### Questions inspired by quantum associations

Associations have (or seem to have) different meaning depending on whether one is talking about cognition or mathematics. In mathematics the associations correspond to different bracketings of mathematical expressions involving symbols denoting mathematical objects and operations between them. The meaning of the expression - in the case that it has meaning - depends on the bracketing of the expression. For instance, one has a(b+c)≠ (ab)+c , that is ab+ac≠ ab+c). Note that one can change the order of bracket and operation but not that of bracket and object.

For ordinary product and sum of real numbers one has associativity: a(bc)=(ab)c and a+(b+c) = (a+b)+c. Most algebraic operations such as group product are associative. Associativity of product holds true for reals, complex numbers, and quaternions but not for octonions and this would be fundamental in both classical and quantum TGD.

The building of different associations means different groupings of n objects. This can be done recursively. Divide first the objects to two groups, divide these tow groups to to two groups each, and continue until you jave division of 3 objects to two groups - that is abc divided into (ab)c or a(bc). Numbers 3 and 2 are clearly the magic numbers.

This inspires several speculative questions related to the twistorial construction of scattering amplitudes as associative singlets, the general structure of quantum entanglement, quantum measurement cascade as formation of association, the associative structure of many-sheeted space-time as a kind of linguistic structure, spin glass as a strongly associative system, and even the tendency of social structures to form associations leading from a fully democratic paradise to cliques of cliques of ... .

1. In standard twistor approach 3-gluon amplitude is the fundamental building brick of twistor amplitudes constructed from on-shell-amplitudes with complex momenta recursively. Also in TGD proposal this holds true. This would naturally follow from the fact that associations can be reduced recursively to those of 3 objects. 2- and 3-vertex would correspond to a fundamental associations. The association defined 2-particle pairing (both associated particles having either positive or negative helicities for twistor amplitudes) and 3-vertex would have universal structure although the states would be in general decompose to associations.
2. Consider first the space-time picture about scattering (see this). CD defines interaction region for scattering amplitudes. External particles entering or leaving CD correspond to associative space-time surfaces in the sense that the tangent space or normal space for these space-time surfaces is associative. This gives rise to M8-H correspondence.

These surfaces correspond to zero loci for the imaginary parts (in quaternionic sense) for octonionic polynomial with coefficients, which are real in octonionic sense. The product of ∏iPi) of polynomials with same octonion structure satisfying IM(Pi)=0 has also vanishing imaginary part and space-time surface corresponds to a disjoint union of surfaces associated with factors so that these states can be said to be non-interacting.

Neither the choice of quaternion structure nor the choice of the direction of time axis assignable to the octonionic real unit need be same for external particles: if it is the particles correspond to same external particle. This requires that one treats the space of external particles (4-surfaces) as a Cartesian product of of single particle 4-surfaces as in ordinary scattering theory.

Space-time surfaces inside CD are non-associative in the sense that the neither normal nor tangent space is associative: M8-M4× CP2 correspondence fails and space-time surfaces inside CD must be constructed by applying boundary conditions defining preferred extremals. Now the real part of RE(∏iPi) in quaternionic sense vanishes: there is genuine interaction even when the incoming particles correspond to the same octonion structure since one does not have union of surfaces with vanishing RE(Pi). This follows from s rather trivial observation holding true already for complex numbers: imaginary part of zw vanishes if it vanishes for z and w but this does not hold true for the real part. If octonionic structures are different, the interaction is present irrespective of whether one assumes RE(∏iPi)=0 or IM(∏iPi)=0. RE(∏iPi)=0 is favoured since for IM(∏iPi)=0 one would obtain solutions for which IM(Pi)=0 would vanish for the i:th particle: the scattering dynamics would select i:th particle as non-interacting one.

3. The proposal is that the entire scattering amplitude defined by the zero energy state - is associative, perhaps in the projective sense meaning that the amplitudes related to different associations relate by a phase factor (recall that complexified octonions are considered), which could be even octonionic. This would be achieved by summing over all possible associations.
4. Quantum classical correspondence (QCC) suggests that in ZEO the zero energy states - that is scattering amplitudes determined by the classically non-associative dynamics inside CD - form a representation for the non-associative product of space-time surfaces defined by the condition RE(∏iPi)=0. Could the scattering amplitude be constructed from products of octonion valued single particle amplitudes. This kind of condition would pose strong constraints on the theory. Could the scattering amplitudes associated with different associations be octonionic - may be differing by octonion-valued phase factors - and could only their sum be real in octonionic sense (recall that complexified octonions involving imaginary unit i commuting with the octonionic imaginary units are considered)?
One can look the situation also from the point of view of positive and negative energy states defining zero energy states as they pairs.
1. The formation of association as subset is like formation of bound state of bound states of ... . Could each external line of zero energy state have the structure of association? Could also the internal entanglement associated with a given external line be characterized in terms of association.

Could the so called monogamy theorem stating that only two-particle entanglement can be maximal correspond to the decomposing of n=3 association to one- and two-particle associations? If quantum entanglement is behind associations in cognitive sense, the cognitive meaning of association could reduce to its mathematical meaning.

An interesting question relates to the notion of identical particle: are the many-particle states of identical particles invariant under associations or do they transform by phase factor under association. Does a generalization of braid statistics make sense?

2. In ZEO based quantum measurement theory the cascade of quantum measurements proceeds from long to short scales and at each step decomposes a given system to two subsystems. The cascade stops when the reduction of entanglement is impossible: this is the case if the entanglement probabilities belong to an extension of extension of rationals characterizing the extension in question. This cascade is nothing but a formation of an association! Since only the state at the second boundary of CD changes, the natural interpretation is that state function reduction mean a selection of association in 3-D sense.
3. The division of n objects to groups has also social meaning: all social groups tend to divide into cliques spoiling the dream about full democracy. Only a group with 2 members - Romeo and Julia or Adam and Eve - can be a full democracy in practice. Already in a group of 3 members 2 members tend to form a clique leaving the third member outside. Jules and Catherine, Jim and Catherine, or maybe Jules and Jim! Only a paradise allows a full democracy in which non-associativity holds true. In ZEO it would be realized only at the quantum critical external lines of scattering diagram and quantum criticality means instability. Quantum superposition of all associations could realize this democracy in 4-D sense.
A further perspective is provided by many-sheeted space-time providing classical correlate for quantum dynamics.
1. Many-sheeted space-time means that physical states have a hierarchical structure - just like associations do. Could the formation of association (AB) correspond basically to a formation of flux tube bond between A and B to give AB and serve as space-time correlate for (negentropic) entanglement. Could ((AB)C) would correspond to (AB) and (C) "topologically condensed" to a larger surface. If so, the hierarchical structure of many-sheeted space-time would represent associations and also the basic structures of language.
2. Spin glass is a system characterized by so called frustrations. Spin glass as a thermodynamical system has a very large number of minima of free energy and one has fractal energy landscape with valleys inside valleys. Typically there is a competition between different pairings (associations) of the basic building bricks of the system.

Could spin glass be describable in terms of associations? The modelling of spin glass leads to the introduction of ultrametric topology characterizing the natural distance function for the free energy landscape. Interestingly, p-adic topologies are ultrametric. In TGD framework I have considered the possibility that space-time is like 4-D spin glass: this idea was originally inspired by the huge vacuum degeneracy of Kähler action. The twistor lift of TGD breaks this degeneracy but 4-D spin glass idea could still be relevant.

See the chapter Does M8-H duality reduce classical TGD to octonionic algebraic geometry? or the article From amplituhedron to associahedron.