31
$\begingroup$

At the end of a conference given by Alain Connes in 2000 (here is a video in French), a member of the audience asked a question. I transcribed and translated it for you below:

Audience: You showed that noncommutative geometry greatly simplifies the physics in a very elegant way, by actually losing a property that seems a bit simple. Similary, if we work with algebras, complex numbers, quaternions and octonions..., are there people investigating some nonassociative geometries? Alain Connes: Ok, I can explain you about this right now...

The video cuts off at that time, even before Alain finishes his explanation, so I post this question here :

What is about nonassociative geometry ?

Sir Michael Atiyah (here at 58'): Connes' theory is very beautiful, but it only deals with associative algebras, so it can't deals with the octonions, so that's why I think this theory is not quite finished.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If you look on google you find some stuff, for example: arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9607086v2.pdf $\endgroup$
    – Qfwfq
    Jun 8, 2013 at 15:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for this reference. I also found 15 papers on arxiv containing nonassociative (or non-associative) geometry on their title, the most recent in 2013, but your reference is the first (1997). Just a note: on the 15 references found, 11 were tagged by "High Energy Physics", 2 by "Quantum algebra" and one by "Ring and algebra." It seems that the physicists are much more motivated by the nonassociative geometry than the mathematicians, why ? $\endgroup$
    – Sebastien Palcoux
    Jun 8, 2013 at 16:18
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Michael Atiyah speculates about the role for octonion-based geometries for quantum gravity around 30 minutes and 54 minutes into this talk: youtube.com/watch?v=I1ftUA17MZg. Also, after 58 minutes comes the thought that we need to go beyond cyclic homology for associative algebras to deal with nonassociativity. $\endgroup$
    – David Corfield
    Jun 10, 2013 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much David, this video is very interesting. I will put, in the issue, a quotation of Michael Atiyah extract from this video. $\endgroup$
    – Sebastien Palcoux
    Jun 10, 2013 at 14:20

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
16
$\begingroup$

There is progress in this direction by mathematicians here: Jordan operator algebra

(see also this Physics post : Non-associative operators in Physics)

Warning: the Jordan operator algebras exchange the associativity by the commutativity, in fact their product $\circ$, given by $a_1 \circ a_2 = \frac{1}{2}(a_1*a_2+a_2*a_1)$, is commutative nonassociative, whereas $*$ is noncommutative associative. So it's an advanced but it's not really satisfying.
A satisfying advanced would be with nonassociative and noncommutative algebras.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.