John Baez' idea: GR described as a 3-group gauge theory.

In summary: It's interesting how they relate division algebras to supersymmetry and higher gauge theory. It seems like they are trying to find a way to unify these concepts.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's the beginnings of an idea. You link to the n-cat café where they discuss the draft Baez Huerta paper and where he points to page 37. To give a taste, I'll quote what he says in that passage:

==quote draft Baez Huerta==
Roberts and Schreiber go on to consider an analogous sequence of 3-groups constructed starting from a 2-group. Among these, the ‘inner automorphism 3-group’ of a 2-group plays a special role, which might make it important in understanding general relativity as a higher gauge theory.

As we have already seen in Section 4.3, Palatini gravity in 4d spacetime involves an so(3, 1)-valued 1-form A and a so(3, 1)-valued 2-form B = e ∧ e.
This is precisely the data we expect for a connection on a principal G-2-bundle where G is the tangent 2-group of the Lorentz group, except that the 2-form B fails to obey the equation dt(B) = F , as required by Theorem 4.5. Is there a way around this problem?

One possibility is to follow Breen and Messing [27], who, as we note, omit the condition dt(B) = F in their work on connections on nonabelian gerbes. This denies them the advantages of computing holonomies for surfaces, but they still have a coherent theory which may offer some new insights into general relativity.

On the other hand, Schreiber [70] has argued that for any Lie 2-group G , the
3-group I N N (G ) allows us to define a version of parallel transport for particles, strings and 2-branes starting from an arbitrary g-valued 1-form A and h-valued 2-form B. The condition dt(B) = F is not required. So, to treat 4d Palatini gravity as a higher gauge theory, perhaps we can treat the basic fields as a 3-connection on an I N N (T SO(3, 1))-3-bundle. To entice the reader into pursuing this line of research, we optimistically dub this 3-group I N N (T (SO(3, 1)) the gravity 3-group.
==endquote==

draft of "Invitation to Higher Gauge Theory" is here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/invitation1.pdf

You can see that there might be some clues here as to why BF theory keeps coming up in gravity work. They point to section 4.3 where it mentions that Palatini gravity in 4d spacetime involves an so(3, 1)-valued 1-form A and a so(3, 1)-valued 2-form B = e ∧ e. This is tantamount to a tie-in with BF theory, since in this context the curvature of the form A is denoted F.

So maybe we should look back to section 4.3. That's on pages 32-35
 
Last edited:
  • #3
  • #4
BaezHuerta said:
On the other hand, Schreiber [70] has argued that for any Lie 2-group G , the
3-group I N N (G ) allows us to define a version of parallel transport for particles, strings and 2-branes starting from an arbitrary g-valued 1-form A and h-valued 2-form B. The condition dt(B) = F is not required. So, to treat 4d Palatini gravity as a higher gauge theory, perhaps we can treat the basic fields as a 3-connection on an I N N (T SO(3, 1))-3-bundle. To entice the reader into pursuing this line of research, we optimistically dub this 3-group I N N (T (SO(3, 1)) the gravity 3-group.

To be of some value in physics, there should be some uniqueness. The correct version of " parallel transport for particles, strings and 2-branes " would be expected to have some extra condition forcing D=11. It should relate to Evans paper on the link between division algebras and supersymmetry, and pass to topology via the link between division algebras, projective spaces and Hopf fibrations.
 
  • #5
Arivero, notice that he talks about exotic statistics, which means generalizing supersymmetry, beyond the fermi-dirac/bose-einstein dicotomy. And also notice that Baez and Huerta are working division on algebras. They uploaded today to arxiv a paper about this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3436

Division Algebras and Supersymmetry II
Authors: John C. Baez, John Huerta
(Submitted on 17 Mar 2010)

Abstract: Starting from the four normed division algebras - the real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions and octonions - a systematic procedure gives a 3-cocycle on the Poincare Lie superalgebra in dimensions 3, 4, 6 and 10. A related procedure gives a 4-cocycle on the Poincare Lie superalgebra in dimensions 4, 5, 7 and 11. In general, an (n+1)-cocycle on a Lie superalgebra yields a "Lie n-superalgebra": that is, roughly speaking, an n-term chain complex equipped with a bracket satisfying the axioms of a Lie superalgebra up to chain homotopy. We thus obtain Lie 2-superalgebras extending the Poincare superalgebra in dimensions 3, 4, 6, and 10, and Lie 3-superalgebras extending the Poincare superalgebra in dimensions 4, 5, 7 and 11. As shown in Sati, Schreiber and Stasheff's work on higher gauge theory, Lie 2-superalgebra connections describe the parallel transport of strings, while Lie 3-superalgebra connections describe the parallel transport of 2-branes. Moreover, in the octonionic case, these connections concisely summarize the fields appearing in 10- and 11-dimensional supergravity.
 
  • #6
MTd2 said:
They uploaded today to arxiv a paper about this:.

:smile: Thanks, I had missed this one.
 

Related to John Baez' idea: GR described as a 3-group gauge theory.

What is GR described as a 3-group gauge theory?

GR, or General Relativity, is a theory that describes the force of gravity as the curvature of space and time. John Baez proposed that this theory can be described using a mathematical concept known as a 3-group gauge theory, which is a type of mathematical structure used to describe interactions between particles.

How does the 3-group gauge theory relate to GR?

The 3-group gauge theory provides a mathematical framework for understanding the interactions between particles in GR. It allows us to describe the gravitational force as a gauge field, similar to how other fundamental forces are described in the Standard Model of particle physics.

What are the benefits of describing GR as a 3-group gauge theory?

One benefit is that it provides a unified framework for understanding the fundamental forces of nature, as both the gravitational and other forces can be described using gauge theory. Additionally, it allows for a more elegant and mathematically consistent description of GR.

Are there any limitations to using the 3-group gauge theory to describe GR?

While the 3-group gauge theory offers a promising approach to describing GR, it is still a developing idea and has not yet been fully tested or accepted by the scientific community. It also requires a high level of mathematical understanding and expertise to fully comprehend and apply.

What implications could this idea have for our understanding of the universe?

If proven to be accurate, describing GR as a 3-group gauge theory could potentially have a significant impact on our understanding of the fundamental forces of nature and the structure of the universe. It could also lead to new insights and discoveries in the field of theoretical physics.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
23
Views
13K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top