CEPI

In the golden ages, when people were just beginning to think hard about quantum information, there was a workshop held in 1988 at the Santa Fe Institute on “Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information.” This produced a proceedings which is well worth reading, even after all these years. Now, thanks to the support of the Santa Fe Institute, The Quantum Institute at Los Alamos, the Center for Advanced Studies at the University of New Mexico, and the Physics Information group at the University of New Mexico, a lecture series on Complexity, Entropy and Physics of Information has been set up. Already, we’ve heard lectures about econophysics and the limits of algorithmic cooling. The schedule of speakers will be posted here.

Where are the Temporal Phase Transitions?

Phase transitions are fun. Change the temperature and wah-lah, water turns to ice and ice into water! Throw random bonds down on a lattice: if we occupy the sites with low probability, we form lots of isolated regions of small bonds, but if increase this probability past a the percolation threshold, wah-lah we form clusters of infinite connectivity! Change the amount of magnetic field applied transversely to an ising magnet and you find distinct magnetic phases. Oh yeah, wah-lah: quantum phase transition!
What I find most interesting about all of these different examples of phase transitions is what the knobs are which we turn in order to change phases. Most often, this knob is simply the temperature (in the first two models, this is indeed true, in the last the phase transition arises from a different knob, the transverse magnetic field.) What I’ve been curious about lately is trying to find models of phase transitions which occur as a function of time. The idea here is that you set up a system, evolve it, and at a particular time the system system undergoes a phase transition. Thus there would be a “critical time” at which the order of the system would change. I don’t know of any good examples of such temporal phase transitions. The closest I can come to are situations where a system is cooling off and hence one gets a phase transition at a particular time because the temperature is a function of time. But are there examples of temporal phase transitions without time being simply a substitute for some other “knob” we can turn for a phase transition?

Superstition

There is a primeval part of me which thinks that if the Red Sox beat the Yankees, then John Kerry will win the presidential election. And maybe then baseball will stop their seventh inning offensive singing. Actually I guess the real matchup should be the Astros and the Sox in the world series.

Wick Rotation

In quantum theory, we are interested in calculating the amplitude for starting in some initial state |i> and ending in some final state |f>. For a Hamiltonian H evolving for a time t, this amplitude is given by <f |exp(-iHt)|i>. In the path integral formulation of quantum theory, we rewrite this as the path integral &#092int dq exp(i S(q)) where this integration is performed over all paths q and S(q) is the action (&#092int_0^t L(q,dot{q}) dt ). Often what we’re really interested in is the long time propogators, so our action is really integrated from minus infinity to plus infinity. What has always astounded me is that often times we can calculate this path integral by performing a Wick rotation: we substitute -it for t in the path integral and thus we obtain a path integral with terms which don’t oscillate wildly. This often results in a situation where we can then either explicitly calculate the integral, or where we can numerically integrate the path integral by standard Monte Carlo methods. In fact, you will recall, what we’ve done is transformed the path integral into a partition function from classical statistical mechanics.
So here is my question. Is this anything more than a trick or is there something profound going on here? In particular I’m thinking about hidden variables. Since we have taken a quantum system and transformed it into a classical system, we’ve effectively made the transition to a hidden variable theory. Sampling from the classical statistical mechanical system described after the Wick rotation is now sampling from some hidden variable theory. Why doesn’t this immediately work? Well the first problem is that we have transformed the amplitude into a partition function. The probability of going from the state |i> to the state |f> is the magnitude squared. But does this really mess us up? We now have something which looks like int dq exp( S[q] ) int dq’ exp (S'[q’]) for the probability. The S’ comes about because the action is now the action going from plus infinite to minus infinity. But this still looks like a partition function: however now we aren’t sampling over all paths q but instead all paths which start with |i> go to |f> and then return back to |i>. So our hidden variables are not paths from minus infinity to plus infinity, but instead are now spacetime “loops” which go from minus infinity to plus infinity and then back to minus infinity. What does this mean? Now that is an interesting question!

Big Tesuque Run

Saturday I did the 12 mile 10,000-12,000-10,000ft Big Tesuque Run. My time was 1:45:30. I was 25th out of 110 and came in 5th in my age group. My time was almost 15 minutes faster than when I ran the course the previous week! Yeah for addrenaline.

A Philosophical Argument

Bell’s theorem tells us that there is no local hidden variable theory which reproduces the statistics of quantum theory. Fine. One way to think about moving onward given Bell’s theorem is to given to look for nonlocal hidden variable theories which reproduce quantum theory. But now there is something strange that happens. If you have nonlocal hidden variables, i.e. quantities describing the state of the universe but which are jointly accessible by two spacelike seperated observers, what is the difference between this and assuming that your notion of spacelike separation is not correct. Suppose you come up with a nonlocal theory. What prevents anyone from reinterpreting your nonlocal theory as a totally local theory in which spacelike separation is defined different? Well there is, as far as I can tell, exactly one difference: in quantum theory we cannot use entangled particles to communicate between spacelike separated observors. But this difference doesn’t disallow interpretting a nonlocal hidden variable theory as simply spacelike separation being defined differently, it just tells us the spacelike sepearation of entangled particles must force a nonsignaling constraint (and reproduce quantum theory!) So why don’t we spend more time thinking about where the structure of our spacetime manifold comes from?

Quantum Gravity?

Patrick Hayden points me to hep-th/0410036. If I understand this paper correctly and the paper is correct, this seems to me to be a BIG deal. In this paper, the author take the Hilbert-Palatini action for GR and adds two terms, both of a topological nature. These terms don’t change the fact that the classical theory derived from this action is classical GR. However, the author shows that these terms make this action the same as the action for an so(4,1) [or so(3,2) depending on whether the cosmological constant is positive or negative] Donaldson-Witten topological quantum field theory. The Donaldson-Witten TQFT is an “exactly solvable” quantum theory. What does this mean? Can anyone say a theory of quantum gravity? I knew you could. As the author puts it, “this proves that exact, non-perturbative calculations can be preformed in 3+1 dimensional quantum gravity.”
[Update 10/13/04: Well that was the quick fall. As Nathan Lundblad notes, the paper has been withdrawn!]

I'm the Gingerbread Man

This coming weekend, I’ve signed up for
Big Tesuque Run
I ran the course last weekend and finished in just under two hours. It’s a very spectacular run this time of year because the aspens have all colored up. Just as long as it doesn’t snow on me it should be fun!

Nobel Closed Timelike Curve

I will have you note, that one of today’s Nobel prize winners in physics, David Politzer, has written articles on closed timelike curves (a.k.a. time travel). Does my paper on closed timelike curves look crazy now? Huh? Oh yes, it does.