Although the variational principles of classical mechanics lead to two-time boundary value problems, when dealing with the real world everyone knows you should use initial conditions. Not surprisingly, the eighteenth-century statements of classical variational principles were invested with religious notions of teleology: guidance from future paths not taken could only be divine. The Feynman path integral formulation of quantum mechanics makes it less preposterous that a particle can explore non-extremal paths; moreover, it is most naturally formulated using information at two times. In the previous chapter, use of the two-time boundary value problem was proposed as a logical prerequisite for considering arrow-of-time questions. Perhaps this is no less teleological than Maupertuis's principle, except that we remain neutral on how and why those conditions are imposed. In this chapter we deal with the technical aspects of solving two-time boundary value problems. In classical mechanics you get into rich existence questions—sometimes there is no solution, sometimes many. For stochastic dynamics the formulation is perhaps easiest, which is odd considering that this is the language most suited to irreversible behavior. Our ultimate interest is the quantum two-time problem and this is nearly intractable. Later in the book I will propose that the universe is most simply described as the solution of a two-time boundary value problem. A natural reaction is to wonder whether this is too constraining. Given that our (lower entropy) past already cuts down the number of possible microstates, are there sufficient microstates to meet a future condition as well?
Although the variational principles of classical mechanics lead to two-time boundary value problems, when dealing with the real world everyone knows you should use initial conditions. Not surprisingly, the eighteenth-century statements of classical variational principles were invested with religious notions of teleology: guidance from future paths not taken could only be divine. The Feynman path integral formulation of quantum mechanics makes it less preposterous that a particle can explore non-extremal paths; moreover, it is most naturally formulated using information at two times. In the previous chapter, use of the two-time boundary value problem was proposed as a logical prerequisite for considering arrow-of-time questions. Perhaps this is no less teleological than Maupertuis's principle, except that we remain neutral on how and why those conditions are imposed. In this chapter we deal with the technical aspects of solving two-time boundary value problems. In classical mechanics you get into rich existence questions—sometimes there is no solution, sometimes many. For stochastic dynamics the formulation is perhaps easiest, which is odd considering that this is the language most suited to irreversible behavior. Our ultimate interest is the quantum two-time problem and this is nearly intractable. Later in the book I will propose that the universe is most simply described as the solution of a two-time boundary value problem. A natural reaction is to wonder whether this is too constraining. Given that our (lower entropy) past already cuts down the number of possible microstates, are there sufficient microstates to meet a future condition as well?
Why should special states occur as initial conditions in every physical situation in which they are needed? Half this book has been devoted to making the points that initial conditions may not be as controllable as they seem; that there may be constraints on microscopic initial conditions; that this would not have been noticed; that such constraints can arise from two-time or future conditioning; that in our universe such future conditioning may well be present, although, as remarked, cryptic . In this chapter I will take up more detailed questions: what future conditions could give rise to the need for our ‘special’ states, and why should those particular future conditions be imposed. Before going into this there is a point that needs to be made. Everything in the present chapter could be wrong and the thesis of Chapter 6 nevertheless correct. It is one thing to avoid grotesque states (and solve the quantum measurement problem) by means of special states and it is another provide a rationale for their occurrence. I say this not only to highlight the conceptual dependencies of the theses in this book, but also because there is a good deal of hand waving in the coming chapter and I don't want it to reflect unfavorably on the basic proposal. As pointed out earlier, the usual thermodynamic arrow of time can be phrased as follows: initial states are arbitrary, final states special.
The path integral was created to quantize systems whose dynamics are nonlocal in time and for which a Hamiltonian formulation could not be found. In this article we quantize a linear oscillator with an interaction that depends on the oscillator’s position at past and future times. The central issue is the classical boundary value problem for such an oscillator. Because two-time functional boundary conditions are used to implement the quantization, we take up related questions, such as causality in this context, and the general issue of stability for forward and inward data specifications.
Nonintegrable Poincaré systems with continuous spectrum (so-called Large Poincaré Systems, LPS) lead to the appearance of diffusive terms in the framework of dynamics. These terms break time symmetry. They lead, therefore, to limitations to classical trajectory dynamics and of wave functions. These diffusive terms correspond to well-defined classes of dynamical processes (i.e., so-called “vacuum-vacuum” transitions). The diffusive effects are amplified in situations corresponding to persistent interactions. As a result, we have to include already in the fundamental dynamical description the two aspects, probability and irreversibility, which are so conspicuous on the macroscopic level. We have to formulate both classical and quantum mechanics on the Liouville level of probability distributions (or density matrices). For integrable systems, we recover the usual formulations of classical or quantum mechanics. Instead of being irreducible concepts, which cannot be further analyzed, trajectories and wave functions appear as special solutions of the Liouville-von Neumann equations. This extension of classical and quantum dynamics permits us to unify the two concepts of nature we inherited from the 19th century, based on the one hand on dynamical time-reversible laws and on the other on an evolutionary view associated to entropy. It leads also to a unified formulation of quantum theory avoiding the conventional dual structure based on Schrödinger’s equation on the one hand, and on the “collapse” of the wave function on the other. A dynamical interpretation is given to processes such as decoherence or approach to equilibrium without any appeal to extra dynamic considerations (such as the many-world theory, coarse graining or averaging over the environment). There is a striking parallelism between classical and quantum theory. For LPS we have, in general, both a “collapse” of trajectories and of wave functions for LPS. In both cases, we need a generalized formulation of dynamics in terms of probability distributions or density matrices. Since the beginning of this century, we know that classical mechanics had to be generalized to take into account the existence of universal constants. We now see that classical as well as quantum mechanics also have to be extended to include unstable dynamical systems such as LPS. As a result, we achieve a new formulation of "laws of physics" dealing no more with certitudes but with probabilities. The formulation is appropriate to describe an open, evolving universe.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.
Many quantization schemes rely on analogs of classical mechanics where the connections with classical mechanics are indirect. In this work I propose a new and direct connection between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics where the quantum mechanical propagator is derived from a variational principle. I identify this variational principle as a generalized form of Hamilton's principle. This proposed variational principle is unusual because the physical system is allowed to have imperfect information, i.e., there is incomplete knowledge of the physical state. Two distribution functionals over possible generalized momentum paths a[p(t)] and generalized coordinates paths b[q(t)] are defined. A generalized action is defined that corresponds to a contraction of a[p(t)], b[q(t)], and a matrix of the action evaluated at all possible p and q paths. Hamilton's principle is the extremization of the generalized action over all possible distributions. The normalization of the two distributions allows their values to be negative and they are shown to be the real and imaginary parts of the complex amplitude. The amplitude in the Feynman path integral is shown to be an optimal vector that extremizes the generalized action. This formulation is also shown to be directly applicable to statistical mechanics and I show how irreversible behavior and the micro-canonical ensemble follows immediately.
This paper aims to establish an absolute physical and informational ontological mechanism for the "Principle of Least Action," the most supreme yet long-shrouded-in-teleological-ghosts principle in theoretical physics. This study thoroughly shatters the phenomenological myth that has downgraded this principle into an "a priori mathematical axiom" or "nature's energy-saving strategy" for over three centuries, formally declaring that the evolution of physical laws possesses no prescient consciousness or teleology. Based on the dual-phase void topological structure of The Grand Unified Theory of Cosmic Mind, this research demonstrates: the interactions and dynamical evolution of all things in the universe originate from the "Geometric Extreme Repulsion" triggered by the logical incompatibility between the "absolute vacuum" inside physical particles and the external background "absolute vacuum." When this action and reaction—attempting to annihilate each other—are blocked by the particle membrane (the absolute boundary formed by information deadlock) and thus unable to penetrate and thoroughly return to the dead ground state of the absolute vacuum, the system is forced into an eternal topological collision and "dynamic compromise." Therefore, the so-called least action is, in reality, the "Relative Stable State"—the state closest to the absolute vacuum with the minimal geometric resistance—that the system can passively find when jammed by the relentless pincer attack of this dual absolute repulsive force within its current environment. In the mathematical formulation of quantum dynamics, this study strictly analyzes the underlying computational process of this blind search for a compromise state via the Feynman Path Integral . In the full-path expansion within Hilbert space, any minute path variation (δS≠ 0) deviating from the bottom of the geometric well will, under the non-linear amplification of the reduced Planck constant (ℏ), cause the phase factor of its probability amplitude to undergo extremely high-frequency runaway oscillations. This forces all non-extremal, high-energy-consuming paths to trigger absolute Destructive Interference during the reduced density matrix computation in the quantum buffer zone, leading these invalid evolutionary histories to undergo Spontaneous Decoherence and be thoroughly mathematically annihilated in physical reality. Only that extremal path—perfectly jammed at the bottom of the repulsive dynamic equilibrium well and satisfying the condition of zero first-order variation (δS=0)—can survive through the constructive interference of stationary phases, being forcefully collapsed and projected as the classical trajectory we observe macroscopically. This model ultimately establishes: the deterministic trajectories of classical physics and the Euler-Lagrange equations are by no means a profound blueprint preordained by a creator; their essence is merely the sole Geometric Relic forced out and left behind by the repulsive tension of the absolute vacuum within the cruel matrix of decoherence.