How Does RCHO Unification Relate to Normed Division Algebras?

  • Thread starter Thread starter arivero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paper Unification
  • #31
Greetings Alejandro and MTd2 :)

Indeed, this recent work out of Perimeter involving the octonions is quite interesting.

Acquiring a full generation from \mathbb{C}\otimes\mathbb{O} (i.e. the bioctonion algebra) goes back to the work of Gursey (reference [7] in Furey's paper), with further work being done by Catto, who showed the bioctonions give rise to a non-associative grassmann algebra and used their 3x3 Jordan algebra in an E6 unification model (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302079" ). As a finite-dimensional composition algebra over \mathbb{C}, the bioctonions are maximal, as Springer and Veldkamp have shown the following:

Theorem
A finite dimensional vector space V over a field \mathbb{F}=\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C} can be endowed with a composition algebra structure if and only if \mathrm{dim}_{\mathbb{F}}(V)=1,2,4,8.Note: A composition algebra is an algebra \mathbb{A}=(V,\bullet) admitting an identiy element, with a non-degenerate quadratic form \eta (norm) satisfying

\forall x,y\in\mathbb{A}\quad\eta(x\bullet y)=\eta(x)\eta(y).​

Over the reals, it turns out there are two non-isomorphic dimension eight composition algebras: the octonions and the split-octonions. Over the complex numbers, for a given dimension all composition algebras are isomorphic. The split-octonions underlie supergravity theories arising from toroidal compactifications of M-theory (most famously in N=8 supergravity in D=4), while the ordinary octonions so far have no direct interpretation in M-theory.

It is, however, quite easy to show the octonions and split-octonions are real subalgebras of the bioctonion algebra. In this sense, they are unified, and this unification can be uplifted to their corresponding 2x2 and 3x3 Jordan algebras, which are subalgebras of the 2x2 and 3x3 Jordan algebras over the bioctonions. The 3x3 Jordan algebra over the bioctonions was studied by Kaplansky and Wright http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.mmj/1029001946" and is called the exceptional Jordan C*-algebra. This algebra played a pivotal role in proving that each Jordan-Banach algebra (JB-algebra) is the self-adjoint part of a unique Jordan C*-algebra.

Earlier this year, I used the exceptional Jordan C*-algebra and its Freudenthal triple system (FTS) to study extremal black holes in homogeneous supergravities based on the octonions and split-octonions http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3514" . It was shown the bioctonions are essential in the study of M-theory on an 8-torus, which gives a D=3 supergravity with E8(8) U-duality group. Their utility arises in constructing the 57-dimensional space for which E8(8) is non-linearly realized, as the norm form on this space contains complex light-like solutions. This ultimately forces one to use the FTS over the bioctonions to complexify the 57-dimensional space, giving a realization of complex E8 on this space in which all light-like solutions are contained.

So what does this mean physically? Well, for one it hints at a new theory in which the split-octonion supergravity theories (e.g. N=8, D=4 SUGRA) arising from M-theory compactified on k-dimensional Tori are unified with the octonionic "magic" supergravity theories studied by Ferrara and Gunaydin http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0606211" (which as of yet have no M-theory interpretation). If we are lucky, it might also shed some light on the proposed finiteness of N=8 supergravity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I will reproduce here part of an email exchange I had with Cohl.

******

Dear Cohl Furey,

I was thinking about your paper, with some colleagues of mine, and we came up with a sugestion to try find out the 3 generations.

Here's your paper:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/cfurey/UTI20100805.pdf

To find the fermions, you used the first formula for CXH, generalized for octonions:1. v=av' (page 2). So, you find the 1st generation fermions.
Why not using the other equations, (2) v=av'a+ and (3) v=av'ã? There are some compelling reasons for using them to find 3 generations. But with a few differences. For (3) we will use HX(CXO), instead of CXH

First, notice that (3) gives two ideals. A scalar and a tensor. The tensor part just uses the quaternion bases i,j,k. Similarly, one can do the same here and the result of the computation for fermions will be reused so that along i,j,k we have a generation. So, we have a tensor with 24x24 entries that gives the transition amplitude between the fundamental particles. This is a generalized CKM matrix or PMNS matrix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata_matrix

Using (2), we will find the a stronger version of the universality of the CKM matrix. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa_matrix#Weak_universality)

What do you think? I would like your opinion.



Daniel.

*************

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for your email, and suggestion.

I will try to answer your questions:

> To find the fermions, you used the first formula for CXH, generalized for
> octonions:1. v=av' (page 2). So, you find the 1st generation fermions.
> Why not using the other equations, (2) v=av'a+ and (3) v=av'ã?

Good question. I have actually been working on getting gauge degrees
of freedom out of these other multiplication rules. I'm not sure it's
in the way that you mention, I'd be happy to let you know if I make
some progress on that front.

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion, could you clarify? Did you
mean to associate the quaternionic i with one generation, j with
another, and k with the 3rd? So that when you tensor that with CxO,
you get 3 copies of the single generation? (My apologies if I've
misunderstood.)

Best wishes,
Cohl
********************

Dear Cohl,

"I'm not sure I understand your suggestion, could you clarify? Did you
mean to associate the quaternionic i with one generation, j with
another, and k with the 3rd? So that when you tensor that with CxO,
you get 3 copies of the single generation? (My apologies if I've
misunderstood.)"

Yes, that`s it. And I forgot to mention, the scalar goes for the higgs, which is the 0th generation. There are other reasons to be that straightforward. The octonions live on the S7 sphere, whose group of symmetries is SO(8), so we have a triality relation in higher dimension between 3 preons whose extremities are tied to an S2 sphere. I say this assuming that you`ve read

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2979

And each preon is a buckle belt.

I guess it is not easy to know what is a gauge symmetry or a spatial symmetry, since all of this have complimentary description. I goes along your ideas.

Best wishes,

Daniel.

****************
Hi Daniel,

Interesting suggestion, I hadn't thought of that. So far I've been
trying to keep local spacetime degrees of freedom in CxH and internal
degrees of freedom in CxO, but as you mention, there is no compelling
reason right now to keep things separated in that way, apart from one
person's notion of aesthetics. Certainly Geoffrey Dixon didn't keep
things separated like that, and I would say if you think you see
something worth investigating, please, by all means write it up. I'm
very happy to listen.[...]
Cohl
 
  • #33
kneemo said:
Over the reals, it turns out there are two non-isomorphic dimension eight composition algebras: the octonions and the split-octonions. Over the complex numbers, for a given dimension all composition algebras are isomorphic. The split-octonions underlie supergravity theories arising from toroidal compactifications of M-theory (most famously in N=8 supergravity in D=4), while the ordinary octonions so far have no direct interpretation in M-theory.

Just to get a visualization: which is the topology of the unit ball of split-octonions? A 7-sphere?
 
  • #34
arivero said:
Just to get a visualization: which is the topology of the unit ball of split-octonions? A 7-sphere?

As the octonions and split-octonions have quadratic forms of signature (8,0) and (4,4) respectively, where the (4,4) signature gives rise to a pseudometric, the unit-"sphere" of the split-octonions resembles more a generalized 7D hyperboloid (or what some call a (3,4)-sphere http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amp/2009/483079.html" ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
kneemo said:
As the octonions and split-octonions have quadratic forms of signature (8,0) and (4,4) respectively, where the (4,4) signature gives rise to a pseudometric, the unit-"sphere" of the split-octonions resembles more a generalized 7D hyperboloid (or what some call a (3,4)-sphere http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amp/2009/483079.html" ).

Interesting. Guess that it can be again connected to Hopf fibrations, but still it does not seem to be what we really need (S3xCP2).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
MTd2 said:
****************
Hi Daniel,

Interesting suggestion, I hadn't thought of that. So far I've been
trying to keep local spacetime degrees of freedom in CxH and internal
degrees of freedom in CxO, but as you mention, there is no compelling
reason right now to keep things separated in that way, apart from one
person's notion of aesthetics.
...
Cohl

:eek:Wait, wait, there is one, and very important: that this separation is consistent with Freund–Rubin compactification,
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?j=PHLTA,B97,233
http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198010222
the CxO produces the 7 dim part and the CxH produces the 4 dim part. Actually, CxO can produce a 8 dim ball but it is ok, one probably needs it to get the charges.


On other hand, this model is going way towards the same puzzling result that Connes: NCG Standard Model lives in D=10 but does not contain superparticles. Here we are using division algebras, which are the hallmark of supersymmetry, and again no superparticles. If the goal is to produce the 2^7 dir
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
arivero said:
Interesting. Guess that it can be again connected to Hopf fibrations, but still it does not seem to be what we really need (S3xCP2).

Yes, I suppose one can define "split"-Hopf fibrations in such a manner. So I take it your interest in S^3xCP^2 stems from Witten's compactifications of D=11 supergravity back in the 80's.

I'm actually still fond of the approach of noncommutative geometry, but it seems the CL models are a bit too restrictive, in that the standard axioms do not allow exceptional groups. This seems to be due to a limitation on the types of C*-algebras used for the finite spectral triples.
 
  • #38
arivero said:
... but still it does not seem to be what we really need (S3xCP2).

Looking at S^3xCP^2 again, I'm wondering if it's a G2 manifold, which would give a nice compactification of M-theory from 11 to 4 dimensions. S^3xCP^2 reminds me of S^3xR^4, which was used by Acharya and Witten for G2 compactifications. You also did mention the Aloff-Wallach spaces, which admit G2 structure, so I'm thinking S^3xCP^2 might as well.
 
  • #39
Come to think of it, the (3,4)-sphere arising from the split-octonions should admit a G2 structure.
 
  • #40
There was some info about G2 structure in the review by Duff et al, near 1984, of Kaluza Klein theories.

kneemo said:
So I take it your interest in S^3xCP^2 stems from Witten's compactifications of D=11 supergravity back in the 80's.
Yep, I think that some revisit could be done. This hint by atiyah, telling that in some sense CP^2 is a double cover of S4 (or the contrary, I don't recall exactly), could be the missing piece, and optimistically it could relate to the implementation of chirality too. On the other hand, the finding of Bailin and Love, that they need an extra dimension to define standard model charges (and then, to bypass an objection of Salam) in Kaluza Klein seems very much as an infinitesimal 12th dimension, or as the not gauged U(1) that you need in the standard model of Weinberg -to carry the barion/lepton quantum number-. The fact that Cohl uses CxO instead of plainly Octonions, could be related to this set of observations.
 
  • #41
The idea of finding the full 3 generations is somewhat similar to that one of supersymmetry. In SUSY, one maps a fermion to a bosonic super partner an vice versa. On my proposal to add on Cohl Furey`s model, every fermion is a partner of every other fermion. So, there is a 24dimensional matrix rotating all of them.

BTW, on Furey`s model, as I see it, CXO can only see quarks, so we have that all fermions are labeled by (up,down) or (green, blue, red, sterile). So, an electron and the neutrino are up and down quarks with sterile color. I merely added to that the generation label. So, that`s where the 24 comes (up,down)x(red,green,blue,sterile)x(1(i),2(j),3(k)gen)=2x4x3=24.
 
  • #42
yes, it adscribes to SU(4) Pati-Salam, lepton as the 4th colour. It is not a big issue, in Kaluza Klein you simply fiber CP2 (whose isometry group is SU(3)) with an extra S1 dimension, get S5 then, whose isometry group is SU(4). Most probably, this is the infamous "infinitesimal 12th dimension". Alternatively, you can bet only by U(1) L-B, as mentioned in #40

What is important, really, is to get chirality. This is a recomendation for all model builders: if you want your model to be cited, solve the coupling of chiral fermions to SU(2)xU(1). All the other issues, except generations, were already solved between 1980 and 1985, before the string storm.

I suspect that the solution is related to three misterious chiral fermions with I get when I try to sbootstrap three generations, they should be charged (colour and q=+4/3) but they are only in a chirality, while color and electromagnetism are axial. So, if you theory happens to produce this triad of pseudoneutrals, don't disregard them :wink:.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Beware that one should not try to think to much in terms of groups or topology when dealing with Cohl`s theory unless, perhaps, for intuitive guidance. His proposal is trying to find all the elements of a theory by finding corresponding to all eigenvectors whose algebraic eigenvalues is the ideal.
 
  • #44
MTd2, the point is that most of the previous work has been done in terms of topology and group theory instead of algebraic, and it is always good to connect with the previous knowledge. Most probably both formalisms are equivalent, in fact it could be an interesting paper to do, to prove the equivalence. Of course I would not expect it to be trivial... Are you familiar with the relationships between algebras and manifolds? And with the link between Hopf fibrations and division algebras?

If Cohl solves the chiral problem, then it would be interesting to learn why the manifold approach failed to find the solution, back in the eighties.
 
  • #45
Cohl does not use division algebras straightway. It doesn't work like that. What he does is finding composition rules beyond the simple algebra and trying to find what kind of physics comes from that. Sometimes, it is not trivial. See how he finds the bosons.
 
  • #46
MTd2 said:
Cohl does not use division algebras straightway
And, if he does not use division algebras, which is the justification to select only division algebras in his construction? You can not come with a theory about "the standard model from the letters in my name" (besides, L is not a standard letter for the Reals). It can be an observation, but this observation should have a deeper justification.
 
  • #47
The pattern I see, which is why I am posting on this thread, it is that makes it possible to find gluons for the Bilson - Thompson model.
 
  • #48
yeah, belt tricks :-) It could be that you are able to find belts both for families and gluons; in some preon-inspired models there was a SU(3) happening as a diagonal of family and colour.
 
  • #50
0804.0037v1.pdf :) said:
"This pattern then continues for innitely many higher generations, each made from successive neutrino states"

To me, this is a disaster. I know a lot of people like to think about a generic number of generations, but three is enough.

(And, as you know, my own preonic model "ucdsb makes all" needs at least three and becomes awfully complicated with more of three... but generically, three is enough for CP violation and almost any task, and it is the observed data)
 
  • #51
arivero said:
To me, this is a disaster. I know a lot of people like to think about a generic number of generations, but three is enough.

I see. You are right. This is just like string theory which can have an arbitrary number of generations. But I thought about this part of the paper too.

Presenting left/right have the annoyance of yielding infinite generations. This is where the octonionic representation comes in rescue. To represent the octonions in terms of braidings one has to break left/right symmetry anyway, so, there is no need to put it directly in terms of twists of braids.
 
  • #52
I just come from the library and I strongly suggest to read the 1973 paper of Günayin and Gürsey ( JMP v 14 n 11 p 1651)
 
  • #54
Are bosons non associative beins?

Arivero wrote "who knows?". But, Cohl just use O^2 for the sake of completeness without mentioning the coincidence with the non associativeness of octonions.

Ideas?
 
  • #55
MTd2 said:
Are bosons non associative beins?

Arivero wrote "who knows?". But, Cohl just use O^2 for the sake of completeness without mentioning the coincidence with the non associativeness of octonions.

Ideas?

At this moment, it is only an analogy, but seeing a "^2" makes me thing of a "sqrt()", and I can always compose two spin 1/2 to get spin 1 and spin 0. Is Cohl's "O^2" hidding some supersymmetry? If so it could be of some value for other approaches where only the bosonic part comes from the algebra, eg Connes's.

Every division algebra has an implicit hint of supersymmetry under the concept of "triality" or "generalised dirac gammas", as Evans call it.
 
  • #57
  • #58
Is there anything without supersymmetry? I really don't like it.
 
  • #59
MTd2 said:
Is there anything without supersymmetry? I really don't like it.

My own approach :biggrin: of the sBootstrap, but it is fringe physics.
 
  • #60
Seriously, it seems that the building of a manifold based of RCHO does not need supersymmetry, but so one could just leaving it and go Kaluza Klein all the way. But as Evans Duff and everyone shows, susy is really there and you must either observe it or to explay why you do not observe it. My own aswer was that the susy particles appear in the 4 dimensional world as composites, and that in fact we have observed them since the early fifties. Other answers can go in the lines of looking at it as an mathematical aparatus, avoiding it in the lagrangians, etc...