http://davidaedwards.tumblr.com/post/4414427910http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.2826v1.pdf
11 months ago - 
1
1 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.2826v1.pdf
What we call here “spectral space-time” is the idea that space-time (commutative or not) has to be “reconstructed a posteriori”, from other operationally defined degrees of freedom, in a spectral way. The origin of such “pregeometrical philosophy” is less clear. Space-time as a “relational” a posteriori entity originate from ideas of G.W. Leibnitz, G. Berkeley, E. Mach.
Although pregeometrical speculations, in western philosophy, probably date as far back as Pythagoras, their first modern incarnation probably starts with J. Wheeler’s “pregeometries” [Wh2, MLP] and “it from bit” [Wh3] proposals.R. Geroch [Ge], with his Einstein algebras, was the first to suggest a “transition” from spaces to algebras in order to solve the problem of “singularities” in general relativity. The fundamental idea that space-time can be completely recovered from the specification of suitable states of the system, has been the subject of scattered speculations in algebraic quantum field theory in the past by A. Ocneanu 57, S. Doplicher [Do1], U. Bannier[Ban], in the “geometric modular action” program 58 by S. Summers-R. White [SuW] and in the “modular localization” context (see R. Brunetti-D. Guido-R. Longo [BGL] and references therein) has been conjectured by N. Pinamonti [Pi]. More recently the idea has gained importance in the attempts to reconstruct quantum physics from quantum information (among others, J. Bub-R. Clifton-H. Halvorson [BCH], A. Grinbaum [Gri1, Gri2, Gri3, Gri4] and especially C. Rovelli’s suggestion [Ro1, section 5.6.4]), but it is still an unsolved problem.This is probably because only now the Araki-Haag-Kastler axiomatization has been suitably extended to incorporate general covariance (R. Brunetti-K. Fredenhagen-R. Verch [BFV]), but there are, in our opinion, other fundamental issues that need to be addressed in a completely unconventional way and that are related to the “philosophical interpretation” of states and observables in the theory in
“atemporal-covariant” context (following ideas of C. Isham and collaborators [I2, I3,IL1, IL2, ILSS], C. Rovelli and collaborators [Ro1, Ro3, RR, MPR], J. Hartle [Hart], L. Hardy [Har1, Har2, Har3], J. Dawling-S. Jay Olson [DJO1, DJO2]).
That essential information about the underlying space-time is already contained in the algebra of observables of the system (and its Hilbert space representation) is clearly indicated by R. Feynman-F. Dyson [Dy] reconstruction of Maxwell equations (and hence of the Poincar´e group of symmetries) from the commutation relations of ordinary non-relativistic
quantum mechanics of a free particle, an argument recently revised and extended to noncommutative configuration spaces by T. Kopf-M. Paschke [P1, KP3].In a slightly different context, in their discussion of the construction of the quantum theory of spin particles on a (compact Riemannian manifold), J. Fr¨ohlich-O. Grandjean-A. Recknagel [FGR1, FGR2, FGR3, FGR4], have been considering several important unsolved aspects of the relationship between the underlying configuration space of a physical system and the actual non-commutative geometry exhibited at the level of its algebra of observables (phase-space). The solution of these problems is still fundamental in the
construction of a theory of spectral space-time and quantum gravity based on algebras of observables and their states. We will have more to say about this problem in the final section 5.5.2.# That non-commutative geometry provides a suitable environment for the implementation of spectral reconstruction of space-time from states and observables in quantum physics has been the main motivating idea of one us (P.B.) since 1990 andit is still an open work in progress [B].
11 months ago - 3
3 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.2826v1.pdf
What we call here “spectral space-time” is the idea that space-time (commutative or not) has to be “reconstructed a posteriori”, from other operationally defined degrees of freedom, in a spectral way. The origin of such “pregeometrical philosophy” is less clear. Space-time as a “relational” a posteriori entity originate from ideas of G.W. Leibnitz, G. Berkeley, E. Mach.
Although pregeometrical speculations, in western philosophy, probably date as far back as Pythagoras, their first modern incarnation probably starts with J. Wheeler’s “pregeometries” [Wh2, MLP] and “it from bit” [Wh3] proposals.
R. Geroch [Ge], with his Einstein algebras, was the first to suggest a “transition” from spaces to algebras in order to solve the problem of “singularities” in general relativity. The fundamental idea that space-time can be completely recovered from the specification of suitable states of the system, has been the subject of scattered speculations in algebraic quantum field theory in the past by A. Ocneanu 57, S. Doplicher [Do1], U. Bannier[Ban], in the “geometric modular action” program 58 by S. Summers-R. White [SuW] and in the “modular localization” context (see R. Brunetti-D. Guido-R. Longo [BGL] and references therein) has been conjectured by N. Pinamonti [Pi]. More recently the idea has gained importance in the attempts to reconstruct quantum physics from quantum information (among others, J. Bub-R. Clifton-H. Halvorson [BCH], A. Grinbaum [Gri1, Gri2, Gri3, Gri4] and especially C. Rovelli’s suggestion [Ro1, section 5.6.4]), but it is still an unsolved problem.This is probably because only now the Araki-Haag-Kastler axiomatization has been suitably extended to incorporate general covariance (R. Brunetti-K. Fredenhagen-R. Verch [BFV]), but there are, in our opinion, other fundamental issues that need to be addressed in a completely unconventional way and that are related to the “philosophical interpretation” of states and observables in the theory in
“atemporal-covariant” context (following ideas of C. Isham and collaborators [I2, I3,IL1, IL2, ILSS], C. Rovelli and collaborators [Ro1, Ro3, RR, MPR], J. Hartle [Hart], L. Hardy [Har1, Har2, Har3], J. Dawling-S. Jay Olson [DJO1, DJO2]).
That essential information about the underlying space-time is already contained in the algebra of observables of the system (and its Hilbert space representation) is clearly indicated by R. Feynman-F. Dyson [Dy] reconstruction of Maxwell equations (and hence of the Poincar´e group of symmetries) from the commutation relations of ordinary non-relativistic
quantum mechanics of a free particle, an argument recently revised and extended to noncommutative configuration spaces by T. Kopf-M. Paschke [P1, KP3].In a slightly different context, in their discussion of the construction of the quantum theory of spin particles on a (compact Riemannian manifold), J. Fr¨ohlich-O. Grandjean-A. Recknagel [FGR1, FGR2, FGR3, FGR4], have been considering several important unsolved aspects of the relationship between the underlying configuration space of a physical system and the actual non-commutative geometry exhibited at the level of its algebra of observables (phase-space). The solution of these problems is still fundamental in the
construction of a theory of spectral space-time and quantum gravity based on algebras of observables and their states. We will have more to say about this problem in the final section 5.5.2.# That non-commutative geometry provides a suitable environment for the implementation of spectral reconstruction of space-time from states and observables in quantum physics has been the main motivating idea of one us (P.B.) since 1990 and
it is still an open work in progress [B].
11 months ago - 3
3 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.2826v1.pdf
Covariance of physical theories has been always discussed in the limited domain of groups acting on spaces.
• Aristotles’ physics is based on the covariance group SO3(R) of rotations in R3 that was the supposed symmetry group of a three dimensional vector space with the center of the Earth at the origin.
• Galilei’s relativity principle requires as covariance group the Galilei group, which is the ten parameters symmetry group of the Newtonian space-time (i.e. a family Et of three dimensional Euclidean spaces parametrized by elements t in a one dimensional Euclidean space T ) generated by 3 space translations, 1 time translation, 3 rotations and 3 boosts.
• Poincar´e covariance group consists of the semidirect product of Lorentz group L with the group of translations in R4 and it is the symmetry group of the four dimensional Minkowski space (an affine four dimensional space modeled on R4 with metric of signature (− + ++)).
• Einstein covariance group is the group of diffeomorphisms of a four dimensional Lorentzian manifold (note that in this case the metric and the causal structure is not preserved).
11 months ago - 1
1 University of David: Non-Commutative Geometry, Categories and Quantum Physics
After an introduction to some basic issues in non-commutative geometry (Gel’fand duality, spectral triples), we present a “panoramic view” of the status of our current research program on the use of categorical methods in the setting of A. Connes’ noncommutative geometry: morphisms/categories of spectral triples, categorification of Gel’fand duality. We conclude with a summary of the expected applications of “categorical non-commutative geometry” to structural questions in relativistic quantum physics: (hyper)covariance, quantum space-time, (algebraic) quantum gravity.
(Source: davidaedwards)
11 months ago - 1
1 FIBRE SEQUENCES AND LOCALIZATION OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES, MATTHIAS WENDT
(Source: davidaedwards)
11 months ago - 1
1 Rieffel induction as generalized quantum Marsden-Weinstein reduction
In the remainder of this paper we will describe the above ideas in detail, and provide a fair number of examples illustrating why it seems a good idea to quantize the generalized symplectic reduction/induction technique by the Rieffel induction process. For example, we give classical Poisson versions of both the imprimitivity theorem and the theorem on induction in stages [32, 8]. The quantization procedure based on Rieffel induction will have to be compared with the fashionable BRST quantization scheme (cf. e.g. [15, 13]). For the moment, we just wish to point out that serious difficulties of principle with the latter were spelled out in [7, 19], and that on the practical side “at present the computation of BRST-cohomology is an extremely difficult problem” [13]. Moreover, the Rieffel induction process mimics the symplectic procedure more closely than any BRST treatment we are aware of (including the bosonic BRST theory in [6]), and appears to be simpler both conceptually and computationally. On the other hand, the proper domain of the rigging map has to be found case by case, and for C∗-algebras not defined by groupoids even the rigging map itself is not given a priori. Finally, all our examples are defined for finite-dimensional Poisson manifolds, and one has yet to see how quantization through Rieffel induction will perform in infinite-dimensional situations (where the BRST technique has been very successful [15]).
(Source: davidaedwards)
11 months ago - 1
1 Warped Convolutions, Rieffel Deformations and the Construction of Quantum Field Theories
Warped convolutions of operators were recently introduced in the algebraic framework of quantum physics as a new constructive tool. It is shown here that these convolutions provide isometric representations of Rieffel’s strict deformations of C
(Source: davidaedwards)
11 months ago - 1
1 
