Urs tutorial on Connes spectral geometry

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter marcus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry Tutorial
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on Urs' tutorial regarding Alain Connes' spectral geometry, emphasizing the need to redefine "noncommutative geometry" as "spectral geometry." Participants express skepticism about Connes' ability to derive dimensionless constants in the Standard Model Lagrangian, highlighting the significance of understanding the spectral triple that describes the Standard Model. The conversation reveals a consensus that while Connes' work may not yield direct predictions, it offers deep insights into the mathematical structure underlying physics, particularly in quantum gravity contexts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of spectral geometry and its implications in theoretical physics
  • Familiarity with the Standard Model of particle physics
  • Knowledge of dimensionless constants and their role in physical theories
  • Basic concepts of noncommutative geometry and its mathematical foundations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Alain Connes' work on spectral geometry and its applications in physics
  • Study the mathematical framework of spectral triples and their significance
  • Explore the implications of dimensionless constants in the Standard Model
  • Investigate the relationship between spectral geometry and quantum gravity theories
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, mathematicians specializing in geometry, and researchers interested in the intersection of quantum gravity and particle physics.

  • #31
Now I imagine that g is something like a simplex, only perhaps with a dimension along the possible worldlines included. Is this the idea?

I am going to listen to Connes as Marcus suggested in an earlier post, as I have now temporary access to a broadband bubble.

R.

Seems I can't understand the talk...maybe accent problem, or microphone, or my inability to recognise the concept vocabulary.

Oh well. Back to reading.

R
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
the idea is , if you drop commutativity of the derivative and similar then you define

the 'derivative' of f respect to 'x' as \frac{df}{dx}= [f, A]

but the question is what is 'A' operator ??

and for the 'integral' how can you define or justify this

\int f |D| = Res_{s=0} Tr( f |D|^{-s} )

and it would be so simple as this ? you would replace the 'normal' derivative and integral by taking a Trace or commutators ??
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K