First off, newly syndicated readers who want to have access to my previous posts can find them archived here as well as listed on my own site here.

After last week’s speculations on time I would like to ask an even deeper question: why is there time?

My 4 year old daughter would be proud. What I mean is, why do things evolve in the first place? It seems to me that fundamental physics has to answer not only ‘what’ questions but also ‘why’ questions if it claims to provide understanding. I think I have an answer, or a glimpse of one.

NASA

The answer has to do with quantum anomalies; no not the large (not very quantum, then) things that seem to turn up in every other episode of Star Trek Voyager, but what physicists mean by this, which I am afraid is much more dry and dusty. In fact, I’m going to have to ask you to dust off your high school calculus books, just for a minute.

I explained in a previous post that even if nobody at the moment knows how to reconcile quantum theory and gravity, quantum spacetime should emerge as an effect coming out of any unknown theory. Typically, the coordinates x,y,z of space would also be quantum variables, so space alone should typically form some kind of symbolic algebra. Due to quantum effects, the order of the variables in this algebra will matter, xy will typically not coincide with yx. One says that the algebra is ‘noncommutative’.

Click to enlarge

Now, what about differential calculus on such a quantum space? If you remember any high school calculus it means things like dx, dy, dz as the ‘infinitesimal differences’. Newton and Leibniz both considered such things as numbers which are then made arbitrarily small. Hands up if your high school calculus class contained a picture like the one shown at left. It defines differentiation of a function f in the x direction as a limit of the slope df/dx of the triangle as dx gets small.

So to develop quantum gravity effects in physics we also need ‘quantum differentials’ dx, dy, dz. They should enjoy the properties that differentials enjoy in Newtons theory except, since xy and yx need not coincide, similarly y dx need not coincide with dx y, etc. Now, here is the remarkable thing one finds as you dig deeper into this world of quantum geometry:

Most sufficiently noncommutative ‘quantum spaces’ described by algebras with variables x,y,z do not admit any reasonable self-contained algebra of differentials dx,dy,dz.

This is called an anomaly for quantum differentiation, or quantum anomaly for short. In physics when a classical symmetry does not survive the theoretical passage from our understanding at the level of classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, one speaks of an `anomaly’. An example of an anomaly is when physicists first tried string theory in the realistic four spacetime dimensions. Their theory had an anomaly for conformal symmetry and this was ‘fixed’ by changing the dimension to 24 and later to 11 or 10, though nowadays I hear that 10500 dimensions is currently quite popular. In that sense, if you subscribe to string theory, you have a ‘prediction’ or possible necessity of higher dimensions.

In my case what I mean by ‘reasonable’ is a differential calculus that respects in some form the symmetry that should rotate the x,y,z among themselves. Among such calculi there is an obstruction uncovered for many quantum spaces in my work with my colleague Edwin Beggs, a mathematician at Swansea in the UK.

As is typical for any anomaly, the thing to do is to increase the dimensions to absorb the obstruction. So if you subscribe to quantum spaces, you will typically be forced to invent at least one extra dimension which I will call ‘dt’. In fact you will be forced to invent time.

Let’s put some flesh on this. From the differentials dx, dy, dz, dt you can recover the corresponding ‘differentiation in direction x,y,z,t’ operations (the so-called partial derivatives), and you can do it algebraically without recourse to pictures. If you let f(x,y,z) be an element of our quantum space algebra, you find that its ‘differentiation in the t direction’ comes out not as zero but, in the simplest models, as something like the energy operator in Schroedinger’s equation.

So, not only are you forced to invent time, your original space variables obey an equation which in the limit of ordinary space (i.e. as you remove quantum gravity effects) becomes Schroedinger’s wave equation. Oops, you’ve just answered the question ‘why is there quantum mechanics?’ My 4 year old has not even gotten to that one.

And none of this is an accident. For any sufficiently ‘quantum’ space there are general mathematical reasons to expect that for any reasonable differential d there will exist an abstract differential element which I will call ‘dt’ obeying

dt f - f dt = L df

where L is our Planck scale parameter expressing the effects of quantum gravity. So, if t was not one of your variables you would be forced to invent it so as to have dt. Note that both sides of the equation are zero in ordinary geometry. In other words, this equation is invisible until you study quantum gravity, which is why such an origin of time is not seen in ordinary classical and quantum physics.

Editors note: Shahn Majid was talking around his paper “Noncommutative model with spontaneous time generation and Planckian-bound”, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 2005. A general introduction to his ideas on quantum spacetime appear in On Space and Time.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags: , ,
5 Responses to “Quantum Anomaly and the Origin of Time”
  1. Excellent blog I must say. Julian Barbour with his book “The end of Time” shows also a nice piece of natural philosophy.

    Just to let you know guys….if you are interested (and you are) in high quality physics links, then visit my site:

    http://www.physicsworks.ca

    Thanks and see you around,

    Ronald

  2. Hi Ronald,

    thanks for the comment and for the link. I see that you have a lot of useful links on your site. I already found under Shlomo a link to several of Shlomo Sternbergs books as free pdfs. He was one of my mentors at Harvard when I was a student there. Julian Barbour’s books are definitely on my list to read some day when I have time. As well as “The End of Time” he has as book on Mach which has been highly recommended.

  3. Just saying Helllooooo Shahn.

  4. Time exists for a number of reasons. First, because the universe changes. If nothing changed there would be no time within the universe. Second, because we have memory. We can thereby detect change. Third, because we have defined a concept that we call “time” to capture the sense of change that we can detect. Fourth, because we can measure what we call time using periodic physical phenomena. This is the generalization of a clock. Fifth, because we can record the change in time using systems in which changes accumulate. It is not enough to have a clock. We also need a calendar.

    Since time is recorded as an accumulation of changes, time always moves forward. If instead the universe was in a loop so that its entire state was continually revisited, then time as we know it would not exist for the universe. It might not make a difference to us if the length of time as we measured it were really long (say a billion years), but astronomers could not make the assumption that they could look back in time using red shift.

  5. Hi Peter, you make some good points.

    I broadly agree with your list, but which of these items is the definition of time or are these all potentially different usages of the word, as some say different `arrows of time’?

    In the latter case, the question for me is which one of these is science and/or fundamental and which are merely sociology. I do think we need to disentangle the various usages of `time’ by taking a stand. Science after all has to have clear unified notions and not things `multiply defined’.

    But I agree that if time is sort of constructed then this may explain why it moves forward. In a previous post I used this as a view of `thermodynamic time’.

    Time as understood in general relativity has a causal arrow in any connected region. Basically, while an isolated region might have a different arrow, for regions to interact their arrows have to line up. This is the conventional thinking anyway (it is called a choice of time-orientation). Closed time-like loops such as you refer to would violate causality and are not expected to exist for this reason, though I agree with you that from a purely geometrical point of view they could. There is certainly no hint of that in observational cosmology, but see my post of some weeks ago

    http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/10/before-the-birth-of-our-universe-and-after-its-death/

    on Penrose’s theory of repeating universes, which is not what you refer to of course but interesting and might just
    be verifiable experimentally. The thing is that a closed time-like loop might make sense of a particle but information, free will and many things not really encompassed by particle physics and just the geometry would not make sense, in my view of course.

Leave a Reply