Monday, December 26, 2022

The Sound of Silence

26-12-2022

Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

So, here we will continue with my vision softly creeping - the vision of symmetric spaces (perhaps non-commutative). We will derive a general form of symmetries defined in the previous two posts. Not yet though the definite form. One step at a time.

We recall from Eine Kleine Al Gebra

This way with each n-dimensional subspace V of X on which the scalar product is positive definite we have associated a linear operator J on X such that 

1) J=J*, 

2) JJ=I

3) and (z,Jz') is positive definite. 

We will find a general form of such J. 

Writing J in a block form J={{A,B},{C,D}} we find from 1) that 

A=A*, D=D* and C=-B*.

The matrices A,B,C,D are respectively mxm,mxn,nxm,nxn, and * for these matrtices denotes the standard hermitian conjugation (i.e. complex conjugate transpose).

Then 2) leads to

A2 =  Im + BB*

D2 =  In + B*B

AB + BD = 0

We will  now use the positivity condition 3). Let u in Cn be a non-zero vector, and let z={u,0}. Then (z,Jz) = -u*Au should be positive, therefore A is a (hermitian) negative definite matrix. It follows that

(4) A= -(Im+BB*)1/2

Similartly, taking z={0,v} we deduce that D is positive definite, therefore

(5) D = (In+B*B)1/2

The Reader is now encouraged to apply singular value decomposition to the matrix B in order to deduce that the condition AB+BD=0 is satisfied automatically. This way we have found a general form of J:

 The matrix B can be arbitrary, A and D must be given by the above expressions, C = -B*.

But this is not yet a form that is convenient to use. Th action of the group U(n,m) on matrices B that define J happens to be inconvenient.

Let us recall that we are working in an orthonormal basis. Such a basis allows us to identify X with Cm+n , and, in particular, detrmines a split of X into the direct sum of a positive subspace, spanned by n last vectors of the basis, and a negative subspace spanned by the first m vectors of the basis. Of course different orthonormal bases will determine the same split. If the first m vectors are rotated by a unitary matrix in U(m) and the last n vectors of the basis are rotated by a unitary matrix in U(n), the split will stay the same. What we need in the following is really a split, not a basis, but, nevertheless we will assume that we have selected a basis and that we are working with Cm+n . No harm will be done by such an assumption.

So, let J be as above, and let V be the subspace of X composed of eigenvectors of J belonging to the eigenvalue +1. The scalar product (z,z') is therefore positive definite on V Let z be a nonzero vector from V. Thus Jz=z. We write z and J in blockmatrix form. Thus z is a column vector z={w,v}, w from Cm, v from Cn.J = {{A,B},{C,D}}, with B artbitrary mxn matrix, C=-B*, while A and D are completely determined by B,  and are given by the expressions above.  The eigenvalue equation  Jz=z translates then to:

Aw+Bv=w
Cw+Dv=v.

We rewrite the first equation as (here and below we will write simply I for mxm and nxn unit matrices)

(I-A)w = Bv

Now, from (4)  A is negative definite, therefore I-A is invertible. Therefore we may write

w = (I-A)-1Bv

Let us define mxn matrix Z as

(6) Z =  (I-A)-1B = ( I + (I + BB*)1/2 )-1B,

so that the eigenvalue +1 eigenspace V of J is spanned by vectors of the form z={Zw,w}.

We will now find the conditions on Z and solve the above equation expressing B through Z and Z*.

From (6) we get

(6a) Z* = B*( I + (I + BB*)1/2 )-1,

therefore

ZZ* = ( I + (I + BB*)1/2 )-1BB*( I + (I + BB*)1/2 )-1

or

 (7) ZZ* = ( I + (I + BB*)1/2 )-2 BB*

Let us set y=ZZ*, x=BB* and plot y as a function of x. We get


We see that the function is monotonous, and that it maps the interval [0,infinity) to [0,1). Thus the condition on Z is 

(7a) ZZ* < I 

We can easily find the expression of x in terms of y:

(8) BB* = 4ZZ*/(I - ZZ*)2

From that we instantly get

(I+BB*)1/2 = (I+ZZ*)/(I-ZZ*)

and thus, from (4)

(9) A = - (I+ZZ*)/(I-ZZ*),

while from (6) we obtain

B = 2(I-ZZ*)-1 Z

It remains to calculate C=-B* and D. We will do that in the next post. Then we will describe the action of U(n,m) on J in terms of action on Z. We will obtain very nice and manegable linear fractional transformations.

P.S.1 Good news. Have just received email from a Friend in Vienna. The email started with very kind words: "... Your brilliant paper "Random walk on quantum blobs" appeared in Open Systems & Information Dynamics.". And indeed, I have just checked and it appeared - just today:  Open Systems & Information Dynamics 

2 comments:

  1. Some informal relating of the topic to category theory via two guys who liked to be informally formal (Grothendieck and Tony Smith):

    https://vixra.org/pdf/1202.0028v2.pdf

    Realistic Physics/Math can be described using Three Grothendieck universes:
    1 - Empty Set - the seed from which everything grows.
    2 - Hereditarily Finite Sets - computer programs, discrete lattices,
    discrete Clifford algebras, cellular automata,
    Feynman Checkerboards.
    3 - Completion of Union of all tensor products of Cl(16) real Clifford algebra -
    a generalized hyperfinite II1 von Neumann factor algebra
    that, through its Cl(16) structure, contains such useful Physics/Math objects as:
    Spinor Spaces
    Vector Spaces
    BiVector Lie Algebras and Lie Groups
    Symmetric Spaces
    Complex Domains, their Shilov boundaries, and Harmonic Analysis...

    Whatever foundation we use for category theory, it must somehow provide us with a notion of “big sets”. In Grothendieck’s approach, one fixes a particular set U (called the universe) and thinks of elements of U as “normal sets”, subsets of U as “classes”, and all other sets as “unimaginably massive”...

    The Wikipedia article on Grothendieck universe said:
    “... The idea of universes is due to Alexander Grothendieck,
    who used them as a way of avoiding proper classes ...

    back to me (John G): things like physics, consciousness, spirituality, personality, etc. could certainly be very related to fundamental number theory/set theory and schemes like Grothendieck universes/category theory could show that in varying degrees of formal/informal. I tend not to be able to overly understand details whether for models or metamodels but it's nice seeing them since they usually help with getting the general idea.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ John G

    What you write is very interesting to me. In January, however, I will have to choose a specific problem from the area of gravitational effects on the Planck scale. I have a few ideas, but it remains to be seen which one will best fit the project I will be involved in.

    However, thank you for your help and mention of the Grothendieck Universe. I will keep this concept in mind.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comment..

Why? The Purpose of the Universe - Part Nine

Laura Knight-Jadczyk  In the previous post , we learned that Philip Goff proposes that the fine-tuning of the cosmos indicates that the emer...