder if I should comment. Don't understand this particular paper of Smolin's well enough to comment responsibly. But in case it might contribute to the discussion I'll say how it strikes me and what it makes me reflect on.
For me, it harks back to the "Relative Locality" papers by Laurent Freidel et al (one of which Smolin co-authored on, but it's mainly Freidel's baby)
and something which grew out of Relative Locality which I think of as the FLM (Freidel Leigh Minic) revolution in QG and string. It's where the local momentum space is curved and eventually the phase space is not only curved but dynamic.
It's a different ontology, there isn't any global spacetime geometry that all observers could agree on---that's a figment or a useful convention.
FLM is either fundamentally crazy or fundamentally revolutionary. I don't especially like it, personally, but that means nothing.

Smolin paper is not a good entry point---it rather represents Smolin giving his blessing to the little incipient bandwagon and kind of partially getting aboard and allowing that some of his early string theory work was in a way a precursor to FLM. It's interesting, but it is NOT a good introduction.
This is just my humble opinion.

A possibly better entry point:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.7080v1.pdf
==excerpt page 4==
Conclusion: We have presented a new viewpoint on string theory, with wide ramifications and applications ranging from the stringy uncertainty principle [6, 8, 9] to “non-compact” T-duality [25], including the vacuum problem in string theory. Our main point is: The fundamental symmetry of string theory contains diffeomorphisms in phase space. In this formulation both elements (η, J ) of the chiral structure are dynamical. The solutions are labelled by bi-Lagrangians and spacetime is a derived dynamical concept. The fundamental mathematical structure is encoded in the new concept of Born geometry and the choice of bi-Lagrangian structure and the induced metrics on space-time L as well as on momentum space L ̃. This manifestly implements Born reciprocity and it implies a dynamical, curved phase space, including a dynamical, curved momentum space [2], thus providing a generalization of locality. We note that this formulation can be consistently quantized [20]. ...
==endquote==
and also a presentation for NON-SPECIALISTS here
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3949
==excerpt from abstract==
In a natural extension of the relativity principle we argue that a quantum theory of gravity involves two fundamental scales associated with both dynamical space-time as well as dynamical momentum space. This view of quantum gravity is explicitly realized in a new formulation of string theory which involves dynamical phase space and in which space-time is a derived concept. This formulation naturally unifies symplectic geometry of Hamiltonian dynamics, complex geometry of quantum theory and real geometry of general relativity. ...
==endquote==

 

[wabbit]

Thanks for your thoughts marcus (and apologies for barging in the Dawn thread to call you here ), I shall now ponder them in silence for a while...

 

[marcus]

I'm not suggesting my reflections on this are WORTH pondering. That's the trouble with saying anything. Basically people should know about these papers, but be prepared to shrug them off as too vague or radical,... Demystifier would know how to put the shrug in a polite and cautiously dismissive way. But I feel obliged to say something. A couple of interesting points--simple observations really.
A. Born reciprocity says you can swap x↔p and Freidel takes it seriously and says that since GR implies spacetime (x) geometry is dynamical therefore momentum (p) space geometry must be dynamical---and he goes on from there and says phase space geometry must be dynamical. So the whole kit and kaboodle is kurvey!
B. The early FLM paper of July 2013 refers to two papers IN PROGRESS, by title, which have not appeared under those titles and I think may be subsumed in one that DID just appear---the "Metastring" paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.08005

The titles of the two papers in progress, which so far never appeared, are worth noting---as well as what it says about their results in the text---because they sketch or suggest a research PROGRAM.
[15] L. Freidel, R.G. Leigh and D. Minic, Phase Space String Theory, in preparation.

[20] L. Freidel, R.G. Leigh and D. Minic, Quantization of Phase Space String Theory, in preparation.

So it looks like in 2013 the FLM had a concept of "Phase Space String Theory" where there was a curved dynamical phase space geometry---and probably the strings didn't have the usual sort of target space to wiggle around in. Could the Metastring paper be the retitled combination of those two papers that, at least so far, have not appeared?

 

[marcus]

Let's ask what development prompted Smolin's recent triality paper, and perhaps we can understand it better. I'm guessing it is the FLM program (summed up in that essay for non-specialists I mentioned and) so far culminating in the February 2015 FLM paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.08005
Metastring Theory and Modular Space-time
Laurent Freidel, Robert G. Leigh, Djordje Minic
(Submitted on 27 Feb 2015)
String theory is canonically accompanied with a space-time interpretation which determines S-matrix-like observables, and connects to the standard physics at low energies in the guise of local effective field theory. Recently, we have introduced a reformulation of string theory which does not rely on an a priori space-time interpretation or a pre-assumption of locality. This metastring theory is formulated in such a way that stringy symmetries (such as T-duality) are realized linearly. In this paper, we study metastring theory on a flat background and develop a variety of technical and interpretational ideas. These include a formulation of the moduli space of Lorentzian worldsheets, a careful study of the symplectic structure and consequently consistent closed and open boundary conditions, and the string spectrum and operator algebra. What emerges from these studies is a new quantum notion of space-time that we refer to as a quantum Lagrangian or equivalently a modular space-time. This concept embodies the standard tenets of quantum theory and implements in a precise way a notion of {relative locality}. The usual string backgrounds (non-compact space-time along with some toroidally compactified spatial directions) are obtained from modular space-time by a limiting procedure that can be thought of as a correspondence limit.
68 pages

Freidel italicized and highlighted in red those two terms in the abstract, and he put brackets around "relative locality" in third line from bottom as if he was considering an \hlt{...} or at least an \it{...}
He is a very creative intense guy. This is the first LONG paper about this---the others were short 4-9 page jobs. Freidel seems to feel that they are setting up a new field of research---a significant reformulation of string.
Making it background independent in a profound sense of no fixed prior geometry either for the spacetime or for the momentum.
What would it make sense for Smolin to be doing at this point, in connection with this? He is alert and sensitive to new developments. He think this is important. So he could be starting to find a more ALGEBRAIC way of handling what Freidel is groping for geometrically.
You always have to algebraicize geometric developments to enable at least a semblance of calculability. Or so I think. There is safety in C* algebras. Probably I'm wrong about what Smolin's paper represents, but at the moment that's how I see it. I think you don't have to pay attention to these developments but if you want to then proceed at your own risk and begin by understanding the FLM gambit, geometrically, and in mental images. Then if you like that, see how Smolin's paper fits in.
My two cents of wild guesswork

 

[wabbit]

Thanks, this does in fact help clarify things. In addition to Demystifier's and your comments about the general character of the paper, it also seems to be more deeply embedded in String Theory than I initially perceived, and that is something I follow only from a safe distance if at all, for several reasons including a fairly complete lack of understanding.

So until I hear more of a clamor about this, I'll go back to other papers such as
Wallace : Fields as Bodies: a unified presentation of spacetime and internal gauge symmetry

 

[Macuario]

Smolin's paper is a joke, pure crackpottery. It is just blablabla and it has NOTHING to do with string theory. It is incorrect at so many levels that I cannot even begin to describe. For example:

- He says that (1) is a symplectic structure. This is obviously incorrect: a symplectic structure is a non-degenerate closed two-form. I guess he has heard about the symplectic structure in classical mechanics, which is the symplectic structure always present in the phase space of a mechanical system, but it has nothing to do with (1).

- Then he says (about background independence)

"This principle asserts that the laws of physics not depend on any, fixed, non-dynamical background structures"

Well, QFT depends on a fixed minkowski metric and it works pretty well. Yang Mill theories have a fixed topology and they also work pretty well. For example, the topology of a SU(2) gauge bundle over a four-dimensional base dependes only on the second Chern class which is non-dynamical and thus fixed. These are two examples of theories which have fixed background structures and work really well.

Equation (5) is simply laughable. A well defined derivative is always a covariant derivative. The only thing that happens is that in some trivial cases it can be writeen locally just as a partial derivative.

In general the paper shows a profound lack of mathematical elementary background and it is simply rubbish. No one in ST would give a dang for that paper. This guy should be forbidden to use the word string theory in his papers, he only does it to falsely increase the relevance of his papers.

 

[marcus]

Not sure anything here requires response. I do admire the emphatic tone

Smolin's paper is a joke, pure crackpottery. It is just blablabla and it has NOTHING to do with string theory. It is incorrect at so many levels that I cannot even begin to describe. For example:

- He says that (1) is a symplectic structure. This is obviously incorrect: a symplectic structure is a non-degenerate closed two-form. I guess he has heard about the symplectic structure in classical mechanics, which is the symplectic structure always present in the phase space of a mechanical system, but it has nothing to do with (1).

- Then he says (about background independence)

"This principle asserts that the laws of physics not depend on any, fixed, non-dynamical background structures"

Well, QFT depends on a fixed minkowski metric and it works pretty well. Yang Mill theories have a fixed topology and they also work pretty well. For example, the topology of a SU(2) gauge bundle over a four-dimensional base dependes only on the second Chern class which is non-dynamical and thus fixed. These are two examples of theories which have fixed background structures and work really well.

Equation (5) is simply laughable. A well defined derivative is always a covariant derivative. The only thing that happens is that in some trivial cases it can be writeen locally just as a partial derivative.

In general the paper shows a profound lack of mathematical elementary background and it is simply rubbish. No one in ST would give a **** for that paper. This guy should be forbidden to use the word string theory in his papers, he only does it to falsely increase the relevance of his papers.

 

[Macuario]

You can start by answering this:

- He says that (1) is a symplectic structure. This is obviously incorrect: a symplectic structure is a non-degenerate closed two-form. I guess he has heard about the symplectic structure in classical mechanics, which is the symplectic structure always present in the phase space of a mechanical system, but it has nothing to do with (1).

Or maybe this:

"This principle asserts that the laws of physics not depend on any, fixed, non-dynamical background structures"

The topology of a SU(2) gauge bundle over a four-dimensional base depends only on the second Chern class of the bundle, which is non-dynamical and thus fixed. These are two examples of theories which have fixed background structures and work really well.

This two comments are two examples of the many things incorrect in that paper, which will be completely disregarded by the ST community. If he would really accomplishes what he says in the abstract, that would be a huge result in ST and many people would cite that paper. You will see that absolutely no one in ST will cite that paper.

 

[MTd2]

Some philosophic thoughts:
Triality is something that pops up everywhere in Mathematics rather than dualities.
Just think about the pattern:

Newtonian mechanics was essentially a monad. All is essentially an absolute and all movements can be mapped to one another. There is no essential auxiliary entity.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are essentially dual. The former with tangent and cotangent spaces or up and down indices. Quantum mechanics is dual, wave particle duality and Fourier transform. The same can be said of string theory.

But math is full of trialities. So, it's maybe the step we need.

 

[jim hardy]

do you know how to turn off the spell checker?

no,

but is there a "Add to dictionary" in the dropdown? In mine it's right after the bold offerings.

 

[Demystifier]

Smolin's paper is a joke, pure crackpottery. It is just blablabla and it has NOTHING to do with string theory. It is incorrect at so many levels that I cannot even begin to describe. For example:

- He says that (1) is a symplectic structure. This is obviously incorrect: a symplectic structure is a non-degenerate closed two-form. I guess he has heard about the symplectic structure in classical mechanics, which is the symplectic structure always present in the phase space of a mechanical system, but it has nothing to do with (1).

- Then he says (about background independence)

"This principle asserts that the laws of physics not depend on any, fixed, non-dynamical background structures"

Well, QFT depends on a fixed minkowski metric and it works pretty well. Yang Mill theories have a fixed topology and they also work pretty well. For example, the topology of a SU(2) gauge bundle over a four-dimensional base dependes only on the second Chern class which is non-dynamical and thus fixed. These are two examples of theories which have fixed background structures and work really well.

Equation (5) is simply laughable. A well defined derivative is always a covariant derivative. The only thing that happens is that in some trivial cases it can be writeen locally just as a partial derivative.

In general the paper shows a profound lack of mathematical elementary background and it is simply rubbish. No one in ST would give a **** for that paper. This guy should be forbidden to use the word string theory in his papers, he only does it to falsely increase the relevance of his papers.

Let me guess, Lubos Motl is your idol.

 

[Demystifier]

You will see that absolutely no one in ST will cite that paper.

And if someone in LQG cites him, I guess you will say they are all crackpots, am I right?

 

[wabbit]

Hmm I was wondering if you were referring to my comment or to someone else's... But yes my safe distance comment has to do with staying far away from the cultish aspects of the ST world. I imagine some parts of ST presumably will fit somewhere in the big picture of GR+QM so actually I'm happy to hear about ST from authors who don't follow The Only True Path : )

Edit- digressing from this thread, do you think Conne's paper(s) about GR+SM arising somewhat naturally in NCG can possibly be made somewhat accessible to a layman ?

 

[sbrothy]

Let me guess, Lubos Motl is your idol.

Well, Smolin actually cites Lubos in his paper so maybe that's as it should be. :)

 

[Demystifier]

Well, Smolin actually cites Lubos in his paper so maybe that's as it should be. :)

Ah, that's why Lubos didn't criticize this paper on his blog.
And that's why Smolin cited Lubos, to avoid his criticism.

 

[marcus]

Freidel's two co-authors Leigh and Minic are string theorists. Smolin's paper seems to have a lot to do with the recent FLM, his reference [1].
It wouldn't be surprising for the next FLM to cite this one of Smolin. I guess this is fairly obvious and not so entertaining as the Lubosiness, still maybe worth pointing out.

 

[dx]

I too am unable to understand what Smolin means by triality. He writes

$$ S = \int d\tau p_\mu \frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}$$

and calls this the 'symplectic structure.' This formula of course is true, but I don't understand why he wants to call it the symplectic structure, when the conventional meaning of that word refers to the form
$$dp \wedge dx$$.

Also, the duality (Born reciprocity) between p and x corresponds to the duality between m and τ. So

$$p \leftrightarrow x$$

$$m \leftrightarrow \tau$$

Can anyone shed light on this, particularly why Smolin wants to include d/dτ in the duality between p and x and make it a triality?

 

[dx]

If anything, It would seem more natural to consider

$$(p, x, S)$$

as the triality, since the 'hidden structure' which connects x and p is simply S:

$$P = \frac{\partial S}{\partial X}$$

S here enters into the relationship between x and p, just like † enters into the relationship between |a> and <a|, however smolin says at some point that "d/dτ is on the same footing as x and p". What does he mean by this?

 

[Prathyush]

This is a strange paper for several reasons.
In the introduction section he suggests that, Bra Ket duality, Momentum-Position duality and String dualities are related in some possible way.

However he offer no reasons for such a claim to be true.

I don't understand the claim that
$$S = \int d\tau p_\mu \frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}$$

Has 3 elements, τ is simply a dummy variable, and it seems like one can do a simple re-parametrization.

 

[Berlin]

I am curious if we have allready seen influences of this triality for the normal point particle view. Allthough I cannot find it explicitely in the paper, I suppose that Heisenberg's p-x uncertainty relation as well as the Born probability both need modification. If this would require some function of d/dtau input instead of identity matrices this could result in a non-commutive spacetime view. I will scan the Connes papers.. "From triple spectrum to triality". Nice titel for a paper!

berlin

 

[Ralph Dratman]

Notice the terms in the abstract related to that verb:
=======
...To illustrate this, we study matrix models with a cubic action, and show how breaking its natural triality symmetry by imposing different compactifications yields particle mechanics, string theory and Chern-Simons theory. These result from compactifying, respectively, one, two and three dimensions...
========
A simple example of a compactification in point-set topology is the "one point compactification of the real line" by adding a point at infinity. The real line ℝ is not compact (a technical term Wikipedia probably has a definition) but with one point added, which takes the role of both plus and minus infinity, it becomes topologically equivalent to the circle.

by the way, try typing "trialities" if your spell checker is like mine it will change it to "trivialities"

do you know how to turn off the spell checker?

You don't want to turn it off, just turn off the automatic correction. After typing, look for red underlines and click to get suggestions.

 

[MTd2]

Smolin starts with something that is not classical, not quantum mechanical and certainly that does not belong to string theory, a priori. He aims to get all those things at some limit.
Besides, from the beginning when wants to go beyond the probability axiom by using the hermitian product as something not fixed. So, there could be a complex time, complex position, in principle. So, it is not true that an action can be obtained by a reparametrization, since volume element is violated, so other constrains must be imposed. Because of this, it is sensible, I think to seek a topological invariant as way to constrain.

 

[Quantomg]

Looking at this as a distant observer, I can clearly see the semblance of something like the last salvo in the war between Loop Quantum G T and String T in an attempt by Loop Quantum T to widen enough its framework in order to absorb String T. Given that String T has repeatedly claimed that they can drop the whole of LQG T into their own framework.

So the trialities are going after the dualities to gulp them up, leaving alone the Unities, which are too “symplectic” to be “dynamically compactified” (aka to deserve any attention)! In this seductive world of abstractions and catchy terminology that physics has become, one is left to wonder where is the meat? Where does all this hit verifiably the physics of nature? This would be otherwise so interesting if not so tragic, so costly and so unacceptably mystifying to the “Wabbits” of the world, I argue.

There is a simple test that this barrage of abstraction on both sides can meet for their own luster and justification: give me a physical constant, just one; for so much elaboration about spacetime and its fabric, the vacuum and the vacua, give me G constant. For so much quantization of the vacua and entropy, give me h (Planck constant). Please give me the mass of the simplest of all fermions, just that of the electron. These and the string of other constants of nature are the key validators of all intellectual framework attempting a granular description of physical nature. Seems to me that the time has now run out for this dual 40-year old corpus of abstractions and hypotheses about universal architecture and its building blocks, now that there is this new Quanto-Geometry vision out there, able enough to convincingly derive all those constants and others.

I say to the “Wabbits” of the world that Q-G is simple, effective, speaks with common and familiar words indexed in our dictionaries, and delivers falsifiable physics. Very much worth exploring. Yet I am not dismissing or antagonizing ST or LQG T, I only say to them that the argument that there is nothing else or nothing better out there than their hypotheses holds no more.

 

[wabbit]

I say to the “Wabbits” of the world that Q-G is simple, effective, speaks with common and familiar words indexed in our dictionaries, and delivers falsifiable physics. Very much worth exploring. Yet I am not dismissing or antagonizing ST or LQG T, I only say to them that the argument that there is nothing else or nothing better out there than their hypotheses holds no more.

This wabbit tends to agree, though he wouldn't be able to make such a cogent argument as yours in the above post, and also he finds LQG closer to being predictive than ST

 

[Jimster41]

Pardon my presumptuousness... here.

His statements about (1) seemed straightforward to me. Configuration and momentum integrated over times slices represent a measurement of the classical phase space (I thought that was just what he was talking about). It seems intuitive to me he's saying a way of defining a shape one can hold up to that "space" - and see how big something is, or what shape. Time is the fixed spine of the shape - an assumption.

As I wiki through the other examples I get more or less inklings of what he's pointing at.

The problem with fixed backgrounds - like time in the case of the classical phase space, seems plain to me, how do you know they are fixed? Don't we hate hidden assumptions that can't be justified? And pardon my naivete but I thought that one problem with QFT (at least) is that GR hasn't been integrated. So it works well, other than that seems kind-of a legitimate complaint.

I thought in eq (5) he was proposing that a step towards not cheating and assuming some fixed spine for the referencing shape (the Symplectic), in the case of the back ground time index in classical p,q would be to say it could at least be articulated in some dynamic way through the connection. Free to move but subject to control...

I am reading Smolin and Unger's book on the "Singular Universe". I'm still only on Unger but I'm at the part where he is proposing radically inclusive "prefferred cosmic time", and discussing the perceived conflict between such an Idea and GR (relativity of simultaneity). I'm pretty curious as to how this Triality thing might fit when I get to Smolin.

The part I'm not getting at all is how having three things moving rather than just two makes things easier... but then who could have predicted that adding -t to the theretofore stable and happy euclidean concept - would make things easier.

 

[wabbit]

but then who could have predicted that defining c as a constant in all inertial frames and adding -t to the theretofore stable and happy euclidean concept - would make things easier.

This is quite the opposite of an a priori postulation if I understand it correctly. The constancy of c was first observed (and also predicted from Maxwell's equations), not hypothesized - then, taking into account that observation and reconciling classical mechanics with electromagnetism led to SR and the necessity of merging space and time. Nothing arbitrary there.

 

[Jimster41]

I was just reading that history this morning in https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008JRJ1VK/?tag=pfamazon01-20 . The book also says that, "what troubled Einstein most... was the idea of Galilean Relativity, which states there is no preferred frame of reference... Einstein trusted this principle to such an extent... and the notion of the stationary ether (Maxwell's medium) was incompatible with Galilean Relativity... Either Maxwell's theory or the Galilean transformations had to be wrong..." Granted both of those were observable, but then so are QFT and GR - which seems like at least part of what's bothering Smolin.

All I was trying to say with that lame comparison anyway, is that it seems to me what Smolin is proposing, to the extent I can follow, is sort of a fundamental de-constraining of the algebra, which although possibly synonymous with "complexifying" it, may dislodge some obstacles to discovery, maybe even uncover obscured simplicity, or at least elegance, (like SR and GR were before c)... This made some sense to me.

Trying to read further into the paper, it seems kindof cool how he uses the harmonic oscillator as the connected background index for the clock in classical mechanics then he goes on to contextualize that in the relativistic case using using the string, which he then contextualizes with a Membrane

 

[john baez]

The surprising thing to me about Smolin's paper on trialities is that he doesn't mention the most famous concept of triality, even though he is discussing matrix models, and the most famous form of triality gives rise to the exceptional Jordan algebra, which Smolin used a while ago to formulate a matrix model.

 

[Demystifier]

The surprising thing to me about Smolin's paper on trialities is that he doesn't mention the most famous concept of triality, even though he is discussing matrix models, and the most famous form of triality gives rise to the exceptional Jordan algebra, which Smolin used a while ago to formulate a matrix model.

Perhaps he thought that this purely technical kind of triality contains nothing conceptually deep?

 

[yoron]

It is interesting. But after reading you all I'm still stumped to what he means here with a triality? Any one that can break it down for me?

 

[Jimster41]

There is a pretty dense Wiki page for "Triality" (lost me quickly). I think it provides the canonical context for the word, mathematically. My ability to follow what Smolin is after is too hand waving to help much.

After trying the wiki again, and looking at "duality" - both seem pretty deep in the arcana of functional analysis, topological spaces etc. Just so abstract.

Just trying to clarify my cartoon vis-a-vis the difference between a triality and "3 dimensions': A Triality is three dimensional but it is "three dimensions of relation" or an Algebraic world using of 3 different maps all functioning together.

 

[Jimster41]

From the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality

A duality between two vector spaces over a field F is a non-degenerate bilinear form

i.e., for each non-zero vector v in one of the two vector spaces, the pairing with v is a non-zero linear functional on the other.

Similarly, a triality between three vector spaces over a field F is a non-degenerate trilinear form

i.e., each non-zero vector in one of the three vector spaces induces a duality between the other two.

 

[yoron]

A 'relational space' sounds nice to me :) and thanks. We have this "dynamical phase space and in which space-time is a derived concept." by which i assume it to mean that SpaceTime becomes a expression of something more fundamental, related to the concept of a dynamical phase space in some mean 'constructing' both a background as well as the dynamical spaceTime we observe. It's a mathematical concept, so maybe it's not translatable? But what I'm really wondering about is if it is a intrinsic approach to describing how a SpaceTime becomes? As if you can think of it as 'becoming' solely locally defined? Because one of the premises seems to be that there are no 'fifth dimension' joining observer dependencies, if I now got this right? instead we then find this dynamic phasespace from which our time and room express itself to us, and locally so, right?

 

[Jimster41]

Below are some links to the wiki pages on the specific definitions of some terms that seem (to me) to be relevant to what I think you are wondering about (which seems to me to be a lot). I have a whole folder full of these links. I am constantly referring to them, over and over sometimes, often getting further down each page than the last time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
Phase space
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics and physics, a phase space of a dynamical system is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state of the system corresponding to one unique point in the phase space. For mechanical systems, the phase space usually consists of all possible values of position and momentum variables. The concept of phase space was developed in the late 19th century byLudwig Boltzmann, Henri Poincaré, and Willard Gibbs.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Spacetime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension". By combining space and time into a singlemanifold called Minkowski space, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic andsubatomic levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
Quantum nonlocality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality is the phenomenon by which the measurements made at a microscopic level necessarily refute one or more notions (often referred to as local realism) that are regarded as intuitively true in classical mechanics. Rigorously, quantum nonlocality refers to quantum mechanical predictions of many-system measurement correlations that cannot be simulated by any local hidden variable theory. Manyentangled quantum states produce such correlations when measured, as demonstrated by Bell's theorem.

If you want a really sweet headache-of-bizarre check out the link to "Bell's Theorem". Better yet go to Amazon and search for the same. There are lots of good non-mathematical descriptions of it by practitioners of theoretical physics and good teachers.