Quantum corrections to geometryDirac operator on a Morita equivalent algebraCan we define spectral triples using the language of rigged Hilbert spaces?Various flavours of infinitesimalsQuantization and noncommutative deformationsQuantum dynamics on varieties and Salmon PrizesAre annihilation modules in the quantum torus necessarily principal?Quantum Field theory - integral notationExamples of $C^*$-algebras in Noncommutative Geometry from A. ConnesExtreme unitary minimal models of conformal field theoryCausal fermion systems fromm fractal geometryHausdorff dimension and von Neumann dimension

Quantum corrections to geometry


Dirac operator on a Morita equivalent algebraCan we define spectral triples using the language of rigged Hilbert spaces?Various flavours of infinitesimalsQuantization and noncommutative deformationsQuantum dynamics on varieties and Salmon PrizesAre annihilation modules in the quantum torus necessarily principal?Quantum Field theory - integral notationExamples of $C^*$-algebras in Noncommutative Geometry from A. ConnesExtreme unitary minimal models of conformal field theoryCausal fermion systems fromm fractal geometryHausdorff dimension and von Neumann dimension













17












$begingroup$


In this video Alain Connes made a comment about the ,,quantum corrections'' of the geometry. I would like to understand this notion in some details since I haven't found anything about this in the literature. I'm guessing that this notion is different to the notion of so called ,,inner fluctuations'' of the metric (see for example this discussion) and unlike the inner fluctuations, quantum corrections is less understood. So making the long story short my question is




What are quantum corrections of a geometry?




EDIT: Let me be a little bit more precise. One of the highlights of noncommutative geometry is that it can reproduce the complicated Lagrangian of the Standard Model from the so called spectral action and can be seen as pure gravity on some slightly noncommutative space of the form $M times F$. Here $F$ is not correctly defined as a set but manifests itself as a noncommutative algebra: the idea is that $F$ represents some noncommutative space. Since this noncommutativity is already present on the electroweak scale (i.e. distances approx. $10^-16textcm$) I guess that the quantum corrections of geometry should be:



  • already visible on this (much lower than Planck) energy scale

  • understood within the context of noncommutative geometry i.e. Dirac operators and spectral triples (if we take the lesson from the Standard Model seriously).

So let me state the problem once again, this time more precisely:




How to understand quantum corrections of geometry within the context of noncommutative geometry?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    This is rather old but might be a nice starting point for diving deeper into quantum gravity: [arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0108040.pdf]
    $endgroup$
    – Kai
    May 21 at 3:57















17












$begingroup$


In this video Alain Connes made a comment about the ,,quantum corrections'' of the geometry. I would like to understand this notion in some details since I haven't found anything about this in the literature. I'm guessing that this notion is different to the notion of so called ,,inner fluctuations'' of the metric (see for example this discussion) and unlike the inner fluctuations, quantum corrections is less understood. So making the long story short my question is




What are quantum corrections of a geometry?




EDIT: Let me be a little bit more precise. One of the highlights of noncommutative geometry is that it can reproduce the complicated Lagrangian of the Standard Model from the so called spectral action and can be seen as pure gravity on some slightly noncommutative space of the form $M times F$. Here $F$ is not correctly defined as a set but manifests itself as a noncommutative algebra: the idea is that $F$ represents some noncommutative space. Since this noncommutativity is already present on the electroweak scale (i.e. distances approx. $10^-16textcm$) I guess that the quantum corrections of geometry should be:



  • already visible on this (much lower than Planck) energy scale

  • understood within the context of noncommutative geometry i.e. Dirac operators and spectral triples (if we take the lesson from the Standard Model seriously).

So let me state the problem once again, this time more precisely:




How to understand quantum corrections of geometry within the context of noncommutative geometry?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    This is rather old but might be a nice starting point for diving deeper into quantum gravity: [arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0108040.pdf]
    $endgroup$
    – Kai
    May 21 at 3:57













17












17








17


9



$begingroup$


In this video Alain Connes made a comment about the ,,quantum corrections'' of the geometry. I would like to understand this notion in some details since I haven't found anything about this in the literature. I'm guessing that this notion is different to the notion of so called ,,inner fluctuations'' of the metric (see for example this discussion) and unlike the inner fluctuations, quantum corrections is less understood. So making the long story short my question is




What are quantum corrections of a geometry?




EDIT: Let me be a little bit more precise. One of the highlights of noncommutative geometry is that it can reproduce the complicated Lagrangian of the Standard Model from the so called spectral action and can be seen as pure gravity on some slightly noncommutative space of the form $M times F$. Here $F$ is not correctly defined as a set but manifests itself as a noncommutative algebra: the idea is that $F$ represents some noncommutative space. Since this noncommutativity is already present on the electroweak scale (i.e. distances approx. $10^-16textcm$) I guess that the quantum corrections of geometry should be:



  • already visible on this (much lower than Planck) energy scale

  • understood within the context of noncommutative geometry i.e. Dirac operators and spectral triples (if we take the lesson from the Standard Model seriously).

So let me state the problem once again, this time more precisely:




How to understand quantum corrections of geometry within the context of noncommutative geometry?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




In this video Alain Connes made a comment about the ,,quantum corrections'' of the geometry. I would like to understand this notion in some details since I haven't found anything about this in the literature. I'm guessing that this notion is different to the notion of so called ,,inner fluctuations'' of the metric (see for example this discussion) and unlike the inner fluctuations, quantum corrections is less understood. So making the long story short my question is




What are quantum corrections of a geometry?




EDIT: Let me be a little bit more precise. One of the highlights of noncommutative geometry is that it can reproduce the complicated Lagrangian of the Standard Model from the so called spectral action and can be seen as pure gravity on some slightly noncommutative space of the form $M times F$. Here $F$ is not correctly defined as a set but manifests itself as a noncommutative algebra: the idea is that $F$ represents some noncommutative space. Since this noncommutativity is already present on the electroweak scale (i.e. distances approx. $10^-16textcm$) I guess that the quantum corrections of geometry should be:



  • already visible on this (much lower than Planck) energy scale

  • understood within the context of noncommutative geometry i.e. Dirac operators and spectral triples (if we take the lesson from the Standard Model seriously).

So let me state the problem once again, this time more precisely:




How to understand quantum corrections of geometry within the context of noncommutative geometry?








qa.quantum-algebra noncommutative-geometry quantum-field-theory dirac-operator






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited May 21 at 7:48









Glorfindel

1,52241222




1,52241222










asked May 20 at 15:40









truebarantruebaran

2,98442061




2,98442061











  • $begingroup$
    This is rather old but might be a nice starting point for diving deeper into quantum gravity: [arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0108040.pdf]
    $endgroup$
    – Kai
    May 21 at 3:57
















  • $begingroup$
    This is rather old but might be a nice starting point for diving deeper into quantum gravity: [arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0108040.pdf]
    $endgroup$
    – Kai
    May 21 at 3:57















$begingroup$
This is rather old but might be a nice starting point for diving deeper into quantum gravity: [arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0108040.pdf]
$endgroup$
– Kai
May 21 at 3:57




$begingroup$
This is rather old but might be a nice starting point for diving deeper into quantum gravity: [arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0108040.pdf]
$endgroup$
– Kai
May 21 at 3:57










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















20












$begingroup$

Physicist chiming in; "quantum corrections of a geometry" represents the vague idea that gravity should be quantum.



Classically, gravity is a geometric theory: "reality" is modelled as a (Lorentzian) manifold, whose metric can be found -- in principle -- by solving a system of PDEs. To be more specific, the metric $g$ is such that the classical action $S[g]$ is stationary,
$$
S'[g]equiv0
$$

where $S$ is, say, the Hilbert action $S=int_X R$. (This is the canonical choice, which agrees with experiments to a great level of accuracy, but there are other choices that may work better in extreme regimes; a popular alternative is $S=int_X f(R)$ for some appropriate function $f$, cf. f(R) gravity).



Quantumly, this does not longer hold. Gravity should still be a geometric theory, but "quantum corrected", meaning that the paradigm changes but should reduce to the standard (classical) framework in the classical limit (schematically written as $hbarto0$). This is the problem of quantum gravity. The intuitive idea is that the metric is no longer fixed by a system of differential equations, but "fluctuates": there should be a "measure" $mu[g]$ in the "space of metrics" such that, when we perform a given experiment, a single metric $g$ is measured, drawn at random from this space of metrics, and with probability $mu[g]$. The "expectation value" for the geometry of spacetime is
$$
langle granglesimint mu[g]
$$

where the integral is over "the space of all metrics", whatever this means. A popular choice for the measure is $mu[g]=e^-S[g]/hbar$, which has the nice property that, in the $hbarto0$ limit, is peaked around the stationary point $S'[g]=0$, and so this measure appears to single out the classical configuration as a special point in this space.



Obviously, this is not a well-defined procedure, but it represents what we physicists would like to have. We leave it to the mathematicians to develop a theory of "integration over function spaces" strong enough to accommodate this our intuition.



But anyway, the take home message is that, classically, nature is supposed to be described as a manifold with a fixed (Lorentzian) metric. But if you go to very high energies (or very short distances), the classical picture breaks down and you need to take into account "quantum corrections": the metric is no longer fixed but becomes a random variable, peaked around the classical value but "fluctuating" according to some measure. Making this precise is the open problem in physics.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    11












    $begingroup$

    I presume this refers to quantum corrections to the metric tensor. These are expected to be important in general relativity when the curvature of space-time approaches the Planck scale $sqrtGhbar/c^3simeq 10^-33$ cm.



    Some pointers to the literature:



    Einstein Equation with Quantum Corrections



    Quantum Corrections to the Schwarzschild and Kerr Metrics



    Quantum Corrections to the Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman Metrics



    The edit also asks "How to understand quantum corrections of geometry within the context of noncommutative geometry (NCG)?".$^*$ I do not think this understanding exists at present. NCG has given a geometrical description of the Standard Model of elementary particles, and there might be ways to unify this with gravity, but that development is still very much in its infancy.



    $^*$ The name noncommutative geometry is misleading, in the sense that it suggests a quantum theory (since we all know that non-commuting operators play such an essential role in the quantum world), but in fact the homological theory that constitutes NCG does not itself contain quantum effects.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "504"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f332029%2fquantum-corrections-to-geometry%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      20












      $begingroup$

      Physicist chiming in; "quantum corrections of a geometry" represents the vague idea that gravity should be quantum.



      Classically, gravity is a geometric theory: "reality" is modelled as a (Lorentzian) manifold, whose metric can be found -- in principle -- by solving a system of PDEs. To be more specific, the metric $g$ is such that the classical action $S[g]$ is stationary,
      $$
      S'[g]equiv0
      $$

      where $S$ is, say, the Hilbert action $S=int_X R$. (This is the canonical choice, which agrees with experiments to a great level of accuracy, but there are other choices that may work better in extreme regimes; a popular alternative is $S=int_X f(R)$ for some appropriate function $f$, cf. f(R) gravity).



      Quantumly, this does not longer hold. Gravity should still be a geometric theory, but "quantum corrected", meaning that the paradigm changes but should reduce to the standard (classical) framework in the classical limit (schematically written as $hbarto0$). This is the problem of quantum gravity. The intuitive idea is that the metric is no longer fixed by a system of differential equations, but "fluctuates": there should be a "measure" $mu[g]$ in the "space of metrics" such that, when we perform a given experiment, a single metric $g$ is measured, drawn at random from this space of metrics, and with probability $mu[g]$. The "expectation value" for the geometry of spacetime is
      $$
      langle granglesimint mu[g]
      $$

      where the integral is over "the space of all metrics", whatever this means. A popular choice for the measure is $mu[g]=e^-S[g]/hbar$, which has the nice property that, in the $hbarto0$ limit, is peaked around the stationary point $S'[g]=0$, and so this measure appears to single out the classical configuration as a special point in this space.



      Obviously, this is not a well-defined procedure, but it represents what we physicists would like to have. We leave it to the mathematicians to develop a theory of "integration over function spaces" strong enough to accommodate this our intuition.



      But anyway, the take home message is that, classically, nature is supposed to be described as a manifold with a fixed (Lorentzian) metric. But if you go to very high energies (or very short distances), the classical picture breaks down and you need to take into account "quantum corrections": the metric is no longer fixed but becomes a random variable, peaked around the classical value but "fluctuating" according to some measure. Making this precise is the open problem in physics.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        20












        $begingroup$

        Physicist chiming in; "quantum corrections of a geometry" represents the vague idea that gravity should be quantum.



        Classically, gravity is a geometric theory: "reality" is modelled as a (Lorentzian) manifold, whose metric can be found -- in principle -- by solving a system of PDEs. To be more specific, the metric $g$ is such that the classical action $S[g]$ is stationary,
        $$
        S'[g]equiv0
        $$

        where $S$ is, say, the Hilbert action $S=int_X R$. (This is the canonical choice, which agrees with experiments to a great level of accuracy, but there are other choices that may work better in extreme regimes; a popular alternative is $S=int_X f(R)$ for some appropriate function $f$, cf. f(R) gravity).



        Quantumly, this does not longer hold. Gravity should still be a geometric theory, but "quantum corrected", meaning that the paradigm changes but should reduce to the standard (classical) framework in the classical limit (schematically written as $hbarto0$). This is the problem of quantum gravity. The intuitive idea is that the metric is no longer fixed by a system of differential equations, but "fluctuates": there should be a "measure" $mu[g]$ in the "space of metrics" such that, when we perform a given experiment, a single metric $g$ is measured, drawn at random from this space of metrics, and with probability $mu[g]$. The "expectation value" for the geometry of spacetime is
        $$
        langle granglesimint mu[g]
        $$

        where the integral is over "the space of all metrics", whatever this means. A popular choice for the measure is $mu[g]=e^-S[g]/hbar$, which has the nice property that, in the $hbarto0$ limit, is peaked around the stationary point $S'[g]=0$, and so this measure appears to single out the classical configuration as a special point in this space.



        Obviously, this is not a well-defined procedure, but it represents what we physicists would like to have. We leave it to the mathematicians to develop a theory of "integration over function spaces" strong enough to accommodate this our intuition.



        But anyway, the take home message is that, classically, nature is supposed to be described as a manifold with a fixed (Lorentzian) metric. But if you go to very high energies (or very short distances), the classical picture breaks down and you need to take into account "quantum corrections": the metric is no longer fixed but becomes a random variable, peaked around the classical value but "fluctuating" according to some measure. Making this precise is the open problem in physics.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          20












          20








          20





          $begingroup$

          Physicist chiming in; "quantum corrections of a geometry" represents the vague idea that gravity should be quantum.



          Classically, gravity is a geometric theory: "reality" is modelled as a (Lorentzian) manifold, whose metric can be found -- in principle -- by solving a system of PDEs. To be more specific, the metric $g$ is such that the classical action $S[g]$ is stationary,
          $$
          S'[g]equiv0
          $$

          where $S$ is, say, the Hilbert action $S=int_X R$. (This is the canonical choice, which agrees with experiments to a great level of accuracy, but there are other choices that may work better in extreme regimes; a popular alternative is $S=int_X f(R)$ for some appropriate function $f$, cf. f(R) gravity).



          Quantumly, this does not longer hold. Gravity should still be a geometric theory, but "quantum corrected", meaning that the paradigm changes but should reduce to the standard (classical) framework in the classical limit (schematically written as $hbarto0$). This is the problem of quantum gravity. The intuitive idea is that the metric is no longer fixed by a system of differential equations, but "fluctuates": there should be a "measure" $mu[g]$ in the "space of metrics" such that, when we perform a given experiment, a single metric $g$ is measured, drawn at random from this space of metrics, and with probability $mu[g]$. The "expectation value" for the geometry of spacetime is
          $$
          langle granglesimint mu[g]
          $$

          where the integral is over "the space of all metrics", whatever this means. A popular choice for the measure is $mu[g]=e^-S[g]/hbar$, which has the nice property that, in the $hbarto0$ limit, is peaked around the stationary point $S'[g]=0$, and so this measure appears to single out the classical configuration as a special point in this space.



          Obviously, this is not a well-defined procedure, but it represents what we physicists would like to have. We leave it to the mathematicians to develop a theory of "integration over function spaces" strong enough to accommodate this our intuition.



          But anyway, the take home message is that, classically, nature is supposed to be described as a manifold with a fixed (Lorentzian) metric. But if you go to very high energies (or very short distances), the classical picture breaks down and you need to take into account "quantum corrections": the metric is no longer fixed but becomes a random variable, peaked around the classical value but "fluctuating" according to some measure. Making this precise is the open problem in physics.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Physicist chiming in; "quantum corrections of a geometry" represents the vague idea that gravity should be quantum.



          Classically, gravity is a geometric theory: "reality" is modelled as a (Lorentzian) manifold, whose metric can be found -- in principle -- by solving a system of PDEs. To be more specific, the metric $g$ is such that the classical action $S[g]$ is stationary,
          $$
          S'[g]equiv0
          $$

          where $S$ is, say, the Hilbert action $S=int_X R$. (This is the canonical choice, which agrees with experiments to a great level of accuracy, but there are other choices that may work better in extreme regimes; a popular alternative is $S=int_X f(R)$ for some appropriate function $f$, cf. f(R) gravity).



          Quantumly, this does not longer hold. Gravity should still be a geometric theory, but "quantum corrected", meaning that the paradigm changes but should reduce to the standard (classical) framework in the classical limit (schematically written as $hbarto0$). This is the problem of quantum gravity. The intuitive idea is that the metric is no longer fixed by a system of differential equations, but "fluctuates": there should be a "measure" $mu[g]$ in the "space of metrics" such that, when we perform a given experiment, a single metric $g$ is measured, drawn at random from this space of metrics, and with probability $mu[g]$. The "expectation value" for the geometry of spacetime is
          $$
          langle granglesimint mu[g]
          $$

          where the integral is over "the space of all metrics", whatever this means. A popular choice for the measure is $mu[g]=e^-S[g]/hbar$, which has the nice property that, in the $hbarto0$ limit, is peaked around the stationary point $S'[g]=0$, and so this measure appears to single out the classical configuration as a special point in this space.



          Obviously, this is not a well-defined procedure, but it represents what we physicists would like to have. We leave it to the mathematicians to develop a theory of "integration over function spaces" strong enough to accommodate this our intuition.



          But anyway, the take home message is that, classically, nature is supposed to be described as a manifold with a fixed (Lorentzian) metric. But if you go to very high energies (or very short distances), the classical picture breaks down and you need to take into account "quantum corrections": the metric is no longer fixed but becomes a random variable, peaked around the classical value but "fluctuating" according to some measure. Making this precise is the open problem in physics.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered May 20 at 16:13









          AccidentalFourierTransformAccidentalFourierTransform

          1,001215




          1,001215





















              11












              $begingroup$

              I presume this refers to quantum corrections to the metric tensor. These are expected to be important in general relativity when the curvature of space-time approaches the Planck scale $sqrtGhbar/c^3simeq 10^-33$ cm.



              Some pointers to the literature:



              Einstein Equation with Quantum Corrections



              Quantum Corrections to the Schwarzschild and Kerr Metrics



              Quantum Corrections to the Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman Metrics



              The edit also asks "How to understand quantum corrections of geometry within the context of noncommutative geometry (NCG)?".$^*$ I do not think this understanding exists at present. NCG has given a geometrical description of the Standard Model of elementary particles, and there might be ways to unify this with gravity, but that development is still very much in its infancy.



              $^*$ The name noncommutative geometry is misleading, in the sense that it suggests a quantum theory (since we all know that non-commuting operators play such an essential role in the quantum world), but in fact the homological theory that constitutes NCG does not itself contain quantum effects.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                11












                $begingroup$

                I presume this refers to quantum corrections to the metric tensor. These are expected to be important in general relativity when the curvature of space-time approaches the Planck scale $sqrtGhbar/c^3simeq 10^-33$ cm.



                Some pointers to the literature:



                Einstein Equation with Quantum Corrections



                Quantum Corrections to the Schwarzschild and Kerr Metrics



                Quantum Corrections to the Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman Metrics



                The edit also asks "How to understand quantum corrections of geometry within the context of noncommutative geometry (NCG)?".$^*$ I do not think this understanding exists at present. NCG has given a geometrical description of the Standard Model of elementary particles, and there might be ways to unify this with gravity, but that development is still very much in its infancy.



                $^*$ The name noncommutative geometry is misleading, in the sense that it suggests a quantum theory (since we all know that non-commuting operators play such an essential role in the quantum world), but in fact the homological theory that constitutes NCG does not itself contain quantum effects.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  11












                  11








                  11





                  $begingroup$

                  I presume this refers to quantum corrections to the metric tensor. These are expected to be important in general relativity when the curvature of space-time approaches the Planck scale $sqrtGhbar/c^3simeq 10^-33$ cm.



                  Some pointers to the literature:



                  Einstein Equation with Quantum Corrections



                  Quantum Corrections to the Schwarzschild and Kerr Metrics



                  Quantum Corrections to the Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman Metrics



                  The edit also asks "How to understand quantum corrections of geometry within the context of noncommutative geometry (NCG)?".$^*$ I do not think this understanding exists at present. NCG has given a geometrical description of the Standard Model of elementary particles, and there might be ways to unify this with gravity, but that development is still very much in its infancy.



                  $^*$ The name noncommutative geometry is misleading, in the sense that it suggests a quantum theory (since we all know that non-commuting operators play such an essential role in the quantum world), but in fact the homological theory that constitutes NCG does not itself contain quantum effects.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  I presume this refers to quantum corrections to the metric tensor. These are expected to be important in general relativity when the curvature of space-time approaches the Planck scale $sqrtGhbar/c^3simeq 10^-33$ cm.



                  Some pointers to the literature:



                  Einstein Equation with Quantum Corrections



                  Quantum Corrections to the Schwarzschild and Kerr Metrics



                  Quantum Corrections to the Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman Metrics



                  The edit also asks "How to understand quantum corrections of geometry within the context of noncommutative geometry (NCG)?".$^*$ I do not think this understanding exists at present. NCG has given a geometrical description of the Standard Model of elementary particles, and there might be ways to unify this with gravity, but that development is still very much in its infancy.



                  $^*$ The name noncommutative geometry is misleading, in the sense that it suggests a quantum theory (since we all know that non-commuting operators play such an essential role in the quantum world), but in fact the homological theory that constitutes NCG does not itself contain quantum effects.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited May 20 at 19:13

























                  answered May 20 at 16:04









                  Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker

                  83.2k9196300




                  83.2k9196300



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f332029%2fquantum-corrections-to-geometry%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

                      Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

                      What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company