Talks

I shall describe Relationalism, especially in the Leibniz-Mach-Barbour sense of the word and my variations on that theme. My presentation shall give five extensions to Barbour's work: (more or less) phase space, categorization, subsystems analysis, quantization, and physics as a propositional logic (`questions about physical systems'). I shall also briefly explain how some of Crane and Rovelli's ideas do fit within this scheme, whilst others are at odds with the LMB scheme, leaving one choosing options rather thanjust considering unions.   I shall also present how scale-invariant and scaled relational particle models (the latter originally discovered by Barbour and Bertotti in 1982) can, in dimension 1 and 2, which suffice to toy-model many midisuperspace aspects of GR, be very generally solved at the following levels. 1) configuration space geometry following my fortuitous connection with Kendall's work in the statistical theory of shape involving the self-same space of shapes, and then the cone over this in the scaled case. 2) Conserved quantities and classical equations of motion. 3) Quantum equations of motion and their solutions. 4) Parallels of many Problem of Time strategies. I view this second paragraph as relevant not only by 4) but more widely by how it is a model of quantum background independence (BI), with BI being argued to be the other half to 'relativistic gravitation' in that gestalt entity known as General Relativity.

I will start by showing that gravity, with positive cosmological constant in 2+1 dimensions, can be formulated as a theory of dynamic conformal spatial geometry. Exploiting the isomorphism between the isometry group of de Sitter space in D+1 dimensions and the conformal group in D dimensions, I will reinterpret the Chern--Simons formulation of 2+1 gravity as a gauge theory of a conformal connection. In Cartan's generalization of geometry, this connection represents an evolving spatial geometry locally modeled off the conformal sphere. After a suitable phase space reduction, we obtain shape dynamics. This remodeling explains, in 2+1 dimensions, the remarkable success of the York procedure for solving the initial value problem of general relativity and the uniqueness of the shape dynamics Hamiltonian. I will finish by speculating about possible connections between this work and the general shape dynamics program with holographic renormalization, AdS/CFT, and Horava gravity.

I review the best-matching construction,  and the striking properties of a Jacobi-type action first introduced by Baierelein, Sharp and Wheeler. The simplest theories compatible with such an action principle must have a universal light-cone and gauge symmetry. I also describe the implementation of three-dimensional conformal symmetries on the basis of the BSW action, which gives a first-principles derivation of York's solution of the initial value problem in General Relativity.

Shape Dynamics first arose as a theory of particle interactions formulated without any of Newton's absolute structures. Its fundamental arena is shape space, which is obtained by quotienting Newton's kinematic framework with respect to translations, rotations and dilatations. This leads to a universe defined purely intrinsically in relational terms. It is then postulated that a dynamical history is determined by the specification in shape space of an initial shape and an associated rate of change of shape. There is a very natural way to create a theory that meets such a requirement. It fully implements Mach's principle and shows how time and local inertial frames are determined by the universe as whole. If the same principles are applied to a spatially closed universe in which geometry is dynamical, they lead rather surprisingly to a theory that, modulo some caveats, is dynamically equivalent to general relativity but dual to it in that refoliation invariance is traded for three-dimensional conformal invariance. This shows that there is a hidden three-dimensional conformal symmetry within general relativity. It is in fact what underlies York's crucial method of solution of the initial-value problem in general relativity. It is also remarkable that, as in York's work, shape dynamics inescapably introduces a mathematically distinguished notion of absolute simultaneity, the desirability of which has been found in two currently popular approaches to quantum gravity: causal dynamical triangulations and Horava gravity. I aim to express the key ideas and techniques of shape dynamics as simply as possible.

The tremendous empirical success of Einstein's relativity has pushed Aether into a chapter in the history books, for nearly a century. However, a phenomenologically consistent quantum mechanical treatment of gravity has motivated a revival of aether, by taming its UV-divergences, or the cosmological constant problem. Here I will outline the phenomenological implications of a physically motivated aether model. I will also discuss how aether could potentially evade traditional tests of Lorentz violation, through strong coupling. 

This talk reviews the idea of quantum gravity with anisotropic scaling, and presents a scenario in which this theory of gravity is coupled to matter, described by the standard model or beyond.This "multicritical universe" scenario predicts systematic, energy-dependent, calculable Lorentz-violating corrections to the relativistic dispersion relations of matter.

The distinction between a realist interpretation of quantum theory that is psi-ontic and one that is psi-epistemic is whether or not a difference in the quantum state necessarily implies a difference in the underlying ontic state. Psi-ontologists believe that it does, psi-epistemicists that it does not. This talk will address the question of whether the PBR theorem should be interpreted as lending evidence against the psi-epistemic research program. I will review the evidence in favour of the psi-epistemic approach and describe the pre-existing reasons for thinking that if a quantum state represents knowledge about reality then it is not reality as we know it, i.e., it is not the kind of reality that is posited in the standard hidden variable framework. I will argue that the PBR theorem provides additional clues for "what has to give" in the hidden variable framework rather than providing a reason to retreat from the psi-epistemic position. The first assumption of the theorem - that holistic properties may exist for composite systems, but do not arise for unentangled quantum states - is only appealing if one is already predisposed to a psi-ontic view. The more natural assumption of separability (no holistic properties) coupled with the other assumptions of the theorem rules out both psi-ontic and psi-epistemic models and so does not decide between them. The connection between the PBR theorem and other no-go results will be discussed. In particular, I will point out how the second assumption of the theorem is an instance of preparation noncontextuality, a property that is known not to be achievable in any ontological model of quantum theory, regardless of the status of separability (though not in the form posited by PBR). I will also consider the connection of PBR to the failure of local causality by considering an experimental scenario which is in a sense a time-inversion of the PBR scenario.

It is well known that on-shell recursion relation can be applied to tree-level amplitude in string theory. One technical issue of the application is the sum of infinite middle on-shell states. We discuss how we can do the sum exactly to reproduce the known result.