inverse temperature and imaginary time

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
30,082
Reaction score
26,741
Points
2,788
The topic of this thread is Wick rotation.

It's used in physics, in relativity. By introducing an imaginary variable in the right place, difficult problems in Euclidean space can be "rotated" into Minkowski space, solved there, and rotated back. (Or vice versa).

But there is a deeper more mysterious and more significant application of Wick rotations, in probability theory. You'll see why it's significant in a moment.

First we will need the concept of moments. You may know these by their colloquial names mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis, and so on. Actually there are an infinite number of such moments, they form an infinite series that describes the probability distribution, one can speak of (and calculate) the n-th order moment, which in the probability theory is defined as E[X^n], and most often we're interested in a moment "around a point" (like, around the mean), and in that case these are "central" moments defined as E[(X-x0)^n].


The idea is we're sampling the variable n times. In theory if everything is independent and nicely behaved the probability after n outcomes should simply be the product of the n probabilities, hence the outcome raised to the power.

In SOME nicely behaved cases, we can have a function that generates the moments for us, it's called the moment generating function. For example if you have a family of Gaussians with widths varying from infinity to 0, you can parametrize these from the unit interval.

The moment generating function, if it exists, defines the shape of the probability distribution. Which is where this topic gets interesting. There is a deep relationship between the moment generating function and the Fourier transform of the probability distribution. Which occurs in the complex plane and supports "Wick rotations" that link statistical mechanics with quantum mechanics.


Turns out, understanding Wick rotations is vital for any serious study of chaos and criticality. There is already a bunch of clever methods and a huge literature on phase plane methods in physics, one of them directly represents the Schrodinger equation as a 2n-dimensional probability map and uses it to solve spin glass geometry and things like that. It all leads to Feynman's path integrals, which are directly analogous to moment generating functions.

If you want to know how a particle gets from here to there, you have to know "all possible paths" by which that can happen, and each of the possible paths has a probability assigned to it. You have a "probability distribution" where the outcome is a linear combination of possible paths. There is an "evolution" of the state of the system according to Schrodinger's equation, which in turn maps back to Wiener's original math around Brownian motion. The maths are the same, and it's the same math needed to understand criticality.

One of the best studied chaotic systems in physics is the spin glass. That's what happens to a magnet if you heat it beyond its Curie temperature, the little magnetic dipoles that used to align now start floating around in various directions like a liquid, suddenly the magnetic spins are disordered and chaotic.

And it just so happens that spin glasses are an excellent case study because we have working models for both Wick and non-Wick solutions.
 
It's used in physics, in relativity. By introducing an imaginary variable in the right place, difficult problems in Euclidean space can be "rotated" into Minkowski space, solved there, and rotated back. (Or vice versa).

Wow ... it takes second year calculus to even understand these words ... it's sad that no one will read this ... you put in all this work ...

Do you go to college at all? ... didn't you take a class called "English Composition"? ... let me remind you, you write to your audience ... and here, we haven't taken differential geometry ... so you need to make this a lot simpler ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

Maybe an example of this "rotation" you speak of ... show us how to rotate the function f(x) = 3x^3 - 12x^2 + 5x - 7 ... and rotate it 62º clockwise ... what is our new function? ... to everyone else: this is the longest algebra problem in all of mathematics ... bar none ... The Scruff will be here a long while typing it all out ...

Minkowski Space is Euclidean within 100 million light-years ... why all the extra algebra just to send relief to Jamaica ... or go to the nearest star, or nearest galaxy? ... oh well, let's see how much fun you have rotating a simple polynomial function ...
 
Wow ... it takes second year calculus to even understand these words ... it's sad that no one will read this ... you put in all this work ...

Do you go to college at all? ... didn't you take a class called "English Composition"? ... let me remind you, you write to your audience ... and here, we haven't taken differential geometry ... so you need to make this a lot simpler ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

Maybe an example of this "rotation" you speak of ... show us how to rotate the function f(x) = 3x^3 - 12x^2 + 5x - 7 ... and rotate it 62º clockwise ... what is our new function? ... to everyone else: this is the longest algebra problem in all of mathematics ... bar none ... The Scruff will be here a long while typing it all out ...

Minkowski Space is Euclidean within 100 million light-years ... why all the extra algebra just to send relief to Jamaica ... or go to the nearest star, or nearest galaxy? ... oh well, let's see how much fun you have rotating a simple polynomial function ...

To answer your question, you need to provide more information. A rotation requires a "base point", which may or may not be the same as the base of the topology. Are you assuming the origin is the base point?

And, rotation along what axis? You need to define an axis of rotation. Y axis? 62 degrees relative to what?
 
The Wick rotation is inherently related to the compactification of R into S1, what we call "projective space".

You can see what this does by looking at the complex log function. Log(r) is just a curve, but log (ir) is a helix.

1761765406637.webp
 
To answer your question, you need to provide more information. A rotation requires a "base point", which may or may not be the same as the base of the topology. Are you assuming the origin is the base point?

And, rotation along what axis? You need to define an axis of rotation. Y axis? 62 degrees relative to what?

You have the information needed in the question ... the values you ask for are inherit in the context ...
 
The topic of this thread is Wick rotation.

It's used in physics, in relativity. By introducing an imaginary variable in the right place, difficult problems in Euclidean space can be "rotated" into Minkowski space, solved there, and rotated back. (Or vice versa).

But there is a deeper more mysterious and more significant application of Wick rotations, in probability theory. You'll see why it's significant in a moment.

First we will need the concept of moments. You may know these by their colloquial names mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis, and so on. Actually there are an infinite number of such moments, they form an infinite series that describes the probability distribution, one can speak of (and calculate) the n-th order moment, which in the probability theory is defined as E[X^n], and most often we're interested in a moment "around a point" (like, around the mean), and in that case these are "central" moments defined as E[(X-x0)^n].


The idea is we're sampling the variable n times. In theory if everything is independent and nicely behaved the probability after n outcomes should simply be the product of the n probabilities, hence the outcome raised to the power.

In SOME nicely behaved cases, we can have a function that generates the moments for us, it's called the moment generating function. For example if you have a family of Gaussians with widths varying from infinity to 0, you can parametrize these from the unit interval.

The moment generating function, if it exists, defines the shape of the probability distribution. Which is where this topic gets interesting. There is a deep relationship between the moment generating function and the Fourier transform of the probability distribution. Which occurs in the complex plane and supports "Wick rotations" that link statistical mechanics with quantum mechanics.


Turns out, understanding Wick rotations is vital for any serious study of chaos and criticality. There is already a bunch of clever methods and a huge literature on phase plane methods in physics, one of them directly represents the Schrodinger equation as a 2n-dimensional probability map and uses it to solve spin glass geometry and things like that. It all leads to Feynman's path integrals, which are directly analogous to moment generating functions.

If you want to know how a particle gets from here to there, you have to know "all possible paths" by which that can happen, and each of the possible paths has a probability assigned to it. You have a "probability distribution" where the outcome is a linear combination of possible paths. There is an "evolution" of the state of the system according to Schrodinger's equation, which in turn maps back to Wiener's original math around Brownian motion. The maths are the same, and it's the same math needed to understand criticality.

One of the best studied chaotic systems in physics is the spin glass. That's what happens to a magnet if you heat it beyond its Curie temperature, the little magnetic dipoles that used to align now start floating around in various directions like a liquid, suddenly the magnetic spins are disordered and chaotic.

And it just so happens that spin glasses are an excellent case study because we have working models for both Wick and non-Wick solutions.
Do 4D or Die

There are no probabilities. They are all determined by an undiscovered outside force.
 
You have the information needed in the question ... the values you ask for are inherit in the context ...
No they aren't. You haven't even told me which variable you want to rotate.

I think you should start at the beginning. A Wick rotation is the extension of a dependent variable into the complex domain.

Usually it's t, but in your case let's choose x. Normally t => it, so in your case x => ix.

So your equation then takes the form y = 3 (ix) ^ 3 and etc.

So now you have to analyze your complex function and determine whether it's analytic.

Afterwards a rotation is as simple as a matrix multiplication.

You will then have a new function which will need to be projected back down into Euclidean space.

The basic idea in relativity is something like this:

1761785634421.gif
 
Here's why it works.

1761787284927.webp


Functions that are unsolvable on the real axis may resolve nicely in imaginary space.

The opposite may also be true, the complex domain is a weird place.

The gist of this thread is the continuation of physical variables "through" points at infinity.

Under what conditions can we identify + infinity and - infinity? Doing that, allows us to go "through" the singularity and come out the other side. It even lets us navigate the singularity, as you can see from the topology of the endpoints in projective space.

Simplest example: take a real interval and bend it up into a circle. To join the two ends and close the circle, you have to add ONE (only one, not two) point, which is designated as the point at infinity (the "North Pole", if you do the same thing with a piece of a plane instead of a line segment). Now you have traded one degree of freedom for another, your distance on the real interval has become an angle on the circle. And, your travels have become periodic, you can now keep going around and around the circle.

Looking at another aspect - let's say your real endpoints are 0 and 1. We can not "equate" these points, that makes no sense. What we can do is glue them together, with an infinitesimally thin strip of glue. Let's say the glue is only one point thick, we're going to add one point between 0 and 1 and we're going to call it "infinity" to distinguish it from all the other points between 0 and 1.

Now look at analyticity. Our circle is infinitely differentiable everywhere in S1, but not differentiable in R - because it has an undifferentiable point called "infinity".

Okay? So in a Wick rotation, we're going to be able to differentiate in the complex domain, but not in the real domain. But all we have to do to resolve ambiguities is to look at the points "around" infinity, then we can understand the behaviors of the limits. Once again we're trading degrees of freedom by looking at "boundary conditions" - because when we project back we have to cut the circle at the North Pole ("remove" the point at infinity to turn our circle back into a line segment again).
 
No they aren't. You haven't even told me which variable you want to rotate.

Are you refusing to explain a shear rotation? ... shame on you ... how are we to understand a Wick rotation? ...

f(x) = 3x^3 - 12x^2 + 5x - 7

Just how many variables do you see here ... I count two ... got that ... two ... they form a plain ... a two dimensional plain ... now how many ways can we rotate anything in a plain? ...

I count one ... and I specified clockwise ... that would be negative using the RHR ... you kids here in the digital age may not be familiar with the terms clockwise and counter-clockwise ... old analog clocks had hands that rotated through a circle and showed the current time ...

lascelles-chrome-wall-clock-dia-30cm.jpg


C'mon ... show us the algebra ...
 
Are you refusing to explain a shear rotation? ... shame on you ... how are we to understand a Wick rotation? ...

f(x) = 3x^3 - 12x^2 + 5x - 7

Just how many variables do you see here ... I count two ... got that ... two ... they form a plain ... a two dimensional plain ... now how many ways can we rotate anything in a plain? ...

I count one ... and I specified clockwise ... that would be negative using the RHR ... you kids here in the digital age may not be familiar with the terms clockwise and counter-clockwise ... old analog clocks had hands that rotated through a circle and showed the current time ...

lascelles-chrome-wall-clock-dia-30cm.jpg


C'mon ... show us the algebra ...
You're totally missing the point.

You're talking about rotation in two REAL dimensions, which is something completely different from rotation in the COMPLEX plane.

Your two dimensional function will become three dimensional in complex space, technically speaking it will be a fiber bundle over C. To solve the path you'll need to solve the COMPLEX version of your equation.

Which absolutely does NOT equate with rotating your function in two Euclidean dimensions. If that's what you wanted to do you'd just multiply by a rotation matrix and you're done
 
I'll give you an example, from your example.

Consider y = x ^ 3

This term will become y = (ix) ^ 3

Which is the same as -i (x^3)

The graph of y = x ^ 3 is an S shaped curve passing through the origin.

The graph of -ix^3 rotates this function by -i. But the result is a complex number, not a real. Your graph will need to show the real and imaginary parts of y against x, not just the real part.

The square of x is x^2, the square of ix is - x^2. But if you multiply by i you're rotating by 90 degrees IN THE COMPLEX PLANE. Which is not the same as rotating by 180 degrees to get a negative number. Different answers, different results.
 
Back to topic:

The partition function in statistical mechanics can be related to the vacuum expectation value of a time-ordered product in quantum mechanics by identifying the inverse temperature with imaginary time (
1/kBT <=> it/h
).
 
These are eigenstates for a Hamiltonian. Do they look periodic?

1761802945835.webp


How about now? These are the corresponding probability densities. Do they look periodic?

1761803037281.webp


Does it look like there might be a generating function associated with this pattern?

The difference between classical and quantum behavior is that classical Hamiltonians will obey a principle of least action (selecting only one path from among the many available), whereas the quantum equivalent requires "all possible paths" and in a superposition assigns them contributions based on phase.

"Lifting" into the complex domain is essential for calculation of phase, therefore for calculation of probability amplitude. Therefore frequency and probability are related by phase in the complex domain. Phase is periodic, whereas probability is defined on a line interval. The logical guess from the figure above is that the probability distribution has been compactified.
 
You're totally missing the point.

It is you who are completely avoiding the point ...

Do you go to college at all? ... didn't you take a class called "English Composition"? ... let me remind you, you write to your audience ... and here, we haven't taken differential geometry ... so you need to make this a lot simpler ...

You're talking about rotation in two REAL dimensions, which is something completely different from rotation in the COMPLEX plane.

Your two dimensional function will become three dimensional in complex space, technically speaking it will be a fiber bundle over C. To solve the path you'll need to solve the COMPLEX version of your equation.

Which absolutely does NOT equate with rotating your function in two Euclidean dimensions. If that's what you wanted to do you'd just multiply by a rotation matrix and you're done

I hate to remind you of this but the real numbers are a subset of the complex ... so try rotating:

f(x) = (3-9i) x^3 - (4+2i) x^2 + (3+4i) x - (7-7i)

The plain itself is defined by f(x) and x ... not the coefficients ... and coefficients of polynomials are always members of the complex numbers ... f(x) and x are second order tensors in a Minkowski space, which have a domain of complex values, a domain of directional values and a domain of field values ... of course we can multiply tensors by any complex number and get another tensor ... it's called closure ... I assume that applies in Minkowski spaces the same as Euclidian ... ha ha ... because Minkowski spaces ARE Euclidian locally ... like within 100 million light-years ...

Please explain why we're rotating these tensors ... and then show us an example, something a high school aged child could understand ... I gave you a simple example except you belly ached I guess because you don't believe 0+0i is a complex number ... I'm sorry, it is ... now show us the algebra ... then explain to us what a tensor is ... then explain what a field is ... to people who have forgotten everything they learned in algebra class they took 50 years ago ...

Excuse me ... (50+0i) years ago ... sheesh ...
 
It is you who are completely avoiding the point ...





I hate to remind you of this but the real numbers are a subset of the complex ... so try rotating:

f(x) = (3-9i) x^3 - (4+2i) x^2 + (3+4i) x - (7-7i)

The plain itself is defined by f(x) and x ... not the coefficients ... and coefficients of polynomials are always members of the complex numbers ... f(x) and x are second order tensors in a Minkowski space, which have a domain of complex values, a domain of directional values and a domain of field values ... of course we can multiply tensors by any complex number and get another tensor ... it's called closure ... I assume that applies in Minkowski spaces the same as Euclidian ... ha ha ... because Minkowski spaces ARE Euclidian locally ... like within 100 million light-years ...

Please explain why we're rotating these tensors ... and then show us an example, something a high school aged child could understand ... I gave you a simple example except you belly ached I guess because you don't believe 0+0i is a complex number ... I'm sorry, it is ... now show us the algebra ... then explain to us what a tensor is ... then explain what a field is ... to people who have forgotten everything they learned in algebra class they took 50 years ago ...

Excuse me ... (50+0i) years ago ... sheesh ...
Sounds like you need a refresher course in basic algebra. I'm not here to teach you math. We're looking at an important problem in modern physics. It's called the principal of least action. Action is energy times time. That's why paths matter. The fundamental group of a topology is not sufficient to define action.
 
Two very important points -

1. The complex domain is topological. When you integrate in the complex domain, you're integrating over a contour, and it turns out one contour is as good as another. Just like one loop is as good as another in the fundamental group. All loops from the same base point are considered equivalent, it's just what's inside them that duffers. So in complex math, in a way, the path doesn't matter.

2. This topic has everything to do with the concept of "zero point energy". Quantum structures need a minimum amount of stored energy for stability, that's why helium remains a liquid even at absolute zero. But quantum processes seem to have the ability to "borrow" energy from the vacuum, at least for a very short time. The vacuum is not empty, it contains fields that wiggle. Wiggling fields imply energy.

The mechanical formalisms (Hamilton, LaGrange) say the energy can only be in two places: kinetic and potential. Potential energy is "stored" energy, that's what we're looking for.
 
15th post
Sounds like you need a refresher course in basic algebra. I'm not here to teach you math. We're looking at an important problem in modern physics. It's called the principal of least action. Action is energy times time. That's why paths matter. The fundamental group of a topology is not sufficient to define action.

Ah ... now the ad hominem attack ... last resort of the losers in the world ... thank you for admitting you've lost ...

You don't know what a shear rotation is, do you? ... so you don't know what a Wise rotation is either ... and your AI generated content is misleading ... only by scraping the internet would anyone consider a complex plain as a real ochachoron ...

You're treating complex numbers as vectors and they're not ... they're scalars ...
 
Ah ... now the ad hominem attack ... last resort of the losers in the world ... thank you for admitting you've lost ...

You don't know what a shear rotation is, do you? ... so you don't know what a Wise rotation is either ... and your AI generated content is misleading ... only by scraping the internet would anyone consider a complex plain as a real ochachoron ...

You're treating complex numbers as vectors and they're not ... they're scalars ...
WTF are you going on about?

We're not talking about shear rotations.

Address the issue or go away.
 
Imaginary time comes from relativity.

The Minkowski metric in 4-space is

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2

Substituting t = it gives us back a Euclidean metric

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - i^2*dt^2

Which is

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + dt^2

When we map between M and E, we have to make sure our mapping is conformal, that is, preserves angles. Otherwise, the results of a rotation are unpredictable.
 
As I understand any of this (which is to say “hardly at all”) temperature cannot be colder than absolute zero and that means the absolute absence of molecular motion.

But if we invert this, then maybe ordinary water at sea level on Earth boils at negative 100 degrees kelvin? Or something.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom