Saturday, March 19, 2016

Tensor nets and S-matrices

The concrete construction of scattering amplitudes has been the toughest challenge of TGD and the slow progress has occurred by identification of general principles with many side tracks. One of the key problems has been unitarity. The intuitive expectation is that unitarity should reduce to a local notion somewhat like classical field equations reduce the time evolution to a local variational principle. The presence of propagators have been however the the obstacle for locally realized unitarity in which each vertex would correspond to unitary map in some sense.

TGD suggests two approaches to the construction of S-matrix.

  1. The first approach is generalization of twistor program (this). What is new is that one does not sum over diagrams but there is a large number of equivalent diagrams giving the same outcome. The complexity of the scattering amplitude is characterized by the minimal diagram. Diagrams correspond to space-time surfaces so that several space-time surfaces give rise to the same scattering amplitude. This would correspond to the fact that the dynamics breaks classical determinism. Also quantum criticality is expected to be accompanied by quantum critical fluctuations breaking classical determinism. The strong form of holography would not be unique: there would be several space-time surfaces assignable as preferred extremals to given string world sheets and partonic 2-surfaces defining "space-time genes".

  2. Second approach relies on the number theoretic vision and interprets scattering amplitudes as representations for computations with each 3-vertex identifiable as a basic algebraic operation (this). There is an infinite number of equivalent computations connecting the set of initial algebraic objects to the set of final algebraic objects. There is a huge symmetry involved: one can eliminate all loops moving the end of line so that it transforms to a vacuum tadpole and can be snipped away. A braided tree diagram is left with braiding meaning that the fermion lines inside the line defined by light-like orbit are braided. This kind of braiding can occur also for space-like fermion lines inside magnetic flux tubes and defining correlate for entanglement. Braiding is the TGD counterpart for the problematic non-planarity in twistor approach.

Third approach involving local unitary as an additional key element is suggested by tensor networks relying on the notion of perfect entanglement discussed by Preskill et al (see this and this). A detailed representation can be found in the article of Preskill et al ).
  1. Tensor networks provide an elegant representation of holography mapping interior states isometrically (in Hilbert space sense) to boundary states or vice versa for selected subsets of states defining the code subspace for holographic quantum error correcting code. Again the tensor net is highly non-unique but there is some minimal tensor net characterizing the complexity of the entangled boundary state.

  2. Tensor networks have two key properties, which might be abstracted and applied to the construction of S-matrix in zero energy ontology (ZEO): perfect tensors define isometry for any subspace defined by the index subset of perfect tensor to its complement and the non-unique graph representing the network. As far as the construction of Hilbert space isometry between local interior states and highly non-local entangled boundary states is considered, these properties are enough.

One cannot avoid the idea that these three constructions are different aspects of one and same construction and that tensor net construction with perfect tensors representing vertices could provide and additional strong constraint to the long sought for explicit recipe for the construction of scattering amplitudes. How tensor networks could the allow to generalize the notion of unitary S-matrix in TGD framework?

Objections

It is certainly clear from the beginning that the possibly existing description of S-matrix in terms of tensor networks cannot correspond to the perturbative QFT description in terms of Feynman diagrams.

  1. Tensor network description relates interior and boundary degrees in holography by a isometry. Now however unitary matrix has quite different role. It could correspond to U-matrix relating zero energy states to each other or to the S-matrix relating to each other the states at boundary of CD and at the shifted boundary obtained by scaling. These scalings shifting the second boundary of CD and increasing the distance between the tips of CD define the analog of unitary time evolution in ZEO. The U-matrix for transitions associated with the state function reductions at fixed boundary of CD effectively reduces to S-matrix since the other boundary of CD is not affected.

    The only manner one could see this as holography type description would be in terms of ZEO in which zero energy states are at boundaries of CD and U-matrix is a representation for them in terms of holography involving the interior states representing scattering diagram in generalized sense.

  2. The appearance of small gauge coupling constant tells that the entanglement between "states" in state spaces whose coordinates formally correspond to quantum fields is weak and just opposite to that defined by a perfect tensor. Quite generally, coupling constant might be the fatal aspect of the vertices preventing the formulation in terms of perfect entanglement.

    One should understand how coupling constant emerges from this kind of description - or disappears from standard QFT description. One can think of including the coupling constant to the definition of gauge potentails: in TGD framework this is indeed true for induced gauge fields. There is no sensical manner to bring in the classical coupling constants in the classical framework and
    the inverse of Kähler coupling strength appears only as multiplier of the Kähler action analogous to critical temperature.

    More concretely, there are WCW spin degrees of freedom (fermionic degrees of freedom) and WCW orbital degrees of freedom involving functional integral over WCW. Fermionic contribution would not involve coupling constants whereas the functional integral over WCW involving exponential of vacuum functional could give rise to the coupling constants assignable to the vertices in the minimal tree diagram.

  3. The decomposition S= 1+iT of unitary S-matrix giving unitarity as the condition -i(T-T) +TT=0 reflects the perturbative thinking. If one has only isometry instead of unitary transformation, this decomposition becomes problematic since T and T whose some appears in the formula act in different spaces. One should have the generalization of Id as a "trivial" isometry. Alternatively, one should be able to extend the state space Hin by adding a tensor factor mapped trivially in isometry.

  4. There are 3- and 4-vertices rather than only -say, 3-vertices as in tensor networks. For non-Abelian Chern-Simons term for simple Lie group one would have besides kinetic term only 3-vertex Tr(A∧ A ∧ A) defining the analog of perfect tensor entanglement when interpreted as co-product involving 3-D permutation symbol and structure constants of Lie algebra. Note also that for twistor Grassmannian approach the fundamental vertices are 3-vertices. It must be however emphasized that QFT description emerges from TGD only at the limit when one identifies gauge potentials as sums of induced gauge potentials assignable to the space-time sheets, which are replaced with single piece of Minkowski space.

  5. Tensor network description does not contain propagators since the contractions are between perfect tensors. It is to make sense propagators must be eliminated. The twistorial factorization of massless fermion propagator suggest that this might be possible by absorbing the twistors to the vertices.

These reasons make it clear that the proposed idea is just a speculative question. Perhaps the best strategy is to look this crazy idea from different view points: the overly optimistic view developing big picture and the approach trying to debunk the idea.

The overly optimistic vision

With these prerequisites one can follow the optimistic strategy and ask how tensor networks could allow to generalize the notion of unitary S-matrix in TGD framework.

  1. Tensor networks suggests the replacement of unitary correspondence with the more general notion of Hilbert space isometry. This generalization is very natural in TGD since one must allow phase transitions increasing the state space and it is quite possible that S-matrix represents only isometry: this would mean that SS=Idin holds true but SS=Idout does not even make sense. This conforms with the idea that state function reduction sequences at fixed boundary of causal diamonds defining conscious entities give rise evolution implying that the size of the state space increases gradually as the system becomes more complex. Note that this gives rise to irreversibility understandandable in terms of NMP (this). It might be even impossible to formally restore unitary by introducing formal additional tensor factor to the space of incoming states if the isometric map of the incoming state space to outgoing state space is inclusion of hyperfinite factors.

  2. If the huge generalization of the duality of old fashioned string models makes sense, the minimal diagram represesenting scattering is expected to be a tree diagram with braiding and should allow a representation as a tensor network. The generalization of the tensor network concept to include braiding is trivial in principle: assign to the legs connecting the nodes defined by perfect tensors unitary matrices representing the braiding - here topological QFT allows realization of the unitary matrix. Besides fermionic degrees of freedom having interpretation as spin degrees of freedom at the level of "World of Classical Worlds" (WCW) there are also WCW orbital degrees of freedom. These two degrees of freedom factorize in the generalized unitarity conditions and the description seems much simpler in WCW orbital degrees of freedom than in WCW spin degrees of freedom.

  3. Concerning the concrete construction there are two levels involved, which are analogous to descriptions in terms of boundary and interior degrees of freedom in holography. The level of fundamental fermions assignable to string world sheets and their boundaries and the level of physical particles with particles assigned to sets of partonic 2-surface connected by magnetic flux tubes and associated fermionic strings. One could also see the ends of causal diamonds as analogous to boundary degrees of freedom and the space-time surface as interior degrees of freedom.

The description at the level of fundamental fermions corresponds to conformal field theory at string world sheets.
  1. The construction of the analogs of boundary states reduces to the construction of N-point functions for fundamental fermions assignable to the boundaries of string world sheets. These boundaries reside at 3-surfaces at the space-like space-time ends at CDs and at light-like 3-surfaces at which the signature of the induced space-time metric changes.

  2. In accordance with holography, the fermionic N-point functions with points at partonic 2-surfaces at the ends of CD are those assignable to a conformal field theory associated with the union of string world sheets involved. The perfect tensor is assignable to the fundamental 4-fermion scattering which defines the microscopy for the geometric 3-particle vertices having twistorial interpretation and also interpretation as algebraic operation.

    What is important is that fundamental fermion modes at string world sheets are labelled by conformal weights and standard model quantum numbers. No four-momenta nor color quantum numbers are involved at this level. Instead of propagator one has just unitary matrix describing the braiding.

  3. Note that four-momenta emerging in somewhat mysterious manner to stringy scattering amplitudes and mean the possibility to interpret the amplitudes at the particle level.

Twistorial and number theoretic constructions should correspond to particle level construction and also now tensor network description might work.
  1. The 3-surfaces are labelled by four-momenta besides other standard model quantum numbers but the possibility of reducing diagram to that involving only 3-vertices means that momentum degrees of freedom effectively disappear. In ordinary twistor approach this would mean allowance of only forward scattering unless one allows massless but complex virtual momenta in twistor diagrams. Also vertices with larger number of legs are possible by organizing large blocks of vertices to single effective vertex and would allow descriptions analogous to effective QFTs.

  2. It is highly non-trivial that the crucial factorization to perfect tensors at 3-vertices with unitary braiding matrices associated with legs connecting them occurs also now. It allows to split the inverses of fermion propagators into sum of products of two parts and absorb the halves to the perfect tensors at the ends of the line. The reason is that the inverse of massless fermion propagator (also when masslessness is understood in 8-D sense allowing M4 mass to be non-vanishing) to be express as bilinear of the bi-spinors defining the twistor representing the four-momentum. It seems that this is absolutely crucial property and fails for massive (in 8-D sense) fermions.

For the details see the new chapter Holography and Quantum Error Correcting Codes: TGD View of "Hyper-Finite Factors, p-Adic Length Scale Hypothesis, And Dark Matter Hierarchy" or the article with the same title.

For a summary of earlier postings see Links to the latest progress in TGD.

2 Comments:

At 6:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://thespectrumofriemannium.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/log050-why-riemannium/

 
At 6:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://sci-hub.io/10.1016/0378-4371(94)90008-6

 

Post a Comment

<< Home