Wednesday, March 19, 2025

Spin Chronicles Part 51: Tomita's thermal flow and Mirror symmetry

 We continue from Part 50.

Relation to "thermal time"

J - Mirror symmetry of  the time flow


To relate this purely mathematical construction to the concept of "thermal time" related to physics, we need to direct our attention to quantum dynamics. To not complicate our discussion we will use Planck units. In quantum dynamics, in the Schrodinger picture, time evolution of state vectors is described by unitary operators

U(t) = e-itH,                     (1)

where H is the Hamiltonian (energy operator). Comparing U(t) with Uρ(s)  given by Eq. (5) we see that both expressions agree if we set s=t and

H = -log ρ.                         (2)

This is a self-adjoint, and positive (Why?) operator, unbounded if H is infinite-dimensional (Why?), and we can interpret Uρ(s) as the operators defining the time evolution of a quantum system.

In order to understand why it is called "thermal flow" let us calculate the expectation value <E>ρ of the energy represented by the operator H. We have

<E>ρ = Tr(ρ H) = -Tr(ρ log ρ).

But this is exactly the expression for von Neumann entropy of the state ρ! Therefore it is the entropy of the state that drives the evolution defined by Tomita's modular flow. Calling it a "thermal flow" is thus justified.

Remark. Usually, for instance in Ref. [1], there is a different explanation, based on the particular example of a Gibbs thermal equilibrium state. But, I think, the explanation above serve its purpose as well.

Let us consider now the induced evolution Uρ(s) on the space of Hilbert-Schmidt operators B2(H), defined by Eq. in Part 50

Uρ(t)| a > = | ρitaρ-it >, a∈B2(H), t∈R.      (3)

We rewrite it using ρit =  U(t) = e-itH:

Uρ(t)| a > = | e-itHaρitH >.                           (4)

Since Uρ(t) is a group of unitary operators on B2(H), representing the time evolution there, we can write

Uρ(t) = e-it,

where ℋ is the Hamilton's operator on B2(H). Differentiating (4) with respect to t at t=0 we then obtain

| a > = | Ha - aH > = | [H,a] >.

It is now easy to find eigenvectors and eigenvalues of  . From the spectral decomposition of :

ρ = n pn Pn, pn>0,  ∑n pn = 1,

and Eq. (1), we get

U(t) en = eit log pn en.

Therefore, with emn = |em)(en|, we have

U(t) emn = eit(log pm-log pn) emn.

Differentiating with respect to t at t=0 we get

emn = -(log pm - log pn) emn.         (5)

Thus emn are eigenvectors of , and the corresponding eigenvalues of are differences of eigenvalues of of H. In particular the spectrum of is symmetric with respect to the eigenvalue 0.

The "ground state"  Ωρ

We have defined Ωρ as

 Ωρ = √ρ = ∑n (pn)½ Pn.

But Pn = |en)(en| = enn. Therefore

 Ωρ = ∑n (pn)½ enn.                     (6)

From (5) we see that vanishes not only on  Ωρ  (which is a stationary state for Uρ(t)), but it vanishes also on each enn participating in the sum (6).

Mirror symmetry

The anti-unitary operator J provides a symmetry between the two "algebras of observables" π(A), acting on B2(H) from the left, and π'(A) acting from the right. Left and right actions commute. In fact  π(A) and π'(A) are commutants of each other, while

π(A)∩π'(A) = C1

If the intersection of a von Neumann algebra with its commutant (the center of the algebra) is trivial, we call the algebra a factor. So π(A) and π'(A) are factors with Jπ(A)J=π'(A). We can easily get (How?)

JUρ(t)J = Uρ(-t),

thus

JJ = -.

The operator J reverses the "flow of time". It reverses the "energy" sign.

In quantum theory commuting observables are interpreted as representing two "compatible measurements". Measuring one observable does not "disturb" the measurement of another observable. Here we have two quantum "worlds". One represented by the algebra π(A), the other represented by π'(A). Measurements of one world do not disturb measurements of the other world. The two worlds have opposite "time arrows" and opposite "energy spectra". The ground state  Ωρ is kind of situated perfectly in the middle. The "energy" can be added to this ground state, or subtracted from it.

The two worlds have opposite "time arrows" and opposite "energy spectra".


We have already seen a similar arrangement while studying the Clifford algebra of space Cl(V). The algebra acts on itself by left and by right actions. The two actions commute. The left regular representation is reducible. It has a commutant, which is the right regular representation. Elements of the algebra are multivectors. The spin group acts on multivectors simultaneously from the left and from the right, when spinor (here a vector in H) rotates by 180 degrees, a multivector (here an element of B2(H)) rotates by 360 degrees. Going from H to B2(H) some information is lost.


References

[1] A. Connes, C. Rovelli, "Von Neumann algebra automorphisms and time-thermodynamics relation in generally covariant quantum theories", Class. Quantum Grav. 11 (1994) 2899 .

P.S. 20-03-25 A while ago I have participated in a seminar about geometrical approach to nuclear forces, where the speaker presented the following illustration:

That was supposed to illustrate Einstein's frustration with the non-geometrical right hand side of field equations of GR. I do not like this picture. Poor cat! I can't believe Einstein would do such a thing. The idea of the seminar was, as I understand, to get rid of the "sources" of the metric field. Yet at the end we have learned that there was a source: a strong electric charge. So it was an electric cat and she should be petted instead of being kicked in the ass.

P.S. 21-03-25 14:43 Reading Marcus Schmieke, The Second Path. My Life in the Information Field", Neomedica 2025


There:

"... We were about a thousand freshmen in attendance at the large physics lecture hall. The professor went straight to his desk, looked at us and said: "I am aware that many of you chose the discipline of physics out of great ideals." This man understood me perfectly, that much was for sure! But then he continued: "But there is one thing I would like to tell you right up front because I do not want you to have the wrong expectations: physics is mostly about two things, and the sooner you realize this, the better. It is about money and fame.

Say what?

You can well imagine that we were all somewhat disillusioned right after the first minutes in our first lecture ever. Almost everybody immediately left the lecture hall in disgust. But we all came back the next day; what choice did we have? 

 


 
P.S. 21-03-25 19:02 Reading Marcus Schmieke, The Second Path. My Life in the Information Field", Neomedica 2025

"(...) But life as such exists, without any doubt; therefore there must be some other valid explanatory models describing the genesis and nature of life. Burkhard Heim had termed his as "organizational structures": the physical component that we already mentioned is the so-called Alpha in his model. Beta indicates the processes of life. What goes beyond the processes of life is called Gamma, also referred to (somewhat misleadingly) as "psyche" by Heim. The psyche is what gives the processes of life its meaning. And what goes and acts beyond the individual meaning is termed Delta. Heim's name for this is pneuma, designating the spiritual meaning of the greater whole.

One could say that Burkhard Heim forestalled Fritz Albert Popp's theories on biophotons by several decades. Heim postulated that the higher organizational structures interact with matter by linking the Beta range to the alpha range in the double helix structures of the DNA using light as a medium."

46 comments:

  1. Dear Ark, your cunning cat is so briskly jumping across the fields that i can hardly keep pace with it :) So, skipping a number of 'Whys' and 'Hows', i will try to answer the last one, which seems clear, more or less.
    "We can easily get (How?) J U_ρ(t) J = U_ρ(-t)"

    J U_ρ(t) J |a> = J U_ρ(t) |a*> = J |exp(-itH) a* exp(itH)> =
    |exp(-itH) a* exp(itH)>* = |exp(itH) a exp(-itH)> = U_ρ(-t) |a*>

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J |exp(-itH) a* exp(itH)> =
      |exp(-itH) a* exp(itH)>*

      I would rather write

      J |exp(-itH) a* exp(itH)> =
      |(exp(-itH) a* exp(itH))*>

      but it is essentially the same. Meow!

      Delete
  2. As a bit of mind gymnastics applied "reversal" or checked for the opposite of paradoxical barber, and got what seems like a tautology.
    Would it be fairly accurate then to state that "reversing" or the opposite of a tautology produces a paradox?
    Apologies if the question is banal and the answer self-evident and known from time immemorial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this is so, and it seems it is, then I think it's fairly reasonable to state that only those paradoxes which reversal does not result in tautology are worthy of studying and looking the resolution for. Otherwise, they are contradictions by their very construction and thus trivial and irrelevant from knowledge and understanding based viewpoint.

      Applying then reversal to Schrodinger's cat's seemingly paradoxical situation, we get a cat that's neither dead nor alive. And a simple answer would be that such cat is not born yet or that it is an imaginary cat. Which fits rather well with imaginary nature of QM wave function.
      FWIW.

      Delete
    2. Here reversal applies to Shrodinger's dynamics. The cat paradox relates to the "collapse "of the wave function. That is NOT governed by Schrodinger's dynamics.

      Delete
    3. Not sure to understand what exactly you mean by governance of the "collapses". So, before jumping to conclusions and barking up the wrong tree or an innocent cat, can you explain a bit or a well-intended "mansplain me please"?

      Delete
    4. The wave function could literally have worldlines for the dead cat and the living cat and it only seems like a paradox in comparison to our reality created via collapses. Collapses choose single worldlines and single worldlines tend to have the cat dead or alive not both. Ark's two caps shows some weirdness for the reality created by collapses too but it's usually not wave function weird for us.

      Delete
    5. To find out if the cat is dead or alive you need to perform "observation" or "measurement". But the mathematical description of the dynamics of "measurements" is not described by the standard Schrodinger equation. The is the so called "measurement problem of quantum theory".

      Delete
    6. Like John said, that problem seems to arise in the minds of those who are inclined to attribute to QM something it's not designed to do. For example, Ehrenfest approach as presented during my college days does not have that issue. In principle, any of us could be said to be represented as a superposition of imaginary dead and alive wave function-like states, with observation determing which one is real in our binary realm. In some other binary realm it could be that the other "choice" is what's real. In that sense like you said, measurement here would not affect the measurement there. But until faced with reality, in principle both states coexist in imaginary sphere.
      Nice example might be what average Western population think of Putin, due to propaganda, in their minds he is identified with Hitler, or even worse. And for them that imaginary state is what they "see" as reality, until the real measurement or observation happens with sobering and most likely painful disillusionment.

      Delete
    7. Penrose is talking about U and R evolutions.
      https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/penrose/
      But R has nothing to do with consciousness. It has to do with the wrong use of quantum mechanics. It occurs naturally when applying correctly the algebraic approach.

      Delete
    8. P.S. Since their intuitive minds probably know that it's propaganda at work, coupled with experiencing the push in the same direction in Trump's case, we come to interesting and funny probable situation in attempt to square what they are forced to think and what they "feel" it's the truth. Suddenly, their position on Hitler and his nature undergoes reexamining and reevaluation. Go figure...

      Delete
    9. "Penrose is talking about U and R evolutions."

      Thanks. At first glance have no idea what's that about, will check it out.

      Delete
    10. But quick overview of Penrose's claims, think he's off the mark by miles, or even more. Will think about going over the text on the link you provided again in more details.

      On the other hand, more consciousness related, need help to translate an idea, that is what I see into proper math, if there would be interest for that, of course.

      In short, process of consciousness recording and storing information could be represented by Pythagorean spiral,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_Theodorus
      by the following description that speaks about 2-dim case, but most probably would work also for 3-dim.

      We start at some point, observe around us and record the observation as a circle or "scan" and fill the area of a circle inside, as in complex scalar plane. This gives us unit radius as a measure. Then we go or step on the circle line of the area just drawn, going in tangent direction from where we previously were, at the beginning it's any direction as tangent to the point is just a radial line. There we make new observation which again corresponds to the area of the unit circle we just made, that is Pi. To store that information in our internal bodies or informational beings, we again go in tangent direction to the original circle in a unit length step, increasing our radius to Sqrt(2), which gives exactly enough area to store that Pi information just recorded, as Pi*R^2 is now 2Pi. The internal angle made by the unit step in tangent direction is tan(phi)=1/Sqrt(1).

      In the new position we might again make new observation corresponding to unit circle area, Pi, and to store the information recorded we again make a step in tangent direction, increasing internal radius in n-th step as Sqrt(n+1) and internal area in each step for another Pi. The internal angle made in n-th step would then be tan(phi_n)=1/Sqrt(n).
      So each observation would count as a rotation for 2Pi and an area of Pi, which would be stored inside with corresponding increase of internal radius, looking like Pythagorean spiral where each step or right triangle represents new observation and information recording.

      If we write complex scalar part of a biquaternion as A*exp[(k+i)phi], A would be our unit radius or step size, and k would sort of correspond to wave number as k^2=n, where n is the number of steps. In other words, radius would go as A*Sqrt(k^2+1), which if we write z_k=(k+i) would be R_k=A*||z_k||, and the angle made in k^2=n-th step would be tan(phi)=1/k or tan(phi)=1/Sqrt(||z_k||^2-1).

      Our internal velocity would sort of remain the same throughout the whole recording and storing process, going one step at the time in tangent direction to inscribed circle at that position, accommodating for increased radius and decreased phi. In that sense, internal angular speed or frequency would change with the wave number or k^2=n, not the internal so called wave phase velocity. The number of steps or n, might be represented by the number of observations or 2Pi rotations made.

      Any ideas how to translate this description into proper math framework using possibly biquaternions?

      Delete
  3. "Poor cat!"
    Absolutely agreed. The story about the "marble" left-hand side and "vegetal" right-hand side of Einstein theory is well-known (i used it in my review of relational ideas in 2019 to illustrate how difficult it is to elaborate the "stone flower", i.e. to come to a unified theory of QM and GR). But i could not expect that this story admitted so cruel treatment of cats. Outrageous!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Knowing how Einstein reportedly treated others, it would not surprise me if he would have resolved to such an act if the cat rubbed his egocentric and narcissistic personality the wrong way. FWIW.

      Delete
  4. Trying to make a bird's view on the Tomita flow.

    (1) Where is the miracle of launching a dynamic process?
    "Introducing one-parameter group of unitary operators on H" - is yet nothing special. U(1) is also a one-paramentric group, and nobody says about automorphisms there.
    However, as soon as we obtain a group of "modular automorphisms", we got dynamics! I cannot capture the moment of starting the motion.

    (2) The genious finding of Connes and Rovelli is that the expectation value ρ of the energy, which is the entropy of the state, coincides with the Tomita's modular flow, ok. What does it mean for our worldview? That time, as we know it, is related to the energy distribution (dispersion, entropy, loss of information, etc.)?

    (3) "Going from H to B2(H) some information is lost" is a very intriguing phrase: indeed, what do we loose when going from algebra to its ideal? The information about all that is complement to the ideal? But isn't it contained in the ideal itself?

    (4) And still the most remarkable finding, in my opinion, is that the Tomita flow is related to noncommutativity, more precisely, to anticommutativity of spinors. Noncommutativity and lack (loss) of information appear to be two sides of one coin!
    This is what i need to clarify for myself. Probably, the fact fron Part 11 may help that automorphism τ = (p0,p)* worked as conjugation and at the same time reversing of the order of factors τ(uv) = vu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "what do we loose when going from algebra to its ideal? "

      It is the other way around. Information is gained when going form the algebra to some particular left ideal. The fact that B2(H) is a two-sided ideal is not so relevant, as in finite dimensions B2(H)=B(H).
      When we work with finite-dimensional Cl(V) we have our B2(H), but we do not have H. There are many H's (complex 2D spinor spaces). How one of them gets selected is still a mystery for me.and why

      Delete
    2. Ark, i beg your pardon, probably, i misunderstood this phrase "Going from H to B2(H) some information is lost"?
      Yeh, information is such a slippery concept, hard to deal with.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps it is good to keep in mind that B2(H) is naturally isomorphic to H⊗cc(H) (which I didn't discuss). So, when going from H to B2(H) we kind of neglect the sign. It is like when we say that spinors are square roots of vectors. But square roots can be positive and negative. Something like that.

      Delete
    4. " B2(H) is naturally isomorphic to H⊗cc(H) (which I didn't discuss). "

      It is essentially implied in the fact that e_mn = |e_m)(e_n| is a basis in B2(H).

      Delete
    5. If H is algebra and B2(H) is ideal, how can then be both, gain and loss of information when going from H to B2(H)?

      Delete
    6. B2(H) is a two-sided ideal in B(H). In finite dimension B2(H)=B(H) is the whole algebra. H is a particular irreducible representation space of this algebra (fo instance a particular left ideal of the Clifford algebra). To select one particular irreducible representation requires adding some information. H corresponds to spinors. B2(H) corresponds to multivectors.

      Delete
    7. Aha! Thanks for clarification.
      So, the laws of thermodynamics would imply that we naturally tend to go from particular to more general, losing some information in the process in the sense that new possibilities open up and we now have greater number of choices, in a sense more free will if we see those new possibilities.
      In that sense, it seems logical and natural that a consciousness would tend to be attracted towards expansion and learning and growth and opening up new possibilities for exploration. With enlarging the body of knowledge, also the contact area around that body is enlarged, where it comes in relation to the yet unknown surrounding.

      Delete
    8. I do not think that "we" necessarily obey the laws of thermodynamics. Laws of thermodynamics are concerned with ensembles, not with individuals. Individuals can choose to go from general to particular.

      Delete
    9. True, entropy in Boltzmann formula talks about the number of possible (different) states an ensemble can be in.
      My point was not that we necessarily obey the laws of thermodynamics, but that if viewed in kind of upside down fashion the entropy of thermodynamics speaks of free will and ability to choose and information of control and constraint and limiting free choice. So called information gain with decrease of entropy could be viewed as a restriction on free choices, limiting and forcing the system into smaller number of possible expressions. Then of course if there is fewer possible states to choose from, the probability to predict the chosen state increases. That is bad quality information, that sort of comes from restricting and limiting expression, and not from real knowledge.
      In other words, when only choice an individual has is a particular particular, it's not really a choice at all, isn't it? Only when the individual has the knowledge of also a general, there is a real choice present on the table to choose from or in which direction to go next.

      Delete
    10. It may be more complex than this. Because with a sufficient knowledge the individual in question may find out that practically he/she has no choice at all (in other words it becomens 100% clear what the "right choice" should be) . Bjab perhaps would like it.

      Delete
    11. Yeah, true, I hear you.
      And somehow started to miss Bjab with his/her predeterministic comments and questions.

      Delete
    12. He will probably be back with my new post, as we will be back to his circles - this time oriented circles.

      Delete
    13. Time and circles are also my topics.
      https://ru.files.me/u/k7mkgy4p7y

      Delete
  5. For my taste, the most attractive in the thermal time theory is that Time is not the great and universal Govenor anymore, but only a specific case, one of many possibilities of the more general concept of Changes (in the sense of Chinese Book of Changes), which admit of the stabilization of matter, which we could call 'existence'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am using I Ching quite often when I need to take a decision which path of time to choose. It works quite well in bringing up the unconscious potential to the front of actual.

      Delete
  6. This theory is meaningless. An artificial trick. The arrow of time does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course. If there is no time at all, there would also be no arrow of time after all.

      Delete
    2. "This theory is meaningless."

      Certainly, for those who do not see its meaning.

      "An artificial trick."

      In one sense it is artificial, in another sense it is natural.


      "The arrow of time does not exist."

      It exists at least in the sense that we can easily plan for tomorrow, but planning for yesterday seems to pointless

      Delete
  7. But still a stunningly beautiful idea: a stable state generates a flow that leads the system to this state.
    And very simple. A pendulum that has a state of equilibrium will swing until it reaches this state. We will scatter everyday affairs until we reach thoughts about the eternal, and here we can stay for forever.
    Conversely, each flow must have islands of stability or be looped itself, which is also a form of stability.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "This is a self-adjoint, and positive (Why?) operator, unbounded if H is infinite-dimensional (Why?), and we can interpret Uρ(s) as the operators defining the time evolution of a quantum system".

    'Self-adjoint' because ρ is self-adjoint and log-function does not spoil this property.
    'Positive' because ρ is <= 1 and, hence, - log(ρ) >= 0.

    An important point: is it right that Uρ(s) generally defines not time-, but rather s-evolution, which is the time evolution only in a specific case when the energy distribution of states obeys the Gibbs law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good.
      If we take -log ρ as a Hamiltonian, then ρ is its Gibbs state.

      Delete
  9. @Ark, i am sorry i am still chewing some why's in Parts 50 and 51.

    (1) "operator (log ρ) is unbounded if H is infinite-dimensional (Why?)"

    A bit misleading is that H denotes both the Hilbert space and Hamiltonian... Ok, since log(x) is unbounded at x-->0 and ρ can be infinitely small, i think that (log ρ) is always unbounded, what is the role of infinite dimension here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. in finite dimension we have a finite number of eigenvalues, all different from zero, So log ρ is bounded in this case.

      Delete
    2. Oh, yes... Eigenvalues should be different from zero, but in case of infinite dimensions they can approach zero as close as we like.

      Delete
    3. What is somewhat non-entirely inuitive for me is that not only the "can" approach zero, but they must approach zero. Somehow, thinking about density matrices, I did not realize this fact before.

      Delete
    4. It is such a misfortune that we have to use an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space to describe QM. All our troubles are from infinity and continuum. But without them we cannot represent motion. May be just to use 'running' numbers instead of stationary ones, like Sergy Vekshenov suggests.

      Delete
    5. Я сразу представил себе бегущие числа как стоячие волны на окружности, диаметр которой эволюционирует.

      Delete
    6. An interesting representation. I will tell Sergey if you don't mind. Standing waves play an important role in his construction, they correspond to natural numbers.

      Delete
  10. Конечно, не возражаю. Но для квантовой механики это слабая модель. Там волны не бегут по окружности. Мне больше нравится модель квантовой механики, в которой рассматривается случайное блуждание на эволюционирующем торе. Там просматриваются даже простые числа
    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_connection_between_the_Oscillations_of_a_metaphysical_pendulum_and_the_distribution_of_prime_numbers

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comment..

Lie Sphere Geometry Part 2: unoriented circles

  Process philosophy, rooted in thinkers like Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Sanders Peirce, posits that reality is fundamentally dyna...