Sunday, January 27, 2013

What p-adic icosahedron could mean? And what about p-adic manifold?

I have been working for a couple of weeks with the problem of defining the notion of p-adic manifold: this is one of the key challenges of TGD. The existing proposals by mathematicians are rather complicated and it seems that something is lacking. To my opinion, to identify this something it is essential to make the question "What p-adic numbers are supposed to describe?". This question has not bothered either matheticians or theoretical physicists proposing purely formal p-adic counterparts for the scattering amplitudes.

Without any answer to this question there are simply quite too many alternatives to consider and one ends up to the garden of branching paths. I wrote already earlier a posting about this topic - essentially the introduction to the article What p-adic icosahedron could mean? And what about p-adic manifold? and of the new chapter of Physics as generalized Number theory with same title. The text below is this introduction in an updated form.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This article was originally meant to be a summary of what I understand about the article "The p-Adic Icosahedron" in Notices of AMS. The original purpose was to summarize the basic ideas and discuss my own view about more technical aspects - in particular the generalization of Riemann sphere to p-adic context which is rather technical and leads to the notion of Bruhat Tits tree and Berkovich space. About Bruhat-Tits tree there is a nice web article titled p-Adic numbers and Bruhat-Tits tree describing also basics of p-adic numbers in a very concise form.

The notion of p-adic icosahedron leads to the challenge of constructing p-adic sphere, and more generally p-adic manifolds and this extended the intended scope of the article and led to consider the fundamental questions related to the construction of TGD.

Quite generally, there are two approaches to the construction of manifolds based on algebra resp. topology.

  1. In algebraic geometry manifolds - or rather, algebraic varieties - correspond to solutions of algebraic equations. Algebraic approach allows even a generalization of notions of real topology such as the notion of genus.

  2. Second approach relies on topology and works nicely in the real context. The basic building brick is n-ball. More complex manifolds are obtained by gluing n-balls together. Here inequalities enter the game. Since p-adic numbers are not well-ordered they do not make sense in purely p-adic context unless expressed using p-adic norm and thus for real numbers. The notion of boundary is also one of the problematic notions since in purely p-adic context there are no boundaries.

The attempt to construct p-adic manifolds by mimicking topological construction of real manifolds meets difficulties

The basic problem in the application of topological method to manifold construction is that p-adic disks are either disjoint or nested so that the standard construction of real manifolds using partially overlapping n-balls does not generalize to the p-adic context. The notions of Bruhat-Tits tree, building, and Berkovich disks and Berkovich space are represent attempts to overcome this problem. Berkovich disk is a generalization of the p-adic disk obtained by adding additional points so that the p-adic disk is a dense subset of it. Berkovich disk allows path connected topology which is not ultrametric. The generalization of this construction is used to construct p-adic manifolds using the modification of the topological construction in the real case. This construction provides also insights about p-adic integration.

The construction is highly technical and complex and pragmatic physicist could argue that it contains several un-natural features due to the forcing of the real picture to p-adic context. In particular, one must give up the p-adic topology whose ultra-metricity has a nice interpretation in the applications to both p-adic mass calculations and to consciousness theory.

I do not know whether the construction of Bruhat-Tits tree, which works for projective spaces but not for Qpn (!) is a special feature of projective spaces, whether Bruhat-Tits tree is enough so that no completion would be needed, and whether Bruhat-Tits tree can be deduced from Berkovich approach. What is remarkable that for M4× CP2 p-adic S2 and CP2 are projective spaces and allow Bruhat-Tits tree. This not true for the spheres associated with the light-cone boundary of D≠ 4-dimensional Minkowski spaces.

Two basic philosophies concerning the construction of p-adic manifolds

There exists two basic philosophies concerning the construction of p-adic manifolds: algebraic and topological approach. Also in TGD these approaches have been competing: algebraic approach relates real and p-adic space-time points by identifying common rationals. Finite pinary cutoff is however required to achieve continuity and has interpretation in terms of finite measurement resolution. Canonical identification maps p-adics to reals and vice versa in a continuous manner but is not consistent with field equations without pinary cutoff.

  1. One can try to generalize the theory of real manifolds to p-adic context. Since p-adic balls are either disjoint or nested, the usual constuction by gluing partially overlapping balls fails. This leads to the notion of Berkovich disk obtained as a completion of p-adic disk having path connected topology (non-ultrametric) and containing p-adic disk as a dense subset. This plus the complexity of the construction is heavy price to be paid for path-connectedness. A related notion is Bruhat-Tits tree defining kind of skeleton making p-adic manifold defining its boundary path connected. The notion makes sense for the p-adic counterparts of projective spaces, which suggests that p-adic projective spaces (S2 and CP2 in TGD framework) are physically very special.

  2. Second approach is algebraic and restricts the consideration to algebraic varieties for which also topological invariants have algebraic counterparts. This approach is very natural in TGD framework, where preferred extremals of Kähler action can be characterized purely algebraically - even in a manner independent of the action principle - so that they make sense also p-adically.

    At the level of WCW algebraic approach combined with symmetries works: the mere existence of Kähler geometry implies infinite-D group of isometries and fixes the geometry uniquely. One can say that infinite-D geometries are the final victory of Erlangen program. At space-time level it however seems that one must have correspondence between real and p-adic worlds since real topology is the "lab topology". Canonical identification should enter the construction.

Number theoretical universality and the construction of p-adic manifolds

Construction of p-adic counterparts of manifolds is also one of the basic challenges of TGD. Here the basic vision is that one must take a wider perspective. One must unify real and various p-adic physics to single coherent whole and to relate them. At the level of mathematics this requires fusion of real and p-adic number fields along common rationals and the notion of algebraic continuation between number fields becomes a basic tool.

The number theoretic approach is essentially algebraic and based on the gluing of reals and various p-adic number fields to a larger structure along rationals and also along common algebraic numbers. A strong motivation for the algebraic approach comes from the fact that preferred extremals are characterized by a generalization of the complex structure to 4-D case both in Euclidian and Minkowskian signature. This generalization is independent of the action principle. This allows a straightforward identification of the p-adic counterparts of preferred extremals. The algebraic extensions of p-adic numbers play a key role and make it possible to realize the symmetries in the same manner as they are realized in the construction of p-adic icosahedron.

The lack of well-ordering of p-adic numbers implies strong constraints on the formulation of number theoretical universality.

  1. The notion of set theoretic boundary does not make sense in purely p-adic context. Quite, generally everything involving inequalities can lead to problems in p-adic context unless one is able to define effective Archimedean topology in some natural manner. Canonical identifcation inducing real topology to p-adic context would allow to achieve this.

  2. The question arises about whether real topological invariants such as genus of partonic 2-surface make sense in the p-adic sector: for algebraic varieties this is the case. One would however like to have a more general definition and again Archimedean effective topology is suggestive.

  3. Integration poses problems in p-adic context and algebraic continuation from reals to p-adic number fields seems to be the only possible option making sense. The continuation is however not possible for all p-adic number fields for given surface. This has however a beautiful interpretation explaining why real space-time sheets (and elementary particles) are characterized by some p-adic prime or primes. The p-adic prime determining the mass scale of the elementary particle could be fixed number theoretically rather than by some dynamical principle formulated in real context (number theoretic anatomy of rational number does not depend smoothly on its real magnitude!).
    A more direct approach to integration could rely on canonical integration as a chart map allowing to define integral on the real side.

  4. Only those discrete subgroups of real symmetries, which correspond matrices with elements in algebraic extension of p-adic numbers can be realized so that a symmetry breaking to discrete subgroup consistent with the notion of finite measurement resolution and quantum measurement theory takes place. p-Adic symmetry groups can be identified as unions of elements of discrete subgroup of the symmetry group (making sense also in real context) multiplied by a p-adic variant of the continuous Lie group. These genuinely p-adic Lie groups are labelled by powers of p telling the maximum norm of the Lie-algebra parameter. Remarkably, effective values of Planck constant come as powers of p. Whether this interpretation for the hierarchy of effective Planck constants is consistent with the interpretation in terms of n-furcations of space-time sheet remains an open question.

How to achieve path connectedness?

The basic problem in the construction of p-adic manifolds is the total disconnectedness of the p-adic topology implied by ultrametricity. This leads also to problems with the notion of p-adic integration. Physically it seems clear that the notion of path connectedness should have some physical counterpart.

The notion of open set makes possib le path connectedness possible in the real context. In p-adic context Bruhat-Tits tree and Berkovich disk are introduced to achieve the same goal. One can of course ask whether Berkovich space could allow to achieve a more rigorous formulation for the p-adic counterparts of CP2, of partonic 2-surfaces, their light-like orbits, preferred extremals of Kähler action, and even the "world of classical worlds" (WCW). To me this construction does not look promising in TGD framework but I could be wrong.

TGD suggests two alternative approaches to the problem of path connectedness. They should be equivalent.

p-Adic manifold concept based on canonical identification

The TGD inspired solution to the construction of path connectd p-adic topology is based on the notion of canonical identification mapping reals to p-adics and vice versa in a continuous manner.

  1. Canonical identification is used to map the predictions of p-adic mass calculations to map the p-adic value of the mass squared to its real counterpart. It makes also sense to map p-adic probabilities to their real counterparts by canonical identification. In TGD inspired theory of consciousness canonical identification is a good candidate for defining cognitive representations as representations mapping real preferred extremals to p-adic preferred extremals as also for the realization of intentional action as a quantum jump replacing p-adic preferred extremal representing intention with a real preferred extremal representing action. Could these cognitive representations and their inverses actually define real coordinate charts for the p-adic "mind stuff" and vice versa?

  2. The trivial but striking observation was that it satisfies triangle inequality and thus defines an Archimedean norm allowing to induce real topology to p-adic context. Canonical identification with finite measurement resolution defines chart maps from p-adics to reals (rather than p-adics!) and vice versa and preferred extremal property allows to complete the discrete image to hopefully unique space-time surface so that topological and algebraic approach are combined. Without preferred extremal property one can complete to smooth real manifold (say) but the completion is much less unique - which indeed conforms with finite pinary resolution.

  3. Also the notion of integration can be defined. If the integral for - say- real curve at the map leaf exists, its value on the p-adic side for its pre-image can be defined by algebraic continuation in the case that it exists. Therefore one can speak about lengths, volumes, action integrals, and similar things in p-adic context. One can also generalize the notion of differential form and its holomomorphic variant and their integrals to the p-adic context. These generalizations allow a generalization of integral calculus required by TGD and also provide a justification for some basic assumptions of p-adic mass calculations.

Could path connectedness have quantal description?

The physical content of path connectedness might also allow a formulation as a quantum physical rather than primarily topological notion, and could boil down to the non-triviality of correlation functions for second quantized induced spinor fields essential for the formulation of WCW spinor structure. Fermion fields and their n-point functions could become part of a number theoretically universal definition of manifold in accordance with the TGD inspired vision that WCW geometry - and perhaps even space-time geometry - allow a formulation in terms of fermions.

The natural question of physicist is whether quantum theory could provide a fresh number theoretically universal approach to the problem. The basic underlying vision in TGD framework is that second quantized fermion fields might allow to formulate the geometry of "world of classical worlds" (WCW) (for instance, Kähler action for preferred extremals and thus Kähler geometry of WCW would reduce to Dirac determinant. Maybe even the geometry of space-time surfaces could be expressed in terms of fermionic correlation functions.

This inspires the idea that second quantized fermionic fields replace the K-valued (K is algebraic extension of p-adic numbers) functions defined on p-adic disk in the construction of Berkovich. The ultrametric norm for the functions defined in p-adic disk would be replaced by the fermionic correlation functions and different Berkovich norms correspond to different measurement resolutions so that one obtains also a connection with hyper-finite factors of type II1. The existence of non-trivial fermionic correlation functions would be the counterpart for the path connectedness at space-time level. The 3-surfaces defining boundaries of a connected preferred extremal are also in a natural manner "path connected": the "path" is defined by the 4-surface. At the level of WCW and in zero energy ontology (ZEO) WCW spinor fields are analogous to correlation functions having collections of these disjoint 3-surfaces as arguments. There would be no need to complete p-adic topology to a path connected topology in this approach.

It must be emphasized that this apporach should be consistent with the first option and that it is much more speculative that the first option.

About literature

It is not easy to find readable literature from these topics. The Wikipedia article about Berkovich space is written with a jargon giving no idea about what is involved. There are video lectures about Berkovich spaces. The web article about Berkovich spaces by Temkin seems too technical for a non-specialist. The slides however give a concise bird's eye of view about the basic idea behind Berkovich spaces.

Topics of the article

The article was originally meant to discuss p-adic icosahedron. Although the focus was redirected to the notion of p-adic manifold - especially in TGD framework - I decided to keep the original starting point since it provides a concrete manner to end up with the deep problems of p-adic manifold theory and illustrates the group theoretical ideas.

  • In the first section icosahedron is described in real context. In the second section the ideas related to its generalization to the p-adic context are introduced. After that I discuss how to define sphere in p-adic context.

  • In the section about algebraic universality I consider the problems related to the challenge of defining p-adic manifolds TGD point of view, which is algebraic and involves the fusion of various number fields and number theoretical universality as additional elements.

  • The key section of the article describes the construction of p-adic space-time topology relying on chart maps of p-adic preferred extremals defined by canonical identification in finite measurement resolution and on the completion of discrete chart maps to real preferred extremals of Kähler action. The needed path-connected topology is the topology induced by canonical identification defining real chart maps for p-adic space-time surface. Canonical identification allows also the definition of p-adic valued integrals and definition of p-adic differential forms crucial in quqantum TGD.

  • Last section discusses in rather speculative spirit the possibility of defining space-time surfaces in terms of correlation functions of induced fermion fields.

For the article and chapter see the links in the beginning of the posting.

1 Comments:

At 12:16 PM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

Matti,

Beginning with Klein, the Icosahedron has been with me a long time in trying to apply it to DNA and so on (In 1967 or so) in his The Icosahedron and Equations of the Fifth Degree...

I just want to point out that my new independent explorations lately where I use such planes and trees and so on described in these links you posted here today, which I use "-brane" as now a sort of suffix...is still more general than these directions of theory into such algebra. Mine is more arithmetical- so is your contemplations as TGD more general. I do not see our languages as conflicting but in a field of wider life projects- but that my last post as more of a social theory. Odd that 89 comes up so often as other numbers- but I am slowly becoming at ease with using numbers this way.

Such manifolds as if the absolute, of which I think you correct in the idea of flux or magnetic paths, is not so much quantized as in the next level generalization I have called quasized- but we go deeper into the planes that that.

I have a vague intuition I have not mentioned on my posts that the arrays of such spaces just may give us a better understanding of discrete formulas for prime numbers as physically realizable.

ThePeSla

 

Post a Comment

<< Home