#gaugetheory — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #gaugetheory, aggregated by home.social.
-
🧮 New preprint, Part III: *A Centre-Charge Selection Rule for the Wilson-Line Potential* — the fundamental domain of gauge–Higgs unification is representation-dependent.
If you compute a Hosotani potential on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\), you probably halve the search region in \(\alpha_2\). For every representation able to host a Standard-Model quark generation, that halving is invalid — and nothing warns you.
Why: advancing the Wilson line by one period is, up to a Weyl reflection, multiplication by the central element \(-\mathbf 1\in Z(SU(4))\). A rep answers a central element with \(\zeta^{c(R)}\) — that is what \(n\)-ality *is*. So the character has no choice:
\[D(-t)=(-1)^{a+2b+3c}D(t),\quad D(t)=s_\lambda(1,-1,t,t^{-1}).\]That alphabet has determinant \(-1\): it sits on the **improper** component of \(O(4)\), where an irrep and \(\mu\otimes\det\) cancel. So this is not a delicate cancellation — it *empties a sublattice*. Every mode with \(k_2\) odd and \(m\) even is identically absent. Not small. Absent.
The centre charge, read for fifty years as a restriction on which representations carry which charges, also restricts **what the potential may contain**.
Needs \(N\) even, so \(SU(4)\) is the smallest group that can carry the rule. Classification certified in Lean 4, sorry-free.
📄 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21438227
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/centre-parity-selection -
🧮 New preprint, Part III: *A Centre-Charge Selection Rule for the Wilson-Line Potential* — the fundamental domain of gauge–Higgs unification is representation-dependent.
If you compute a Hosotani potential on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\), you probably halve the search region in \(\alpha_2\). For every representation able to host a Standard-Model quark generation, that halving is invalid — and nothing warns you.
Why: advancing the Wilson line by one period is, up to a Weyl reflection, multiplication by the central element \(-\mathbf 1\in Z(SU(4))\). A rep answers a central element with \(\zeta^{c(R)}\) — that is what \(n\)-ality *is*. So the character has no choice:
\[D(-t)=(-1)^{a+2b+3c}D(t),\quad D(t)=s_\lambda(1,-1,t,t^{-1}).\]That alphabet has determinant \(-1\): it sits on the **improper** component of \(O(4)\), where an irrep and \(\mu\otimes\det\) cancel. So this is not a delicate cancellation — it *empties a sublattice*. Every mode with \(k_2\) odd and \(m\) even is identically absent. Not small. Absent.
The centre charge, read for fifty years as a restriction on which representations carry which charges, also restricts **what the potential may contain**.
Needs \(N\) even, so \(SU(4)\) is the smallest group that can carry the rule. Classification certified in Lean 4, sorry-free.
📄 https://zenodo.org/records/21438928
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/centre-parity-selection -
🧮 New preprint, Part III: *A Centre-Charge Selection Rule for the Wilson-Line Potential* — the fundamental domain of gauge–Higgs unification is representation-dependent.
If you compute a Hosotani potential on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\), you probably halve the search region in \(\alpha_2\). For every representation able to host a Standard-Model quark generation, that halving is invalid — and nothing warns you.
Why: advancing the Wilson line by one period is, up to a Weyl reflection, multiplication by the central element \(-\mathbf 1\in Z(SU(4))\). A rep answers a central element with \(\zeta^{c(R)}\) — that is what \(n\)-ality *is*. So the character has no choice:
\[D(-t)=(-1)^{a+2b+3c}D(t),\quad D(t)=s_\lambda(1,-1,t,t^{-1}).\]That alphabet has determinant \(-1\): it sits on the **improper** component of \(O(4)\), where an irrep and \(\mu\otimes\det\) cancel. So this is not a delicate cancellation — it *empties a sublattice*. Every mode with \(k_2\) odd and \(m\) even is identically absent. Not small. Absent.
The centre charge, read for fifty years as a restriction on which representations carry which charges, also restricts **what the potential may contain**.
Needs \(N\) even, so \(SU(4)\) is the smallest group that can carry the rule. Classification certified in Lean 4, sorry-free.
📄 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21438227
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/centre-parity-selection -
🧮 New preprint, Part III: *A Centre-Charge Selection Rule for the Wilson-Line Potential* — the fundamental domain of gauge–Higgs unification is representation-dependent.
If you compute a Hosotani potential on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\), you probably halve the search region in \(\alpha_2\). For every representation able to host a Standard-Model quark generation, that halving is invalid — and nothing warns you.
Why: advancing the Wilson line by one period is, up to a Weyl reflection, multiplication by the central element \(-\mathbf 1\in Z(SU(4))\). A rep answers a central element with \(\zeta^{c(R)}\) — that is what \(n\)-ality *is*. So the character has no choice:
\[D(-t)=(-1)^{a+2b+3c}D(t),\quad D(t)=s_\lambda(1,-1,t,t^{-1}).\]That alphabet has determinant \(-1\): it sits on the **improper** component of \(O(4)\), where an irrep and \(\mu\otimes\det\) cancel. So this is not a delicate cancellation — it *empties a sublattice*. Every mode with \(k_2\) odd and \(m\) even is identically absent. Not small. Absent.
The centre charge, read for fifty years as a restriction on which representations carry which charges, also restricts **what the potential may contain**.
Needs \(N\) even, so \(SU(4)\) is the smallest group that can carry the rule. Classification certified in Lean 4, sorry-free.
📄 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21438227
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/centre-parity-selection -
🧮 New preprint, Part III: *A Centre-Charge Selection Rule for the Wilson-Line Potential* — the fundamental domain of gauge–Higgs unification is representation-dependent.
If you compute a Hosotani potential on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\), you probably halve the search region in \(\alpha_2\). For every representation able to host a Standard-Model quark generation, that halving is invalid — and nothing warns you.
Why: advancing the Wilson line by one period is, up to a Weyl reflection, multiplication by the central element \(-\mathbf 1\in Z(SU(4))\). A rep answers a central element with \(\zeta^{c(R)}\) — that is what \(n\)-ality *is*. So the character has no choice:
\[D(-t)=(-1)^{a+2b+3c}D(t),\quad D(t)=s_\lambda(1,-1,t,t^{-1}).\]That alphabet has determinant \(-1\): it sits on the **improper** component of \(O(4)\), where an irrep and \(\mu\otimes\det\) cancel. So this is not a delicate cancellation — it *empties a sublattice*. Every mode with \(k_2\) odd and \(m\) even is identically absent. Not small. Absent.
The centre charge, read for fifty years as a restriction on which representations carry which charges, also restricts **what the potential may contain**.
Needs \(N\) even, so \(SU(4)\) is the smallest group that can carry the rule. Classification certified in Lean 4, sorry-free.
📄 https://zenodo.org/records/21438928
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/centre-parity-selection -
🧮 New preprint — Part II of a series: *Three Gates to a Quark Generation*.
The question. In 6D gauge–Higgs unification, which representations of \(SU(4)\) hold a Standard-Model quark generation as chiral zero modes on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\)?
The answer, exactly. An irreducible rep with Dynkin labels \((a,b,c)\) works iff
\[(a+2b+3c)\ \text{odd}\ \ \wedge\ \ b\ge 1\ \ \wedge\ \ a+b+c\ge 3.\]
Three gates: arithmetic (the \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) centre charge), geometric (the middle Dynkin node excited), and size. Only 8 reps qualify below dim 400.For the curious. Strip a generation to its skeleton, the “\(\pm\tfrac12\) cell”: \(Q(\mathbf 2,\tfrac16),\, u(\mathbf 1,\tfrac23),\, d(\mathbf 1,-\tfrac13)\), where \(\tfrac16=\tfrac12\bigl(\tfrac23+(-\tfrac13)\bigr)\) puts the doublet at the hypercharge midpoint of its singlets — Pati–Salam's \(Y=T^3_R+\tfrac{B-L}{2}\). Now delete the middle node of \(\circ\!-\!\circ\!-\!\circ\): out comes a Levi \(SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)\). Its \(SU(2)_L\)-singlet sector is \((b{+}1)\) copies of the Clebsch–Gordan tower \([\tfrac a2]\otimes[\tfrac c2]\); the orbifold's chirality keeps half of each, giving a closed zero-mode count
\[N(a,b,c)=(b{+}1)\,\tfrac{a+c+1}{2}.\]The twist: why \(SU(4)\)? The cell is three charge constraints on a hypercharge with \(\operatorname{rank}(G){-}1\) free parameters — over-determined exactly at rank 3. So \(SU(4)\) is the unique critical rank where the cell is a rigid gate; for \(SU(5),SU(6)\) it dissolves and generic reps admit. Machine-checked exactly to dimension 900.
📄 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21432628
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/su4-sm-cell-criterion#RepresentationTheory #Physics #GaugeTheory #GrandUnification
-
🧮 New preprint — Part II of a series: *Three Gates to a Quark Generation*.
The question. In 6D gauge–Higgs unification, which representations of \(SU(4)\) hold a Standard-Model quark generation as chiral zero modes on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\)?
The answer, exactly. An irreducible rep with Dynkin labels \((a,b,c)\) works iff
\[(a+2b+3c)\ \text{odd}\ \ \wedge\ \ b\ge 1\ \ \wedge\ \ a+b+c\ge 3.\]
Three gates: arithmetic (the \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) centre charge), geometric (the middle Dynkin node excited), and size. Only 8 reps qualify below dim 400.For the curious. Strip a generation to its skeleton, the “\(\pm\tfrac12\) cell”: \(Q(\mathbf 2,\tfrac16),\, u(\mathbf 1,\tfrac23),\, d(\mathbf 1,-\tfrac13)\), where \(\tfrac16=\tfrac12\bigl(\tfrac23+(-\tfrac13)\bigr)\) puts the doublet at the hypercharge midpoint of its singlets — Pati–Salam's \(Y=T^3_R+\tfrac{B-L}{2}\). Now delete the middle node of \(\circ\!-\!\circ\!-\!\circ\): out comes a Levi \(SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)\). Its \(SU(2)_L\)-singlet sector is \((b{+}1)\) copies of the Clebsch–Gordan tower \([\tfrac a2]\otimes[\tfrac c2]\); the orbifold's chirality keeps half of each, giving a closed zero-mode count
\[N(a,b,c)=(b{+}1)\,\tfrac{a+c+1}{2}.\]The twist: why \(SU(4)\)? The cell is three charge constraints on a hypercharge with \(\operatorname{rank}(G){-}1\) free parameters — over-determined exactly at rank 3. So \(SU(4)\) is the unique critical rank where the cell is a rigid gate; for \(SU(5),SU(6)\) it dissolves and generic reps admit. Machine-checked exactly to dimension 900.
📄 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21432628
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/su4-sm-cell-criterion#RepresentationTheory #Physics #GaugeTheory #GrandUnification
-
🧮 New preprint — Part II of a series: *Three Gates to a Quark Generation*.
The question. In 6D gauge–Higgs unification, which representations of \(SU(4)\) hold a Standard-Model quark generation as chiral zero modes on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\)?
The answer, exactly. An irreducible rep with Dynkin labels \((a,b,c)\) works iff
\[(a+2b+3c)\ \text{odd}\ \ \wedge\ \ b\ge 1\ \ \wedge\ \ a+b+c\ge 3.\]
Three gates: arithmetic (the \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) centre charge), geometric (the middle Dynkin node excited), and size. Only 8 reps qualify below dim 400.For the curious. Strip a generation to its skeleton, the “\(\pm\tfrac12\) cell”: \(Q(\mathbf 2,\tfrac16),\, u(\mathbf 1,\tfrac23),\, d(\mathbf 1,-\tfrac13)\), where \(\tfrac16=\tfrac12\bigl(\tfrac23+(-\tfrac13)\bigr)\) puts the doublet at the hypercharge midpoint of its singlets — Pati–Salam's \(Y=T^3_R+\tfrac{B-L}{2}\). Now delete the middle node of \(\circ\!-\!\circ\!-\!\circ\): out comes a Levi \(SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)\). Its \(SU(2)_L\)-singlet sector is \((b{+}1)\) copies of the Clebsch–Gordan tower \([\tfrac a2]\otimes[\tfrac c2]\); the orbifold's chirality keeps half of each, giving a closed zero-mode count
\[N(a,b,c)=(b{+}1)\,\tfrac{a+c+1}{2}.\]The twist: why \(SU(4)\)? The cell is three charge constraints on a hypercharge with \(\operatorname{rank}(G){-}1\) free parameters — over-determined exactly at rank 3. So \(SU(4)\) is the unique critical rank where the cell is a rigid gate; for \(SU(5),SU(6)\) it dissolves and generic reps admit. Machine-checked exactly to dimension 900.
📄 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21432628
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/su4-sm-cell-criterion#RepresentationTheory #Physics #GaugeTheory #GrandUnification
-
🧮 New preprint — Part II of a series: *Three Gates to a Quark Generation*.
The question. In 6D gauge–Higgs unification, which representations of \(SU(4)\) hold a Standard-Model quark generation as chiral zero modes on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\)?
The answer, exactly. An irreducible rep with Dynkin labels \((a,b,c)\) works iff
\[(a+2b+3c)\ \text{odd}\ \ \wedge\ \ b\ge 1\ \ \wedge\ \ a+b+c\ge 3.\]
Three gates: arithmetic (the \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) centre charge), geometric (the middle Dynkin node excited), and size. Only 8 reps qualify below dim 400.For the curious. Strip a generation to its skeleton, the “\(\pm\tfrac12\) cell”: \(Q(\mathbf 2,\tfrac16),\, u(\mathbf 1,\tfrac23),\, d(\mathbf 1,-\tfrac13)\), where \(\tfrac16=\tfrac12\bigl(\tfrac23+(-\tfrac13)\bigr)\) puts the doublet at the hypercharge midpoint of its singlets — Pati–Salam's \(Y=T^3_R+\tfrac{B-L}{2}\). Now delete the middle node of \(\circ\!-\!\circ\!-\!\circ\): out comes a Levi \(SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)\). Its \(SU(2)_L\)-singlet sector is \((b{+}1)\) copies of the Clebsch–Gordan tower \([\tfrac a2]\otimes[\tfrac c2]\); the orbifold's chirality keeps half of each, giving a closed zero-mode count
\[N(a,b,c)=(b{+}1)\,\tfrac{a+c+1}{2}.\]The twist: why \(SU(4)\)? The cell is three charge constraints on a hypercharge with \(\operatorname{rank}(G){-}1\) free parameters — over-determined exactly at rank 3. So \(SU(4)\) is the unique critical rank where the cell is a rigid gate; for \(SU(5),SU(6)\) it dissolves and generic reps admit. Machine-checked exactly to dimension 900.
📄 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21432628
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/su4-sm-cell-criterion#RepresentationTheory #Physics #GaugeTheory #GrandUnification
-
🧮 New preprint — Part II of a series: *Three Gates to a Quark Generation*.
The question. In 6D gauge–Higgs unification, which representations of \(SU(4)\) hold a Standard-Model quark generation as chiral zero modes on \(T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2\)?
The answer, exactly. An irreducible rep with Dynkin labels \((a,b,c)\) works iff
\[(a+2b+3c)\ \text{odd}\ \ \wedge\ \ b\ge 1\ \ \wedge\ \ a+b+c\ge 3.\]
Three gates: arithmetic (the \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) centre charge), geometric (the middle Dynkin node excited), and size. Only 8 reps qualify below dim 400.For the curious. Strip a generation to its skeleton, the “\(\pm\tfrac12\) cell”: \(Q(\mathbf 2,\tfrac16),\, u(\mathbf 1,\tfrac23),\, d(\mathbf 1,-\tfrac13)\), where \(\tfrac16=\tfrac12\bigl(\tfrac23+(-\tfrac13)\bigr)\) puts the doublet at the hypercharge midpoint of its singlets — Pati–Salam's \(Y=T^3_R+\tfrac{B-L}{2}\). Now delete the middle node of \(\circ\!-\!\circ\!-\!\circ\): out comes a Levi \(SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)\). Its \(SU(2)_L\)-singlet sector is \((b{+}1)\) copies of the Clebsch–Gordan tower \([\tfrac a2]\otimes[\tfrac c2]\); the orbifold's chirality keeps half of each, giving a closed zero-mode count
\[N(a,b,c)=(b{+}1)\,\tfrac{a+c+1}{2}.\]The twist: why \(SU(4)\)? The cell is three charge constraints on a hypercharge with \(\operatorname{rank}(G){-}1\) free parameters — over-determined exactly at rank 3. So \(SU(4)\) is the unique critical rank where the cell is a rigid gate; for \(SU(5),SU(6)\) it dissolves and generic reps admit. Machine-checked exactly to dimension 900.
📄 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21432628
💻 https://github.com/karlesmarin/su4-sm-cell-criterion#RepresentationTheory #Physics #GaugeTheory #GrandUnification
-
I have neglected this channel, sorry lol. If you follow me you will probably find this interesting: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00442
-
What is the #Hopf #Fibration?
The #HopfFibration commonly shows up in discussions surrounding #GaugeTheory and #Fundamental #Physics, though its construction is not so mysterious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsHcKO7HvFY&ab_channel=Poppro
#Math #Maths #Mathematics #Manifold #Manifolds #Geometry #ManifoldGeometry #NonManifoldGeometry #Dimensions #Dimensionality #Coordinates #Coordinate #PositionSpace #3Sphere
-
What is the #Hopf #Fibration?
The #HopfFibration commonly shows up in discussions surrounding #GaugeTheory and #Fundamental #Physics, though its construction is not so mysterious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsHcKO7HvFY&ab_channel=Poppro
#Math #Maths #Mathematics #Manifold #Manifolds #Geometry #ManifoldGeometry #NonManifoldGeometry #Dimensions #Dimensionality #Coordinates #Coordinate #PositionSpace #3Sphere