Friday, February 11, 2022

Elementary particles, physical space, and the octonions

When we write down the Schrodinger equation, evolution is described by a classical time parameter. Suppose there were to be no classical objects in the universe at low energies, can we continue to use the classical time parameter in the Schrodinger equation? Low energy by itself does not imply classical behaviour. After all, a free electron at low energies is not classical; it is quantum. If every physical system in the universe were to be low energy and quantum (i.e. microscopic), will we still have classical spacetime? Probably not. Because the points of spacetime will themselves be forced into superposition, removing their commutative, classical nature. Can we describe this new situation by non-commuting numbers, such as the octonions? Perhaps we can: octonions might be able to describe the non-classical spacetime, as well as the elementary particles themselves, when classical spacetime ceases to exist.
Octonions were discovered by the Irish mathematician John Graves, in 1843, within months of the discovery of quaternions by his friend Rowan Hamilton. Along with real numbers and complex numbers, the quaternions and octonions are the only two other division algebras. i.e. number systems in which the four operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are possible.
We are of course very familiar with real numbers. Amongst other things, they describe the four dimensional spacetime of our universe, R^4, having a Lorentzian signature. Complex numbers play an important role in quantum mechanics. They describe the quantum state. Quaternions, though not much appreciated as such, are very much always `around' in our physics. Hamilton invented them as a generalisation to complex numbers, to describe rotations in three spatial dimensions. Quaternions are equivalent to vectors in three dimensions: the dot product and cross product of two vectors in 3D is related to the product of two quaternions. In fact, after the quaternions were discovered, they led to a vectors vs. quaternions war: which of the two should be used in coordinate geometry? The undergraduate mathematics syllabus then used to have a full course on the quaternions. But eventually vectors won and quaternions were mostly forgotten. However, they are related to the Pauli matrices and also to the Lorentz algebra of 4D spacetime. In fact, complex quaternions can serve as coordinates in a physical space whose symmetry group is the Lorentz group. Note that if the symmetry group of a space is the Lorentz group, it does not necessarily follow that the space is 4D Minkowski flat spacetime R^4. It can be the quaternionic space instead.
Nature uses real numbers, complex numbers and quaternions. Why does it not use the last of the division algebras, the octonions? Or maybe it does?
So we appreciate that real numbers, complex numbers, and the quaternions can be used to define space. Is physical space, the one in which physical objects like stars and electrons live, necessarily to be described by real numbers? Perhaps not. Can quaternions and octonions describe physical space [a part of physical reality of nature] in which elementary particles such as quarks, electrons and neutrinos live? Perhaps yes.
A collection of quantum systems, each having an action of order \hbar, does not give rise to/live in, 4D Minkowski real-valued spacetime, even at low energies. This is a quantum gravitational situation, and spacetime is non-classical. Perhaps the non-classical space is octonionic. This is where a free electron in flight might be living, until it is absorbed by a classical measuring apparatus. When that happens, the absorbed electron, along with the measuring apparatus of which it is now a part, becomes a part of the classical universe of macroscopic bodies embedded in 4D classical Minkowski spacetime.
There is nothing wrong in proposing that a free electron in flight lives in a complex-valued space, such as the one described by the octonions. In such a space the 4D Lorentz symmetry is unified with the internal gauge symmetries SU(3)_c X SU(2)_L x U1)_Y of the standard model. These latter complex valued spaces, labeled also by the octonions, become a part of physical reality, along with 4D Lorentzian spacetime.
We are conditioned to believe that everything must live in 4D classical spacetime; even the elementary particles of quantum theory. But this is not so. Quantum particles live in a space which is labeled not by the real numbers, but by the other division algebras.
What then of the time parameter in the Schrodinger equation? It is replaced by a new absolute notion of time, the Connes time, which is an essential feature of a non-commutative geometry, such the geometry of the space of octonions. Sometimes these are called quantum Riemannian geometries. There is no concept of absolute Connes time in the Riemannian geometry of 4D classical spacetime.

Saturday, January 22, 2022

Where does a quantum particle such as an electron live? Is E_6 the sought for symmetry group of unification?

Where does a quantum particle such as an electron live?
No, it does not live in spacetime, not 4D nor a higher dimension like 10D.
A quantum system even at low energies is an `atom of spacetime-matter' described by a pre-quantum pre-spacetime matrix valued Lagrangian dynamics. The Lagrangian has a certain symmetry group, say/perhaps E_6, and this is where the electron lives. It lives in E6. Now E6 is not a spacetime symmetry, neither is it an internal SU(n) symmetry. Beautifully, it is a unification of both, quite befitting an atom of space-time-matter, which is what an electron is.
How then does our classical 4D spacetime emerge? When a large number of quantum degrees of freedom living in E6 get entangled, the quantum to classical transition takes place. These emergent classical matter degrees of freedom get confined to a 4D spacetime [a subgroup of E6] and their localisation defines and gives rise to a 4D classical spacetime. This is compactification without compactification.
Quantum systems continue to live in E_6. We can describe their dynamics, from the vantage point of the emergent classical 4D spacetime, in the conventional language of quantum field theory.
Hence one must never try to compactify the extra dimensions - in a sense these extra dimensions are complex dimensions; they are needed to describe the internal symmetries.


Is E_6 the sought for symmetry group of unification?
We made three copies of Left-Right symmetric fermions using three copies of complex split bioctonions. These are also three copies of the Clifford algebra Cl(7), each made from two copies of Cl(6). This suggests the complexified exceptional Jordan algebra [whose automorphism group is E_6] of 3x3 matrices with octonionic entries.
The following sub-group structure is suggested:
(i) SU(3)_color X SU(2)_L x U(1) : color-electro-weak
8x3 = 24 LH fermions and 12 SM bosons
(ii) SU(3)_grav X SU(2)_R x U(1) : pre-gravitation
8x3 = 24 RH fermions and 12 bosons (8 gravi-gluons, 1 dark photon, two Lorentz bosons, one Higgs boson).
(iii) SO(1,3) ~ SL(2,C) is 6 dimensional, shared by particles in (i) and (ii). The Higgs mediates between LH and RH fermions.
Do the numbers add up?
24 + 24 = 48 fermions (including 3 RH sterile neutrinos)
12 + 12 = 24 gauge bosons
6 generators for SO(1,3) Lorentz group of 4D spacetime
These add up to 48 + 24 + 6 = 78
Now, E_6 is 78 dimensional. So is this a good indication?
By computing the eigenvalues of the exceptional Jordan algebra for three fermion generations, and in conjunction with the Lagrangian for a pre-quantum pre-spacetime dynamics we derived the low energy fine structure constant, and mass ratios for charged fermions.
Critically entangled fermions form macroscopic classical objects and descend to 4D spacetime with Lorentz symmetry.
Quantum systems [entanglement is sub-critical] live in E_6, i.e. partly in 4D spacetime and partly beyond in the complex internal dimensions.
Perhaps these are good signs ... ?

[There is no dark matter nor a non-vanishing cosmological constant in this theory. The emergent spacetime geometry shows evidence in favour of MOND and RMOND, and a long-range modification of GR playing the role of dark energy.]

Saturday, January 15, 2022

The tension between quantum mechanics and relativity, and what it signifies for the standard model of particle physics?

The principle of quantum linear superposition is well-tested for elementary particles such as electrons. The theory of special relativity is also well tested. However, the two are not consistent with each other, except in an approximate sense.
We realise this when we ask the question: what kind of spacetime geometry and gravitation is produced by an electron? It is tempting to think of the produced gravitation as a very tiny (quantum) perturbation of the flat spacetime of special relativity. However this cannot be correct, precisely because of the validity of the principle of quantum linear superposition.
Imagine for simplicity that the electron state is a superposition of two localised position states A and B. Had the electron been at A, it will produce a perturbation of flat space time, with the perturbation peaked at A. Similarly if it had been at B, the produced perturbation would have been peaked at B. If we now consider a point X in space, the field there will be a superposition of the fields due to the location A and the location B. Such a field is not a perturbation of flat spacetime ! If we want to write down the Schrodinger equation for a test particle, then what time parameter to use at location X? That determined by the clock rate fixed by location A or by location B? There is ambiguity. The concept of a classical spacetime is lost [even in a perturbative sense] the moment we consider the implications of quantum superposition for spacetime geometry. In order to describe quantum spacetime - the one produced by an electron - we must entirely give up on the flat spacetime of relativity, even at low energies.
But quantum field theory on a flat spacetime works extremely well. We are able to construct the highly successful standard model of particle physics, assuming the flat spacetime of relativity, and assuming Lorentz invariance. Does that not imply that flat spacetime is an excellent approximation in the limit of low gravity? No, it does not imply that. There are 26 free parameters in the standard model, which have to be put in by hand, after measuring them experimentally. Could it be that these parameters get determined uniquely, and are not arbitrary, if we describe the standard model, not on flat spacetime, but on that spacetime which elementary quantum particles produce. Gravity is tiny, but it is not a perturbation of flat spacetime. What then is it a perturbation of?
The gravity is a perturbation of a [non-commutative] spinor spacetime, from which the flat spacetime of relativity is derived as an approximation. When we describe the standard model on this spinor spacetime, we find evidence that the parameters of the standard model are not free, but take values as measured in experiments. Such a noncommutative spinor spacetime is compatible with the quantum superposition principle. We could say that when we take the square root of the Klein-Gordon equation to arrive at the Dirac equation, we should also take the square root of flat spacetime so as to arrive at the noncommutative spinor spacetime. Then we write down the Dirac equation on this spinor spacetime. Right away we find that electric charge is quantised [0, 1/3, 2/3, 1 : neutrino, down quark, up quark, electron]. And that the low energy fine structure constant is 1/137. It cannot be any other value.

Sunday, December 12, 2021

Are scalar lepto-quarks [if they exist] evidence for (revised) string theory?


In the octonionic theory, prior to the Left-Right symmetry breaking [=EW symmetry breaking] mass and electric charge are not defined. Both these are emergent concepts. The fundamental entities from which quarks and leptons emerge are lepto-quarks, and although spin angular momentum can be defined from the matrix-valued Lagrangian dynamics, spin is not quantised in the pre-stage. Only a length scale is associated with a lepto-quark, and this is order unity in Planck length units.
It might then be plausible to identify these lepto-quark states as the fundamental extended objects of the octonionic theory, and one way to think of the octonionic theory is as a revised string theory. If current experiments are pointing to violation of Lepton Flavour Universality, and if this violation is due to the existence of lepto-quark states, then the BSM physics we are seeing might be evidence for octonionic theory/string theory. The Planck scale is reset to the electro-weak scale by the inflationary cosmological expansion just after the big bang.

Sunday, December 5, 2021

A few popular references on the octonionic theory

If you are interested in the evolution of the octonionic theory, the following are some popular video lectures I made, some talk recordings, a blog, and a semi-technical 2017 article. Only in 2020, the octonions got added to this attempt at quantum gravity. Since then it has become an attempt at quantum gravity and unification.


Does nature play dice? (2014)

Spontaneous quantum gravity (2019)

Aikyons, octonions and unification (2020)

Octonions, elementary particles and the unification of forces (2021)

Elementary particles and the magic of the octonions (2021)

Quantum gravity and the atoms of space-time-matter (2021)

Gravitation: from Newton to Padmanabhan and beyond (2021)

Thinking about quantum gravity, video lecture series (2018)

This blog is also helpful:

Helpful article

Friday, December 3, 2021

Elementary particles, black holes, and the octonions

In this approach, quantum theory, and gravitation, both are emergent thermodynamic phenomena, emerging from the same underlying, more general, theory.
If they are both emergent thermodynamic phenomena, in what way do they differ from each other?
Quantum theory (without classical time) holds at thermodynamic equilibrium, and evolution is unitary.
If there is critical entanglement amongst the fermions in the underlying theory, non-unitary evolution becomes significant, spontaneous localisation results in the formation of a black hole, and in emergence of classical spacetime obeying laws of gravitation. This is a far from equilibrium state, at the opposite end from quantum theory. Elementary particle and black hole are two related fermionic states. In particular the charged spinning black hole [Kerr-Newman] has the same gyromagnetic ratio (g) as the electron satisfying the Dirac equation; both being twice the classical value. [With the understanding that interactions will make the electron g value depart from 2].
Gravitation is hence a far from equilibrium thermodynamic phenomenon. A black hole radiates so as to return to thermodynamic equilibrium, described by unitary quantum evolution.
At equilibrium the elementary particles live in 8D octonion space, evolving in Connes time. They obey a Left-Right symmetric dynamics which is an extension of the standard model, with the RH symmetry being the precursor of gravitation. This is true at all energy scales.
This dynamics could be described on the background of the 4D classical spacetime provided by those fermions which have already undergone localisation to form black holes. Such a description justifiably ignores the pre-gravity of the unlocalised fermions, and is given by our conventional QFT for the standard model, which has LH symmetry for the weak interaction. The RH symmetry - the precursor of gravity - is very hard to detect because gravity is so weak, but this RH symmetry is present, even at low energies.
It could well be, keeping in mind that space and time interchange roles inside a black hole, that the inside of the black hole is one half of a split octonion space, the other half being the exterior spacetime. Let us call the inside of the black hole the inner half space. It seems to us that a BH interior is embedded in 4D spacetime; but it is not! It is an extension of the external 4D spacetime to four additional dimensions.
Elementary particles live in the entire 8D octonion space.
Non-black-hole classical objects have a penetration depth (into the inner half space) much less than Planck length. They occupy the ordinary 4D spacetime.
The BH interior maximally occupies the inner half space, distinct from the exterior 4D spacetime - the other half.
By emitting Hawking radiation a black hole returns towards thermodynamic equilibrium and towards unitary quantum evolution in the 8D octonion space.

The octonionic theory vs. stringy multiverses


In the octonionic theory, there are no free parameters and no fine tuning. The trace dynamics Lagrangian and the algebra of the octonions are supposed to determine all the free parameters of the standard model. In fact if we have to ever to introduce some freedom / fine tuning, we would prefer to discard the theory in totality, instead of trying to save it by some quick-fix. The octonionic theory transforms string theory into a predictive theory by retaining extended objects but modifying the dynamics.
The multiverse / anthropic / landscape way of making string theory `predictive' is the exact opposite of the octonionic theory. String theory can give rise to a very large number of different kinds of universes, with different values for the fundamental parameters. Our universe has it's particular parameter values because these values allow life to arise. Theory wise there is nothing special about these values, just as there is nothing special theoretically about the distance of the earth from the sun.
I think most people will agree that the first way of saving string theory, if it works, is the preferred one. I think most people will also agree that proponents of the second method should carefully examination proposals in the first category, when such proposals are brought to their attention.
I am at a loss to understand on what scientific basis string theorists have concluded that a solution of the first type is impossible.