A What does Rovelli mean with "oriented and ordered graph"?

Heidi
Messages
420
Reaction score
40
Hi Pfs
Rovelli writes this in his book (Qunatum Gravity) about spin networks:
Given an oriented and ordered graph there is a finite disgrete group of maps that change its order or orientation and that can be obtained as a diffeomorphism.
A link is equipped the source and target functions. this give the orientation.
But what is the order he is talking about.
the paragraph is the 6.4 (Diff invariance)
thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to label the links first, as ##l_1, l_2, \dots## say, before you can assign a colouring ##j_1 , j_2 , \dots##. It is this labelling of the links that is the ordering, I think. With some graphs there are diffeomorphisms that simply swap the links around and hence change the ordering.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Fractal matter
yes we can do like that to color the links but it is not necessary to have oriented ordered links.
The Penrose's diagrams were the ancestors of the spin networks.
they were trivalent with no explicit intertwiners. the links were not oriented and each link was coloured by a number (not a representation)
So we had a numerical function on a graph without necessary ordering:
to each pair of connected node we assign a number.
 
Rovelli writes later that if changing the order correspond to swap the variables, changing the orientation leads to replace a variable by its inverse.
If in an oriented loop the holonomy gives a matrix, changing the orientation gives the inverse matrix.
 
I think, ordering means specifying the predecessor and successor to each node of the graph.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...
Back
Top