Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
  1. Anel and Catren in their introduction to New Spaces in Physics claim that Lagrangian submanifolds are category-theoretic “points” of a symplectic manifold, morphisms from the trivial symplectic manifold in Weinstein’s symplectic category.

    Is this accurate?

    Anonymous

    diff, v19, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022

    That was me, by the way.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022

    Without looking up the article:

    The statement in #1 seems to be immediate from the would-be definition of the Weinstein symplectic category, whose morphisms are meant, by definition, to be symplectic submanifolds in the product of the domain and codomain manifold. If the domain is the point, this seems to yield what you are quoting.

    The notorious subtlety is to make the composition operation in the symplectic category well-defined. Is this what you are worried about?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • (edited Sep 20th 2022)

    Isn’t this a tautology in Zakrzewski-Weinstein category ?

    Edit: I see Urs responded in the meantime.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022

    Thanks. Yes, I could have checked that.

    Perhaps more interesting is what they make of it: The study of symplectic and Poisson geometry shows the classical seeds within quantum physics, allows the latter to be seen as a continuous extension of the former (reference to Urs’s Chap. 5 on prequantum physics), rather than a radical break.

    Then the idea of Lagrangian submanifolds encoding the classical seeds of quantum indeterminacy, so that we can speak of quantum particles as localized at ’points’, so long as we take these points as category-theoretic, i.e., morphisms from the terminal object.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • (edited Sep 20th 2022)

    David, the notion that Lagrangian submanifolds should be thought as quantum points was widely present idea at the end of 1980s. Just the reasoning was different, not the conclusion. It was often mentioned not only by geometers but also in the context of quantum groups.

    As far as ideas on seeds of quantum phenomena, take into account strong results in symplectic geometry like Gromov’s nonsqueezing theorem (wikipedia) from 1987.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • (edited Sep 20th 2022)

    Maybe you would be interested to read a related semantic analysis also in the current context of Zakrzewski-Weinstein-Ševera category

    • Sergey Slavnov, Geometrical semantics for linear logic (multiplicative fragment), Theoretical Computer Science 357, no. 1–3 (2006) 215–229 doi

    Linear logic was described by Girard as a logic of dynamic interactions. On the other hand, Girard suggested an analogy between LL and quantum theory. Following these two intuitions we give an interpretation of linear logic in the language, which is common for both dynamical systems and quantization. Thus, we propose a denotational semantics for multiplicative linear logic using the language of symplectic geometry.

    We construct a category of coherent phase spaces and show that this category provides a model for MLL. A coherent phase space is a pair: a symplectic manifold and a distinguished field of contact cones on this manifold. The category of coherent phase spaces is a refinement of the symplectic “category” introduced by Weinstein. A morphism between two coherent phase spaces is a Lagrangian submanifold of their product, which is tangent to some distinguished field of contact cones. Thus, we interpret formulas of MLL as fields of contact cones on symplectic manifolds, and proofs as integral submanifolds of corresponding fields. In geometric and asymptotic quantization symplectic manifolds are phase spaces of classical systems, and Lagrangian submanifolds represent asymptotically states of quantized systems. Typically, a Lagrangian submanifold is the best possible localization of a quantum system in the classical phase space, as follows from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Lagrangian submanifolds are called sometimes “quantum points”.

    From this point of view we interpret linear logic proofs as (geometric approximations to) quantum states and formulas as specifications for these states. In particular, the interpretation of linear negation suggests that the dual formulas A and A⊥ stand in the same relationship as the position and momentum observables. These two observables cannot simultaneously have definite values, much like the case of two dual formulas, which cannot simultaneously have proofs.

    Edit: I added the reference at Weinstein symplectic category.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022

    Branimir Jurčo gave a talk at ESI on a richer version of the Weinstein’s symplectic category of correspondences suited to organize BV-theories into a category (work in progress).

    We propose an enhancement of (odd) sympelctic category (in the spirit of Severa and Weinstein) and discuss its relation to homological perturbation theory.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 21st 2022

    Re #7, in view of recent interest here in linear logic, in the guise of linear dependent type theory, perhaps an interesting project, ’symplectic semantics’:

    By no means should it be understood that the model that we discuss in this paper can be taken as some definitive final word. Rather we think of it as a first step in the direction of symplectic semantics and we would like to believe that it may serve as a building block (one among many) for future developments. We interpret only a very poor fragment of Linear Logic and the model itself is very elementary and can be modified in many ways. Apparently a more structure should be added in order to accommodate other connectives.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)