What is Time ?
Bharath Ron

arXiv:1704.01416v4 [quant-ph] 6 Nov 2017

Abstract
Physics is studying a system based on the information available about it. There are
two approaches to physics, deterministic and the nondeterministic. The deterministic
approaches assume everything is known about the system. Since everything about the
system is almost never known, nondeterministic approaches such as statistical physics and
quantum physics are of high importance. After a tour through informational interpretation
of quantum physics and required mathematical tools, we go into the notion of time.
We address the problem of time and a cluster of problems around measurement in
quantum mechanics. I present a new approach to interpreting time in terms of information
changes. Time will emerge from the non-commutativity of quantum theory. In the third
section we review information thermodynamics and later derive some relations between
our notion of time and the thermal time as in [27].

Time is a very basic physical quantity. Its study began when people sought to understand
dynamics. Prerelativity physics had a very clear notion of time, the absolute time. It was
believed that time flows without relations to anything external. Based on these notions physics
was formulated. Initiated by Einstein, the twentieth century questioned this notion of time for
the first time. Quantum physics which was under development at the time however continued
with the old notion time. Time is absolute in quantum physics and not so in relativity. This
conceptual difference is referred to as the problem of time.
However both these notions of time are reversible, in the sense that dynamics of the physical
process remain well defined when the direction of time is reversed. This is in strong contradiction
to our experience as we perceive time. The direction of time is one way. The notion of time and
other important physical objects in quantum theory are derived from classical notions. This
places quantum theory in an awkward situation of being a more fundamental theory that relies
on a less fundamental theory. The point is to make quantum theory an autonomous theory.
In this article we give a description of time that removes the dependence on irrelevent theories
such as classical mechanics. The standard unitary time evolution will emerge in situations.

1 | Information and Quantum Physics
Bayes’ theorem says that additional information about a system will alter the probabilities of
possible outcomes. Probability depends on the information available about the system. Hence
probability gives one way to describe information.
Shannon’s entropy measures the uncertainty associated with a random variable X. It can be
viewed as a measure of uncertainty of a random variable before measurement or as the amount
of information gained after measurement. If we know that certain values of a random variable
are more probable then we learn little information about the random variable. So the amount
of information gained increases as the corresponding probabilities decrease. Hence the entropy
of a random variable is equal to the information content. The entropy S(X) of the random
variable X (chosen discrete for simplicity) depends only on probabilities of possible outcomes
p(x1 ), . . . , p(xn ),
S(X) = S(p(x1 ), . . . , p(xn )).
Let s[p(xi )] be the information we gain on measuring the random variable X to be xi . If a
second random variable Y is independent of the first random variable X then we have that,
1

p(xi , yj ) = p(xi )p(yj ). Heuristically speaking, learning about Y adds to the information. Hence
we have that,
s[p(xi , yj )] = s[p(xi )p(yj )]
= s[p(xi )] + s[p(yj )].
We can say that the information gain is of the form,
s[p(xi )] = −k log p(xi ).
The negative sign is to make the quantity s positive. The constant k is unimportant and
can be included in the base of the logarithm. The total information associated with the event
X denoted by S(X) is given by,
X
X
S(X) =
p(xi )s[(p(xi ))] = −k
p(xi ) log p(xi ).
i

i

Physics is about studying a given system based on the information that can be obtained
from it. Hence the description of the system consists of two parts. The first being a state of
the system which contains the information known about the system. Second, the observables
which allow an observer to obtain information about the system.
The observables should be modeled so that they include both discrete case and continuous
case. The observables are described in terms of linear operators on the vector space. The
possible values of the observable are the eigenvalues of the operator. This allows the observable
to take both discrete and continuous values. Since measurement outcomes are assumed to be
real, the eigenvalues of the operators corresponding to observables should be real. Since operators containing only real eigenvalues are self adjoint operators, the operators corresponding to
observables are taken to be hermitian. Since the description of information involves probabilities, if the state carries information about the system then each state must have a probability
distribution associated with it.
A physical system is characterized by a collection of preparation procedures, whose application prepares the system in a state. Different preparation procedures may produce a system
in same state. Such states should be considered equivalent. A state of a system is given by an
equivalence class of preparation procedure. Accounting to the fact that preparation procedures
can be combined to produce mixed state, the set of states is taken to be a convex set. Measurement of an observable A is done by registering some outcome Ai from the set of outcomes
{Ai }i∈I . The state ρ fixes the probability distribution for the outcomes. Hence to every state
ρ and outcome Ai there must be a probability µ(ρ, Ai ) associated with the pair.
(ρ, Ai ) −→ µ(Ai |ρ).
Suppose a particular observable is to be measured then different measurement procedures yield
the same probability for any state. Hence these measurement procedures are equivalent to each
other. The observable can therefore be thought of as an equivalence class of measurements.
This means that each outcome Ai of the observable A corresponds to a functional EAi called
effect of Ai that acts on the state of the system to yield the corresponding probability.
EAi : ρ 7→ EAi (ρ) = µ(Ai |ρ).
The observable may be defined as the map that assigns to each of its outcomes Ai its associated
effect. The observable is defined as the map,
EA : Ai 7→ EAi .
Since each state fixes the probability distribution we have,
µρ : Ai 7→ µρ (Ai ) = µ(Ai |ρ).
The above given map µρ is determined by the observable EA . The properties of the probability
distribution µρ are also contained in EA . Hence an observable is an effect valued measure
2

that gives to each possible outcome Ai its effect EAi . Since mixture of states correspond to
convex combination of probabilities any state functional EAi preserves the convex structure.
The effects are taken to be linear functionals on the space of states.
A spectral measure is a projection operator
valued function E defined on the Borel sets of
P
R such that, E(R) = I and E(ti i ) = i E(i ). Where i are Borel sets of R. By Spectral
theorem it’s known that to every self adjoint operator A there corresponds a spectral measure
EA such that,
Z
A = λ dEA (λ).
The vector space of states of a system should carry some more structure that allows us to
define probability measures. Giving an inner product h·|·i on the vector space provides us with
enough structure. Hence the state space to be studied is a Hilbert space. The Gleason’s theorem
reduces the problem of probabilities tremendously.
Theorem 1.1. (Gleason) The only possible measures on complex separable Hilbert spaces
H of dimension greater than 2 are measures of the form
µA () = T r(ρEA ()).
where ρ is a positive semidefinite self adjoint operator of unit trace and EA is the spectral
measure of the self adjoint operator A.
If the state corresponds to a probability distribution then the observables are the corresponding random variables. In quantum mechanics the states are represented by self adjoint
positive unit trace operators. We denote the set of all states on the Hilbert space H by S(H).
This set is a convex set. The extreme points of this convex set are called pure states. By
Gleason’s theorem the probability functionals ρ 7→ µρ (Ai ) will be of the form,
ρ 7→ µρ (Ai ) = T r(ρEAi ).
Here EAi is the projection on to the eigenspace of A with eigenvalue Ai . Since probabilities
are positive quantities the effects are given by positive operators with sum adding to 1. The
corresponding observables which are effect valued measures will be positive operator valued
measures (POVM). A quantum mechanical experiment is represented by a pair (ρ, EA ) where ρ
is the state and EA is a POVM corresponding to the observable A. If (Ω, F) is a measure space
then a POVM is a map E : F → L(H) that assigns to each element N of F a positive operator
E(N ). A theorem of Naimark says that any positive operator valued measure can be realized
as a projection valued measure on some bigger Hilbert space. This ensures the existence of
a measurement for every observable. For an observable the eigenvalues represent events. The
projection valued measure associated to each self adjoint operator associates each to such event
a projection operator. The expected value of the observable A will be given by,
Z
hAi = λ dµA (λ) = T r(ρA).
The Hilbert space is separable means that it admits a countable basis. But we want our model
to be able to handle the case where observables can take continuous values. To accommodate
this the Hilbert space is extended to so called Rigged Hilbert space. Interested readers should
refer to [8].
The language of quantum mechanics consists of observables and states. We intend to generalize the notion further. The observables form an algebra, say A. There exists a ∗ operation
on the algebra ∗ : A 7→ A∗ such that A∗∗ = A. This operation corresponds to the adjoint
operation on operators. The algebra inherits a norm from the Hilbert space on which it acts
such that kA∗ Ak = kAk2 . An algebra with the above properties that is also complete under
the topology given by the metric is called a C ∗ algebra. The concept of state on A can be abstracted from what we know of density matrices. The states on the C ∗ -algebra A are positive
linear functionals ω with unit norm.
ω(A∗ A) ≥ 0,
3

ω(1) = 1.

For two states ω, φ we write ω  φ iff supp(ω) ⊆ supp(φ). A system can be studied from
its algebra of observables and a state on the algebra. This approach is called the algebraic
quantum physics. The standard Hilbert space quantum mechanics can be recovered from the
algebraic approach via the GNS construction which will be described below.
Since every element can be written as a sum of self adjoint elements it can be showed that
ω(A∗ ) = ω(A). This allows us to define a positive semidefinite sesquilinear form on the algebra
of observables.
hA|Bi = ω(A∗ B).
Since this is a positive semidefinite sesquilinear form the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, |hA|Bi|2 ≤
hA|AihB|Bi will be satisfied. Let J ⊂ A be the set of elements such that, ω(A∗ A) = hA|Ai = 0,
using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality it can be shown that this is a left ideal of A. This ideal is
called the Gelfand ideal of the state ω. This ideal helps us remove the elements of the algebra
which give the hA|Bi zero. The quotient space A/J as a vector space is an inner product space
under the well defined inner product,
h[A]|[B]i = hA|Bi.
where [A] = A + J . This inner product space is completed by taking all the Cauchy sequences
and this gives us a Hilbert space Hω . On this Hilbert space the action of the algebra A of
observables can be defined as,
πω (X)|[A]i = |[XA]i.
This gives a representation of the algebra A on the Hilbert space Hω as h[A]|πω (X ∗ )[B]i =
h[A]|[X ∗ B]i = ω(A∗ X ∗ B) = h[XA]|[B]i = hπω (X)[A]|[B]i =⇒ π(X ∗ ) = π(X)∗ . On this
Hilbert space πω (A)|[1]i is dense hence Ωω = |[1]i forms a cyclic vector for the representation.
ω(A) = hΩω |πω (A)|Ωω i = T r (ρω πω (A)) .
Where ρω = |Ωω ihΩω |. The vector Ωω is called the Gelfand vector. To every state ω on an
algebra of observables A there exists a triple (Hω , πω , Ωω ) which gives a representation. We
denote the set of all states on the algebra A by S(A). Hence the Hilbert space approach and
the algebraic approach are equivalent and in this article we use whichever is easier to work with
in different situations. More generally we may consider the states,
ωρ (A) = T r (ρπω (A)) .
with ρ a positive trace class1 operator L(Hω ). The set of all such states is called the folium of the
representation πω . Since quantum mechanics tells expectations of observables the convergences
needed are in the weak sense that is {Xn } → X if
hΨ|Xn Φi → hΨ|XΦi.
The topology with the above notion of convergence is called the weak topology. Hence we are
interested in the algebra of observables that are closed under weak topology. A von Neumann
algebra is a C ∗ -algebra closed under weak topology. The algebra of observables considered will
be von Neumann algebras. For this reason whenever we are interested in talking about sets of
states, etc. the topology is assumed to be weak topology unless otherwise stated.
The von Neumann double commutant theorem states that a C ∗ algebra whose bicommutant
is itself is a von Neumann algebra. Hence for every von Neumann algebra A we have, A00 = A.
This requires us to think of the von Neumann algebra as an algebra of bounded operators on
a Hilbert space. A theorem of Sakai characterizes von Neumann algebras without going to
the Hilbert space. It states that von Neumann algebras are C ∗ algebras that have a Banach
predual. That is if A is a von Neumann algebra then there exists a Banach space whose dual
is the algebra A. These two can be used as definitions of a von Neumann algebra.
The algebra of observables represent the ways in which information can be obtained. Each
observer is represented by an algebra of observables. Let two observers A1 and A2 differ by
1 An

operator is said to be trace class if it has finite trace.

4

an element g of the symmetry group of the theory. Then the observables of the corresponding
observers are related to each other as A1 = U (g)A2 U † (g) where U is the unitary representation
of the symmetry group on the GNS Hilbert space.
Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory that contains absurdities(peculiarities?) such
as non-commutativity. It should hence be noticed that information in the quantum mechanical
sense will be structurally different from information in Shannon’s sense [9]. Hence it’s better
to take quantum theory as it is and not try to derive it from some information theoretic
arguments. Let J be the functional that associates to each state a real number that represents
the information content. The information contained by a state should have equal weight for
each observable. Hence if α is a ∗-algebra automorphism of the C ∗ -algebra A and ω is a state
on A then,
J(ω ◦ α) = J(ω).
If ω is a state on a matrix algebra then the above equation tells that J(ω) depends only on the
eigenvalue list of the corresponding density matrix ρω . Which means that the function is the
trace of some function of the density matrix. Hence for some function η,
J(ω) = −T r (η(ρω )) .
Since information is related to probabilities it is reasonable to expect that information depends
continuously on states. That is to say the map ω 7→ J(ω) is continuous. Suppose a state ω
contains information about only a subspace of the system then for the corresponding projection
p to the subspace ω(p) = 1 for such a state it should be expected that the information about
the whole space is equal to the information about the subspace i.e, J(ω) = J(ω |p A p).
Two states ω1 and ω2 are said to be disjoint if the eigenvectors corresponding to their
respective density matrices are orthogonal. Which means that the subsystems they represent
are independent of each others. The information contained by a convex combination of such
pairwise disjoint states should be equal to the sum of the information contained individually.
If ω1 , . . . , ωn are pairwise disjoint states and (λ1 , . . . , λn ) is a probability distribution then,
J(λ1 ω1 + · · · + λn ωn ) =

n
X

λi J(ωi ) + S(λ1 , . . . , λn ).

i=1

It is shown in [16] that any functional J satisfying the above properties will be identical to the
von Neumann entropy given by the formula,
J(ω) = −T r (ρω log ρω ) .
The quantum relative entropy also known as Umegaki distance is defined by,
J(ωkϕ) = Tr (ρω (log ρω − log ρϕ )) .
Klein’s inequality states that the quantum relative entropy is non negative J(ωkϕ) ≥ 0 and
zero if and only if ω = ϕ. We are using different notations here to avoid conflict.
The purpose of this section was to make the reader flexible with using the appropriate mathematical tools required for the purpose and not just rely only on Hilbert space formalism. I
hope this section convinces a superstitious physicist to abandon the many world, hidden variable nonsense and appreciate the informational interpretation(another superstition?). Though
informational interpretation is not necessary for reading the rest of the paper, it gives the much
needed intuition for various arguments presented here. For more radical new foundations of
quantum theory the interested reader is referred to [21].

5

2 | Time and the Measurement Problem
States of a system change due to two reasons in quantum mechanics. The first being the unitary
time evolution. Second, the collapse that occurs during a measurement. This collapse indicates
the knowledge gained from the measurement outcome. The rule describing this collapse is
given by the von Neumann-Lüder postulate. Here we adopt Peres’ attitude that unperformed
experiments have no results [15].
Let A be a discrete observable with events given by the set {Ai } and the corresponding
projection operators {EAi }. If the state of the system before measurement is ρ and the measurement gives the value Ai then the von Neumann-Lüder postulate (strong rule) says that the
state after the measurement will be given by the density matrix
ρi =

EAi ρEAi
.
T r[EAi ρEAi ]

The denominator just ensures the density matrix ρi is normalized. Each state change during a
measurement encodes the information gained during the measurement.
If a measurement for the observable A is known to have occurred then one of the events
corresponding to the observable will take place. Hence in a measurement without any selection
or result the state of the system undergoes the transformation given by the weak rule:
X
X
ρ 7→
EAi ρEAi =
T r[ρEAi ]ρi .
i

i

If the Ak is the measurement outcome then this state collapses to ρk . Quantum measurement is
the reason for most philosophical problems in quantum mechanics. Every measurement induces
a change in the state of the system. From Klein’s inequality we have, 0 ≤ J(ρkρ0 ) whenever
ρ 6= ρ0 . Hence this change can be noticed from the relative entropy.
Perception of time is an elementary experience. Heuristically time changes for an observer
if the observer notices some change in the system. If the observer notices no change at all then
it’s equivalent to no change in time. Suppose an observable is observed then this change is
noticed from the change of information as described before.
Postulate. (Time) Observation of a system changes time for the observer.
Here I give some heuristic argument on how time and measurement are related. If a system
is measured for an observable A then at some time before the measurement the value of the
observable is unknown, and after some time the value of observable is known. Hence to each
measurement one can associate a time interval, call it measurement time. Every quantum measurement changing the state of the system will correspond to some time change and conversely
to each change in time there is some change in the state due to measurement or otherwise unless
the system is in equilibrium.
Suppose A and B are two observables then to the set of events associated to each of the
observables, logical operations consisting of union and intersection can be associated. If Ai and
Bj are two events of the observables A and B respectively then Ai ∪ Bj represents the event of
occurrence of Ai or Bj . Union is commutative Ai ∪ Bj = Bj ∪ Ai , associative Ai ∪ (Bj ∪ Ck ) =
(Ai ∪ Bj ) ∪ Ck and idempotent Ai ∪ Ai = Ai . Ai ∩ Bj represents the event of occurrence of
both Ai and Bj . Intersection is associative Ai ∩ (Bj ∩ Ck ) = (Ai ∩ Bj ) ∩ Ck but not in general
commutative. If for each set of events Ai and Bj the intersections commute, Ai ∩ Bj = Bj ∩ Ai
then the observables A and B are said to be compatible or the operators corresponding to the
observables commute.
Two observables A and B can be measured consecutively even if they do not commute.
Suppose the observable B is measured on the system in the state ρ with outcome Bj then the
state after the measurement will be given by,
ρ Bj =

EBj ρEBj
.
T r[EBj ρEBj ]

6

Suppose the observable A is measured after the above measurement then the probability that
the observable A takes the value Ai will be given by p(Ai |Bj ) = T r[ρBj EAi ] called the Lüder
transition probability. If the measurement gives the value Ai then the state of the system will
be,
EAi EBj ρEAi EBj
.
ρAi Bj =
T r[EAi EBj ρEAi EBj ]
If the two observables A and B are compatible then ρAi Bj = ρBj Ai . Suppose A and B are
compatible then the measurement sequence A → B → A is equivalent to the measurement
sequence A → A → B. Hence in the first sequence of measurements the value of the observable
A obtained in the last measurement will be the same as the value in the first measurement.
Let AA be the subalgebra of the observable algebra A consisting of elements that commute
with A. The whole subalgebra AA can be measured without any loss in knowledge about the
observable A. Suppose the algebra of observables is commutative then all the observables can be
measured without disturbing other observables, getting complete information about the system.
Suppose B is an observable that is not contained in the subalgebra AA then after measurement
of B nothing can be said about the observables in the subalgebra AA . Complete information
cannot be obtained for a system with non-commutating observables. Hence the system can
always be measured to get new information. Non-commutativity forces the system to always
have some information about it and the observer can keep obtaining new information from it.
This gives a reason why time would flow.
Suppose ρ and ρ0 are two states then the Umegaki distance or the relative entropy J(ρkρ0 ) =
Tr (ρ(log ρ − log ρ0 )) = 0 iff ρ = ρ0 . Hence any changes can be detected from the relative
entropy. The Umegaki distance or the relative entropy defines a nonsymmetric distance on the
set of states i.e, J(ρkσ) 6= J(σkρ). Hence from here on relative entropy can be used to notice
changes. The more accurately we know about the value of the observable the less information
we have about it. Hence when an initial state is known the relative entropy functional is the
one that is to be optimized. For the case of a measurement we only know about what is the
final value of measurement of the observable. It’s shown in [20] that the strong collapse rule
always selects the unique state that maximizes the quantum relative entropy with respect to
the initial state subject to the constraint about the final value obtained by measurement. For
general quantum systems refer to [22]. Suppose an observable B is measured with result Bk
then the probability of measureing Bk again is T r(PBk [PBk ρPBk ]/T r(PBk ρPBk )) = 1. The
state ρ0 = PBk ρPBk /T r(PBk ρPBk ) is not the only state with this property. This set is a convex
set. [20], [22] have shown that the state that maximizes the relative entropy in this set is the
one given by the strong von Neumann-Lüder’s rule. For discussion on this the interested reader
should read their original paper and the references there.
It should be noted that the Lüder’s rule is about calibrating with the experimental result
and has no predictivity. The predictivity is associated the state of the system alone and are
statistical predictions.

3 | Information Thermodynamics
Here I introduce the notation and compile the results required for the purpose of this article
and give a brief review of informational approach to thermodynamics as developed in [12], [13]
and [14]. We skip the proofs here and give the proof idea if we deem is important.
Entropy measures the amount of information and is not the information itself. Information
is a complicated object. Entropy is an important functional even though it is just some notion
of amount of information. It hence requires an explanation as to why entropy is important.
Any physical system is characterized by observables and states. These observables make
sense only in presence of observers. Without observers there is no meaning in saying that an
observable has so and so value. It’s the value observed by some observer. Hence the observer
can be directly identified with the algebra of observables. In classical physics this algebra of
observables is commutative, hence the values of all the observables can be known at once. In
such a case the state can be characterized with the values of the observables. But in case of
quantum physics the algebra of observables is non-commutative which means that we cannot
7

know the values of all the observables at once. But we can say what is the expected value
of some observable. This means that the observer can only predict based on the information
available about the system. This information known is described by a density matrix.
Lesser the information we have about the random variable more accurately we know about
its value. By maximizing entropy we can say about the values of the observables more accurately. Maximizing the entropy is hence important in physics. What we are interested in is
statistical inferences on the basis of incomplete information. In commutative case the states
are described by the values of the observables and these states are called microstates. If only
partial information is given about the microstate then the principle of maximum entropy states
that the system is described by that macrostate which has maximum entropy compatible with
the available information. It was first properly studied by E T Jaynes [10] & [11]. The principle
of maximum entropy for quantum systems can be found in [13] & [14] we will briefly describe
it here. In quantum physics we are dealing with non-commuting observables and the partial
information we have is the expected values of the observables.
Postulate. (Principle of Maximum Entropy) With the expectation values known
the quantum mechanical system is described by the state with maximum entropy.
The meaning of the postulate is that the information available is only in the form of expectation values and the state we are looking for is the one that maximizes entropy constrained
by those expectations. Let the observables be A = {Ai }i∈I constrained by the expected value
of the observables hAi i = ai . The task is to find a state that maximizes the entropy with
respect to the constraint. Then the map πA : S(H) → RI such that πA (ρ) = {T r(ρAi )}i∈I is a
−1
continuous map. RI comes with product topology. For each a ∈ RI the set πA
(a) is a closed
convex set of S(H).
An self adjoint operator H is called thermodynamically regular if there exists a real number
β with the property,
T r(e−βH ) < ∞.
R
Let H = λdEH (λ) be its spectral representation of the self adjoint operator H. For any
arbitrary basis {ϕi | i ∈ N} of the Hilbert space H we have,
T r(e

−βH

)=

∞
X

hϕi |e

−βH

ϕi i =

i=1

∞ Z
X

e−βλ dhϕi |EH (λ)ϕi i.

i=1

Considering the projection operator Q ≡ EH (z) − EH (y) for y, z ∈ R and y < z we obtain,
Z
Z z
e−βλ dhϕi |EH (λ)ϕi i ≥
e−βλ dhϕi |EH (λ)ϕi i ≥ min{e−βy , e−βz }hϕi |Qϕi i.
y

This yields us T r(e−βH ) ≥ min{e−βy , e−βz }T r(Q). Which implies that the operator Q is trace
class. Hence any thermodynamically regular operator will have a point spectrum, without limit
points and eigenvalues are of finite multiplicity. Regular operators are also unbounded and
bounded on one side.
−1
Lemma 3.1. Let H be a self adjoint operator and h is a real number. Then the set J(πH
(h))
has a finite supremum if and only if H is thermodynamically regular.

The spectral set of a self adjoint operator with point spectrum is the set of eigenvalues
which occur in a diagonal representation. The spectral set of an operator A is denoted by
S(A). Without loss of generality we assume that the regular operators of interest to us are
bounded from below. For the regular operator H let the spectral set S(H) = {h1 , h2 . . . }. Set,
Z(β) ≡ T r(e−βH ).
Set β̂ ≡ inf{β ∈ R | Z(β) < ∞}. It is called critical if Z(β̂) < ∞. In such a case we set
ĥ = Z(β̂)−1 T r(He−β̂H ). For every β ∈ [β̂, ∞) we define a self adjoint operator,
ρβ = Z(β)−1 e−βH .
8

This operator defines a state. The correspondence β 7→ T r(ρβ H) maps the interval (β̂, ∞) one
to one and continuously onto the interval (h1 , ĥ). To each h1 < h < ĥ we have a β ∈ (β̂, ∞)
such that hHi = T r(ρβ H).
Theorem 3.2. For every h ∈ (h1 , ĥ) the entropy J has a unique maximum and is attained
for the state ρβ where β is such that T r(ρβ H) = h. The maximum entropy is,
−1
sup{J(πH
(h))} = ln Z(β) + βh.

The functions Z, hHi and J(ρβ ) are differentiable and satisfy the relation,
h=−

∂ ln Z(β)
.
∂β

β is analogous to the inverse temperature occurring in statistical mechanics.
They also satisfy the relations ∂T r(ρβ H)/∂β = −∂ 2 Z(β)/∂β 2 = −h(H − hHi)2 i < 0 and
∂T r(ρβ ln ρβ )/∂β = βT r(ρβ H)/∂β. Here we discussed the case for which the expectation of
one observable was assumed. In the classical case the maximization can be done by straight
forward application of Lagrange multipliers method. For a generalization of this result for more
than one observables the interested reader should refer [14].
The state ρβ is the famous Gibbs state when H is the Hamiltonian of the system. A system
will in equilibrium if it has constant temperature. It’s important to note that we do not regard
temperature as an intrinsic quantity of the system, but rather as an external condition that
says that the system is in equilibrium. Given a system at equilibrium with a temperature β
the state of the system is given by the β-Gibbs state,
ρβ = e−βH /T r(e−βH ).
The evolution of the quantum statistical mechanics is given by the time evolution operator
τt : A 7→ eiHt Ae−iHt . We want to study equilibrium of general quantum systems for whose
description we need to use the language of operator algebras.
Before going to equilibrium states in the algebraic setting we discuss the time evolution in
the algebraic setting. Let A be a C ∗ -algebra, a function of the form τ : R → Aut(A) : t 7→ τt
is called a one parameter ∗-automorphism group of A if τ0 is the identity map on A and
τs τt = τs+t . A W ∗ -dynamical system is a pair (A, τ ) where A is a von Neumann algebra and
the automorphisms t 7→ τt (A) are weakly continuous. Time evolution in standard approaches
are described in terms of W ∗ -dynamical system. In local quantum physics locality is imposed
by the introduction of net of observables O 7→ A(O) where each O is a subset of the background
space-time. If we have two subsets O1 and O2 such that O1 ⊆ O2 then A(O1 ) ⊆ A(O2 ). The
algebra of observables of the union of regions will be generated by the individual algebras,
A(O1 ∪ O2 ) = A(O1 ) ∨ A(O2 ). The inductive limit C ∗ -algebra consisting of all the observables
denoted by A will be the algebra of observables to be studied. The structure of the algebra
of observables depends on the background space-time. In a quantum theory of gravity the
background is not going to be fixed. The algebra of observables is going to be dynamical.
Though we are not going to go into any details on this issue we have to keep that in mind.
Given a W ∗ -dynamical system we think it’s better to interpret τt (A) as a different algebra.
Now we discuss the generalization of the Hilbert space equilibrium to general quantum
systems described in the algebraic framework. The KMS condition serves as the appropriate
substitute for the Gibbs’ description. We introduce the KMS condition and discuss some
properties without proofs.
Let τ be a weakly continuous one parameter group of automorphisms on the von Neumann
algebra A. An element A of the algebra A is said to be analytic for τ if there there exists a
strip Iλ = {z | |Im z| < λ} ⊂ C and a function f : Iλ → A such that,
f (t) = τt (A) for every real t
z 7→ ω(f (z)) is analytic for every state ω.
9

We denote the set of all τ -analytic elements of the algebra A by Aτ . It’s shown in [28] that
Aτ is weakly dense in A. We need an abstraction of the Gibbs equilibrium condition. It turns
out that the following is enough for the purpose.
Definition 3.1. (KMS) Let (A, τ ) be a W ∗ -dynamical system. A state ω on A is called a
(τ, β)-KMS state for β ∈ R if ω is normal and satisfies the relation,
ω(Aτiβ (B)) = ω(BA).
If such a β exists then the state ω is said to satisfy the KMS condition.
The condition is named after Kubo, Martin and Schwinger. It’s easy to see that the Gibbs
state satisfies the KMS condition. β can be eliminated by rescaling t to βt. It’s shown ([23],[28])
that on a W ∗ dynamical system (A, τ ) a state ω satisfies the (τ, β)-KMS condition if for every
A, B ∈ A there exists a complex valued function fAB bounded and continuous on the strip Iβ ,
analytic on the interior and satisfies the conditions,
fAB (t) = ω(Aτt (B)),

fAB (t + iβ) = ω(τt (B)A).

which are the boundary values of the function fAB . Width of the strip Iβ is to be interpreted
as the inverse temperature. The infinitesimal generator of the automorphism group τ , denoted
by δ is defined as
d
δ(A) = τt (A)|t=0 .
dt
The domain D(δ) is the set of all A ∈ A for which δ(A) exists. δ is a linear map on the algebra
A such that limt→0 (τt (A) − τ0 (A) − δ(A))/t = 0. In particular it’s a ∗ -derivation, δ(1) = 0,
δ(AB) = δ(A)B + Aδ(B) and δ(A∗ ) = δ(A)∗ .
Let ω be a state on the algebra A. Then ω is a (τ, β)-KMS state iff it satisfies the following
inequality
−iβω(A∗ δ(A)) ≥ ω(A∗ A) ln ω(A∗ A)/ω(AA∗ ).
That is to say if ω is a KMS state then it satisfies the above inequality and conversely if a
state ω satisfies the above inequality then it’s a (τ, β)-KMS state. It’s important to see why
KMS states represent equilibrium. For a (τ, β)-KMS state ω we have ω(Aτiβ (B)) = ω(BA) and
by putting A = 1 we get that, ω(τiβ (B)) = ω(B).
ω(τz+iβ (B)) = ω(τz τiβ (B)) = ω(τz (B)).
If we define f (z) ≡ ω(τz (B)) we have f (z + iβ) = f (z). f is analytic on the strip Iβ and due
to its periodicity it’s analytic for all z ∈ C.
Using the KMS state a GNS Hilbert space can be constructed on which the algebra A can
be represented. Let (Hω , πω , Ωω ) be the corresponding GNS representation, then the vector Ωω
is separating for πω (A). On this Hilbert space the inner product is defined using the state ω as,
hA|Bi = ω(A∗ B). So using Cauchy-Schwartz inequality we have |ω(AB)|2 ≤ kAkkBk. Hence
we get,
|f (z)| = |ω(τz (B))| ≤ kτz (B)k = kτx+iy (B)k = kτx τiy (B)k ≤ kτiy (B)k.
hence f is bounded on the strip Iβ . Due to the periodicity it’s analytic and bounded on C. By
Liouville’s theorem this implies that f is constant for all analytic elements B.
ω(τt (A)) = ω(A),

for all B ∈ Aτ .

On a W ∗ -dynamical system (A, τ ), if ω is a KMS state then ω ◦ τt = ω. These properties
tell that the KMS states are maximum entropy states with respect to Hamiltonian and are
invariant under the evolution. Equilibrium state should be stable under perturbations. In
standard quantum mechanics where the evolution is given in terms of the Hamiltonian, the
generator δ will be, δ(·) = i[H, ·]. So if we want to perturb this evolution we add a term of the
form, i[P, ·] where P = P ∗ . Physically a small perturbation of the dynamics should not modify
the equilibrium state. It turns out that KMS states are stable under such perturbations.
10

In the finite dimensional case, consider the Gibbs state ρβ , suppose we have a time dependent
Hamiltonian H(t) = H(t)∗ on the interval [0, T ] and U be the associated unitary evolution on
the interval. The change in energy between time t = 0 and t = T is given by,
∆E = T r(U ρβ U ∗ H) − T r(ρβ H) = T r(ρβ U ∗ [H, U ]) = −iωβ (U ∗ δ(U )).
The total work done by the system on the environment in an arbitrary cyclic process should be
non positive on average. Hence we expect that −∆E ≥ 0 or that −iωβ (U ∗ δ(U )) ≥ 0
A state ω on (A, τ ) is said to be passive if,
−iω(U ∗ δ(U )) ≥ 0.
for any U ∈ D(δ) which are contained in the connected component of the identity of the group
of all unitary elements of A.
Given a W ∗ -dynamical system (A, τ ) with generator δ we would like to study a perturbation
of the form δP = i[P, ·] on A. The new dynamics will be given by the generator δ+δP . Physically
one would expect that small perturbations do not modify the equilibrium state ω. Also we
should expect a state ω P that is invariant under the new dynamics and ω λP approximates ω for
sufficiently small λ. The dynamics now is given by a perturbed Hamiltonian. The perturbed
group τ P is given by the integral equation,
Z t
τtP (A) = τt (A) +
τt−s (i[P, τsP (A)])ds.
0

and can be computed using perturbation theory.
A state ω on (A, τ ) is said to kinematically stable if for every map P 7→ ω P from a neighborhood U of 0 such that 0 7→ ω fulfills the conditions, ω P is τP invariant and limλ→0 kω λP −ωk = 0.
Suppose we have a one parameter family of self adjoint elements t 7→ Pt = Pt∗ which describe the
local changes in the dynamics. The family {Pt } gives a one parameter family of automorphisms
determined by the differential equation,
dτtP
(A) = τtP (δ(A) + i[Pt , A]),
dt

for all A ∈ D(δ).

For the case of finite systems we can write δ(A) = i[H, A], where H is the Hamiltonian and
corresponds to the energy operator of the unperturbed system. Furthermore writing, τtP (A) =
U (t)AU ∗ (t) we have,
d P
τ (A) = iτtP [H P (t), A].
dt t
where H P (t) = H +Pt and corresponds to the energy operator of the perturbed system. We are
interested in cyclic processes on t ∈ [0, T ] such that P0 = PT = 0. Then the energy transferred
to the system in the time interval during which the external influence acts will be
!
Z T
d P
P
∆P E = ω(τT (H) − H) = ω
(τt (H))dt .
0 dt
Substituting H P in place of A in the above differential equation we get that d/dt(τtP (H P (t0 )))|t0 =t =
0 =d/dt(τtP (H)) +d/dt(τtP (Pt0 ))|t0 =t . The energy transfer can then be written as ∆P E =
R d P
R d P
R
RT d P
d
−ω 0 dt
τt Pt dt . Integrating by parts we get,
Pt dt = P (t)
dt− τtP dt
Pt dt.
dt τt
dt τt
Using the boundary conditions P0 = PT = 0 we have,

 !
Z T
d
P
∆P E = ω
τt
Pt dt .
dt
0
−iHt
Defining ΓP
we get,
t = U (t)e
∗

∗

P
P
P
∆P E = ω(ΓP
T HΓT − H) = −iω(ΓT δ(ΓT )).

11

Though H and U (t) cannot be defined for infinite dimensional case ΓP
t will be a well defined
d P
unitary given by the differential equation, dt
Γt = iΓP
τ
(P
).
Hence
a
state
is passive satisfying
t
t t
∆P E ≥ 0 for any continuous family of self adjoint operators Pt ∈ A. For a cyclic process energy
cannot be extracted from a system which is in a passive states.
Theorem 3.3. (Pusz-Woronowicz) Equilibrium states on (A, τ ) are identically the passive states. Each passive states are the KMS states for some non negative β.
From the inequality −iβω(A∗ δ(A)) ≥ ω(A∗ A) ln ω(A∗ A)/ω(AA∗ ), we know that every KMS
state is passive. Hence passivity provides a characterization of equilibrium.
3.1 | Tomita-Takesaki Theory
We are interested in studying the connection between the von Neumann algebra of observables
and its commutant. Such a structure was given by Tomita, associating to each given von
Neumann algebra and a state a modular structure {J, ∆} which will be described in a Physicsy
way below.
Given a pair (A, ω) where A is a von Neumann algebra and ω is a faithful state. The GNS
Hilbert space Hω and a Gelfand vector Ωω can be constructed. If Ωω is such that AΩω = 0
then ω(A∗ A) = 0, which implies A = 0. The Gelfand vector for a faithful state ω is separating2
for the von Neumann algebra A. It can be proved that the vector Ωω is cyclic and separating
for A0 also. Where A0 is the commutant of the algebra A. In order to use the structure of
Hilbert space the involution of the algebra A is transferred to the dense subspace AΩω of Hω :
θω : A → AΩω , A 7→ AΩω .
θω−1
A
AΩω
∗

A

S

θω

AΩω

Let D = AΩω and D0 = A0 Ωω . Two well defined anti-linear operators S and F can be
defined on D and D0 respectively by, SAΩω = A∗ Ωω and F BΩω = B ∗ Ωω respectively. The
operator S is called the Tomita operator for the pair (A, ω). It can be proved that F = S ∗ .
Both the operators S and F are invertible and are equal to their respective inverses.
Define an operator
∆ = F S = S ∗ S.
Then the operator ∆ is invertible with inverse ∆−1 = SF = SS ∗ . Since SΩω = F Ωω = Ωω we
have ∆Ωω = Ωω . By polar decomposition there exists a partial anti isometry J such that,
S = J(S ∗ S)1/2 = J∆1/2 .
This is called the modular decomposition of S. Furthermore J∆1/2 = (SS ∗ )1/2 J = ∆−1/2 J
but since F = S ∗ we have the following properties,
F = ∆1/2 J,

S 2 = J∆1/2 ∆−1/2 J = J 2 = I,

∆−1 = J∆J.

Since the operator ∆ is self adjoint there exists a spectral measure E∆ associated to it. Thus
the operator ∆−1 = J∆J has the spectral measure JE∆ J. Hence for a function3 f ,
Z
f (∆−1 ) = f˜(λ)JdE∆ (λ)J
Z
= f˜(λ)JdE∆ (λ)J
Z
= f˜(λ)JdE∆ (λ)J
= J f˜(∆)J.
2
3

A vector |Ωi is said to be separating for A if for any A ∈ A then A|Ωi = 0 implies A = 0.
Bounded, Borel function

12

Hence we get, f (∆−1 ) = J f˜(∆)J. By taking f (x) = xit we get,
∆it = J∆−it J.
The operator ∆ is called the modular operator and J is called the modular conjugate. ∆it =
eit log ∆ is a unitary operator for each t. The main theorem of the Tomita-Takesaki theory will
be stated below,
Theorem 3.4. (Tomita-Takesaki) JAJ = A0 and ∆it A∆−it = A.
The map, σt (A) = ∆it A∆−it gives a one parameter group of automorphisms on A called
the group of modular automorphisms of the state ω on the algebra A. It is called the Tomita
flow or the modular flow. Writing ∆ = e−K and ∆it = eitK the self adjoint operator K is called
the modular Hamiltonian.
Let ω and ϕ be two faithful normal states with corresponding Gelfand vectors Ωω and Ωϕ
that separate the algebra A. Then one can define the map,
Sωϕ AΩϕ = A∗ Ωω ,

∀ A ∈ A.

This operator has a polar decomposition given by,
Sωϕ = Jωϕ (∆ωϕ )1/2 .
The positive operator ∆ωϕ is called the relative modular operator of the pair ω and ϕ. Using
it log ∆ωϕ
. It can be
this unitary operators can be defined as in the previous case by ∆it
ωϕ = e
shown that for any two such state,
−it
it
−it
∆it
ωϕ A∆ωϕ = ∆ω A∆ω .
0 −it
it 0 −it
∆it
ωϕ A ∆ωϕ = ∆ϕ A ∆ϕ .

where A ∈ A and A0 ∈ A0 . Suppose there is a third faithful state ω 0 then defining for such
triples, the Connes’ cocycle is defined by,
−it
[Dω : Dϕ]t := ∆it
ωω 0 ∆ϕω 0 .

It can be showed that this is an element of the algebra A. Since ω 0 is faithful the above definition
is well defined. Under suitable support conditions for the states this satisfies the chain rule,
[Dω : Dϕ]t = [Dω : Dσ]t [Dσ : Dϕ]t .
The relative entropy for a general quantum system is defined in terms of the relative modular
operator ∆ωϕ by the formula, J(ωkϕ) = −hΩω | log ∆ϕω Ωω i which in finite dimensional case
reduces to the standard Umegaki entropy. It was shown that the relative entropy is related to
the Connes’ cocycle by,
d
.
J(ωkϕ) = i ω ([Dω : Dϕ]t )
dt
t=0
Where [Dω : Dϕ]t is the Connes’ cocycle. It gives unitary elements of the algebra A continuously depending on the real parameter t. It has the property,
[Dω : Dϕ]1/2i Ωω = Ωϕ .
Theorem 3.5. A faithful normal state ω is a KMS state for (A, σ) with temperature β = 1,
where σt is the associated one parameter group of modular automorphisms.
The purpose of introducing informational approach to thermodynamics is to relate the notion
of time discussed in this paper with the thermal time introduced in [27]. Given the dynamics
of a system, imposing the KMS condition we obtain equilibrium states. The Tomita-Takesaki
theory says that if we know that certain system in a given state is in equilibrium then the
dynamics can be obtained.
13

Postulate. (Thermal Time Hypothesis) The physical time flow governing the macroscopic behavior of a quantum system in equilibrium is given by the tomita flow.
For an analysis of the thermal time hypothesis refer [29]. The stuff discussed so far says
that time is an emergent phenomena but don’t yet explain why there happens to be a flow of
time. Since the equilibrium state doesn’t change during the evolution it’s important to address
what exactly happens.

4 | Conclusion
The operational framework of quantum theory are in terms of states and observables. Interpreting a theory should be in terms of something deeper than the theory itself. Hence interpreting
quantum mechanics in terms of classical physics is as bad as interpreting classical physics using
world turtle. Since information is a deep concept, interpreting quantum physics in terms of
information is justified.
The informational description of physics gives us an intrinsic notion of variability of the
system and changes can be described using quantum relative entropy. The non-commutativity
of the algebra of observables then guarantees a crude notion of time. It provides us with reasons
for the arrow of time, though a lot more work is needed in the direction. Under equilibrium
considerations this gives rise to a unitary evolution. What we showed in this article is that time
is not fundamental, a bit more work is needed to understand how the flow of time emerges. We
will visit this in an upcoming article.

Acknowledgments
I thank Dr. Paolo Bertozzini, Himalay Senapati and Ramadas N for carefully going through
the manuscript and pointing out the errors and suggestions. I thank Dr. Carlo Rovelli for his
encouragement without which I would have dropped this project.

References
[1] L Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development. World Scientific, 2014
[2] P Busch, M Grabowski, P Lahti, Operational Quantum Physics. Springer, 1995
[3] C A Fuchs, Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only a little more).
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205039, 2002
[4] C A Fuchs, N D Mermin, R Schack, An Introduction to QBism with an Application
to the Locality of Quantum Mechanics. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5253.pdf, 2013
[5] R Clifton, J Bub, H Halvorson, Characterizing Quantum Theory in terms of
Information-Theoretic Constraints. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0211089, 2002
[6] C Rovelli, Relational Quantum Mechanics. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002,
1996
[7] R P Kostecki, Information geometric foundations
http://www.fuw.edu.pl/ kostecki/talk_2011.06.16_vaxjo.pdf

of

quantum

theory

.

[8] J E Roberts, Rigged Hilbert Spaces in Quantum Mechanics, Comm. Math. Phys, Volume 3, Number 2, 1966
[9] A Khinchin, Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory. Dover, 1957
[10] E T Jaynes, Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics I. Physics Review, 1957
[11] E T Jaynes, Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics II. Physics Review, 1957

14

[12] R S Ingarden, A Kossakowski, M Ohya, Information Dynamics and Open Systems:
Classical and Quantum Approach. Springer Fundamental Theories of Physics, 1997
[13] W Bayer, W Ochs, Quantum States with Maximum Information Entropy I. Sektion
Physik der Universität München, 1973
[14] W Ochs, W Bayer, Quantum States with Maximum Information Entropy II. Sektion
Physik der Universität München, 1973
[15] A Peres, Unperformed experiments have no results. American Journal of Physics, 1978
[16] M Ohya, D Petz, Quantum Entropy and Its Use. Springer-Verlag, 1993
[17] F Benatti, Deterministic Chaos in Infinite Quantum Systems. Springer-Verlag Trieste
Notes in Physics, 1993
[18] S Neshveyev, E Størmer, Dynamical Entropy in Operator Algebras. Springer, 2006
[19] H-P Breuer, F Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. Oxford, 2002
[20] F Hellmann, W Kamińsk, R P Kostecki, Quantum collapse rules from the maximum
relative entropy principle. http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7766v4, 2014
[21] R
P
Kostecki,
Towards
new
foundations
http://www.fuw.edu.pl/ kostecki/cats21-final-08.03.2012.pdf

of

quantum

theory.

[22] R P Kostecki, Lüders’ and quantum Jeffrey’s rules as entropic projections.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3502
[23] R Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras. Springer-Verlag, 1995
[24] H Araki, Mathematical Theory of Quantum Fields. Oxford University Press, 1999
[25] C Rovelli, Time in Quantum Gravity: An Hypothesis. Physics Review, 1991
[26] R Haag, N M Hugenholtz, M Winnink On the Equilibrium States in Quantum
Statistical Mechanics. Commun. math. Phys. 5, 215-236, 1967
[27] A Connes,
C Rovelli,
Von Neumann Algebra
Time-Thermodynamics Relation in General Covariant
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9406019, 1994

Automorphisms and
Quantum Theories.

[28] O Bratteli, D Robinson, Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1 &
2. Springer-Verlag Texts and Monographs in Physics, 1997
[29] T T Paetz, An Analysis of the Thermal-Time Concept of Connes and Rovelli. Thesis,
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen 2010
[30] R V Duvenhage, Quantum Statistical Mechanics, KMS states and Tomita-Takesaki
Theory. Thesis, University of Pretoria, 1999
[31] C Rovelli, M Smerlak, Thermal time and Tolman-Ehrenfest effect: “Temperature as
the speed of time”. http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2985v5, 2011
[32] P Martinetti, C Rovelli, Diamond’s Temperature; Unruh effect for bounded trajectories and thermal time hypothesis. https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212074, 2004
[33] E P Verlinde, On the Origin
https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785, 2010

of

15

Gravity

and

the

Laws

of

Newton.

