Sunday, May 07, 2006

Connes tensor product as universal interaction, quantization of Planck constant, McKay correspondence, etc...

It seems that discussion both in Peter Woit's blog, John Baez's This Week's Findings, and in h Lubos Motl's blog happen to tangent very closely what I have worked with during last weeks: ADE and Jones inclusions.

1. Some background.

  1. It has been for few years clear that TGD could emerge from the mere infinite-dimensionality of the Clifford algebra of infinite-dimensional "world of classical worlds" and from number theoretical vision in which classical number fields play a key role and determine imbedding space and space-time dimensions. This would fix completely the "world of classical worlds".

  2. Infinite-D Clifford algebra is a standard representation for von Neumann algebra known as a hyper-finite factor of type II1. In TGD framework the infinite tensor power of C(8), Clifford algebra of 8-D space would be the natural representation of this algebra.

2. How to localize infinite-dimensional Clifford algebra?

The basic new idea is to make this algebra local: local Clifford algebra as a generalization of gamma field of string models.

  1. Represent Minkowski coordinate of Md as linear combination of gamma matrices of D-dimensional space. This is the first guess. One fascinating finding is that this notion can be quantized and classical Md is genuine quantum Md with coordinate values eigenvalues of quantal commuting Hermitian operators built from matrix elements. Euclidian space is not obtained in this manner! Minkowski signature is something quantal! Standard quantum group Gl(2,q)(C) gives M4.

  2. Form power series of the Md coordinate represented as linear combination of gamma matrices with coefficients in corresponding infinite-D Clifford algebra. You would get tensor product of two algebra.

  3. There is however a problem: one cannot distinguish the tensor product from the original infinite-D Clifford algebra. D=8 is however an exception! You can replace gammas in the expansion of M8 coordinate by hyper-octonionic units which are non-associative (or octonionic units in quantum complexified-octonionic case). Now you cannot anymore absorb the tensor factor to the Clifford algebra and you get genuine M8-localized factor of type II1. Everything is determined by infinite-dimensional gamma matrix fields analogous to conformal super fields with z replaced by hyperoctonion.

  4. Octonionic non-associativity actually reproduces whole classical and quantum TGD: space-time surface must be associative sub-manifolds hence hyper-quaternionic surfaces of M8. Representability as surfaces in M4xCP2 follows naturally, the notion of configuration space of 3-surfaces, etc....

3. Connes tensor product for free fields as a universal definition of interaction quantum field theory

This picture has profound implications. Consider first the construction of S-matrix.

  1. A non-perturbative construction of S-matrix emerges. The deep principle is simple. The canonical outer automorphism for von Neumann algebras defines a natural candidate unitary transformation giving rise to propagator. This outer automorphism is trivial for II1 factors meaning that all lines appearing in Feynman diagrams must be on mass shell states satisfying Virasoro conditions. You can allow all possible diagrams: all on mass shell loop corrections vanish by unitarity and what remains are diagrams with single N-vertex!

  2. At 2-surface representing N-vertex space-time sheets representing generalized Bohr orbits of incoming and outgoing particles meet. This vertex involves von Neumann trace (finite!) of localized gamma matrices expressible in terms of fermionic oscillator operators and defining free fields satisfying Super Virasoro conditions.

  3. For free fields ordinary tensor product would not give interacting theory. What makes S-matrix non-trivial is that *Connes tensor product* is used instead of the ordinary one. This tensor product is a universal description for interactions and we can forget perturbation theory! Interactions result as a deformation of tensor product. Unitarity of resulting S-matrix is unproven but I dare believe that it holds true.

  4. The subfactor N defining the Connes tensor product has interpretation in terms of the interaction between experimenter and measured system and each interaction type defines its own Connes tensor product. Basically N represents the limitations of the experimenter. For instance, IR and UV cutoffs could be seen as primitive manners to describe what N describes much more elegantily. At the limit when N contains only single element, theory would become free field theory but this is ideal situation never achievable.

4. The quantization of Planck constant and ADE hierarchies

The quantization of Planck constant has been the basic them of TGD for more than one and half years and leads also the understanding of ADE correspondences (index ≤ 4 and index=4) from the point of view of Jones inclusions.

  1. The new view allows to understand how and why Planck constant is quantized and gives an amazingly simple formula for the separate Planck constants assignable to M4 and CP2 and appearing as scaling constants of their metrics. This in terms of a mild generalizations of standard Jones inclusions. The emergence of imbedding space means only that the scaling of these metrics have spectrum: no landscape.

  2. In ordinary phase Planck constants of M4 and CP2 are same and have their standard values. Large Planck constant phases correspond to situations in which a transition to a phase in which quantum groups occurs. These situations correspond to standard Jones inclusions in which Clifford algebra is replaced with a sub-algebra of its G-invariant elements. G is product Ga×Gb of subgroups of SL(2,C) and SU(2)Lx×U(1) which also acts as a subgroup of SU(3). Space-time sheets are n(Gb) fold coverings of M4 and n(Ga) fold coverings of CP2 generalizing the picture which has emerged already. An elementary study of these coverings fixes the values of scaling factors of M4 and CP2 Planck constants to orders of the maximal cyclic sub-groups. Mass spectrum is invariant under these scalings.

  3. This predicts automatically arbitrarily large values of Planck constant and assigns the preferred values of Planck constant to quantum phases q=exp(iπ/n) expressible in terms of square roots of rationals: these correspond to polygons obtainable by compass and ruler construction. In particular, experimentally favored values of hbar in living matter correspond to these special values of Planck constant. This model reproduces also the other aspects of the general vision. The subgroups of SL(2,C) in turn can give rise to re-scaling of SU(3) Planck constant. The most general situation can be described in terms of Jones inclusions for fixed point subalgebras of number theoretic Clifford algebras defined by Ga× Gb in SL(2,C)× SU(2).

  4. These inclusions (apart from those for which Ga contains infinite number of elements) are represented by ADE or extended ADE diagrams depending on the value of index. The group algebras of these groups give rise to additional degrees of freedom which make possible to construct the multiplets of the corresponding gauge groups. For index&le4 all gauge groups allowed by the ADE correspondence (An,D2n, E6,E8) are possible so that TGD seems to be able to mimick these gauge theories. For index=4 all ADE Kac Moody groups are possible and again mimicry becomes possible: TGD would be kind of universal physics emulator but it would be anyonic dark matter which would perform this emulation.

  5. Large hbar phases provide good hopes of realizing topological quantum computation. There is an additional new element. For quantum spinors state function reduction cannot be performed unless quantum deformation parameter equals to q=1. The reason is that the components of quantum spinor do not commute: it is however possible to measure the commuting operators representing moduli squared of the components giving the probabilities associated with 'true' and 'false'. The universal eigenvalue spectrum for probabilities does not in general contain (1,0) so that quantum qbits are inherently fuzzy. State function reduction would occur only after a transition to q=1 phase and decoherence is not a problem as long as it does not induce this transition.

For details see the chapter Was von Neumann Right After All? of "TGD: an Overview" at my homepage.

Matti Pitkanen


Post a Comment

<< Home