"Are All Forces" The Same??????????

[MigL]

Not very well versed in group theory I'm sorry to say, Mordred.

Other than the basic symmetry groups of GUT, my knowledge is very limited, and I ( and many others on this forum ) look to AJB for help and direction,

I would be very interested in anything your research leads you to as you're always providing links to interesting papers and books.

[Mordred]

no problem, I'm still studying these myself but looks like it covers the lie algebra involved including the SO(n) groups. Its been a while lol, O(n) is a sub manifold

 

http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~kirillov/mat552/liegroups.pdf

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mein/teaching/lie.pdf

Forgot to add I'm to see you enjoy the articles I regularly post. My signature has numerous articles designed to teach basic Cosmology. Took me a long time to find solid and good articles for that purpose. Without pushing any personal view points. Some textbook style articles are also on that link Edited May 21, 2014 by Mordred

[ydoaPs]

The forces of the standard model have a dependence on the energy scale, the coupling constants are running. The amazing thing is that if you extend the standard model to include supersymmetry then the three gauge couplings of the standard model converge at about 10^16 GeV. The forces appear to unify at this energy scale.

 

Gravity is not included in this picture. Presumably we could have unification near the Planck scale.

Or gravity isn't actually one of the fundamental interactions, but rather, is purely geometric.

[Mordred]

there is that possibility as well

[ajb]

Or gravity isn't actually one of the fundamental interactions, but rather, is purely geometric.

Although the Yang-Mills type theories are different to general relativity, classically they too are purely geometric. Nearly everything in physics is. So I don't accept that gravity is just too different to be considered a fundamental interaction.

[Mordred]

you might want to check out Shakarov Gravity.

 

Sakharov's 1967 notion of ``induced gravity'' is currently enjoying a significant resurgence. The basic idea, originally presented in a very brief 3-page paper with a total of 4 formulas, is that gravity is not ``fundamental'' in the sense of particle physics. Instead it was argued that gravity (general relativity) emerges from quantum field theory in roughly the same sense that hydrodynamics or continuum elasticity theory emerges from molecular physics. In this article I will translate the key ideas into modern language, and explain the various versions of Sakharov's idea currently on the market.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0204062

 

here is another related

 

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf

 

While general relativity explains gravitational interactions well, it only answers the question of the nature of gravity by telling us that the geometry of space-time is gravity. Some physicists theorize that gravity is not fundamental, but emergent

 

Coincidentally the quantum study of gravity is quantum geometrodynamics. currently reading this article, it will take me some time lol 231 pages

GEOMETRODYNAMICS:SPACETIME OR SPACE

http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0409123.pdf

[Iwonderaboutthings]

you might want to check out Shakarov Gravity.

 

Sakharov's 1967 notion of ``induced gravity'' is currently enjoying a significant resurgence. The basic idea, originally presented in a very brief 3-page paper with a total of 4 formulas, is that gravity is not ``fundamental'' in the sense of particle physics. Instead it was argued that gravity (general relativity) emerges from quantum field theory in roughly the same sense that hydrodynamics or continuum elasticity theory emerges from molecular physics. In this article I will translate the key ideas into modern language, and explain the various versions of Sakharov's idea currently on the market.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0204062

 

here is another related

 

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf

 

While general relativity explains gravitational interactions well, it only answers the question of the nature of gravity by telling us that the geometry of space-time is gravity. Some physicists theorize that gravity is not fundamental, but emergent

 

Coincidentally the quantum study of gravity is quantum geometrodynamics. currently reading this article, it will take me some time lol 231 pages

GEOMETRODYNAMICS:SPACETIME OR SPACE

http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0409123.pdf

Gravity as an Emergent Phenomenon

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf

 

Great link, thanks!