Is the Harmonic Oscillator an Infrared Attractor in All Places? A Place‑Resolved Analysis of the Harmonic Paradigm

#1. Introduction

Quantum engineers and theorists rely on the Harmonic Paradigm’s claim that the quantum harmonic oscillator (HO) is the universal infrared (IR) attractor of bosonic systems: generic bosonic models flow toward oscillator‑like behavior at long wavelengths, simplifying the design of bosonic error‑correcting codes and quantum batteries. In practice, this claim underpins the engineering of bosonic quantum memories, where the HO provides a tractable effective description that reduces control complexity and resource overhead. However, the attractor statement implicitly quantifies over a number field equipped with an absolute value. We assume the standard classification of absolute values on $\mathbb{Q}$ (Ostrowski’s theorem), whereby $\mathbb{Q}$ admits the usual real absolute value and a family of $p$‑adic absolute values $|\cdot|_p$. The sharp question is: does the HO remain an IR attractor (a) unchanged, (b) reversed, or (c) structurally transformed when the underlying place changes?

We answer by (i) defining a place‑resolved distance $\alpha_v$ from a flowing system to the HO fixed point, (ii) deriving RG flows toward each fixed point, and (iii) testing whether the adelic product formula imposes a non‑trivial linkage between places. Our conclusion is option (c): attraction exists in every place but with spectrally different fixed points, and adelic constraints bind only amplitudes, not spectra.

Contributions.

• A place‑resolved RG framework defining $\alpha_v(\ell)=\alpha_v(0)\,e^{-\gamma_v\ell}$ independently at each Ostrowski place (Section 3).
• An exact spectral contrast: constant Archimedean gaps versus geometric $p$‑adic gaps with ratio $p$, computed for $p=2,3,5$ (Section 4, A3).
• Vertex‑count formulas for Bruhat–Tits trees and cumulative counts through depth 5 (Section 4, A2).
• A negative adelic‑linkage result: $\prod_v\alpha_v(\ell)$ varies with $\ell$ unless $\sum_v\gamma_v=0$ (Section 4, A5).
• Identification of the adelic constraint on amplitudes, not eigenvalues (Section 4, A6).
• A cross‑place gap‑ratio divergence showing $\Delta E^{(\infty)}/\Delta E^{(p)}_n$ grows as $p^{n+1}/(p-1)$ (Section 4, A7).
• The verdict that the attractor claim undergoes structural transformation (Section 5, R6).

#2. Background and Related Work

The harmonic oscillator has been studied in a variety of quantum‑theoretic contexts that inform the present place‑resolved analysis.

[1] describes a QHO charger‑battery system with Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}=\omega_{o}a^{\dagger}a+\omega_{o}b^{\dagger}b+g(ab^{\dagger}+a^{\dagger}b)+F(ae^{i\omega_{f}t}+a^{\dagger}e^{-i\omega_{f}t})$.

[2] proves the equivalence between the harmonic‑oscillator propagator and the fractional Fourier transform and establishes Strichartz estimates on Pilipovic and modulation spaces, thereby supplying analytic tools that extend to non‑Archimedean functional settings.

#3. Methods

#3.1 Places and absolute values

A place $v$ of $\mathbb{Q}$ is an equivalence class of absolute values. We write $v=\infty$ for the Archimedean place with $|x|_\infty$ the usual absolute value, and $v=p$ for a $p$‑adic place, where $|p^k m|_p=p^{-k}$ for $m$ coprime to $p$. The adelic product formula states

for every non‑zero rational $x$.

#3.2 The two oscillator fixed points

Archimedean fixed point. The standard HO Hamiltonian $H_\infty=\frac{\hat P^2}{2m}+\frac{m\omega^2\hat X^2}{2}$ has spectrum

with constant spacing $\Delta E_\infty=\hbar\omega$.

$p$‑adic fixed point (model). Guided by the tree‑organized picture of the adelic program, we adopt the geometric ladder

as a modeling assumption. The adjacent gap is

so the gap ratio $\Delta E^{(p)}_n/\Delta E^{(p)}_{n+1}=p$.

The degeneracy of level $n$ equals the number of vertices at distance $n$ from a base vertex on the $(p+1)$‑regular Bruhat–Tits tree:

#3.3 Place‑resolved RG flow and attractor distance

For each place $v$, let $\omega_v(\ell)$ be the effective oscillator frequency at RG scale $\ell$, and $\omega_{v,*}$ the fixed‑point value. Linearizing about the fixed point,

with solution

The dimensionless distance from the attractor is

Attraction requires $\gamma_v\gt 0$; repulsion $\gamma_v\lt 0$; structural transformation means $\gamma_v\gt 0$ in both places but the spectra differ in kind.

#3.4 Adelic linkage test

A strong place‑invariance would demand a product constraint on the distances,

for all $\ell$. We test whether the adelic product formula forces such a relation, and we identify separately the quantity on which the product formula does bind: the pointwise values of a wavefunction at rational arguments, not its eigenvalues.

#4. Analysis

All numbers below are derived from the stated inputs; no external data are used.

A1. Product formula verification (three rationals).

Input 1: $x=2/3$, with $p=2$ and $p=3$.

Product:

Input 2: $x=5/7$, with $p=5$ and $p=7$.

Product:

Input 3: $x=3/4$, with $p=2$ and $p=3$.

Product:

A2. Bruhat–Tits vertex counts up to depth 5.

For $p=2$ the $(p+1)$‑regular tree has branching factor $3$.

cumulative count

Closed form $S_p(N)=1+(p+1)\frac{p^{N}-1}{p-1}$ gives

For $p=3$ the branching factor is $4$.

cumulative count

Closed form $S_3(5)=1+4\frac{3^{5}-1}{2}=1+4\times121=485. ]

A3. Spectral gap comparison for $p=2,3,5$. Normalize $\hbar\omega=E_0=1$.

Archimedean gaps:

$p=2$ gaps:

ratio $2$ between successive gaps.

$p=3$ gaps:

ratio $3$.

$p=5$ gaps:

ratio $5$.

A4. RG decay of $\alpha_v$. Assume $\gamma_v=0.1$, $\alpha_v(0)=1$.

A5. Product‑of‑distances linkage (three places). With places $v=\infty$, $v=2$, $v=3$, equal $\gamma=0.1$ and $\alpha_v(0)=1$,

which varies with $\ell$. Constancy would require $\sum_v\gamma_v=0$, e.g. $\gamma_\infty=+0.2$, $\gamma_2=-0.1$, $\gamma_3=-0.1$, a fine‑tuned scenario not implied by the adelic product formula.

A6. Amplitude‑level adelic constraint. For an adelic wavefunction $\Psi(x)$ evaluated at rational $x$, the local amplitudes satisfy

mirroring A1. This binds amplitudes, not eigenvalues, allowing constant Archimedean gaps and geometric $p$‑adic gaps to coexist.

A7. Cross‑place gap‑ratio divergence. With $\hbar\omega=E_0=1$, the ratio of the Archimedean gap to a $p$‑adic gap at level $n$ is

For $p=2$ and $n=5$,

#5. Results

R1 (exact). The adelic product formula holds for $x=2/3$, $5/7$, and $3/4$ (A1).

R2 (exact, model‑based). Under $E^{(p)}_n=E_0\,p^{-n}$, the $p$‑adic gap ratio equals $p$ for $p=2,3,5$ (A3), distinct from the constant Archimedean gap.

R3 (exact, model‑based). Vertex counts grow as $(p+1)p^{n-1}$; cumulative counts through depth 5 are $S_2(5)=94$ and $S_3(5)=485$ (A2).

R4 (projection, assumed $\gamma_v=0.1$, linearized flow). With $\gamma_v=0.1$, $\alpha_v(\ell)=e^{-0.1\ell}$ yields $\alpha_v(20)\approx0.135335$, $\alpha_v(40)\approx0.018316$, $\alpha_v(60)\approx0.002479$ (A4).

R5 (exact). The product‑of‑distances hypothesis fails for generic $\gamma_v$; constancy would require $\sum_v\gamma_v=0$, which the adelic product formula does not enforce (A5).

R6 (exact). The adelic product formula constrains amplitudes $|\Psi(x)|_v$ pointwise (A6) but not eigenvalues, allowing spectrally distinct fixed points.

R7 (exact, model‑based). The cross‑place gap ratio $\Delta E^{(\infty)}/\Delta E^{(p)}_n$ grows as $p^{n+1}/(p-1)$, reaching $64$ at $p=2$, $n=5$ (A7).

#6. Discussion

In this section we deepen the analytical core of the paper by (i) extending the RG‑distance calculation to a family of decay rates, (ii) analysing the sensitivity of the cross‑place product $\prod_v\alpha_v(\ell)$ to the choice of primes, and (iii) comparing our place‑resolved spectral picture with results from the broader literature cited in the bibliography.

#1. Generalised RG‑distance with variable decay constants

The linearised flow (Section 3.3) gives

In the main text we set $\gamma_v=0.1$ for illustration. To assess robustness we now treat $\gamma_v$ as a free parameter and compute the distance at three representative RG scales $\ell\in\{10,30,50\}$ for three decay rates $\gamma_v\in\{0.05,0.10,0.20\}$, keeping $\alpha_v(0)=1$. The table below follows directly from the exponential formula; no external data are introduced.

All numbers are obtained by elementary exponentiation; for example the entry for $\gamma_v=0.10$, $\ell=30$ is $e^{-0.1\times30}=e^{-3}\approx0.04978707$.

#2. Sensitivity of the product‑of‑distances to the set of primes

The product hypothesis examined in A5 reads

If we include the first $k$ primes $p_1=2,\dots,p_k$, and assume a common non‑Archimedean decay $\gamma_{p}=0.1$, the exponent becomes $-\bigl(\gamma_\infty+k\times0.1\bigr)\ell$. Taking $\gamma_\infty=0.1$ (the same value as the $p$‑adic places) we obtain

For $\ell=20$ the explicit values are

• $k=1$ (only $p=2$): $\Pi_1(20)=e^{-0.1\times2\times20}=e^{-4}=0.018315639$;
• $k=2$ ( $p=2,3$): $\Pi_2(20)=e^{-0.1\times3\times20}=e^{-6}=0.002478752$;
• $k=3$ ( $p=2,3,5$): $\Pi_3(20)=e^{-0.1\times4\times20}=e^{-8}=0.0003354626$.

Thus the product decays exponentially with the number of included primes, confirming the analytic statement in A5 that constancy would require $\sum_v\gamma_v=0$.

#3. Comparison with related works

#4. Worked example: a limiting case with vanishing decay

Consider the hypothetical limit $\gamma_v\to0$ for all places. From the RG solution we obtain $\alpha_v(\ell)=\alpha_v(0)$, i.e. the distance from the fixed point does not decay. Consequently

independently of $\ell$. This limiting case reproduces the “strong place‑invariance” scenario discussed in the Introduction (option a). However, the explicit calculations in Sections A4–A5 show that any non‑zero $\gamma_v$ (as required for genuine attraction) immediately breaks constancy, confirming that the structural‑transformation verdict (option c) is the only one compatible with a non‑trivial RG flow.

#5. Sensitivity to the branching factor of the Bruhat–Tits tree

Our vertex‑count formula $g_p(n)=(p+1)p^{\,n-1}$ assumes a regular $(p+1)$‑valent tree. If the underlying graph were instead $(p+2)$‑regular, the count would become $g'_p(n)=(p+2)p^{\,n-1}$. The cumulative count through depth 5 would then be

For $p=2$, $S'_2(5)=1+4\frac{32-1}{1}=1+124=125$, compared with the $94$ obtained in A2. This sensitivity analysis shows that the precise combinatorial factor depends on the chosen regularity, but the exponential growth $ \sim p^{N}$ remains unchanged, preserving the qualitative conclusion that vertex multiplicities explode with depth.

#6. Summary of extensions

• The exponential decay of $\alpha_v(\ell)$ is robust across a wide range of decay constants, as demonstrated by the explicit table.
• The product‑of‑distances hypothesis fails generically; its dependence on the number of included primes is analytically quantified. *
• Limiting‑case and sensitivity analyses confirm that the structural‑transformation verdict is the only one compatible with a genuine attractive RG flow and with the adelic product constraint on amplitudes.

#6.7. Limitations, failure modes and open questions

Limitations.

• The $p$‑adic level formula $E^{(p)}_n=E_0\,p^{-n}$ is a modeling assumption; consequently, all quantitative statements that depend on this ladder (R2, R3, R7) inherit this status.
• The linearized RG flow with $\gamma_v=0.1$ is illustrative; real systems may exhibit non‑exponential behavior.
• The linkage test examined only a three‑place product of distances; richer adelic constraints (e.g., involving local $L$‑factors) remain unexplored.

Failure modes and self‑critique.

• If the true $p$‑adic spectrum possessed constant gaps, R2 and R7 would collapse and the verdict would shift toward preservation (option a).
• If generic $p$‑adic systems exhibited $\gamma_p\lt 0$, the verdict would move toward mixed preservation/repulsion (option b).

What would falsify the claims.

1. An exact $p$‑adic spectrum with constant gaps would falsify R2 and R7.
2. A derivation forcing $\sum_v\gamma_v=0$ from adelic dynamics would falsify R5 and revive a strong place‑invariance claim.
3. If the semi‑classical measure structure were found to be place‑independent, it would challenge the premise that arithmetic matters for attractor structure.

Open questions.

• Does the equivalence between the harmonic‑oscillator propagator and the fractional Fourier transform admit a $p$‑adic analogue on $p$‑adic modulation spaces ([2])?
• Do the damped‑oscillator solutions possess $p$‑adic counterparts with the same dynamical completeness?
• An open question is whether a universal mass scale for bosonic fields admits a place‑resolved version.

#7. Practical Implications and Engineering Pathways

(a) Intended users and decision impact. The primary beneficiaries are quantum‑information theorists and designers of bosonic quantum hardware (e.g., bosonic error‑correcting codes, quantum memories, and quantum batteries). If the place‑resolved attractor picture holds, these practitioners must augment existing design tools with a place‑specific spectral module: the Archimedean module uses the constant gap $\Delta E_\infty=\hbar\omega$, while a $p$‑adic module employs the geometric ladder $E^{(p)}_n=E_0\,p^{-n}$ and the associated degeneracies $g_p(n)=(p+1)p^{\,n-1}$. Consequently, performance estimators that assume a universal gap must be revised to select the appropriate gap model based on the mathematical framework (real versus $p$‑adic) employed in a given theoretical study.

(b) Technology readiness. The work is purely analytical and has not undergone peer review; according to NASA Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions, it resides at TRL 1–2 (observation of basic principles) and does not exceed TRL 3 (analytical proof‑of‑concept). No manufacturing or hardware readiness is claimed.

(c) Minimal next test. A numerical computation of a $p$‑adic harmonic‑oscillator Hamiltonian would directly test the modeling assumption $E^{(p)}_n=E_0\,p^{-n}$. The calculation should evaluate the level spacings $\Delta E^{(p)}_n$ for a chosen prime $p$ (e.g., $p=2$) and compare the ratio $\Delta E^{(p)}_n/\Delta E^{(p)}_{n+1}$ with the predicted value $p$. Falsification criterion: if the computed ratio deviates from $p$ beyond numerical tolerance (e.g., $|\,\Delta E^{(p)}_n/\Delta E^{(p)}_{n+1}-p\,|\gt 10^{-3}$), then the geometric ladder model and the structural‑transformation verdict of Section 5 (R2, R5, R6) are falsified.

(d) Engineering constraints.

• Mathematical tools: Accurate $p$‑adic functional‑analysis libraries are required to represent operators on $\mathbb{Q}_p$ and to solve the eigenvalue problem (derived in Section 4).
• Computational resources: High‑precision $p$‑adic arithmetic is needed to resolve deep tree levels (e.g., depth $N\ge5$) because the vertex count $S_p(N)=1+(p+1)\frac{p^{N}-1}{p-1}$ grows exponentially (A2).
• Modeling assumptions: The vertex‑count formula assumes a regular $(p+1)$‑valent Bruhat–Tits tree (Section 3.2). Any deviation from regularity would alter degeneracies $g_p(n)$ and thus the predicted spectral density. This assumption remains an open question until a concrete $p$‑adic physical system is identified.
• Data and validation: Validation of the amplitude‑level adelic constraint $\prod_v |\Psi(x)|_v=1$ (A6) requires evaluation of wavefunction amplitudes at rational arguments across all places; such data are not presently available, representing an open data requirement.

(e) Cost / performance projections. No quantitative cost or performance bounds are presented, because all numerical results in the paper are derived analytically (Section 4) or labeled as projections with explicit assumptions (e.g., the exponential decay $\alpha_v(\ell)=e^{-\gamma_v\ell}$ with $\gamma_v=0.1$ in A4). Consequently, any cost estimate would be a speculative projection without grounding in derived inputs and is therefore omitted.

(f) Risks and misuse. A potential misuse is the unwarranted extrapolation of the $p$‑adic spectral model to engineering specifications for physical devices, despite the fact that the $p$‑adic oscillator remains a mathematical construct without experimental confirmation. Deploying design tools that assume $p$‑adic gap ratios without first validating the underlying spectrum could lead to over‑optimistic performance forecasts for bosonic hardware. Users should treat the $p$‑adic module as a theoretical extension pending empirical verification.

#10. Conclusion

We asked whether the harmonic oscillator’s status as an IR attractor is place‑invariant. Within a place‑resolved RG framework, with explicit derivations and clearly labeled modeling assumptions, we find that the oscillator can attract in each place but with spectrally distinct fixed points—constant gaps in $\mathbb{R}$ versus geometric gaps in ℚ$_{p}$ organized on Bruhat–Tits tree levels. The adelic product formula constrains amplitudes, not spectra, imposing no linkage between place‑wise attractor distances. Thus the Harmonic Paradigm’s attractor thesis is not an Archimedean artifact (attraction is not reversed) but also not strongly place‑invariant; it is structurally transformed. The most urgent open task is the exact computation of the $p$‑adic oscillator spectrum, which would turn the present model‑based conclusions into rigorous theorems.

#Provenance and AI Involvement

• This paper was drafted, reconciled, reviewed, revised and checked by the QNFO automated research pipeline (qnfo-research-exec 0.32.1-codeagent). Language models were tools in that process; they are not authors. The named author is accountable for the content.
• Models: drafting by openai/gpt-oss-120b, zai-org/glm-5.3-flash; reconciliation, completion, review, revision and verification by openai/gpt-oss-120b, zai-org/glm-5.3-flash, moonshotai/kimi-k2.6, with the QNFO model router as a fallback.
• Sources: every reference is drawn from a bibliography retrieved from arXiv and the QNFO corpus before drafting; every cited work's full text was retrieved (arXiv HTML, or the QNFO paper's body) and the writers were given excerpts of its own sections; statements about a cited work are restricted to its retrieved title, abstract and those excerpts.
• Checks passed before publication: required sections present and finished, cross-references resolve, reference list rendered from the retrieved bibliography, no assistant residue or placeholders, adversarial model review with its blocking findings resolved, and a citation existence check at publication.
• Independent recomputation: a separately generated script recomputed 5 quantitative claims from the paper's stated inputs; 0 differed from the stated value at the stated precision.
• Not checked: whether each cited source supports the sentence that cites it beyond the retrieved full-text excerpts; derivation steps other than the recomputed claims. This paper has not been peer reviewed, and this version was published by the pipeline without a prior manual review by the author.

#References

[1] Coherently Driven Quantum Harmonic Oscillator Battery. arXiv:2401.07238v1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07238v1 [2] Fractional Fourier transforms, harmonic oscillator propagators and Strichartz estimates on Pilipovic and modulation spaces. arXiv:2111.09575v5. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09575v5 [3] Localization and delocalization of eigenmodes of Harmonic Oscillators. arXiv:2010.13436v2. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.13436v2 [4] Harmonic oscillator on noncommutative spaces. arXiv:hep-th/0301066v2. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0301066v2 [5] The Bicomplex Quantum Harmonic Oscillator. arXiv:1001.1149v3. https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1149v3 [6] Anti-PT-symmetric harmonic oscillator and its relation to the inverted harmonic oscillator. arXiv:2204.10780v1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.10780v1 [10] https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/rg-harmonic-synthesis. QNFO: The RG-Harmonic Isomorphism: Synthesis of Eight Research Question Deliverables. [11] https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/is-the-harmonic-oscillator-an-infrared-attractor-in-all-places-a-place-resolved-. QNFO: Is the Harmonic Oscillator an Infrared Attractor in All Places? A Place‑Resolved Analysis of the Harmonic Paradigm. [12] https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/harmonic-ostrowski-re-evaluation. QNFO: The Harmonic Paradigm Under Ostrowski’s Theorem: A p-Adic/Adélic Re-Evaluation with Helical Compton Vortex Synthesis.

#Appendix A. Divergence report

D1. $p$‑adic spectrum model. Two drafts adopted the geometric ladder $E^{(p)}_n=E_0\,p^{-n}$ (energies decreasing with tree level). One draft used an alternative $E^{(p)}_n=E_0\,p^{\gamma n}$ with $\gamma=1$ (energies increasing). Chosen convention: the decreasing ladder $E^{(p)}_n=E_0\,p^{-n}$, because it yields an IR‑direction consistent with a shrinking gap hierarchy and is used by the majority of drafts.

D2. Verdict on the attractor trichotomy. One draft concluded repulsion in the $p$‑adic place by assigning a negative RG coefficient; the other two concluded structural transformation (attraction in both places but spectrally distinct). Chosen convention: the structural‑transformation verdict, as it follows from the derived spectra and does not rely on an ad‑hoc sign choice for $\gamma_p$.

D3. Adelic linkage test design. One draft tested linkage by forming a numerical product of matched Archimedean and $p$‑adic energy values; the other two tested a product‑of‑distances hypothesis on the RG flow. Chosen convention: the product‑of‑distances test, because the attractor claim concerns flow behavior rather than a dimensionful product of energies.

#Appendix B. Claim attribution

Spotted a typo or a possible error? Select the passage and choose Report, or report it here.