P. I. C. M. – 2018 Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 1 (111–118)

ARITHMETIC PHYSICS – ABEL LECTURE

M A

1 Introduction

My Abel lecture in Rio de Janeiro was devoted to solving the riddle of the fine structure constant ˛, an outstanding problem from the world of fundamental physics.

Here is what the Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman had to say about ˛ :Where does ˛ come from; is it related to ,or perhaps to e? Nobody knows, it is one of the great damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the hand of God wrote the number and we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.

Within the constraints of a one-hour lecture, before an audience of a thousand math- ematicians, I sketched my explanation of where ˛ came from. The actual title of my lecture was: The Future of Mathematical Physics: new ideas in old bottles.

During the ICM I listened to many brilliant lectures and talked with many clever people. As a result my ideas crystallised and, on the long flight back from Rio to Frank- furt, they took final shape. Rather than just expand on my Abel Lecture I will attempt to outline the broad programme that starts with the fine structure constant and aims to build a Theory of Arithmetic Physics.

A programme with a similar title was put forward by Yuri Manin in Bonn in 1984 Atiyah [1985]. In fact Manin was not able to come and I presented his lecture for him. This gave me the opportunity to suggest that Manin’s programme was too modest, and that it should be lifted from the classical regime to the quantum regime with Hilbert spaces in the forefront.

Visionary programmes take decades to mature and it was 34 years later, on the flight from the new world to the old, that the programme revealed its true self. The title of my Abel lecture suddenly acquired a new meaning, with bottles replaced by continents.

In the next section I will survey the history of the “old bottles” and show how old ideas can be put to new use. MSC2010: primary 11G05; secondary 11G40, 14G25, 14H52, 14K15. Keywords: .

111 112

2 Past, Present and Future

There are two stories from the past that I wish to resurrect. The first, and older of the two, is the Theory of von Neumann Algebras Murray and von Neumann [1936]. It arose from the study of operators in Hilbert space that von Neumann used to lay the foundations of quantum mechanics. It created a deep bridge between non-commutative Algebra and Analysis. In more recent years, in the hands of Alain Connes Connes [1994], it has been further refined to include Differential Geometry.

The second story from the past was initiated by Fritz Hirzebruch Hirzebruch [1966], as part of the new algebraic geometry centred on Paris and Princeton. Fritz was a ma- gician, a true successor to Euler Dunham [1999], who found beautiful new applications of the Bernoulli numbers, creating a bridge between and algebraic ge- ometry. My own work in collaboration with Raoul Bott Atiyah and Bott [1966] and Is Singer Atiyah and Singer [1963] extended the bridge into differential geometry and topology.

The Hirzebruch era was a generation later than the von Neumann era, but by then the foundations of Arithmetic Physics were being laid, as Manin recognized. With subse- quent developments in Physics led by , M-theory emerged and provided strong hints that Arithmetic Physics should indeed lift to the quantum world as I had speculated.

My paper on the fine structure constant, which provides the details behind the ideas sketched in my Abel Lecture, has been submitted to the Proceedings A of the Royal So- ciety Atiyah [2018a]. It was recorded in the ArXiv on 15/8/18. As advertised in Atiyah and Kouneiher [n.d.] a second paper on Newton’s constant is in preparation.

In this article I will explain that (quantum) Arithmetic Physics is essentially Alge- braic Geometry over the Quaternions H. I will show that it mimics algebraic geometry over the complex field C. The only difference is that the complex field is replaced by the hyperfinite II-1 factor A(C). Moreover an algebraic number field Q0 in C is re- placed by what I will call the Hirzebruch algebra A(Q0).

A careful scrutiny of Hirzebruch’s formalism shows that it essentially gives the Hilbert Nullstellensatz over the quaternions H. Since Hilbert’s theorem is the foundation stone of complex algebraic geometry, its counterpart over A will be the foundation stone of quaternionic algebraic geometry. C and its arithmetic subfields Q0 get replaced by A and its arithmetic sub-factors A(Q0).

These algebraic/analytic ideas enable us to extend classical algebra/analysis from the commutative world of Q0 and C to the non-commutative world of A(Q0) and A(C). This converts large areas of classical mathematics into non-commutative counterparts. The traces of von Neumann factors, the holomorphic Euler characteristics of Hirzebruch and the index of Atiyah and Singer [1963] give stable commutative invariants from the ARITHMETIC PHYSICS – ABEL LECTURE 113 non-commutative world. This is the way  gets converted to Ж.

Just as  is related to the circle via the equation (1) x2 + y2 = 1 where x and y are commuting variables in R C, Ж is related to the same equation  with non-commuting variables in A(R) A(C). 

Keeping the same equation, but taking arithmetic subfields Q0 gives interesting arith- metic invariants interpolating between  and Ж. As Hirzebruch showed, the Bernoulli functions and the Todd polynomials play a key role in this story, which is precisely the topic of Hirzebruch [1966].

Hirzebruch had many variants and extensions of his Todd polynomials and they are all based on this one rational case.

Replacing the equation (2.1) by other polynomial equations leads to elliptic and higher genus curves whose counterparts give rise to invariants of elliptic fields or fields of higher genus.

It seems likely that this will provide a novel approach to algebraic number theory, yet to be explored. In the next section I will peer into this future and describe the vista I see.

3 A new programme for the future

I envisage Arithmetic Physics as a future programme ahead that will unify many fields. These include:

3.1 the Langlands programme (number theory)

3.2 Donaldson theory (differential geometry)

3.3 M–theory (theoretical physics)

3.4 Burnside problems ()

3.5 Thompson theory (finite simple groups)

There are already many hints that these fields are connected in some way, via mod- ular forms and L-functions. Examples of old problems that have been rejuvenated and extended by the first steps into the domain of Arithmetic Physics include:

3.6. Complex structures on the 6-sphere Atiyah [2016] Atiyah [2018b] 114 MICHAEL ATIYAH

3.7 Groups of odd Atiyah [n.d.]

3.8 The fine structure constant Atiyah [2018a]

Work in progress includes:

3.9 Newton’s constant Atiyah and Kouneiher [n.d.], joint with J.Kouneiher

3.10 New results on the restricted Burnside problem Atiyah and Zuk [n.d.], joint with A. Zuk.

Going beyond the Quaternions H, to the Octonions O, deepens Arithmetic Physics in several ways:

3.11 It extends the physics to include Gravity and black holes

3.12 It extends group theory to include Exceptional groups

This indicates the potential scope of the theory showing that much remains to be done. In the next section I will comment on the technical tools that will be needed.

4 New Technology

The fundamental idea behind the new technology is that all the hard problems of mathe- matics or physics are non-linear, but our tools are linear. A familiar example is a CT scan which inputs linear waves and attempts to reconstruct your bones or your brain. Bom- barding a nucleus with waves and analysing the scattering is another example. These are examples from biology and physics. Representation theory is an example from group theory, while classical modular forms provide an example from the theory of elliptic curves.

This was the bread and butter of Arithmetic Physics in the classical setting described by Manin in 1984. In the classical theories, as the subject developed, more elaborate processes were constructed. A simple example is the use of cohomology theory which began with H 1 but gradually moved on to H 2 and H 3.

The new version of Arithmetic Physics that I envisage, replacing classical by quan- tum ideas, is infinite-dimensional and is reached by an infinite iteration of steps. Addi- tion and multiplication were handled with consummate skill, by Euler Dunham [1999] with infinite series and infinite products. But the hard operation, to iterate to infinity, is the exponential which converts addition into multiplication. In set theory the expo- nential 2S is the set of all subsets of S, and it was Emil Artin who exploited this. But it was von Neumann who went one step further and considered an infinite iteration of ex- ponentials as an analytical tool. This analysis was refined by Hirzebruch to be defined ARITHMETIC PHYSICS – ABEL LECTURE 115

over Q or over a number field Q0. This is the fundamental tool for the new theory and it encapsulates linear information from Hilbert space, such as the spectrum.

Cohomology is the classical linear invariant and is the basis of much number theory, as in l-adic representations. But it was clear from the work of Grothendieck and Quillen that K-theory is a more sophisticated invariant, being filtered rather than graded. More- over index theory extended it to differential geometry.

K-theory, built on families of linear objects, has myriad refinements, notably equiv- ariant K-theory, which makes it the perfect tool when we want to extract stable linear invariants of non-linear objects. This is the ultimate key to understanding the non-linear world.

This is the philosophy, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the examples given in section 3 demonstrate that the philosophy has genuine content. It is reminiscent of the early days of the Langlands programme where crucial examples were shown to lead to deep theorems.

5 Hard Analysis

In classical analysis there is an informal distinction between soft and hard analysis. Lin- ear theory is “soft” and non-linear theory is “hard”. Fourier Theory in L2 is “soft” while Lp, for p 2 (required for non-linear problems) is “hard”. I am indebted to Jim Wright ¤ for a crash course in hard analysis explaining the sharp Hausdorff–Young inequality. I realized how varying p helped both analysts and number theorists move up the von Neu- mann factor A(C) and the Hirzebruch algebra A(Q)

Large parts of mathematics and physics employ linear methods to attack non-linear problems. Soft mathematics comes to the help of hard mathematics. But this is a tricky process requiring much skill: the soft methods must be iterated, by feed-back, to reach the hard core. There are subtle points in how finite data converges to its various limits. Understanding this is important both logically and computationally.

The fundamental questions are always the same:

A) Does the iterated use of linear methods lead to complete information about the non-linear problem?

B) What collection of linear data can arise from the non-linear object?

Put more graphically in terms of shining light on a statue:

A’) Can we see inside the statue? 116 MICHAEL ATIYAH

B’) What shadow does the statue cast?

More formally in terms of a functor from a non-linear category to a linear one :

A”) What is the of the functor; is it injective ?

B”) What is the of the functor; is it surjective (onto what we expect).

The technology of Arithmetic Physics which I envisage incorporates infinite itera- tions (von Neumann/Hirzebruch) and provides a powerful universal tool for answering the fundamental questions A) and B). There are many aspects of this process and they provide a great variety of approaches, often related by dualities. As seen by me, Arith- metic Physics is a branch of mathematics which has, inter alia, many applications in physics. Its foundations are the foundations of mathematics, where we encounter Kurt Gödel.

As seen from the other end of the vista, Arithmetic Physics is a branch of physics, based on experiments, which has many links with mathematics. Both perceptions are true and together form a deep truth in the sense of Pauli : a deep truth is one whose opposite is also true. Asking whether Pauli’s dictum is itself a deep truth is the ultimate conundrum which only Gödel can answer.

It should cause no surprise if this programme of Arithmetic Physics solves many old problems or sheds light on their insolubility. Moreover old barriers disappear or are lowered; the barrier between the discrete and the continuous being just one. This is where Euler’s constant appears as does its quaternionic counterpart Ч.

Because  is so important in classical mathematics it is inevitable that Ж will be equally important in “quantum” or “quaternionic” mathematics (perhaps q-mathematics is the right terminology). Later when we bring in “gravitational” or “octonionic” math- ematics we will need to introduce a new Arabic symbol E to move Ж to a higher level. A coloured table of symbols from different cultures is tabulated as an aide mémoire.

In this final summing up I have outlined the vision of Arithmetic Physics that inspired me as I flew back from Rio to Frankfurt. A vision or a programme is unfinished business, leaving subsequent generations to flesh it out. The Abel Foundation includes in its aims both the advancement of mathematics and its dissemination into the community. That was my goal.

Acknowledgements. I am grateful to the Abel Foundation for the invitation to deliver the Abel Lecture 2018 in Rio de Janeiro, and to IMPA for helping with the long journey from Edinburgh to Rio. I am also indebted to the Leverhulme Trust for an Emeritus Professorship. ARITHMETIC PHYSICS – ABEL LECTURE 117

References

M. F. Atiyah (n.d.). “Groups of Odd Order”. Submitted to Journal of Geometry and Physics (cit. on p. 114). – (1985). “Commentary on the article of Yu. I. Manin: “New dimensions in geometry” [Workshop Bonn 1984 (Bonn, 1984), 59–101, Springer, Berlin, 1985; MR0797416 (87j:14030)]”. In: Workshop Bonn 1984 (Bonn, 1984). Vol. 1111. Lecture Notes in Math. Springer, Berlin, pp. 103–109. MR: 797417 (cit. on p. 111). – (Oct. 2016). “The Non-Existent Complex 6-Sphere”. Submitted to Journal of Geom- etry and Physics. arXiv: 1610.09366 (cit. on p. 113). – (2017a). “Geometric models of Helium”. Modern Phys. Lett. A 32.14, pp. 1750079, 11. arXiv: 1703.02532. MR: 3645760. – (Sept. 2017b). “Scalar curvature, flat Borromean rings, and the 3-body problem”. arXiv: 1709.01539. – (2018a). “The fine structure constant” (cit. on pp. 112, 114). – (2018b). “Understanding the 6-dimensional sphere”. In: Foundations of mathematics and physics one century after Hilbert. Springer, Cham, pp. 129–133. MR: 3822550 (cit. on p. 113). M. F. Atiyah and R. Bott (1966). “A Lefschetz fixed point formula for elliptic differential operators”. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 72, pp. 245–250. MR: 0190950 (cit. on p. 112). M. F. Atiyah and J. Kouneiher (n.d.). “Newton’s Constant G”. In preparation (cit. on pp. 112, 114). M. F. Atiyah and J. Malkoun (2018). “The relativistic geometry and dynamics of elec- trons”. Found. Phys. 48.2, pp. 199–208. MR: 3767799. M. F. Atiyah and N. S. Manton (Sept. 2016). “Complex Geometry of Nuclei and Atoms”. arXiv: 1609.02816. M. F. Atiyah and I. M. Singer (1963). “The index of elliptic operators on compact man- ifolds”. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 69, pp. 422–433. MR: 0157392 (cit. on p. 112). M. F. Atiyah and Carlos Zapata-Carratala (2018). “K-theory and the Jones polynomial”. Rev. Math. Phys. 30.6, pp. 1840002, 5. MR: 3820681. M. F. Atiyah and A. Zuk (n.d.). “The restricted Burnside problem”. In preparation (cit. on p. 114). Alain Connes (1994). . Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, pp. xiv+661. MR: 1303779 (cit. on p. 112). William Dunham (1999). Euler: the master of us all. Vol.22. The Dolciani Mathematical Expositions. Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, pp. xxviii+185. MR: 1669154 (cit. on pp. 112, 114). F. Hirzebruch (1966). Topological methods in algebraic geometry. Third enlarged edi- tion. New appendix and translation from the second German edition by R. L. E. Schwarzenberger, with an additional section by A. Borel. Die Grundlehren der Math- ematischen Wissenschaften, Band 131. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, pp. x+232. MR: 0202713 (cit. on pp. 112, 113). F. J. Murray and J. von Neumann (1936). “On rings of operators”. Ann. of Math. (2) 37.1, pp. 116–229. MR: 1503275 (cit. on p. 112). 118 MICHAEL ATIYAH

Received 2018-09-24.

M A U E P G T R E UK EH9 3FD