Noncommutative Geometries from first principles

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Orbb
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the exploration of noncommutative geometries derived from first principles, specifically highlighting models such as those from 2+1-dimensional spinfoams. The coordinate commutator is defined as [X_i, X_j] = iħκε_{ijk}X_k, where κ = 4πG, with a reference provided to arXiv:0705.2222. The conversation also references Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality," which discusses noncommutative examples and their implications in quantum mechanics and particle physics. Participants express a desire for contributions from knowledgeable members to deepen the understanding of these complex theories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of noncommutative geometry concepts
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics and algebras
  • Basic knowledge of string theory and its implications
  • Awareness of spinfoams and their role in gravitational theories
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of noncommutative geometry in quantum mechanics
  • Study the coordinate commutators in string theory
  • Explore Roger Penrose's discussions on noncommutative geometry in "The Road to Reality"
  • Investigate the relationship between twistor theory and noncommutative geometries
USEFUL FOR

Researchers, physicists, and advanced students interested in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on noncommutative geometry, quantum mechanics, and the foundations of particle physics.

Orbb
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Noncommutative Geometries from "first principles"

Hi everyone,

to give a motivation for studying specific models of noncommutative geometry, I would like to start this thread as a collecting tank of models of noncommutative geometry that are obtained as a limit of some kind from 'first principles', i.e. not an ad-hoc modification of the commutator [x_i,x_j] . It would be nice, if we could collect cases by briefly stating what theory in which limit they are obtained from, provide the specific form of the coordinate commutator, and cite a reference (if possible, respectively). So, as a start:

----------------
From 2+1-dim. Spinfoams, by integrating out gravitational DOF, to arrive at the flat-space effective field theory:

[tex][X_i, X_j]=i\hbar \kappa \epsilon_{ijk} X_k, \quad \kappa = 4\pi G[/tex]

Reference: http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2222
----------------

As some knowledgeable people are around here, I hope some members share interest in this and contribute :wink:. For example I heard in string theory world-sheet coordinates do not commute, but I don't know much about it, i.e. which precise form in which case.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


This thread is "above my pay grade" but for those who are more versed than I, Roger Penrose in THE ROAD TO REALITY has some relevant discussions, especially in 33.1, where on pages 961 and 962 he gives some non commutative examples.

He attributes much non commutative geometry insight to Alan Connes and goes on to say

...in quantum mechanics one frequently encounters algebras that are non commutative...Connes and his colleagues developed the idea of non commutative geometry with a view to producing a physical theory which includes the standard model of particle physics...the potential richness of the idea of non-commutative geometry does not seem to me to be at all strongly used, so far...twistor theory has some relations to spin network theory and to Ashtekar variables and possibly non-commutative geometry...
 
Last edited:


Hi Naty,

Naty1 said:
This thread is "above my pay grade"

so it is for me actually :smile:, which is why I hope that others pop into contribute. Anyways, thanks for your reference. So from THE ROAD TO REALITY, p. 983, one at least has

[tex][Z^{\alpha},\overline{Z}_{\beta}]=\hbar \delta^{\alpha}_{\beta},[/tex]

and as the twistor components Z, if I understand correctly, are actually composed of spacetime coordinates, it would be interesting to see what this means for the coordinate commutator. However I couldn't find it worked out anywhere and I don't know if one link this framework to a coordinate commutator in a sensible way.---------
Edit: As for Connes, I think the approach is a little different, as one considers a product of a commutative spin manifold M (accounting for spacetime) with a finite, noncommutative space accounting for matter content. While this as well seems very worthwile to study, we do have some threads about this, so that I would prefer to talk about scenarios in which the ordinary space/spacetime coordinates are noncommuting.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
696
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K