Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,928 questions , 1,396 unanswered
4,846 answers , 20,597 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Implementing Category Theory in General Relativity

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
161 views

I was thinking if it may be possible to implement category theory in general relativity. I don't mean writing simply in terms of categories, but actual fundamental ideas (i.e. physics of the theory itself). For example, Prof. John Baez has written a pretty neat paper on the categorification of Yang-Mills theory. Also, is there a way or any recent development(s) to get this IR limit of general relativity from the least input (symmetries and propagating degrees of freedom) via category theory? If not, this is worth thinking about, IMO.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-03-31 15:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Janus Boffin
asked Mar 29, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by Janus Boffin (30 points) [ no revision ]

I am somewhat intrigued by the use of Category theory for the representation of theory we use (like GR in the case of the OP). For example, the Metric and Cartan formalism.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-03-31 15:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Janus Boffin

I remember reading a paper a long time ago which proposed the UV limit in case of QG, however, I am unable to locate the paper for now. I will link it as soon as I find it (and also if your objection still holds).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-03-31 15:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Janus Boffin

Well, one problem is how do you even model GR category-theoretically? The category of smooth manifolds is not nice (hence the fascination with diffeological spaces --- because they do form a "good" category). Or do we model it as a gauge theory with beins as the field? Or are the connections the field? How do you categorify either one? These are nontrivial problems...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-03-31 15:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Alex Nelson
@AlexNelson: Indeed. An immediate example which came to my mind was that of the metric vs. the Cartan formalism, because the representations are different in both the scenarios and so are the implementations. In the metric setting, we'd need to prove that for a timeline geodesic we can always construct a Fermi normal coordinate system where the first derivatives of the metric are 0, but in the Cartan case, this reduces to finding sections of the bundle wherein you can have the first structure equation being trivial.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-03-31 15:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Janus Boffin
Although, starting off with Cartan formalism would be beneficial (not as a priori but as differential geometry is well structured in terms of category theory). IIRC, the problem of finding sections of a bundle (which is just a differential form, as other kinds of sections are not worth investigating, IMO), we look for a trivial Maurer-Cartan form, and that is neatly done via de Rham. Moreover, we can have a sheaf of sections over a bundle comprising of some classes of differential forms. But I am not sure if this forms a category. If not, it is worth investigating.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-03-31 15:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Janus Boffin

2 Answers

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

I don't really understand your question, but since you link to my paper on higher Yang-Mills theory (which I never tried publish because it has problems, even though everything stated in it is true to the best of my knowledge), it sounds like maybe you're interested in approaches that treat gravity using ideas from higher gauge theory. For this, I urge you to read the work of Urs Schreiber. He has lots of papers on the arXiv, but a less strenous place to start is his series of articles on Physics Forums.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-03-31 15:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Baez
answered Mar 30, 2016 by John Baez (365 points) [ no revision ]
Isn't it true that if we look at GR as a gauge theory invariant under diffeomorphisms, then a generalised formalism that will allow us to treat gauge theories in general should allow us to do the same with GR? For example, this can be seen at Metric affine gravity and BF -> Holst via breaking topological invariance. Thank you for the reference, I will check them up ASAP! :)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-03-31 15:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Janus Boffin
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Here is how higher category theory (homotopy theory) arises in gravity:

First of all, the precise version of the statement that "gravity is a gauge theory" is that gravity in first order formulation is "Cartan geometry" for Minkowski spacetime regarded as the quotient of the Poincare group by the Lorentz spin-group. This statement generalizes to super-gravity, with the Poincare group replaced by the super-Poincare group ("the spacetime supersymmetry group"), see here:

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/super-Cartan+geometry

The corresponding Cartan-connections encode the vielbein field and the "spin connection" that are the mathematical incarnation of the field of (super-)gravity, whose quanta are the graviton and the gravitino.

But now something special happens: higher dimensional supergravity by necessity contains not just the graviton and the gravitino, but also higher degree form fields. It is the higher degree of these form fields which is the entry point of higher category theory/homotopy theory in gravity.

Namely these tensor multiplets are no longer encoded by a Cartan-connection with values in an ordinary group (the Poincare group), but they are encoded by higher Cartan connections with values in higher categorical groups!

This is a long and fascinating story, which does not fit into this comment box here. To get started you might try these lecture notes here

https://ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/Structure+Theory+for+Higher+WZW+Terms

or some of the links provided there.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-03-31 15:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Urs Schreiber
answered Mar 30, 2016 by Urs Schreiber (5,735 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...