Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Still more detailed view about the construction of M-matrix elements

After three decades there are excellent hopes of building an explicit recipe for constructing M-matrix elements but the devil is in the details.

1. Elimination of infinities and coupling constant evolution

The elimination of infinities would follow from the symplectic QFT part of the theory. The symplectic contribution to n-point functions vanishes when two arguments co-incide. The UV cancellation mechanism has nothing to do with the finite measurement resolution which corresponds to the size of the causal diamonds inside which the space-time sheets representing radiative corrections are. There is also IR cutoff due to the presence of largest causal diamond.

On can decompose the radiative corrections two two types. First kind of corrections appear both at the level of positive/and negative energy parts of zero energy states. Second kind of corrections appear at the level of interactions between them. This decomposition is standard in quantum field theories and corresponds to the renormalization constants of fields resp. renormalization of coupling constants. The corrections due to the increase of measurement resolution in time comes as very specific corrections to positive and negative energy states involving gluing of smaller causal diamonds to the upper and lower boundaries of causal diamonds along any radial light-like ray. The radiative corresponds to the interactions correspond to the addition of smaller causal diamonds in the interior of the larger causal diamond. Scales for the corrections come as scalings in powers of 2 rather than as continuous scaling of measurement resolution.

2. Conformal symmetries

The basic questions are the following ones. How hyper-octonionic/-quaternionic/-complex super-conformal symmetry relates to the super-canonical conformal symmetry at the imbedding space level and the super Kac-Moody symmetry associated with the light-like 3-surfaces? How do the dual HO=M8 and H=M4×CP2 descriptions (number theoretic compactifcation) relate?

Concerning the understanding of these issues, the earlier construction of physical states poses strong constraints.

  1. The state construction utilizes both super-canonical and super Kac-Moody algebras. Super-canonical algebra has negative conformal weights and creates tachyonic ground states from which Super Kac-Moody algebra generates states with non-negative conformal weight determining the mass squared value of the state. The commutator of these two algebras annihilates the physical states. This requires that both super conformal algebras must allow continuation to hyper-octonionic algebras, which are independent.

  2. The light-like radial coordinate at dM4± can be continued to a hyper-complex coordinate in M2± defined the preferred commutative plane of non-physical polarizations, and also to a hyper-quaternionic coordinate in M4±. Hence it would seem that super-canonical algebra can be continued to an algebra in M2± or perhaps in the entire M4±. This would allow to continue also the operators G, L and other super-canonical operators to operators in hyper-quaternionic M4± needed in stringy perturbation theory.

  3. Also the super KM algebra associated with the light-like 3-surfaces should be continuable to hyper-quaternionic M4±. Here HO-H duality comes in rescue. It requires that the preferred hyper-complex plane M2 is contained in the tangent plane of the space-time sheet at each point, in particular at light-like 3-surfaces. We already know that this allows to assign a unique space-time surface to a given collection of light-like 3-surfaces as hyper-quaternionic 4-surface of HO hypothesized to correspond to (an obviously preferred) extremal of Kähler action. An equally important implication is that the light-like coordinate of X3 can be continued to hyper-complex coordinate M2 coordinate and thus also to hyperquaternionic M4 coordinate.

  4. The four-momentum appears in super generators Gn and Ln. It seems that the formal Fourier transform of four-momentum components to gradient operators to M4± is needed and defines these operators as particular elements of the CH Clifford algebra elements extended to fields in imbedding space.

3. What about stringy perturbation theory?

The analog of stringy perturbation theory does not seems only a highly attractive but also an unavoidable outcome since a generalization of massless fermionic propagator is needed. The inverse for the sum of super Kac-Moody and super-canonical super-Virasoro generators G (L) extended to an operator acting on the difference of the M4 coordinates of the end points of the propagator line connecting two partonic 2-surfaces should appear as fermionic (bosonic) propagator in stringy perturbation theory. Virasoro conditions imply that only G0 and L0 appear as propagators. Momentum eigenstates are not strictly speaking possible since since discretization is present due to the finite measurement resolution. One can however represent these states using Fourier transform as a superposition of momentum eigenstates so that standard formalism can be applied.

Symplectic QFT gives an additional multiplicative contribution to n-point functions and there would be also braiding S-matrices involved with the propagator lines in the case that partonic 2-surface carriers more than 1 point. This leaves still modular degrees of freedom of the partonic 2-surfaces describable in terms of elementary particle vacuum functionals and the proper treatment of these degrees of freedom remains a challenge.

4. What about non-hermiticity of the CH super-generators carrying fermion number?

TGD represents also a rather special challenge, which actually represents the fundamental difference between quantum TGD and super string models. The assignment of fermion number to CH gamma matrices and thus also to the super-generator G is unavoidable. Also M4 and H gamma matrices carry fermion number. This has been a long-standing interpretational problem in quantum TGD and I have been even ready to give up the interpretation of four-momentum operator appearing in Gn and Ln as actual four-momenta. The manner to get rid of this problem would be the assumption of Majorana property but this would force to give up the interpretation of different imbedding space chiralities in terms of conserved lepton and quark numbers and would also lead to super-string theory with critical dimension 10 or 11. A further problem is how to obtain amplitudes which respect fermion number conservation using string perturbation theory if 1/G=G0f/L0 carries fermion number.

The recent picture does not leave many choices so that I was forced to face the truth and see how everything falls down to this single nasty detail! It became as a total surprise that gamma matrices carrying fermion number do not cause any difficulties in zero energy ontology and make sense even in the ordinary Feynman diagrammatics.

  1. Non-hermiticity of G means that the center of mass terms CH gamma matrices must be distinguished from their Hermitian conjugates. In particular, one has g0 ¹ g0f. One can interpret the fermion number carrying M4 gamma matrices of the complexified quaternion space appearing naturally in number theoretical framework.

  2. One might think that M4×CP2 gamma matrices carrying fermion number is a catastrophe but this is not the case in a massless theory. Massless momentum eigen states can be created by the operator pkgkf from a vacuum annihilated by gamma matrices and satisfying massless Dirac equation. For instance, the conserved fermion number defined by the integral of \overline{Y}g0Y over 3-space gives just its standard value. A further experimentation shows that Feynman diagrams with non-hermitian gamma matrices give just the standard results since fermionic propagator and boson-emission vertices give compensating fermion numbers.

  3. If the theory would contain massive fermions or a coupling to a scalar Higgs, a catastrophe would result. Hence ordinary Higgs mechanism is not possible in this framework. Of course, also the quantization of fermions is totally different. In TGD fermion mass is not a scalar in H. Part of it is given by CP2 Dirac operator, part by p-adic thermodynamics for L0, and part by Higgs field which behaves like vector field in CP2 degrees of freedom, so that the catastrophe is avoided.

  4. In zero energy ontology zero energy states are characterized by M-matrix elements constructed by applying the combination of stringy and symplectic Feynman rules and fermionic propagator is replaced with its super-conformal generalization reducing to an ordinary fermionic propagator for massless states. The norm of a single fermion state is given by a propagator connecting positive energy state and its conjugate with the propagator G0/L0 and the standard value of the norm is obtained by using Dirac equation and the fact that Dirac operator appears also in G0.

  5. The hermiticity of super-generators G would require Majorana property and one would end up with superstring theory with critical dimension D=10 or D=11 for the imbedding space. Hence the new interpretation of gamma matrices, proposed already years ago, has very profound consequences and convincingly demonstrates that TGD approach is indeed internally consistent.

For more details see the previous posting, the chapter Construction of Quantum Theory: S-matrix of "Towards S-matrix", and the article Topological Geometrodynamics: What Might Be the First Principles?.


Post a Comment

<< Home