Tuesday, April 05, 2016

Could N=2 super-conformal algebra be relevant for TGD?

The concrete realization of the super-conformal symmetry (SCS) in TGD framework has remained poorly understood. In particular, the question how SCS relates to super-conformal field theories (SCFTs) has remained an open question. The most general super-conformal algebra assignable to string world sheets by strong form of holography has N equal to the number of 4+4 =8 spin states of leptonic and quark type fundamental spinors but the space-time SUSY is badly broken for it. Covariant constancy of the generating spinor modes is replaced with holomorphy - kind of "half covariant constancy". I have considered earlier a proposal that N=4 SCA could be realized in TGD framework but given up this idea. Right-handed neutrino and antineutrino are excellent candidates for generating N=2 SCS with a minimal breaking of the corresponding space-time SUSY. Covariant constant neutrino is an excellent candidate for the generator of N=2 SCS. The possibility of this SCS in TGD framework will be considered in the sequel.

1. Questions about SCS in TGD framework

This work was inspired by questions not related to N=2 SCS, and it is good to consider first these questions.

1. 1 Could the super-conformal generators have conformal weights given by poles of fermionic zeta?

The conjecture (see this) is that the conformal weights for the generators super-symplectic representation correspond to the negatives of h= -ksk of the poles sk fermionic partition function ζF(ks)=ζ(ks)/ζ(2ks) defining fermionic partition function. Here k is constant, whose value must be fixed from the condition that the spectrum is physical. ζ(ks) defines bosonic partition function for particles whos energies are given by log(p), p prime. These partition functions require complex temperature but is completely sensible in Zero Energy Ontology (ZEO), where thermodynamics is replaced with its complex square root.

For non-trivial zeros 2ks=1/2+iy of ζ(2ks) s would correspond pole s= (1/2+iy)/2k of zF(ks). The corresponding conformal weights would be h=(-1/2-iy)/2k. For trivial zeros 2ks=-2n, n=1,2,.. s=-n/k would correspond to conformal weights h=n/k>0. Conformal confinement is assumed meaning that the sum of imaginary parts of of generators creating the state vanishes.

What can one say about the value of k? The pole of ζ(ks) at s=1/k would correspond to pole and conformal weight h=-1/k. For k=1 the trivial conformal weights would be positive integers h=1,2,...: this certainly makes sense. This gives for the real part for non-trivial conformal weights h=-1/4. By conformal confinement both pole and its conjugate belong to the state so that this contribution to conformal weight is negative half integers: this is consistent with the facts about super-conformal representations. For the ground state of super-conformal representation the conformal weight for conformally confined state would be h=- K/2. In p-adic mass calculations one would have K=6 (see this) .

The negative ground state conformal weights of particles look strange but p-adic mass calculations require that the ground state conformal weights of particles are negative: h=-3 is required.

1.2 What could be the origin of negative ground state conformal weights?

Super-symplectic conformal symmetries are realized at light-cone boundary and various Hamiltonians defined analogs of Kac-Moody generators are proportional functions f(rM)HJ,m HA, where HJ,m correspond to spherical harmonics at the 2-sphere RM=constant and HA is color partial wave in CP2, f(rM) is a partial wave in radial light-like coordinate which is eigenstate of scaling operator L0=rMd/dRM and has the form (rM/r0)-h, where h is conformal weight which must be of form h=-1/2+iy.

To get plane wave normalization for the amplitudes

(rM/r0) h=(rM/r0)-1/2exp(iyx) ,

x=log(rM/r0) ,

one must assume h=-1/2+iy. Together with the invariant integration measure drM this gives for the inner product of two conformal plane waves exp(iyix), x=log(rM/r0) the desired expression ∫ exp[iy1-y2)x] dx= δ(y1-y2), where dx= drM/rM is scaling invariance integration measure. This is just the usual inner product of plane waves labelled by momenta yi.

If rM/r0 can be identified as a coordinate along fermionic string (this need not be always the case) one can interpret it as real or imaginary part of a hypercomplex coordinate at string world sheet and continue these wave functions to the entire string world sheets. This would be very elegant realization of conformal invariance.

1.3. How to relate degenerate representations with h>0 to the massless states constructed from tachyonic
ground states with negative conformal weight?

This realization would however suggest that there must be also an interpretation in which ground states with negative conformal weight hvac=-k/2 are replaced with ground states having vanishing conformal weights hvac=0 as in minimal SCAs and what is regarded as massless states have conformal weights h= -hvac>0 of the lowest physical state in minimal SCAs.

One could indeed start directly from the scaling invariant measure drM/rM rather than allowing it to emerge from drM. This would require in the case of p-adic mass calculations that has representations satisfying Virasoro conditions for weight h=-hvac>0. p-Adic mass squared would be now shifted downwards and proportional to L0+hvac. There seems to be no fundamental reason preventing this interpretation. One can also modify scaling generator L0 by an additive constant term and this does not affect the value of c. This operation corresponds to replacing basis {zn} with basis {zn+1/2}.

What makes this interpretation worth of discussing is that the entire machinery of conformal field theories with non-vanishing central charge and non-vanishing but positive ground state conformal weight becomes accessible allowing to determine not only the spectrum for these theories but also to determine the partition functions and even to construct n-point functions in turn serving as basic building bricks of S-matrix elements (see this) .

ADE classification of these CFTs in turn suggests at connection with the inclusions of hyperfinite factors and hierarchy of Planck constants. The fractal hierarchy of broken conformal symmetries with sub-algebra defining gauge algebra isomorphic to entire algebra would give rise to dynamic symmetries and inclusions for HFFs suggest that ADE groups define Kac-Moody type symmetry algebras for the non-gauge part of the symmetry algebra.

2. Questions about N=2 SCS

N=2 SCFTs has some inherent problems. For instance, it has been claimed that they reduce to topological QFTs. Whether N=2 can be applied in TGD framework is questionable: they have critical space-time dimension D=4 but since the required metric signature of space-time is wrong.

2.1 Inherent problems of N=2 SCS

N=2 SCS has some severe inherent problems.

  1. N=2 SCS has critical space-time dimension D=4, which is extremely nice. On the other, N=2 requires that space-time should have complex structure and thus metric signature (4,0), (0,4) or (2,2) rather than Minkowski signature. Similar problem is encountered in twistorialization and TGD proposal is Hamilton-Jacobi structure (se the appendix of (see this), which is hybrid of hypercomplex structure and Kähler structure. There is also an old proposal by Pope et al (see this) that one can obtain by a procedure analogous to dimensional reduction N=2 SCS from a 6-D theory with signature (3,3). The lifting of Kähler action to twistor space level allows the twistor space of M4 to have this signature and the degrees of freedom of the sphere S2 are indeed frozen.

  2. There is also an argument by Eguchi that N=2 SCFTs reduce under some conditions to mere topological QFTs (see this). This looks bad but there is a more refined argument that N=2 SCFT transforms to a topological CFT only by a suitable twist (see this). This is a highly attractive feature since TGD can be indeed regarded as almost topological QFT. For instance, Kähler action in Minkowskian regions could reduce to Chern-Simons term for a very general solution ansatz. Only the volume term having interpretation in terms of cosmological constant (see this) (extremely small in recent cosmology) would not allow this kind of reduction. The topological description of particle reactions based on generalized Feynman diagrams identifiable in terms of space-time regions with Euclidian signature of the induced metric would allow to build n-point functions in the fermionic sector as those of a free field theory. Topological QFT in bosonic degrees of freedom would correspond naturally to the braiding of fermion lines.

2.2 Can one really apply N=2 SCFTs to TGD?

TGD version of SCA is gigantic as compared to the ordinary SCA. This SCA involves super-symplectic algebra associated with metrically 2-dimensional light-cone boundary (light-like boundaries of causal diamonds) and the corresponding extended conformal algebra (light-like boundary is metrically sphere S2). Both these algebras have conformal structure with respect to the light-like radial coordinate rM and conformal algebra also with respect to the complex coordinate of S2. Symplectic algebra replaces finite-dimensional Lie algebra as the analog of Kac-Moody algebra. Also light-like orbits of partonic 2-surfaces possess this SCA but now Kac-Moody algebra is defined by isometries of imbedding space. String world sheets possess an ordinary SCA assignable to isometries of the imbedding space. An attractive interpretation is that rM at light-cone boundary corresponds to a coordinate along fermionic string extendable to a hypercomplex coordinate at string world sheet.

N=8 SCS seems to be the most natural candidate for SCS behind TGD: all fermion spin states would correspond to generators of this symmetry. Since the modes generating the symmetry are however only half-covariantly constant (holomorphic) this SUSY is badly broken at space-time level and the minimal breaking occurs for N=2 SCS generated by right-handed neutrino and antineutrino.

The key motivation for the application of minimal N=2 SCFTs to TGD is that SCAs for them have a non-vanishing central charge c and vacuum weight h≥ 0 and the degenerate character of ground state allows to deduce differential equations for n-point functions so that these theories are exactly solvable. It would be extremely nice is scattering amplitudes were basically determined by n-point functions for minimal SCFTs.

A further motivation comes from the following insight. ADE classification of N=2 SCFTs is extremely powerful result and there is connection with the hierarchy of inclusions of hyperfinite factors of type II1, which is central for quantum TGD. The hierarchy of Planck constants assignable to the hierarchy of isomorphic sub-algebras of the super-symplectic and related algebras suggest interpretation in terms of ADE hierarchy a rather detailed view about a hierarchy of conformal field theories and even the identification of primary fields in terms of critical deformations.

The application N=2 SCFTs in TGD framework can be however challenged. The problem caused by the negative value of vacuum conformal weight has been already discussed but there are also other problems.

  1. One can argue that covariantly constant right-handed neutrino - call it νR - defines a pure gauge super-symmetry and it has taken along time to decide whether this is the case or not. Taking at face value the lacking evidence for space-time SUSY from LHC would be easy but too light-hearted manner to get rid of the problem.

    Could it be that at space-time level covariantly constant right-handed neutrino (νR) and its antiparticle (ν*R) generates pure gauge symmetry so that the resulting sfermions correspond to zero norm states? The oscillator operators for νR at imbedding space level have commutator proportional to pkγk vanishing at the limit of vanishing massless four-momentum. This would imply that they generate sfermions as zero norm states. This argument is however formulated at the level of imbedding space: induced spinor modes reside at string world sheets and covariant constancy is replaced by holomorphy!

    At the level of induced spinor modes located at string world sheets the situation is indeed different. The anti-commutators are not proportional to pkγk but in Zero Energy Ontology (ZEO) can be taken to be proportional to nkγk where nk is light-like vector dual to the light-like radial vector of the point of the light-like boundary of causal diamond CD (part of light-one boundary) considered. Therefore also constant νR and ν*R are allowed as non-zero norm states and the 3 sfermions are physical particles. Both ZEO and strong form of holography (SH) would play crucial role in making the SCS dynamical symmetry.

  2. Second objection is that LHC has failed to detect sparticles. In TGD framework this objection cannot be taken seriously. The breaking of N=2 SUSY would be most naturally realized as different p-adic length scales for particle and sparticle. The mass formula would be the same apart from different p-adic mass scale. Sparticles could emerge at short p-adic length scale than those studied at LHC (labelled by Mersenne primes M89 and MG,79= (1+i)79).

    One the other hand, one could argue that since covariantly constant right-handed neutrino has no electroweak-, color- nor gravitational interactions, its addition to the state should not change its mass. Again the point is however that one considers only neutrinos at string world sheet so that covariant constancy is replaced with holomorphy and all modes of right-handed neutrino are involved. Kähler Dirac equation brings in mixing of left and right-handed neutrinos serving as signature for massivation in turn leading to SUSY breaking. One can of course ask whether the p-adic mass scales could be identical after all. Could the sparticles be dark having non-standard value of Planck constant heff=n× h and be created only at quantum criticality (see this).

This is a brief overall view about the most obvious problems and proposed solution of them in TGD framework and in the following I will discuss the details. I am of course not a SCFT professional. I however dare to trust my physical intuition since experience has taught to me that it is better to concentrate on physics rather than get drowned in poorly understood mathematical technicalities.

For details see the new chapter Could N=2 Super-Conformal Algebra Be Relevant For TGD? or the article with the same title.

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


At 3:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Phew, I feel better, Hawking can quite spreading panic now

At 7:42 PM, Blogger Matti Pitkanen said...

This prediction signals that something goes wrong with the massivation based on Higgs vacuum expectation. I did first time p-adic mass calculationsf or 20 years ago and thought that it would take few months for breakthrough to occur! Still they are talking about Higgs vacuum expectation! The slow-mindedness of colleagues in nowadays is monumental! It must somehow relate to the fact that there are quite too many mediocrits in the field and signal to noise ratio becomes hopelessly low.

At 11:39 PM, Blogger Crow- said...

Ahh, I see 5 years ago you wrote that 15 years ago :)

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2010/10/higgs-and-massivation-in-tgd-framework.html?m=1 revisiting these posts now, I'm struck by the trig identities in your formulas and how they can relate to the encoding the identities in the zeta function descendents I derives

At 12:32 AM, Anonymous Matpitka6@gmail.com said...

5 years ago I was fighting with the questions like "Does Higgs exist in TGD Universe!" or "If it does, is Higgs vacuum expectation value a relevant notion if p-adic mass calculations give the masses of at least of fermions". Now all this is past. Higgs exist in TGD Universe but Higgs vacuum expecation makes sense only at QFT limit of TGD. Therefore these posts reflect only the evollution of ideas. I have decided to keep these posts since the idea of the blog is to serve as documentary about how the ideas evolved since 2005.

At 12:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, it's a real interesting journey to follow your postings and see how these ideas have evolved.. I remember when the LHC was running, I hadn't discovered TGD yet and was pretty sure something terrible was going to happen at any given moment. Now, my peace is not so easily disturbed (except by overzealous gardeners and their leaf-blowers, driving cars, etc)


At 9:25 PM, Anonymous Matpitka6@gmail.com said...

I looked a little bit at the links.

1. Harmonic analysis in symmetric space is highly interesting since it could have p-adic counterpart. Harmonic analysis in CP_2 is central for understanding basics of TGD and one of the oldest pieces of TGD. The solutions of Dirac equation in M^4xCP_2 give the spectrum of harmonics defining ground states of super-conformal representations.

2. While reading these papers, I get frustrated. I understand physics but cannot handle the computational machinery and must just take results as given. Some comparison.

*In links 3-D quantum gravity as topological QFT is believed to reduce of N=(2,2) topological SCFT. N=(2,2) by the way means that both holomorphic and antiholomorphic primary fields are involved.

In TGD I end from quite different premises to the conclusion that N=(2,2) applies to all n-point functions, not only 3-D gravity. It definges the least broken SCS at space-time level and is generated by right-handed neutrino and antiparticle. Much more badly broken SCS at space-time level corresponds to all spin and weak isospin components of quarks and leptons. I think this gives something like N=4+4.

*In articles AdS/CFT correspondence is taken as starting point and one considers AdS_3- this means strong limitations since one effectively looses gravitation!

In TGD AdS_3xsphere is replaced space-time surfaces having as its boundary light-like 4-D orbits of partonic 2-surfaces. These in turn have 2-D ends at the boundaries of causal diamonds and at 2-D vertices at which these 3-surfaces join (this is totally new as compared to standard wisdom and I am frustrated since I do not have tools to really mathematically formulate this).

At the 2-D ends of partonic orbits one could conformal invariance or supersymplectic invariance replacing conformal transformations of sphere with symplectic transformations. These groups do not commute. I have proposed that U(1) in Hawking's proposal would correspond to symplectic group and give blackhole (or to its TGD counterpart) a hair.

The key point that conformal/symplectic group generalizes: the generators have dependence on light-like coordinate along light-like 3-surfaces.

The key eureka experience would be that light-like 3-surfaces are metrically 2-dimensional and allow generalized conformal invariance. They do not realize this and since they refuse to read my articles, this almost trivial but fundamental discovery remains undone. It is a pity that so intelligent people are so monstrously stupid - no lobotomy is needed- just their personal vanity is enough.

* In AdS_3 approach one ends up to the proposal that c= 6 and Witten has introduced extremal superconformal symmetry: partition functions are as near as possible to those for vacuum. To my opinion AdS_3 leads to totally wrong track: sub-manifold gravity of TGD would allow to avoid this. In TGD framework SCFTs involved would be most naturally c<3 unitary minimal models, which can be twisted to topological QFTs. Almost TQFT property of TGD.

*In articles one begins from Einstein's action but finds that it can be formulated as Chern-Simons type action. In TGD one starts from Kähler action reducing to Chern Simons term about possible extremely small volume term suggested by twistorial lift. This conforms with strong form of holography.

Chern-Simons Abelian gauge field theory at light-like boundaries and gravitation as induced metric +induced gauge fields as projections of CP_2 curvature tensor- nothing but imbedding space gravitation). Here TGD holography differs from AdS holography. Strings world sheets are also now central. And most importantly, there is no need to restrict 3-space to be AdS_3. Any light-like 3-surface possibly constrained by preferred exremal property will do.

At 7:34 PM, Anonymous Matpitka6@gmail.com said...

Yes, the machinery used is extremely refined and it is almost hopeless to learn without being a PhD student of some guru. Situation is same for concert musicians, you learn the tricks of trade in reasonable time as student of some top musician. There is however a reasonable option: one concentrates on the conceptual aspects and gives up attempts to discover all the technical secrets since it would require several lifetimes!

There are some exceptions to the rule. I read a very nice paper about Verlinde formula. It really explained the formula.

At 1:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the topic of hairs, this is interesting


do you have any idea how to tell if the manifolds defined in my article at https://bitbucket.org/stephenc214/stuff/raw/default/psi.pdf, G, H (or Mobius transformed versions mu and psi) are compact or non-compact?

This is probably a stupid question that is completely obvious, but I was thinking after reading wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4hler_manifold

Symplectic viewpoint

A Kähler manifold is a symplectic manifold (K,\omega) equipped with an integrable almost-complex structure which is compatible with the symplectic form.[1]

surely you can sketch out something so boring in a few sentences

At 7:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also see... http://imgur.com/h7fjMUX its a 3d plot of ln(1+|H(x+iy)|)

it looks way cooler than a boring-old Caliba-Yau manifold


At 8:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nevermind.. I think I stumbled across the material I need to read.. http://minakshisundaram.org/wp-content/uploads/sp1.pdf the website isnt kidding when it says his articles are of "utmost quality"


Post a Comment

<< Home