Theoretical Physics Study Path (it's about tetrads....)

[modellatore]

I'm a graduate theoretical physics student at the (almost) end of his master's degree with a fairly varied curriculum, as I attended both QFT (and sub-courses on qed qcd etc) and GR courses. However in my latest intro to quantum gravity classes I familiarised with tetrads and, after a lot of research, I think I found the subject I'd like to specialize in, as I believe they express many interesting and (perhaps) fundamental physical properties. So i guess my questions are:

-How do tetrads fit in modern unification theories (string th., supersymmetry, loop q.g. etc)?
-Is there one of them (or another) where they enter as more fundamental objects rather than a tool to deal with spinors?

Any guidance on the subject is welcome, as I have not the tools and knowledge to navigate all the bibliography to form a solid opinion myself.

Cheers

 

[CrysPhys]

However in my latest intro to quantum gravity classes I familiarised with tetrads and, after a lot of research, I think I found the subject I'd like to specialize in, as I believe they express many interesting and (perhaps) fundamental physical properties.

Any guidance on the subject is welcome, as I have not the tools and knowledge to navigate all the bibliography to form a solid opinion myself.

These two sentences appear to contradict one another.

 

[modellatore]

Unfortunately there's no "tetrad fields in modern theories" list, and I can't go read every publication with "tetrad" in it. So no, studying something for something's sake is different from finding "all the bibliography" where it appears in modern theories

 

[Orodruin]

I would not classify tetrads as a subject in and of itself. They are a useful tool in some situations in differential geometry but whatever you can do using tetrads you in principle could do using coordinate bases as well.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why are you not having this conversation with your advisor? That's what they are there for.

 

[Delta2]

Why are you not having this conversation with your advisor? That's what they are there for.

Ok but what are PF academic advisors for?

 

[modellatore]

Why are you not having this conversation with your advisor? That's what they are there for.

Advisors and professors are not omniscent. The broader audience the higher the chance of an interesting response, but I'm now reconsidering such conclusion

 

[Vanadium 50]

Ok but what are PF academic advisors for?

Certainly not as a replacement for advisors at one's university.

 

[Delta2]

Certainly not as a replacement for advisors at one's university.

As he said advisors at a university are not omniscient but he also might have really bad advisors that know nothing about tetrads. At least if he is in a Greek university you never know what you get there lol. From Gods to scrubs as advisors lol.

 

[Vanadium 50]

@Delta2 -- he needs to be talking to his advisor. We can supplement this, but not replace it. In short -0 you are giving bad advice.

 

[modellatore]

@Delta2 -- he needs to be talking to his advisor. We can supplement this, but not replace it. In short -0 you are giving bad advice.

Assuming what I did and what I did not before asking a wider group of people is extremely presumptuos. Especially given the fact that neither my advisor, nor you, clearly knew the answer to my question. The difference is you're [Mild insult deleted by the Mentors]. The closest answer was Teleparallel Gravity. Case closed
Edit: a good take on this matter is in Delta2's signature.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sure it's presumptuous. The alternative, though, is "Why did you talk with your advisor and aren't telling us what he said?" Those are the only two options - and which is more presumptuous?

If you` don't provide facts,m people are going to presume. Since you dion't want to provdie all the facts (nor is it practical) and you don't want people to presume, I can only encourage them to stay silent.

Is that really want you want?

 

[modellatore]

Sure it's presumptuous. The alternative, though, is "Why did you talk with your advisor and aren't telling us what he said?" Those are the only two options - and which is more presumptuous?

If you` don't provide facts,m people are going to presume. Since you dion't want to provdie all the facts (nor is it practical) and you don't want people to presume, I can only encourage them to stay silent.

Is that really want you want?

I really just wanted someone with enough knowledge in alternative gravity theories/GUTs to give their contribution to a simple question. I totally agree than peripherical details can be helpful, just not here. I should have formulated it as "IF, and only IF, you know of a theory where tetrads are foundational objects rather than tools to fidget with spinors, could you give me its name?".

Every extra bit is pointless, as what I might or might not know wouldn't help who already knows the answer to such question, as intriguing as it is to debate on the legitimacy of one's right to ask strangers. Not to mention, without the detail of me being a graduate student, there wouldn't have been this discussion in the first place. Who would have I been? A curious kid? A guy with a bet on the legitimacy of tetrads? A professor in search for something new?

However, now I'm a guy with an answer, and that's what I call a relief

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

However, now I'm a guy with an answer, and that's what I call a relief

Since you have your answer, this thread will remain closed.