# Path integral over topologies; occurence in literature / plausibility?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
533 views

Suppose I have the vacuum state $|0>$ without loss of generality for quantum electrodynamics (with topological term proportional to $E B$) with the following additional feature:

The Hamiltonian $H(t) = H_{matter}(t) + \int_M d^3x (\frac{1}{2}(E^2+B^2) + \theta EB)$ is defined only within the region $M \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}$ and on the $N$ covering sets $G_i \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}-M,i \in \{1,\dots,N\}$ this operator does not exist. Therefore, $H$ must act on states $|0,G_1,\dots,G_N;t>$ which have these covering sets as an additional degree of freedom that form an orthogonal basis in Hilbert space; an inner product is one if the product is formed between two equal states and 0 otherwise.

Now one can try to construct the path integral; the derivation of the path integral for quantum electrodynamics is straightforward, but one encounters with inner products $<0,G_1',\dots,G_N';t+dt|0,G_1,\dots,G_N;t>$. The inner product should be defined such that the set of all space topologies is generalized to spacetime topologies. For simplicity one can say that this inner product is a constant $a$ (can be determined by normalization) if there exist morphisms $M(G_i,G_j')$ that lie on intersections $G_i \cap G_j'$ (because one can define a functor from intersections in category of sets to chart transition morphisms in category of manifolds) for all $i\in \{1,\dots,N\}$ while $G_j'$ is in 4-dimensional neighorhood of $G_i$ and zero otherwise. Finally, (normalization factor $a$ can be absorbed into the integral measure) one would obtain the generalized path integral:

$Z = \int \mathcal{D}[G_i^*(t_n)] \dots \int \mathcal{D}[G_i(t_1)] \int \mathcal{D}[A_\mu] \int \mathcal{D}[\psi] e^{iS_{QED}} \mathbb{1}_{Consistency}$

Here, $\mathbb{1}_{Consistency}$ is the indicator function that satisfies above consistency conditions.

Questions:

- Does a theory like this exist in research literature?

- Makes such a theory, a sum over topologies, sense?

- Can the "sum over topologies" also be defined on algebraic varieties or other topological spaces?

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). Please complete the anti-spam verification