# Welcome back

## Find a book, put up your feet, stay awhile

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more

Download

Standard view

Full view

of .

Look up keyword

Like this

Share on social networks

4Activity

×

0 of .

Results for: No results containing your search query

P. 1

There is No “Theory of Everything” Inside E8 - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COMRatings: (0)|Views: 101|Likes: 5

Published by Fausto Intilla

Abstract: We analyze certain subgroups of real and complex forms of the Lie group E8,

and deduce that any “Theory of Everything” obtained by embedding the gauge groups

of gravity and the Standard Model into a real or complex form of E8 lacks certain representation-

theoretic properties required by physical reality. The arguments themselves

amount to representation theory of Lie algebras in the spirit of Dynkin’s classic papers

and are written for mathematicians.

and deduce that any “Theory of Everything” obtained by embedding the gauge groups

of gravity and the Standard Model into a real or complex form of E8 lacks certain representation-

theoretic properties required by physical reality. The arguments themselves

amount to representation theory of Lie algebras in the spirit of Dynkin’s classic papers

and are written for mathematicians.

Abstract: We analyze certain subgroups of real and complex forms of the Lie group E8,

and deduce that any “Theory of Everything” obtained by embedding the gauge groups

of gravity and the Standard Model into a real or complex form of E8 lacks certain representation-

theoretic properties required by physical reality. The arguments themselves

amount to representation theory of Lie algebras in the spirit of Dynkin’s classic papers

and are written for mathematicians.

and deduce that any “Theory of Everything” obtained by embedding the gauge groups

of gravity and the Standard Model into a real or complex form of E8 lacks certain representation-

theoretic properties required by physical reality. The arguments themselves

amount to representation theory of Lie algebras in the spirit of Dynkin’s classic papers

and are written for mathematicians.

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/43524549/There-is-No-Theory-of-Everything-Inside-E8-WWW-OLOSCIENCE-COM

05/12/2014

text

original

Digital Object Identiﬁer (DOI) 10.1007/s00220-010-1006-yCommun. Math. Phys. 298, 419–436 (2010)

Communications in

MathematicalPhysics

There is No “Theory of Everything” Inside E

8

Jacques Distler

1

, Skip Garibaldi

2

1

Theory Group, Department of Physics, and Texas Cosmology Center,University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA.E-mail: distler@golem.ph.utexas.edu

2

Department of Mathematics & Computer Science, 400 Dowman Dr.,Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.E-mail: skip@member.ams.org; skip@mathcs.emory.eduReceived: 30 July 2009 / Accepted: 26 October 2009Published online: 12 February 2010 – © Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract:

WeanalyzecertainsubgroupsofrealandcomplexformsoftheLiegroupE

8

,and deduce that any “Theory of Everything” obtained by embedding the gauge groupsof gravity and the Standard Model into a real or complex form of E

8

lacks certain rep-resentation-theoretic properties required by physical reality. The arguments themselvesamount to representation theory of Lie algebras in the spirit of Dynkin’s classic papersand are written for mathematicians.

1. Introduction

Recently, the preprint[1] by Garrett Lisi has generated a lot of popular interest. It boldly
claims to be a sketch of a “Theory of Everything”, based on the idea of combining thelocalLorentzgroupandthegaugegroupoftheStandardModelinarealformofE

8

(nec-essarily not the compact form, because it contains a group isogenous to SL

(

2

,

C

)

). Thepurpose of this paper is to explain some reasons why an entire class of such models—which include the model in [1]—cannot work, using mostly mathematics with relativelylittle input from physics.The mathematical set up is as follows. Fix a real Lie group E. We are interested insubgroups SL

(

2

,

C

)

and

G

of E so that:

G

is connected, compact, and centralizesSL

(

2

,

C

).

(ToE1)We complexify and then decompose Lie

(

E

)

⊗

C

as a direct sum of representations of SL

(

2

,

C

)

and

G

. We identify SL

(

2

,

C

)

⊗

R

C

with SL

2

,

C

×

SL

2

,

C

and writeLie

(

E

)

=

m

,

n

≥

1

m

⊗

n

⊗

V

m

,

n

,

(1.1)where

m

and

n

denote the irreducible representation of SL

2

,

C

of that dimension and

V

m

,

n

is a complex representation of

G

⊗

R

C

. (Physicists would usually write 2 and

¯

2instead of 2

⊗

1 and 1

⊗

2.) Of course,

420 J. Distler, S. Garibaldi

m

⊗

n

⊗

V

m

,

n

n

⊗

m

⊗

V

m

,

n

,

and since the action of SL

(

2

,

C

)

·

G

on Lie

(

E

)

is deﬁned over

R

, we deduce that

V

m

,

n

V

n

,

m

. We further demand that

V

m

,

n

=

0 if

m

+

n

>

4

,

and (ToE2)

V

2

,

1

is a complex representation of

G

.

(ToE3)We recall the definition of complex representation and explain the physical motivationfor these hypotheses in the next section. Roughly speaking, (ToE1) is a trivial require-ment based on trying to construct a Theory of Everything along the lines suggested byLisi, (ToE2) is the requirement that the model not contain any “exotic” higher-spin par-ticles, and (ToE3) is the statement that the gauge theory (with gauge group

G

) is

chiral

,asrequired by theStandard Model. Infact,physics requires slightlystrongerhypotheseson

V

m

,

n

, for

m

+

n

=

4. We will not impose the stronger version of (ToE2).

Deﬁnition 1.1.

A

candidate ToE subgroup

of a real Lie group

E

is a subgroup gener-ated by a copy of

SL

(

2

,

C

)

and a subgroup G such that (ToE1) and (ToE2) hold. A

ToEsubgroup

is a candidate ToE subgroup for which (ToE3) also holds.

Our main result is:

Theorem 1.2.

There are no ToE subgroups in (the transfer of) the complex

E

8

nor inany real form of

E

8

. Notation.

UnadornedLiealgebrasandLiegroupsmeanonesovertherealnumbers.Weuse a subscript

C

to denote complex Lie groups—e.g., SL

2

,

C

is the (complex) group of 2-by-2complexmatriceswithdeterminant1.Wecanviewa

d

-dimensionalcomplexLiegroup

G

C

as a2

d

-dimensional real Liegroup, which we denote by

R

(

G

C

)

.(Algebraistscall this operation the “transfer” or “Weil restriction of scalars”; geometers, and manyphysicists, call this operation “realiﬁcation.”) We use the popular notation of SL

(

2

,

C

)

for the transfer

R

(

SL

2

,

C

)

of SL

2

,

C

; it is a double covering of the “restricted Lorentzgroup”, i.e., of the identity component SO

(

3

,

1

)

0

of SO

(

3

,

1

)

.

Strategy and main results.

Our strategy for proving Theorem1.2will be as follows. Wewillﬁrstcatalogue,uptoconjugation,allpossibleembeddingsofSL

(

2

,

C

)

satisfyingthehypothesesof(ToE2).Thelistisremarkablyshort.Specifically,foreverycandidateToEsubgroup of E, the group

G

is contained in the maximal compact, connected subgroup

G

max

of the centralizer of SL

(

2

,

C

)

G

max

V

2

,

1

E

8

(

−

24

)

Spin

(

11

)

32E

8

(

8

)

Spin

(

5

)

×

Spin

(

7

) (

4

,

8

)

E

8

(

−

24

)

Spin

(

9

)

×

Spin

(

3

) (

16

,

2

)

R

(

E

8

,

C

)

E

7

56

R

(

E

8

,

C

)

Spin

(

12

)

32

⊕

32

R

(

E

8

,

C

)

Spin

(

13

)

64(1.2)We then note that the representation

V

2

,

1

of

G

max

(and hence, of any

G

⊆

G

max

) has aself-conjugate structure. In other words, (ToE3) fails.

There is No “Theory of Everything” Inside E

8

421

2. Physics Background

One of the central features of modern particle physics is that the world is described bya

chiral gauge theory

.

Deﬁnition 2.1.

Let M beafour-dimensionalpseudo-Riemannianmanifold,ofsignature

(

3

,

1

)

,

which we will take to be oriented, time-oriented and spin. Let G be a compact Liegroup. The data of a

gauge theory on

M

with gauge group

G

consists of a connection, A,onaprincipalG-bundle, P

→

M,andsome“matterﬁelds”transformingassectionsof vector bundle(s) associated to unitary representations of G.

Of particular interest are the

fermions

of the theory. The orthonormal frame bundleof

M

is a principal SO

(

3

,

1

)

0

bundle. A choice of spin structure deﬁnes a lift to a prin-cipal Spin

(

3

,

1

)

0

=

SL

(

2

,

C

)

bundle. Let

S

±

→

M

be the irreducible spinor bundles,associated, via the deﬁning two-dimensional representation and its complex conjugate,to this SL

(

2

,

C

)

principal bundle.The

fermions of our gauge theory

are denoted

ψ

∈

(

S

+

⊗

V

), ψ

∈

(

S

−

⊗

V

),

where

V

→

M

is a vector bundle associated to a (typically reducible) representation

R

of

G

.

Deﬁnition 2.2.

Consider, V, a unitary representation of G over

C

—i.e., a homomor- phism G

→

U

(

V

)

—and an antilinear map J

:

V

→

V that commutes with the actionof G. The map J is called a

real structure

on V if J

2

=

1

; physicists call a represen-tation possessing a real structure

real

. The map J is called a

quaternionic structure

on V if J

2

= −

1

;

physicists call a representation possessing a quaternionic structure

pseudoreal

.Subsuming these two subcases, we will say that V

has a self-conjugate structure

if there exists an antilinear map J

:

V

→

V commuting with the action of G and satis- fying J

4

=

1

. Physicists call a representation V that does not possess a self-conjugatestructure

complex

. Remark 2.3.

We sketch how to translate the above definition into the language of alge-braic groups and Galois descent as in [2] and [3, §X.2]. Let

G

be an algebraic groupover

R

and ﬁx a representation

ρ

:

G

⊗

C

→

GL

(

V

)

for some complex vector space

V

.Let

J

be an antilinear map

V

→

V

that satisﬁes

ρ(

g

)

=

J

−

1

ρ(

g

)

J

for

g

∈

G

(

C

)

. (2.1)We deﬁne real, quaternionic, etc., by copying the second and third sentences verbatimfrom Definition2.2.(Inthespecialcasewhere

G

iscompact,thereisnecessarilyapositive-definiteinvari-ant hermitian form on

V

and

ρ

arises by complexifying some map

G

→

U

(

V

)

G

J

commutes with

G

(

R

)

—which is obviously impliedby Eq. (2.1)—is actually equivalent to Eq. (2.1). Indeed, both sides of Eq.(2.1) are
morphisms of varieties over

C

, so if they agree on

G

(

R

)

G

(

C

)

.)If

V

has a real structure

J

, then the

R

-subspace

V

of elements of

V

ﬁxed by

J

is areal vector space and

V

is canonically identiﬁed with

V

⊗

C

so that

J

(v

⊗

z

)

=

v

⊗

z

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

© Copyright 2015 Scribd Inc.

Language

Choose the language in which you want to experience Scribd:

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Password Reset Email Sent

Join with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

By joining, you agree to our

read free for one month

Personalized recommendationsbased on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Join with Facebook

or Join with EmailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

Already a member? Sign in.

By joining, you agree to our

to download

Personalized recommendationsbased on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Continue with Facebook

Sign inJoin with emailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

By joining, you agree to our

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd