Sunday, June 26, 2011

K-theory, branes, and TGD

K-theory is an essential part of the motivic cohomology. Unfortunately, this theory is very abstract and the articles written by mathematicians are usually incomprehensible for a physicist. Hence the best manner to learn K-theory is to learn about its physics applications. The most important applications are brane classification in super string models and M-theory. The excellent lectures by Harah Evslin with title What doesn't K-theory classify? make it possible to learn the basic motivations for the classification, what kind of classifications are possible, and what are the failures. Also the Wikipedia article gives a bird's eye of view about the problems. As a by-product one learns something about the basic ideas of K-theory.

In the sequel I will discuss critically the basic assumptions of brane world scenario, sum up my understanding about the problems related to the topological classification of branes and also to the notion itself, ask what goes wrong with branes and demonstrate how the problems are avoided in TGD framework, and conclude with a proposal for a natural generalization of K-theory to include also the division of bundles inspired by the generalization of Feynman diagrammatics in quantum TGD, by zero energy ontology, and by the notion of finite measurement resolution.

Brane world scenario

The brane world scenario looks attractive from the mathematical point of view ine one is able to get accustomed with the idea that basic geometric objects have varying dimensions. Even accepting the varying dimensions, the basic physical assumptions behind this scenario are vulnerable to criticism.

  1. Branes are geometric objects of varying dimension in the 10-/11-dimensional space-time -call it M- of superstring theory/M-theory. In M-theory the fundamental strings are replaced with M-branes, which are 2-D membranes with 3-dimensional orbit having as its magnetic dual 6-D M5-brane. Branes are thought to emerge non-perturbatively from fundamental 2-branes but what this really means is not understood. One has D-p-branes with Dirichlet boundary conditions fixing a p+1-dimensional surface of M as brane orbit: one of the dimensions corresponds to time. Also S-branes localized in time have been proposed.

  2. In the description of the classical limit branes interact with the classical fields of the target space by the generalization of the minimal coupling of charged point-like particle to electromagnetic gauge potential. The coupling is simply the integral of the gauge potential over the world-line - the value of 1-form for the wordline. Point like particle represents 0-brane and in the case of p-brane the generalization is obtained by replacing the gauge potential represented by a 1-from with p+1-form. The exterior derivative of this p+1-form is p+2-form representing the analog of electromagnetic field. Complete dimensional democracy strongly suggests that string world sheets should be regarded as 1-branes.

  3. From TGD point of view the introduction of branes looks a rather ad hoc trick. By generalizing the coupling of electromagnetic gauge potential to the word line of point like particle one could introduce extended objects of various dimensions also in the ordinary 4-D Maxwell theory but they would be always interpreted as idealizations for the carriers of 4- currents. Therefore the crucial step leading to branes involves classical idealization in conflict with Uncertainty Principle and the genuine quantal description in terms of fields coupled to gauge potentials.

    My view is that the most natural interpretation for what is behind branes is in terms of currents in D=10 or D= 11 space-time. In this scheme branes have role only as semi-classical idealizations making sense only above some scale. Both the reduction of string theories to quantum field theories by holography and the dynamical character of the metric of the target space conforms with super-gravity interpretation. Internal consistency requires also the identification of strings as branes so that superstring theories and M-theory would reduce to an idealization to 10-/11-dimensional quantum gravity.

In this framework the brave brane world episode would have been a very useful Odysseia. The possibility to interpret various geometric objects physically has proved to be an extremely powerful tool for building provable conjectures and has produced lots of immensely beautiful mathematics. As a fundamental theory this kind of approach does not look convincing to me.

The basic challenge: classify the conserved brane charges associated with branes

One can of course forget these critical arguments and look whether this general picture works. The first thing that one can do is to classify the branes topologically. I made the same question about 32 years ago in TGD framework: I thought that cobordism for 3-manifolds might give highly interesting topological conservation laws. I was disappointed. The results of Thom's classical article about manifold cobordism demonstrated that there is no hope for really interesting conservation laws. The assumption of Lorentz cobordism meaning the existence of global time-like vector field would make the situation more interesting but this condition looked too strong and I could not see a real justification for it. In generalized Feynman diagrammatics there is no need for this kind of condition.

There are many alternative approaches to the classification problem. One can use homotopy, homology, cohomology and their relative and other variants, topological or algebraic K-theory, twisted K-theory, and variants of K-theory not yet existing but to be proposed within next years. The list is probably endless unless something like motivic cohomology brings in enlightment.

  1. First of all one must decide whether one classifies p-dimensional time=constant sections of p-branes or their p+1-dimensional orbits. Both approaches have been applied although the first one is natural in the standard view about spontaneous compactification. For the first option topological invariants could be seen as conserved charges: homotopy invariants and homological and cohomological characteristics of branes provide this kind of invariants. For the latter option the invariants would be analogous to instanton number characterizing the change of magnetic charge.

  2. Purely topological invariants come first in mind. Homotopy groups of the brane are invariants inherent to the brane (the brane topology can however change). Homological and cohomological characteristics of branes in singular homology characterize the imbedding to the target space. There are also more delicate differential topological invariants such as de Rham cohomology defining invariants analogous to magnetic charges. Dolbeault cohomology emerges naturally for even-dimensional branes with complex structure.

  3. Gauge theories - both abelian and non-Abelian - define a standard approach to the construction of brane charges for the bundle structures assigned with branes. Chern-Simons classes are fundamental invariants of this kind. Also more delicate invariants associated with gauge potentials can be considered. Chern-Simons theory with vanishing field strengths for solutions of field equations provides a basic example about this. For intance, SU(2) Chern-Simons theory provides 3-D topological invariants and knot invariants.

  4. More refined approaches involve K-theory -closely related to motivic cohomology - and its twisted version. The idea is to reduce the classification of branes to the classification of the bundle structures associated with them. This approach has had remarkable successes but has also its short-comings.

The challenge is to find the mathematical classification which suits best the physical intuitions (, which might be fatally wrong as already proposed) but is universal at the same time. This challenge has turned out to be tough. The Ramond-Ramond (RR) p-form fields of type II superstring theory are rather delicate objects and a source of most of the problems. The difficulties emerge also by the presence of Neveu-Schwartz 3-form H =dB defining classical background field.

K-theory has emerged as a good candidate for the classification of branes. It leaves the confines of homology and uses bundle structures associated with branes and classifies these. There are many K-theories. In topological K-theory bundles form an algebraic structure with sum, difference, and multiplication. Sum is simply the direct sum for the fibers of the bundle with common base space. Product reduces to a tensor product for the fibers. The difference of bundles represents a more abstract notion. It is obtained by replacing bundles with pairs in much the same way as rationals can be thought of as pairs of integers with equivalence (m,n)= (km,kn), k integer. Pairs (n,1) representing integers and pairs (1,n) their inverses. In the recent case one replaces multiplication with sum and regards bundle pairs and (E,F) and (E+G,F+G) equivalent. Although the pair as such remains a formal notion, each pair must have also a real world representativs. Therefore the sign for the bundle must have meaning and corresponds to the sign of the charges assigned to the bundle. The charges are analogous to winding of the brane and one can call brane with negative winding antibrane. The interpretation in terms of orientation looks rather natural. Later a TGD inspired concrete interpretation for the bundle sum, difference, product and also division will be proposed.

Problems related to the existence of spinor structure

Many problems in the classification of brane charges relate to the existence of spinor structure. The existence of spinor structure is a problem already in general general relativity since ordinary spinor structure exists only if the second Stiefel-Whitney class of the manifold is non-vanishing: if the third Stiefel-Whitney class vanishes one can introduce so called spinc structure. This kind of problems are encountered already in lattice QCD, where periodic boundary conditions imply non-uniqueness having interpretation in terms of 16 different spinor structures with no obvious physical interpretation. One the strengths of TGD is that the notion of induced spinor structure eliminates all problems of this kind completely. One can therefore find direct support for TGD based notion of spinor structure from the basic inconsistency of QCD lattice calculations!

  1. Freed-Witten anomaly appearing in type II string theories represents one of the problems. Freed and Witten show that in the case of 2-branes for which the generalized gauge potential is 3-form so called spinc structure is needed and exists if the third Stiefel-Whitney class w3 related to second Stiefel Whitney class whose vanishing guarantees the existence of ordinary spin structure (in TGD framework spinc structure for CP2 is absolutely essential for obtaining standard model symmetries).

    It can however happen that w3 is non-vanishing. In this case it is possible to modify the spinc structure if the condition w3+[H]=0 holds true. It can however happen that there is an obstruction for having this structure - in other words w3+[H] does not vanish - known as Freed-Witten anomaly. In this case K-theory classification fails. Witten and Freed argue that physically the wrapping of cycle with non-vanishing w3 + [H] by a Dp-brane requires the presence of D(p-2) brane cancelling the anomaly. If D(p-2) brane ends to anti-Dp in which case charge conservation is lost. If there is not place for it to end one has semi-infinite brane with infinite mass, which is also problematic physically. Witten calls these branes baryons: these physically very dubious objects are not classified by K-theory.

  2. The non-vanishing of w3+[H]=0 forces to generalize K-theory to twisted K-theory. This means a modification of the exterior derivative to get twisted de Rham cohomology and twisted K-theory and the condition of closedness in this cohomology for certain form becomes the condition guaranteeing the existence of the modified spinc structure. D-branes act as sources of these fields and the coupling is completely analogous to that in electrodynamics. In the presence of classical Neveu-Schwartz (NS-NS) 3-form field H associated with the back-ground geometry the field strength Gp+1 = dCp is not gauge invariant anymore. One must replace the exterior derivative with its twisted version to get twisted de Rham cohomology:

    d→ d+ H∧ .

    There is a coupling between p- and p+2-forms together and gauge symmetries must be modified accordingly. The fluxes of twisted field strengths are not quantized but one can return to original p-forms which are quantized. The coupling to external sources also becomes more complicated and in the case of magnetic charges one obtains magnetically charged Dp-branes. Dp-brane serves as a source for D(p-2)- branes.

    This kind of twisted cohomology is known by mathematicians as Deligne cohomology. At the level of homology this means that if branes with dimension of p are presented then also branes with dimension p+2 are there and serve as source of Dp-branes emanating from them or perhaps identifiable as their sub-manifolds. Ordinary homology fails in this kind of situation and the proposal is that so called twisted K-theory could allow to classify the brane charges.

  3. A Lagrangian formulation of brane dynamics based on the notion of p-brane democracy due to Peter Townsend has been developed by various authors.

Ashoke Sen has proposed a grand vision for understanding the brane classification in terms of tachyon condensation in absence of NS-NS field H. The basic observation is that stacks of space-filling D- and anti D-branes are unstable against process called tachyon condensation which however means fusion of p+1-D brane orbits rather than p-dimensional time slicse of branes. These branes are however accompanied by lower-dimensional branes and the decay process cannot destroy these. Therefore the idea arises that suitable stacks of D9 branes and anti-D9-branes could code for all lower-dimensional brane configurations as the end products of the decay process.

This leads to a creation of lower-dimensional branes. All decay products of branes resulting in the decay cascade would be by definition equivalent. The basic step of the decay process is the fusion of D-branes in stack to single brane. In bundle theoretic language one can say that the D-branes and anti-D branes in the stack fuse together to single brane with bundle fiber which is direct sum of the fibers on the stack. This fusion process for the branes of stack would correspond in topological K-theory. The fusion of D-branes and anti-D branes would give rise to nothing since the fibers would have opposite sign. The classification would reduce to that for stacks of D9-branes and anti D9-branes.

Problems with Hodge duality and S-duality

The K-theory classification is plagued by problems all of which need not be only technical.

  1. R-R fields are self dual and since metric is involved with the mapping taking forms to their duals one encounters a problem. Chern characters appearing in K-theory are rational valued but the presence of metric implies that the Chern characters for the duals need not be rational valued. Hence K-theory must be replaced with something less demanding.

    The geometric quantization inspired proposal of Diaconescu, Moore and Witten is based on the polarization using only one half of the forms to get rid of the proboem. This is like thinking the 10-D space-time as phase space and reducing it effectively to 5-D space: this brings strongly in mind the identification of space-time surfaces as hyper-quaternionic (associative) sub-manifolds of imbedding space with octonionic structure and one can ask whether the basic objects also in M-theory should be taken 5-dimensional if this line of thought is taken seriously. An alternative approach uses K-theory to classify the intersections of branes with 9-D space-time slice as has been porposed by Maldacena, Moore and Seiberg.

  2. There another problem related to classification of the brane charges. Witten, Moore and Diaconescu have shown that there are also homology cycles which are unstable against decay and this means that twisted K-theory is inconsistent with the S-duality of type IIB string theory. Also these cycles should be eliminated in an improved classification if one takes charge conservation as the basic condition and an hitherto un-known modification of cohomology theory is needed.

  3. There is also the problem that K-theory for time slices classifies only the R-R field strengths. Also R-R gauge potentials carry information just as ordinary gauge potentials and this information is crucial in Chern-Simons type topological QFTs. K-theory for entire target space classifies D-branes as p+1-dimensional objects but in this case the classification of R-R field strengths is lost.

The existence of non-representable 7-D homology classes for targent space dimension D>9

There is a further nasty problem which destroys the hopes that twisted K-theory could provide a satisfactory classification. Even worse, something might be wrong with the superstring theory itself. The problem is that not all homology classes allow a representation as non-singular manifolds. The first dimension in which this happens is D=10, the dimension of super-string models! Situation is of course the same in M-theory. The existence of the non-representables was demonstrated by Thom - the creator of catastrophe theory and of cobordism theory for manifolds- for a long time ago.

What happens is that there can exist 7-D cycles which allow only singular imbeddings. A good example would be the imbedding of twistor space CP3, whose orbit would have conical singularity for which CP3 would contract to a point at the "moment of big bang". Therefore homological classification not only allows but demands branes which are orbifolds. Should orbifolds be excluded as unphysical? If so then homology gives too many branes and the singular branes must be excluded by replacing the homology with something else. Could twisted K-theory exclude non-representable branes as unstable ones by having non-vanishing w3+[H]? The answer to the question is negative: D6-branes with w3+[H]=0 exist for which K-theory charges can be both vanishing or non-vanishing.

One can argue that non-representability is not a problem in superstring models (M-theory) since spontaneous compactification leads to M× X6 (M× X7). On the other hand, Cartesian product topology is an approximation which is expected to fail in high enough length scale resolution and near big bang so that one could encounter the problem. Most importantly, if M-theory is theory of everything it cannot contain this kind of beauty spots.

What could go wrong with super string theory and how TGD circumvents the problems?

As a proponent of TGD I cannot avoid the temptation to suggest that at least two things could go wrong in the fundamental physical assumptions of superstrings and M-theory.

  1. The basic failure would be the construction of quantum theory starting from semiclassical approximation assuming localization of currents of 10 - or 11-dimensional theory to lower-dimensional sub-manifolds. What should have been a generalization of QFT by replacing pointlike particles with higher-dimensional objects would reduce to an approximation of 10- or 11-dimensional supergravity.

    This argument does not bite in TGD. 4-D space-time surfaces are indeed fundamental objects in TGD as also partonic 2-surfaces and braids. This role emerges purely number theoretically inspiring the conjecture that space-time surfaces are associative sub-manifolds of octonionic imbedding spaces, from the requirement of extended conformal invariance, and from the non-dynamical character of the imbedding space.

  2. The condition that all homology equivalence classes are representable as manifolds excludes all dimensions D> 9 and thus super-strings and M-theory as a physical theory. This would be the case since branes are unavoidable in M-theory as is also the landscape of compactifications. In semiclassical supergravity interpretation this would not be catastrophe but if branes are fundamental objects this shortcoming is serious. If the condition of homological representability is accepted then target space must have dimension D<10 and the arguments sequence leading to D=8 and TGD is rather short. The number theoretical vision provides the mathematical justification for TGD as the unique outcome.

  3. The existence of spin structure is clearly the source of many problems related to R-R form. In TGD framework the induction of spinc structure of the imbedding space resolves all problems associated with sub-manifold spin structures. For some reason the notion of induced spinor structure has not gained attention in super string approach.

  4. Conservative experimental physicist might criticize the emergence of branes of various dimensions as something rather weird. In TGD framework electric-magnetic duality can be understood in terms of general coordinate invariance and holography and branes and their duals have dimension 2, 3, and 4 organize to sub-manifolds of space-time sheets. The TGD counterpart for the fundamental M-2-brane is light-like 3-surface. Its magnetic dual has dimension given by the general formula pdual= D-p-4, where D is the dimension of the target space. In TGD one has D=8 giving pdual= 2. The first interpretation is in terms of self-duality. A more plausible interpretation relies on the identification of the duals of light-like 3-surfaces as spacelike-3-surfaces at the light-like boundaries of CD. General Coordinate Invariance in strong sense implies this duality. For partonic 2-surface one would have p=2 and pdual=3. The identification of the dual would be as space-time surface. The crucial distinction to M-theory would be that branes of different dimension would be sub-manifolds of space-time surface.

  5. For p=0 one would have pdual=4 assigning five-dimensional surface to orbits of point-like particles identifiable most naturally as braid strands. One cannot assign to it any direct physical meaning in TGD framework and gauge invariance for the analogs of brane gauge potentials indeed excludes even-dimensional branes in TGD since corresponding forms are proportional to Kähler gauge potential (so that they would be analogous to odd-dimensional branes allowed by type IIB superstrings).

    4-branes could be however mathematically useful by allowing to define Morse theory for the critical points of the Minkowskian part of Kähler action. While writing this I learned that Witten has proposed a 4-D gauge theory approach with N=4 SUSY to the classification of knots. Witten also ends up with a Morse theory using 5-D space-times in the category-theoretical formulation of the theory. For some time ago I also proposed that TGD as almost topological QFT defines a theory of knots, knot braidings, and of 2-knots in terms of string world sheets. Maybe the 4-branes could be useful for understanding of the extrema of TGD of the Minkowskian part of Kähler action which would take take the same role as Hamiltonian in Floer homology: the extrema of 5-D brane action would connect these extrema.

  6. Light-like 3-surfaces could be seen as the analogs von Neuman branes for which the boundary conditions state that the ends of space-like 3-brane defined by the partonic 2-surfaces move with light-velocity. The interpretation of partonic 2-surfaces as space-like branes at the ends of CD would in turn make them D-branes so that one would have a duality between D-branes and N-brane interpretations. T-duality exchanges von Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions so that strong from of general coordinate invariance would correspond to both electric-magnetic and T-duality in TGD framework. Note that T-duality exchanges type IIA and type IIB super-strings with each other.

  7. What about causal diamonds and their 7-D lightlike boundaries? Could one regard the light-like boundaries of CDs as analogs of 6-branes with light-like direction defining time-like direction so that space-time surfaces would be seen as 3-branes connecting them? This brane would not have magnetic dual since the formula for the dimensions of brane and its magnetic dual allows positive brane dimension p only in the range (1,3).

Can one identify the counterparts of R-R and NS-NS fields in TGD?

R-R and NS-NS 3-forms are clearly in fundamental role in M-theory. Since in TGD partonic 2-surfaces define the analogs of fundamental M-2-branes, one can wonder whether these 3-forms could have TGD counterparts.

  1. In TGD framework the 3-forms G3,A =dC2,A defined as the exterior derivatives of the two-forms C2,A identified as products C2,A=HAJ of Hamiltonians HA of δ M4+/-× CP2 with Kähler forms of factors of δ M4+/-× CP2 define an infinite family of closed 3-forms belonging to various irreducible representations of rotation group and color group. One can consider also the algebra generated by products HA A, HAJ, HA A∧ J, HA J∧ J, where A resp. J denotes the Kähler gauge potential resp. Kähler form or either δ M4+/- or CP2. A resp. Also the sum of Kähler potentials resp. forms of δ M4+/- and CP2 can be considered.

  2. One can define the counterparts of the fluxes ∫ Adx as fluxes of HA A over braid strands, HAJ over partonic 2-surfaces and string world sheets, HA A∧ J over 3-surfaces, and HAJ∧ J over space-time sheets. Gauge invariance however suggests that for non-constant Hamiltonians one must exclude the fluxes assigned to odd dimensional surfaces so that only odd-dimensional branes would be allowed. This would exclude 0-branes and the problematic 4-branes. These fluxes should be quantized for the critical values of the Minkowskian contributions and for the maxima with respect to zero modes for the Euclidian contributions to Kähler action. The interpretation would be in terms of Morse function and Kähler function if the proposed conjecture holds true. One could even hope that the charges in Cartan algebra are quantized for all preferred extremals and define charges in these irreducible representations for the isometry algebra of WCW. The quantization of electric fluxes for string world sheets would give rise to the familiar quantization of the rotation ∫ E dl of electric field over a loop in time direction taking place in superconductivity.

  3. Should one interpret these fluxes as the analogs of NS-NS-fluxes or R-R fluxes? The exterior derivatives of the forms G3 vanish which is the analog for the vanishing of magnetic charge densities (it is however possible to have the analogs of homological magnetic charge). The self-duality of Ramond p-forms could be posed formally (Gp= *G8-p) but does not have any implications for p< 4 since the space-time projections vanish in this case identically for p>3. For p=4 the dual of the instanton density J∧ J is proportional to volume form if M4 and is not of topological interest. The approach of Witten eliminating one half of self dual R-R-fluxes would mean that only the above discussed series of fluxes need to be considered so that one would have no troubles with non-rational values of the fluxes nor with the lack of higher dimensional objects assignable to them. An interesting question is whether the fluxes could define some kind of K-theory invariants.

  4. In TGD imbedding space is non-dynamical and there seems to be no counterpart for the NS 3-form field H=dB. The only natural candidate would correspond to Hamiltonian B=J giving H=dB=0. At quantum level this might be understood in terms of bosonic emergence meaning that only Ramond representations for fermions are needed in the theory since bosons correspond to wormhole contacts with fermion and anti-fermions at opposite throats. Therefore twisted cohomology is not needed and there is no need to introduce the analogy of brane democracy and 4-D space-time surfaces containing the analogs of lower-dimensional brains as sub-manifolds are enough. The fluxes of these forms over partonic 2-surfaces and string world sheets defined non-abelian analogs of ordinary gauge fluxes reducing to rotations of vector potentials and suggested be crucial for understanding braidings of knots and 2-knots in TGD framework. Note also that the unique dimension D=4 for space-time makes 4-D space-time surfaces homologically self-dual so that only they are needed.

Could one divide bundles?

TGD differs from string models in one important aspects: stringy diagrams do not have interpretation as analogs of vertices of Feynman diagrams: the stringy decay of partonic 2-surface to two pieces does not represent particle decay but a propagation along different paths for incoming particle. Particle reactions in turn are described by the vertices of generalized Feynman diagrams in which the ends of incoming and outgoing particles meet along partonic 2-surface. This suggests a generalization of K-theory for bundles assignable to the partonic 2-surfaces. It is good to start with a guess for the concrete geometric realization of the sum and product of bundles in TGD framework.

  1. The analogs of string diagrams could represent the analog for direct sum. Difference between bundles could be defined geometrically in terms of trouser vertex A+B→ C. B would by definition represent C-A. Direct sum could make sense for single particle states and have as space-time correlate the conservation of braid strands.

  2. A possible concretization in TGD framework for the tensor product is in terms of the vertices of generalized Feynman diagrams at which incoming light-like 3-D orbits of partons meet along their ends. The tensor product of incoming state spaces defined by fermionic oscillator algebras is naturally formed. Tensor product would have also now as a space-time correlate conservation of braid strands. This does not mean that the number of braid strands is conserved in reactions if also particular exchanges can carry the braid strands of particles coming to the vertex.

Why not define also division of bundles in terms of the division for tensor product? In terms of the 3-vertex for generalized Feynman diagrams A⊗ B=C representing tensor product B would be by definition C/A. Therefore TGD would extend the K-theory algebra by introducing also division as a natural operation necessitated by the presence of the join along ends vertices not present in string theory. I would be surprised if some mathematician would not have published the idea in some exotic journal. Below I represent an argument that this notion could be also applied in the mathematical description of finite measurement resolution in TGD framework using inclusions of hyper-finite factor. Division could make possible a rigorous definition for for non-commutative quantum spaces.

Tensor division could have also other natural applications in TGD framework.

  1. One could assign bundles M+ and M- to the upper and lower light-like boundaries of CD. The bundle M+/M- would be obtained by formally identifying the upper and lower light-like boundaries. More generally, one could assign to the boundaries of CD positive and negative energy parts of WCW spinor fields and corresponding bundle structures in "half WCW". Zero energy states could be seen as sections of the unit bundle just like infinite rationals reducing to real units as real numbers would represent zero energy states.

  2. Finite measurement resolution would encourage tensor division since finite measurement resolution means essentially the loss of information about everything below measurement resolution represented as a tensor product factor. The notion of coset space formed by hyper-finite factor and included factor could be understood in terms of tensor division and give rise to quantum group like space with fractional quantum dimension in the case of Jones inclusions. Finite measurement resolution would therefore define infinite hierarchy of finite dimensional non-commutative spaces characterized by fractional quantum dimension. In this case the notion of tensor product would be somewhat more delicate since complex numbers are effectively replaced by the included algebra whose action creates states not distinguishable from each other. The action of algebra elements to the state |B> in the inner product < A|B> must be equivalent with the action of its hermitian conjugate to the state < A|. Note that zero energy states are in question so that the included algedra generates always modifications of states which keep it as a zero energy state.

For details see the new chapter Motives and Infinite Primes of "Physics as a Generalized Number Theory" or the article with same title.

7 Comments:

At 10:42 AM, Blogger hamed said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10:54 AM, Blogger hamed said...

hello matti

what's your idea about Musean hypernumbers?
Dr. Charles A. Mus`es (1919–2000) discovered a series of higherdimensional types of unity, which he termed hypernumbers. He wrote about these numbers from the 1960’s to the 1990’s in many articles.
he discovered relation between Consciousness and hypernumbers and wrote about them in some articles.

you can find about this numbers at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musean_hypernumber

 
At 7:47 PM, Anonymous Matpitka@luukku.com said...

I encounterd hypernumbers for a couple of years ago as I asked whether Mandelbrot fractal has higher dimensional generalization. Hyper-numbers is one manner to produce the analogs of these fractals but the result is effectively 2-dimensional in most cases.

Hyper-numbers have no special role in TGD where classical number fields and their complexifications are natural. The field character guaranteeing the existence of inverse is lacking. Mathematician might consider manifolds with hyper-number structure in tangent space.

 
At 9:11 AM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

So, Matti,

I understand why hypernumbers have no special role in the TGD framework. But I am not sure what your excellent post and links like on the D 9 brane string like ideas have to do with it either.

Other than the 3D extension I think your question on the Mandelbrot fractal a good one (branes in a sense seem to answer it, at least suggest a vision of it. But such compactions of space for me is too limited in the first place, a dead end if the only view.

I am also amazed at the analogy that Branes can be considered charged, or is that a higher metaphor- do they radiate.

In numbers the square and cubed things together do raise the question of something like 6 space and so on... but that deeper than branes that always are n-dimensional in fact in the first place.

I think hamed asked this question because there are 9 such hypernumbers which are based on the idea of a root of unity which is not necessarily positive one.

And quite simply space does seem to be filled cube-wise and sphere-wise at whatever they think happens at nine dimensions.

But with all left over interpretations of just a QM theory as a method- such hypernumbers were (in the 70s) thought intimate in the description of consciousness.

The PeSla

 
At 9:46 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

Dear Pesla,

my view is that branes define an extremely powerful
mathematical tool for a mathematician although the basic step leading to the idea about generalized gauge potentials coupling to branes suggests interpretation of the theory as semiclassical idealization of supergravity theory using various lower-dimensional objects as idealized configurations rather than something generalizing supergravity as QFT.

The irony is that just the completely lacking connection to real world physics has forced to concentrate on the general aspects of the theory with fantastic mathematical outcome.

Sad that I have not been motivated to learn the mathematical side of M-theory: I have allowed the idiotic hype by the rock stars of theoretical physics and equally idiotic concentration of too many bloggers to the ridicule of this hype (easy manner to get readers!!) to blind me so that I have not really grasped how incredibly powerful mathematics - bound to be very useful also to TGD framework- the mathematicians like Witten have discovered during the years. Big fishes swim in silent waters and media in interested only on the simplest possible music played with maximal volume.


In TGD framework the counterparts of branes have different interpretation but the comparison with M-theory and superstrings might provide for string theorists valuable insights about TGD.

For instance 4-D general coordinate invariance in strong form implies holography in strong form, and for the analogs of 2-branes both electric-magnetic duality and T-duality exchanging von Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions. See the post.

This morning I read about Witten's work with knot classification 4-D SUSY gauge theory. I proposed analogous approach based on TGD and 4-D space-time surfaces for some time ago:

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/01/wittens-physical-view-about-khovanov.html

I added a couple of comments about this to this posting.

Everything is ready for the breakthrough of TGD and whether it can happen depends only on political will.
Let us hope that data from LHC will settle the situation soon. I believe that a correct prediction of a new hadronic physics, prediction of several other new branches of physics, and the understanding of dark matter -among other things- must eventually turn the heads of theoreticians.

 
At 11:52 AM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

Matti, Indeed!

BTW Fractals from a complex number viewpoint into higher dimensions- well that could show some interesting results after all. Yes, our views do not need this.

Seems to me they will also see the depth of your generalizations too. It seems to be a steep learning curve for them I would say if you asked me today :-)

The PeSla

 
At 7:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home