Showing posts with label mathematics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mathematics. Show all posts

Friday, November 15, 2024

The Spin Chronicles (Part 13): Norms, Spinors, and Why Mathematicians Need Better Nature Walks

 Welcome back to The Spin Chronicles! If you’ve been following along (and if you haven’t, shame on you—catch up on Part 12 Geometry, Kant, and the Limits of Physics), you already know we’ve been dancing around the concept of "spinors" for quite a while. A long while.

Well, good news! Today, we’re finally gearing up to meet spinors. But—and there’s always a but in math—we first need to take a small detour into something called the "spinorial norm." Yes, it’s as thrilling as it sounds.

For those of you keeping score at home, we’re still working with the geometric Clifford algebra Cl(V) of 3D Euclidean space V. This notation might seem intimidating, but don’t worry—it’s just math’s way of keeping things exclusive, like a secret handshake for nerds. Now, let’s roll up our sleeves and dive into why norms matter (and why mathematicians, for all their brilliance, could use a little more guidance from Nature).


The Trouble with Mathematicians

Here’s the thing about mathematicians: they think they’re free spirits, crafting elegant concepts out of thin air, but they’re like poets writing odes to imaginary sunsets. Beautiful? Sure. Practical? Meh. Sometimes, they get so lost in their own abstractions that they forget to look around and ask, “Hey, does any of this actually match up with the real world?” Playing soccer can help in this respect a lot!

Nature, however, is the ultimate editor. She’s brutally practical and has no patience for fluff. Case in point: our physical space is three-dimensional. Why? Who knows, but it’s a fact. And while mathematicians are busy dreaming up n-dimensional geometries, Nature keeps things grounded with good old-fashioned threes. Maybe she’s just stubborn. Or maybe she knows that going beyond three dimensions gives true (i.e. experimental) physicists migraines.

Physicists against mathematicians

Space, Electromagnetism, and That Pesky Thing Called Time

Speaking of Nature, let’s not forget how much of our sensory experience relies on electromagnetic interactions. That’s right, folks—our ability to see, touch, and generally function as vaguely competent humans is powered by electromagnetism. This makes it pretty important. Yet, time, that slippery little troublemaker, loves to throw a wrench into our neatly ordered perceptions.

Unlike space, time doesn’t play fair. Sometimes it feels like it’s rushing past; other times, it slows to a crawl (usually during committee meetings or while waiting for your code to compile). This quirk makes time fundamentally different from space, and perhaps it’s not just one time but an entire family of "species of time." That’s a philosophical can of worms we’ll save for later. For now, let’s stick to what we can handle: 3D space and its lovely, orderly Clifford algebra.


Two Norms, One Algebra

Today’s mission is to introduce not one but two norms on Cl(V). Why two? Because math is like that one friend who insists on ordering both the tiramisu and the cheesecake—you’re not really sure why, but they swear it’s important. One of these norms is sometimes called the "spinorial norm," but I’ll let you in on a secret: I’m not married to the standard terminology here. Why? Because mathematicians don’t own the truth—they just rent it from reality.


So, grab your coffee (or something stronger), and let’s explore these norms. With a little luck—and a lot of algebra—we’ll finally get one step closer to understanding spinors. And who knows? Maybe we’ll learn something about why Nature prefers her math practical, her space three-dimensional, and her time as confusing as a modern art installation.

The first norm is the standard one, usually called the Hilbert-Smith norm, and denoted || ||HS (see e.g. "Why does submultiplicativity hold for the Hilbert-Schmidt norm"), but we shall denote it here simply by || ||. It is defined by

||u||2 = Bτ(u,u) = |p0|2 + |p|2.

Here |p|2 stands for |p1|2+|p2|2+|p3|2 - we remember that p0 and p are complex! This norm is positive-definite, and it has the nice algebraic submultiplicative property:

||uv|| ≤ ||u|| ||v||.

The second "norm" we denote by ∆(u). It is defined as

∆(u) = Bν(u,u) = (p0)2 - p2,

where p2 = (p1)2+(p2)2+(p3)2. 

In fact, we can easily check that in the matrix representation, using the Pauli matrices, we have that

∆(u) = det(u),                     (*)

from which it follows instantly that

∆(uv) = ∆(u)∆(v).              (**)

But, according to our definition,  ∆(u) is complex valued! It is called "spinorial norm", even though calling it a "norm" can be sometimes, misleading.

Exercise 1. Use the property (**), together with ∆(1) =1, to show that u is invertible if and only if ∆(u) ≠ 0.

It follows then instantly that the set G of elements of Cl(V) with ∆(u) = 1 is a group! We can easily identify this group in the matrix representation using (*). G is isomorphic to  SL(2,C) - the group of complex two by two matrices of determinant one - the double cover of the orthochronous proper Lorentz group of special relativity!

Stay tuned!

Sunday, July 16, 2023

Plato vs. Aristotle

Grzegorz Kołczan, the author of  "Aristotle principles of dynamics", suggested to me that the discussion on this blog is not well organized for a serious discussion. Therefore I decided to devote a separate post to this subject. Here are the collected comments from the previous post, related to the subject.



  1. Mathilde S (forwarded by A.J.): July 16, 2023 at 3:21 PM

    " ... regarding Aristotle, I appreciate that he created a certain current in metaphysics, nevertheless Aristotle is not an idealist philosopher, so I much prefer the philosophy of Plato, Plotinus or Hegel.

    At the same time, I believe that physics is essentially Platonic and should be developed in that direction, whereas I consider the introduction of Aristotelianism to be pointless. Physics constructed in this way will go no further for a number of reasons that I could discuss ...."

  2. Mathilde S.July 16, 2023 at 4:19 PM
    Since I have been called to the board, I will be more specific. With questions from other commentators or the author, I can gradually make my statement more detailed.


    There are a few philosophic and scientific arguments that could support the idea that physics is essentially Platonic and should continue to be developed in that direction, while an Aristotelian approach might be limited.

    One of them is the mathematical structure of the Universe. This is a strong argument for a Platonic viewpoint in physics. Many physicists, including Max Tegmark with his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, argue that the universe is not just described by mathematics, but it is a mathematical structure. This idea reflects Plato's Theory of Forms, which posits a world of perfect, unchanging ideals beyond our sensory experience.

    The next one is connected to physical laws and universality. The laws of physics as we know them, like gravity and electromagnetism, are unchanging and universal. They apply regardless of time or space. This is similar to Plato's Forms, which are timeless and universal. If the ultimate laws of physics exist in a similar Platonic realm, this could provide the theoretical unity that many physicists seek.

    Moreover, quantum mechanics and related theories have been interpreted in ways that are favorable to a Platonic interpretation. For instance, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posits an infinite number of parallel universes to explain quantum phenomena. This seems more in line with the Platonic metaphysical idealism than with Aristotelian material realism.

    Now let's consider a few reasons why you might view Aristotelian approaches as limited:

    Aristotelian physics is largely empirical, grounded in what we can observe and experience. While this has led to the development of the scientific method and the accumulation of knowledge, it does not necessarily help in areas where direct observation is not possible, such as quantum physics or cosmology.

    At the same time Aristotle's approach is less amenable to abstract mathematical reasoning, which is essential to modern physics. While Aristotle believed in the use of logic and reasoning, he focused more on concrete, observable phenomena, rather than the abstract entities that dominate modern physics, such as fields, forces, and particles.

    Of course, this is a simplification of both Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies, and their applicability to physics. There are aspects of each that can be beneficially incorporated into scientific thought, as both have already influenced the development of physics in profound ways.
    Nevertheless, physics is becoming more and more abstract and, consequently, should be developed more in the direction of Platonism. This does not change the fact that in some specific cases Aristotle's approach can be useful, but I think that these are only concrete models, not theories that will actually significantly influence the development of the so-called 'new physics'. This subject has also been addressed by Michał Heller in many books and publications, quoting numerous arguments for the Platonic approach.

  3. Mathilde S.July 16, 2023 at 4:22 PM
    At the same time, for Polish speakers and those interested in this topic, I can also recommend a lecture by Krzysztof Meissner.

    I do not like all of Meissner's statements, but I nevertheless agree with him on the core issue - Platonism.

  4. Grzegorz Kołczan  Forwarded by A. J. July 16, 2023 at 5:11 PM
    G.K. replied to me in a private message as he is having trouble seeing comments on his PC:
    "I, for one, can't get into the discussion now, as I am finishing editing the monograph. However, I see that there is a dispute emerging on the Plato-Aristotle line.

    I may know Plato poorly, but Aristotle is undoubtedly closer to physics - and not just ancient physics, but also quantum physics, as Rovelli shows. The infatuation of physicists with Plato, I believe, is a misunderstanding of what "infatuation" with one idea is. Aristotle trumps Plato in every scientific respect, except one: Aristotle did not have an outstanding student

  5. Mathilde S.July 16, 2023 at 5:36 PM
    "I, for one, can't get into the discussion now, as I am finishing editing the monograph. However, I see that there is a dispute emerging on the Plato-Aristotle line.

    I may know Plato poorly, but Aristotle is undoubtedly closer to physics - and not just ancient physics, but also quantum physics, as Rovelli shows. The infatuation of physicists with Plato, I believe, is a misunderstanding of what "infatuation" with one idea is. Aristotle trumps Plato in every scientific respect, except one: Aristotle did not have an outstanding student ? .".

    I am in a position to undertake an argument, so if any specific arguments are made I am happy to discuss.

    For the moment I would certainly agree that Aristotle is closer to classical mechanics. I am not going to debate here, I think we both agree.

    As for quantum mechanics, on the other hand, I would need to see the arguments. In terms of what I think physics should aim for, I'm unlikely to be persuaded by Aristotle's approach, but I'm curious to try to convince me.

    And what is the infatuation with one idea? Well, physics was largely born out of aesthetics. I am very curious about this discussion.

  6. Mathilde S.July 16, 2023 at 5:44 PM
    I have one more question: what is the position of the blog author? Platonism or Aristotelianism?


  7. Arkadiusz JadczykJuly 16, 2023 at 5:47 PM
    Already answered:


    Quotation from Daigneaults paper (Ref. [4]):

    "Genesis teaches that : « …et Dieu dit: ‘ Que la lumière soit ! Et la lumière fut. » ; « and God said : Let there be light ! And light there was ».

    Some say that at MIT, Caltech, and other trade schools, one often sees engineers wearing T-shirts that display Maxwell's equations as God's real words just before there was light
    [ http://wiki.yak.net/591/howto.pdf].

    Maybe this is so for the following facts which do not seem to move astrophysicists should not leave any mathematician indifferent especially those like myself who believe that God is Himself a mathematician ! " (A. Daigneault, Irving Segal's Axiomatization of Spacetime and its Cosmological Consequences)

  8. The "Aristotle" discussed here is certainly a different than usual interpretation of Aristotle. Most people would not see atomism as an extension from Aristotle. Going from atomism to a pluralistic idealist Leibniz monad might not be difficult. Aristotle did have the elements and thus via Ark's wife Laura, information. I got to physics math via personality models where the elements have been rather directly used as personality factors. Clifford algebra is rather directly information with its 2^n dimensions. You don't work with very high n's either. Even if you go up to n=8, you work a lot with 4s, 5s and 6s as Ark has shown recently.

    Not getting too far away from classical is perhaps a common problem for the quantum researchers. One of the main points of EEQT is to get some classical into the quantum. I didn't understand EEQT in even my usual not very detailed math way until I added some general understanding of differential geometry which has classical origins. Feynman paths are perhaps a more classical visual for quantum than the wave function.


My own view is as follows: I agree that God is a mathematician. Which part of mathematics is God using? All. 
But God has infinitely many different projects. 
Our (Earth, humanity) Project needs most of all algebra. 
Plato is important because Plato advocates mathematics. 
Aristotle is important, because Aristotle advocated paying attention to reality in order not to get lost and not to waste precious time for mathematics that has no application for our Project

Biolocation

  On Tuesday, December 23, Vlad Zhigalov (see e.g. here ) had a talk at the " Temporology " seminar hosted at Omsk.  He spoke abo...