0

Can we define a 2+1 submanifold/slice ("instant of space") analogous to the Cauchy surface such that we can use this as a boundary condition and find the solution for the remaining full spacetime? Assume that this 2+1 submanifold is physically permissible (we can get such a slice from a known spacetime solution and try to reconstruct the remaining full spacetime).


More info: In QFT the following is the unitary operator for a spacetime translation by $a$ $$T(a) \equiv \exp(-iP^\mu a_\mu/ \hbar)$$

All symmetries transformations are described by unitary operators but in this question, we only consider spacetime translation symmetry, specifically unitary operators associated with spacelike coordinates.

For the case of time, we can take Cauchy surfaces to define "an instant of time". Unitarity is the statement that once we know the physics of a single Cauchy surface we can evolve and find all the dynamics.

Can't we define generalized Cauchy surfaces as some codimension 1 Lorenztian submanifolds such that unitary translation along the remaining spatial direction gives the entire dynamical information? (Coordinate singularities along this direction can always be removed by changing the coordinates. Physical singularities cannot be present since those will be naked/spacelike singularities and require $\infty$ energy)

The only special property time has is that if we calculate coarse-grained entropy along the Cauchy surfaces it increases, so there is a preferred direction. But I don't see why unitarity needs a preferred direction since unitarity anyway gives information on both sides of a Cauchy surface.

Is there any arxiv paper where they tried this? Are timelike coordinates more special than what I am thinking?

Clarifying question: Can we get the complete dynamical information by only knowing the physics of a "2+1 dimensional submanifold"?

It is like an "instant of space". Like $z=0$ in Minkowski spacetime with coordinates $(t,x,y,z)$. Then can we use the unitary $z$ translation operator to find the complete dynamics of the full $3+1$ Minkowski spacetime? My intuition is saying that if we take the solution on $z=0$ as the boundary condition we can probably get the entire information of a part of the spacetime that is causally connected (i.e not separated by horizons).

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • 3
    Sorry, I can not understand what the question is. What do you want to know? Is this just a philosophical question, or is there something more precise behind it? – Quillo Oct 04 '22 at 11:55
  • 2
    "So unitary translations are not unique to timelike coordinates." - all symmetries of a quantum theory must be implemented by (anti-)unitary operators, cf. Wigner's theorem. I do not understand what the point of this question is - perhaps you are confused by an ambiguity in the meaning of "unitarity": The word describes a) the mathematical property of unitarity of a linear operator and b) the physical property of a theory to have a unitary time evolution operator. – ACuriousMind Oct 04 '22 at 12:08
  • @ACuriousMind The question is: can we get the complete dynamical information by only knowing the physics of a "2+1 dimensional submanifold"? It is an "instant of space". Like $z=$ constant in Minkowski space. – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Oct 04 '22 at 12:19
  • @ACuriousMind "all symmetries of a quantum theory must be implemented by (anti-)unitary operators, cf. Wigner's theorem" I was aware of that. But I didn't include it because I think it is very irrelevant to my question. – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Oct 04 '22 at 12:20
  • @ACuriousMind I added, "All symmetries transformations are described by unitary operators but in this question, we only consider spacetime translation symmetry, specifically unitary operators associated with spacelike coordinates." based on your remark. – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Oct 04 '22 at 12:33
  • @Quillo Do you understand the question now? I severely simplified the question in terms of Minkowski spacetime as an example at the end because maybe the people who closed this question misunderstood because I used terminology like Cauchy surfaces. If more clarification is needed I will edit the question. – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Oct 04 '22 at 12:36
  • @Quillo It is not related to philosophy/interpretations. – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Oct 04 '22 at 12:38
  • I don't know what the "physics" of a codimension 1 submanifold are supposed to be when that submanifold isn't space-like. (For one, QFT may associate Hilbert spaces to instants of time, but not to instants of space.) Also, please don't let posts look like revision histories. – ACuriousMind Oct 04 '22 at 12:45
  • @KasiReddySreemanReddy thank you, but even after the edit, the question is unclear. I fail to see what you are asking for. IF your question is (literally) what you wrote in the last sentence of the post ("if we know everything at $(t,x,y,z=0)$, can we know what happens at all other $z$?"), then the answer is "of course NO, unless the system is symmetric under translations along the z-axis". – Quillo Oct 04 '22 at 12:51
  • @Quillo Why is it "of course NO"? – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Oct 04 '22 at 12:52
  • @ACuriousMind I edited because of your comment. It is a slice in spacetime and we are treating it as a boundary condition. If there is an explanation of why QFT won't associate Hilbert spaces with instants of space then that would answer this question. – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Oct 04 '22 at 12:56
  • @KasiReddySreemanReddy because, in general, well-posedness is not guaranteed for this kind of problem (you can not choose your boundary values as you want, they must be already consistent with the natural dynamics of the system defined by the equations of motion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-posed_problem – Quillo Oct 04 '22 at 13:00
  • @Quillo We are not taking a random 2+1 submanifold as the boundary. We are literally taking a slice of a physically allowed spacetime solution and are then questioning whether we can build the remaining spacetime. "I am not choosing my boundary values as I want". – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Oct 04 '22 at 13:05
  • OK, this is the real fundamental information: if you already know the natural solution with infinite precision on a space slice, up to the space and temporal derivatives needed (i.e. the order of the equations of motion in each variable), then "yes" (if your equations of motions are reasonable, like polynomials in the derivatives). You can practically see how this works with, for example, the Klein-Gordon equation or other simple models. You should edit your question to make this point clear (it's the only point that matters) and remove all the useless decoration. – Quillo Oct 04 '22 at 13:18
  • @Quillo Is this question fine: "Can we define a 2+1 submanifold/slice analogous to the Cauchy surface such that we can use this as a boundary condition and find the solution for the reaming full spacetime?" – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Oct 04 '22 at 13:29
  • @KasiReddySreemanReddy would say that it's not very clear because the problem is not "defining the 2+1 slice", but rather "how" to propagate information (and which piece of information! i.e.: we already know the "real" evolution on the slice, this is super important) from a given slice to the whole spacetime. – Quillo Oct 04 '22 at 13:35

1 Answers1

2

In quantum field theory, there is no such thing as the "physics of a '2+1 dimensional submanifold'": The objects in our theory are states and operators on Hilbert spaces and depending on your formalization there's either a single such Hilbert space or one such Hilbert space for every time slice, or even only two Hilbert spaces - one in the infinite asymptotic past and one in the infinite asymptotic future.

In any case, you cannot in general localize the information in the states in this Hilbert space with respect to spacetime position - there are no good relativistic position operators, see e.g. this answer by Valter Moretti, so in this context it makes no sense to talk about information living on non-spacelike slices. QFT does not, in general, have wavefunctions as functions of space(time) that describe its states - states are functionals of the fields, if you want to write them as functionals of something, but not of position.

Non-quantumly, where the values of all observables on any surface are in principle at least a meaningful thing to talk about, this idea also fails - data on surfaces that are not Cauchy surfaces does not suffice to predict what happens on the entire spacetime. In your example in Minkowski space, timelike curves with constant $z$ those constant is unequal to the constant of your "instant of space" do not intersect that surface at all, and hence motion of something along these trajectories is not necessarily detectable by any data confined to that surface. Just because that trajectory is causally connected to the surface doesn't mean stuff that travels along it actually does anything that leaves a trace there. The crucial point of a Cauchy surface is not mere causal connectivity - it is that every inextendible timelike curve intersects it, nothing that exists within the spacetime has a chance to "miss" the Cauchy surface.

Altogether, there is a misunderstanding of the nature of "unitarity" here: All symmetry operators are unitary, and so a time and space translation-invariant physical theory has unitary time and space translation operators. But this doesn't mean that space translation somehow allows you to recover the entire theory from one slice - all that "unitarity" means is that the operator preserves the probabilities between two states when applied to both of them (that is how Wigner's theorem derives that symmetries have to be unitary, after all).

The theory that governs the collision of two particles is translation-invariant, that's why momentum is conserved. But that doesn't mean that we can take a snapshot (every instant into the infinite past and future) of some empty space where none of the particles ever cross through and somehow deduce the existence of colliding particles in some part of space where we didn't look by applying the translation operator - empty space translated just remains empty space.

ACuriousMind
  • 124,833