DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2102.08620V6 [Quant-Ph] 10 Aug 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2102.08620V6 [Quant-Ph] 10 Aug 2021 3D-Space and the preferred basis cannot uniquely emerge from the quantum structure Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica Dept. of Theoretical Physics, NIPNE|HH, Bucharest, Romania. Email: [email protected], [email protected] (Dated: August 11, 2021) Is it possible that only the state vector exists, and the 3D-space, a preferred basis, a preferred factorization of the Hilbert space, and everything else, emerge uniquely from the Hamiltonian and the state vector? In this article no-go theorems are given, showing that whenever such a candidate preferred struc- ture exists and can distinguish among physically distinct states, physically distinct structures of the same kind exist. The idea of the proof is very simple: it is always possible to make a unitary transformation of the candidate structure into another one of the same kind, but with respect to which the state of the system at a given time appears identical to a physically distinct state (which may be the state at any other time, or even a state from an \alternative reality"). Therefore, such minimalist approaches lead to strange consequences like \passive" travel in time and in alternative realities, realized simply by passive transformations of the Hilbert space. These theorems affect all minimalist theories in which the only fundamental structures are the state vector and the Hamiltonian (so-called \Hilbert space fundamentalism"), whether they assume branching or state vector reduction, in particular, the version of Everett's Interpretation coined by Carroll and Singh \Mad-dog Everettianism", various proposals based on decoherence, proposals that aim to describe everything by the quantum structure, and proposals that spacetime emerges from a purely quantum theory of gravity. Keywords: Emergent space, Decoherence, Preferred basis problem, Preferred factorization problem I. INTRODUCTION key that solves the preferred basis problem and leads to the emergence of the classical world. Therefore, claims The Quantum Mechanics (QM) of a closed system is that the preferred basis problem is solved became very defined in terms of a Hilbert space H, a Hamiltonian common cf. Wallace [4, 21], Tegmark [22], Brown and Wallace [23], Zurek [16], Schlosshauer [20, 24], Saunders operator Hb, and a state vector j (t)i 2 H which depends on time, according to the Schr¨odingerequation [3, 25] etc. Such claims were criticized, at least for MWI, by Kent [26] for seeming to require a preferred choice of d a basis to start with. Some authors stated clearly that i j (t)i = Hbj (t)i: (1) ~d t at least the configuration space and even the 3D-space, and a pre-existent factorization, are prerequisites of the Definition: MQS. In the following, the triple theory [4, 27]. The \weak version" of such programs assumes the rep- (H; H;b j i) (2) resentation of the state vector j i as a wavefunction (x) = hxj i on the configuration space, and maybe a together with the Schr¨odingerequation (1), will be called special role played by the 3D-space. If we include the minimalist quantum structure (MQS). configuration space along with the MQS, then, at least in The unitary symmetry of the Hilbert space in the MQS nonrelativistic QM, the factorization and the distances seems to be broken only by the Hamiltonian operator can be decoded from the potential term of the Hamilto- nian, as explained e.g. in [28, 29]. Hb. But to connect the Hilbert space formalism with arXiv:2102.08620v6 [quant-ph] 10 Aug 2021 the empirical observations, one needs Hermitian opera- But there is a view that, if we take the unitary sym- tors that represent positions and momenta, a particular metry seriously, we should interpret (x) = hxj i as just factorization of the Hilbert space is required to represent a particular representation favored only if we pick a pre- particles, and, in general, a much richer structure than 3n ferred basis (jxi)x2R of the Hilbert space, while the the MQS seems to be needed. Given that the postulates only real structure is the state vector j i. Taking j i as of various formulations of QM are perfectly symmetric a vector is often seen as making more sense, since a pre- to the unitary symmetry, it makes sense to expect that ferred representation of the Hilbert space would be akin such formulations lead somehow to the rich structure that to the notion of an absolute reference frame of space. And describes our physical world. And indeed, it is often be- indeed this is sometimes the stated position in the dis- lieved that these structures can be uniquely recovered. cussions about a preferred basis, emergent space, or pre- This is sometimes expected to be true in particular ferred factorization (position sometimes named Hilbert in Everett's Interpretation and its Many-Worlds variants space fundamentalism). The proofs given in this arti- (MWI) [1{5], but also in the Consistent Histories ap- cle concern this strong version. A brief discussion of the proaches [6{11]. Presumably, decoherence [12{20] is the weak version is contained in the last section, and another 2 paper will give more details. In Sec. §II we show that there are infinitely many phys- When it is said that a preferred structure emerges, it ically distinct 3D-spaces in nonrelativistic QM. This case is assumed that it satisfies very strict constraints, which is used to illustrate the main idea of the proof, which will define what is understood by \preferred". Otherwise, be given in full generality in Sec. §III. The main theo- simple arguments can be used to show that there are rem shows that, if a candidate preferred structure is able multiple choices of the factorization, exhibiting different to distinguish physically distinct states, then there are physical interactions [30, 31], which can even be reduced more (in fact, infinitely many) physically distinct such to simply changing the phase of the other systems [32]. structures. The idea of the proof is very simple (Fig.1). Claims that a preferred position basis and a preferred factorization emerge uniquely are not to be understood as applying to all possible Hamiltonian operators. Ilja a) Schmelzer gave simple counterexamples [33, 34]. He used a Hamiltonian whose potential is a solution of the Korteweg-de Vries equation, depending on a parameter s 2 R, and applied a result connecting the solutions given by different values of s [35] to obtain different choices of the 1D-space for q. Schmelzer combined such Hamil- tonians to build Hamiltonians on larger Hilbert spaces and obtained physically distinct factorizations. But does this non-uniqueness hold in general, or it is an exception b) based on a very special Hamiltonian? Could the Hamil- tonian of QM, which is different, be sophisticated enough to allow unique preferred structures? Apparently, Carroll and Singh showed that this is in- deed the case, and the Hamiltonian is sufficient, more precisely, that its spectrum is enough to determine an essentially unique space structure ([36], p. 99) FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the idea of the proof. 0 a generic Hamiltonian will not be local with a) The candidate preferred structures Sj i and Sj i are sym- Hb Hb respect to any decomposition, and for the bolized as solid blue triangles. The dashed blue lines sym- special Hamiltonians that can be written in a bolize their relations with the corresponding vectors j i and local form, the decomposition in which that j 0i = Sbj i, where [S;b Hb] = 0. For 3D-space and the other works is essentially unique. structures expected to emerge, for any state vector j i there are state vectors j 0i 6= j i for which these relations are dif- In [36], p. 95, they wrote about the MQS that ferent. An obvious example is obtained by taking Sb to be a time evolution operator, because we expect that j i changes Everything else{including space and fields with respect to space, preferred bases, and preferred factor- propagating on it{is emergent from these izations. But there are infinitely many other choices for Sb. minimal elements. b) The structure Sj i being a tensor object, it is invari- Hb Carroll and Singh based their reconstruction of space ant to any unitary transformation Sb that commutes with Hb. Sj i on the results obtained by Cotler et al. [37] regarding Then Sb−1 transforms S b into another structure for j i, Hb the uniqueness of factorization of the Hilbert space, so 0j i h Sj ii j i S = Sb−1 S b , which is of the same type as S . Since Hb Hb Hb that the interaction encoded in the Hamiltonian is \lo- 0 cal" in a certain sense. The result obtained by Cotler et the relations between S j i and j i are different from those Hb al. states in fact that such a factorization is \almost al- between Sj i and j i, we conclude that Sj i is not unique. ways" unique ([37], p. 1267). We will see that both this Hb Hb factorization and the additional construction by Carroll In Sec. §IV we apply the main theorem from Sec. and Singh either are not unique, or they fail to distinguish §III to prove the non-uniqueness of generalized \pre- physically distinct states. In addition, the resulting posi- ferred" bases (in §IV A), of factorizations into subsys- tion operators commute with the Hamiltonian, violating tems (in §IV B), of 3D-space structures, both as in the the position-momentum Uncertainty Principle. approach by Carroll and Singh (in §IV C), and in general In this article we will give proofs that, whenever the (in §IV D), of generalized bases based on coherent states Hamiltonian leads to a tensor product decomposition of (in §IV E), of environmental decoherence (in §IV F), and the Hilbert space, a 3D-space structure (for simplicity of emergent macro classicality (in §IV G).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Philosophy and Physics of Time Travel: the Possibility of Time Travel
    University of Minnesota Morris Digital Well University of Minnesota Morris Digital Well Honors Capstone Projects Student Scholarship 2017 The Philosophy and Physics of Time Travel: The Possibility of Time Travel Ramitha Rupasinghe University of Minnesota, Morris, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/honors Part of the Philosophy Commons, and the Physics Commons Recommended Citation Rupasinghe, Ramitha, "The Philosophy and Physics of Time Travel: The Possibility of Time Travel" (2017). Honors Capstone Projects. 1. https://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/honors/1 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of Minnesota Morris Digital Well. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of University of Minnesota Morris Digital Well. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Philosophy and Physics of Time Travel: The possibility of time travel Ramitha Rupasinghe IS 4994H - Honors Capstone Project Defense Panel – Pieranna Garavaso, Michael Korth, James Togeas University of Minnesota, Morris Spring 2017 1. Introduction Time is mysterious. Philosophers and scientists have pondered the question of what time might be for centuries and yet till this day, we don’t know what it is. Everyone talks about time, in fact, it’s the most common noun per the Oxford Dictionary. It’s in everything from history to music to culture. Despite time’s mysterious nature there are a lot of things that we can discuss in a logical manner. Time travel on the other hand is even more mysterious.
    [Show full text]
  • A Measure of Change Brittany A
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations Spring 2019 Time: A Measure of Change Brittany A. Gentry Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Gentry, B. A.(2019). Time: A Measure of Change. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/5247 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Time: A Measure of Change By Brittany A. Gentry Bachelor of Arts Houghton College, 2009 ________________________________________________ Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2019 Accepted by Michael Dickson, Major Professor Leah McClimans, Committee Member Thomas Burke, Committee Member Alexander Pruss, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School ©Copyright by Brittany A. Gentry, 2019 All Rights Reserved ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Michael Dickson, my dissertation advisor, for extensive comments on numerous drafts over the last several years and for his patience and encouragement throughout this process. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Leah McClimans, Thomas Burke, and Alexander Pruss, for their comments and recommendations along the way. Finally, I am grateful to fellow students and professors at the University of South Carolina, the audience at the International Society for the Philosophy of Time conference at Wake Forest University, NC, and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on various drafts of portions of this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Time in Cosmology
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Philsci-Archive Time in Cosmology Craig Callender∗ C. D. McCoyy 21 August 2017 Readers familiar with the workhorse of cosmology, the hot big bang model, may think that cosmology raises little of interest about time. As cosmological models are just relativistic spacetimes, time is under- stood just as it is in relativity theory, and all cosmology adds is a few bells and whistles such as inflation and the big bang and no more. The aim of this chapter is to show that this opinion is not completely right...and may well be dead wrong. In our survey, we show how the hot big bang model invites deep questions about the nature of time, how inflationary cosmology has led to interesting new perspectives on time, and how cosmological speculation continues to entertain dramatically different models of time altogether. Together these issues indicate that the philosopher interested in the nature of time would do well to know a little about modern cosmology. Different claims about time have long been at the heart of cosmology. Ancient creation myths disagree over whether time is finite or infinite, linear or circular. This speculation led to Kant complaining in his famous antinomies that metaphysical reasoning about the nature of time leads to a “euthanasia of reason”. But neither Kant’s worry nor cosmology becoming a modern science succeeded in ending the speculation. Einstein’s first model of the universe portrays a temporally infinite universe, where space is edgeless and its material contents unchanging.
    [Show full text]
  • SPACE, TIME, and (How They) MATTER: a Discussion of Some Metaphysical Insights About the Nature of Space and Time Provided by Our Best Fundamental Physical Theories
    SPACE, TIME, AND (how they) MATTER: A Discussion of Some Metaphysical Insights about the Nature of Space and Time Provided by Our Best Fundamental Physical Theories Valia Allori Northern Illinois University Forthcoming in: J. Statchel, G.C. Ghirardi (eds.). Space, Time, and Frontiers of Human Understanding. Springer-Verlag Abstract This paper is a brief (and hopelessly incomplete) non-standard introduction to the philosophy of space and time. It is an introduction because I plan to give an overview of what I consider some of the main questions about space and time: Is space a substance over and above matter? How many dimensions does it have? Is space-time fundamental or emergent? Does time have a direction? Does time even exist? Nonetheless, this introduction is not standard because I conclude the discussion by presenting the material with an original spin, guided by a particular understanding of fundamental physical theories, the so-called primitive ontology approach. 1. Introduction Scientific realists believe that our best scientific theories could be used as reliable guides to understand what the world is like. First, they tell us about the nature of matter: for instance, matter can be made of particles, or two-dimensional strings, or continuous fields. In addition, whatever matter fundamentally is, it seems there is matter in space, which moves in time. The topic of this paper is what our best physical theories tell us about the nature of space and time. I will start in the next section with the traditional debate concerning the question of whether space is itself a substance or not.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature and Origin of Time-Asymmetric Spacetime Structures*
    The nature and origin of time-asymmetric spacetime structures* H. D. Zeh (University of Heidelberg) www.zeh-hd.de Abstract: Time-asymmetric spacetime structures, in particular those representing black holes and the expansion of the universe, are intimately related to other arrows of time, such as the second law and the retardation of radiation. The nature of the quantum ar- row, often attributed to a collapse of the wave function, is essential, in particular, for understanding the much discussed "black hole information loss paradox". However, this paradox assumes a new form and might not even occur in a consistent causal treatment that would prevent the formation of horizons and singularities. A “master arrow”, which combines all arrows of time, does not have to be identified with the direction of a formal time parameter that serves to define the dynamics as a succes- sion of global states (a trajectory in configuration or Hilbert space). It may even change direction with respect to a fundamental physical clock, such as the cosmic expansion parameter if this was formally extended either into a future contraction era or to nega- tive "pre-big-bang" values. 1 Introduction Since gravity is attractive, most gravitational phenomena are asymmetric in time: ob- jects fall down or contract under the influence of gravity. In General Relativity, this asymmetry leads to drastically asymmetric spacetime structures, such as future hori- zons and future singularities as properties of black holes. However, since the relativistic and nonrelativistic laws of gravitation are symmetric under time reversal, all time asymmetries must arise as consequences of specific (only seemingly "normal") initial conditions, for example a situation of rest that can be prepared by means of other ar- * arXiv:1012.4708v11.
    [Show full text]
  • Time Really Exists! the Evolving Block Universe Volume 7
    Time really exists! Volume 7 The evolving block universe Summer 2014 George Ellis journal homepage Department of Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, Cape www.euresisjournal.org Town, South Africa. [email protected] Abstract My starting point is the question, did it make sense for the Planck team to announce the present age of the universe? This talk will propose that it did, because spacetime is an evolving block universe, with the present being the future boundary of a spacetime which steadily extends into the future as time progresses. The present separates the past (which already exists) from the future (which does not yet exist, and is indeterminate because of foundational quantum uncertainty). There are some technical aspects to this namely (1) simultaneity has no physical import, it is a purely psychological construct, (2) one can define unique surfaces of constant time in a non-local geometric way(and show how this relates to the standard ADM formalism), (3) this proposal solves the chronology protection problem (it prevents existence of closed timelike lines). In this context, (4) the arrow of time is distinguished from the direction of time, which is non-locally defined in the evolving block universe context. 1. Prolog There are fossils in the Karoo National Park, South Africa, from amazing extinct wildlife that once thrived in the ancient Karoo during the Late Permian Period. The curator explained as we walked round, \That the skeleton is 255 million and 23 years old!" Amazed, we asked how he knew this. He said \When I came here 23 years ago, it was 255 million years old".
    [Show full text]
  • The Arrow of Time, the Nature of Spacetime, and Quantum Measurement
    The arrow of time, the nature of spacetime, and quantum measurement George F R Ellis Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town. October 7, 2011 Abstract This paper extends the work of a previous paper [arXiv:1108.5261v3] on top- down causation and quantum physics, to consider the origin of the arrow of time. It proposes that a ‘past condition’cascades down from cosmological to micro scales, being realised in many microstructures and setting the arrow of time at the quantum level by top-down causation. This physics arrow of time then propagates up, through underlying emergence of higher level structures, to geology, astronomy, engineering, and biology. The appropriate space-time picture to view all this is an emergent block universe (‘EBU’), that recognizes the way the present is di¤erent from both the past and the future. This essential di¤erence is the ultimate reason the arrow of time has to be the way it is. A bonus of this view, entailing the ongoing extension of spacetime as time ‡ows on, is that closed timelike lines are naturally prevented (spacetime singularities will block them o¤). A conclusion of this view is that the process of state vector reduction is central to the ‡ow of time, and is not restricted to laboratory setitngs or any formal process of observation. Contents 1 Quantum theory and the arrow of time 2 2 Foundations 3 2.1 Quantumdynamics............................... 3 2.2 The context: the hierarchy of the structure . 4 2.3 Inter level relations . 4 2.4 Thecentralproposal .............................. 6 3 The arrow of time 7 3.1 Theissue ...................................
    [Show full text]
  • Back to Parmenides
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Philsci-Archive Back to Parmenides Henrique Gomes1 Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics 31 Caroline Street, ON, N2L 2Y5, Canada 1 [email protected] 3 Abstract After a brief introduction to issues that plague the realization of a theory of quantum gravity, I suggest that the main one concerns a quantization of the principle of relative simultaneity. This leads me to a distinction between time and space, to a further degree than that present in the canonical approach to general relativity. With this distinction, superpositions are only meaningful as interference between alternative paths in the relational configuration space of the entire Universe. But the full use of relationalism brings us to a timeless picture of Nature, as it does in the canonical approach (which culminates in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation). After a discussion of Parmenides and the Eleatics' rejection of time, I show that there is middle ground between their view of absolute timelessness and a view of physics taking place in timeless configuration space. In this middle ground, even though change does not fundamentally exist, the illusion of change can be recovered in a way not permitted by Parmenides. It is recovered through a particular density distribution over configuration space which gives rise to `records'. Incidentally, this distribution seems to have the potential to dissolve further aspects of the measurement problem that can still be argued to haunt the application of decoherence to Many- Worlds. I end with a discussion indicating that the conflict between the conclusions of this paper and our view of the continuity of the self may still intuitively bother us.
    [Show full text]
  • Time in Quantum Theory*
    Time in Quantum Theory* H. D. Zeh www.zeh-hd.de I. In general, time is used in quantum theory as an external ('classical') concept. So it is assumed, as in classical physics, to exist as a controller of all motion – either as absolute time or in the form of proper times defined by a classical spacetime metric. In the latter case it is applicable to local quantum systems along their world lines. According to this assumption, time can be read from appropriate classical or quasi-classical 'clocks'. This conception has to be revised only when relativistic gravity, which regards the spacetime metric as a dynamical object, is itself quantized [1] – as required for consistency (see IV). The thereby aspired quantization of time does not necessarily lead to a discretization of time – just as the quantization of free motion does not require a discretization of space or position. On the other hand, the introduction of a fundamental gravitational constant in addition to Planck's constant and the speed of light leads to a natural 'Planck time' unit, corresponding to 5.40 10-44 sec. This may signal the need for an entirely novel conceptual framework – to be based on as yet missing empirical evidence. A formal (canonical) quant- ization of time would also be required in non-relativistic Machian ('relational') dynamical theories [4], which consistently replace the concept of time by some reference motion. If quantum theory is universally valid, all dynamical processes (including those that may serve as clocks or definers of time) must in principle be affected by quantum theory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Physics of Augustine: the Matter of Time, Change and an Unchanging God
    Religions 2015, 6, 221–244; doi:10.3390/rel6010221 OPEN ACCESS religions ISSN 2077-1444 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Article The Physics of Augustine: The Matter of Time, Change and an Unchanging God Thomas Nordlund Department of Physics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1300 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL 35294-1170, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-205-934-0340; Fax: +1-205-934-8042 Academic Editors: Scott McGinnis and Chris Metress Received: 4 January 2015 / Accepted: 15 February 2015 / Published: 17 March 2015 Abstract: Scientific questions posed by St. Augustine, early father of the Christian church, are presented as a part of a proposed undergraduate course for religion and philosophy students. Augustine regularly seasons his religious, philosophical and moral investigations with analysis focused on the physical nature of the universe and how it can be quantified: “And yet, O Lord, we do perceive intervals of time, and we compare them with each other, and we say that some are longer and others are shorter” (Confessions, Book 11). The physical analysis is sometimes extended, pressing the attention and grasp of the unsuspecting student of religion or philosophy. Though Augustine emphasizes that true knowledge comes from faith and revelation, his physical inquiries imply that he values such analysis as a way toward truth. In contrast, Master of Divinity programs, which train the majority of Western Christian ministers, require little science experience and usually no physics. Serious investigation of Augustine’s physical explorations reveal an alternative way of understanding scripture, especially Jesus’ sayings: could the master engineer who created the universe sometimes be speaking in straightforward scientific terms? Keywords: Augustine; pedagogy; core texts/great books programs; history of Christianity; physics; time; science and religion 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Christian Mathematician's Apology
    1 JOURNAL of the UNION FACULTY FORUM 22-221 VOL. 4 2 3 A LETTER FROM THE FACULTY FORUM PRESIDENT hat a joy it is to serve at Union University. Noticeable benefits of life at Union include W the shared commitment to Christ and the community fostered through this relationship. Within this unity we also see differences: differences in academic disciplines and the scholarship and creative works produced. We celebrate these differences. One venue of sharing these differences is the Journal of the Union Faculty Forum (JUFF). I encourage you in the future to participate by contributing to the JUFF. In doing so, we can learn from each other and gain new perspectives. It is my hope that with this recent publication you’ll find many reasons to enjoy the unique accomplishments of our colleagues as well as our unity in Christ. For His Glory, Michael H. Schiebout Faculty Forum President 2020-2021 4 A WORD FROM THE EDITORS After an unprecedented semester and a ridiculous amount of Zoom, we, the students of Professional Editing, Proofreading, and Publishing, are proud to present the 2020- 2021 JUFF. This publication is the result of painstaking toil, frantic brainstorming, and lots of educated guesses about our colleagues’ facial expressions under their masks. We hope these works of scholarship and creativity will help you think deeply about everything from Platonic solids to aging parents. We would like to extend our thanks to the authors who submitted to this year’s JUFF for allowing us the audacity of editing their work and to Dr. Bailey for introducing us to the publishing world.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking
    A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking Chapter 1 - Our Picture of the Universe Chapter 2 - Space and Time Chapter 3 - The Expanding Universe Chapter 4 - The Uncertainty Principle Chapter 5 - Elementary Particles and the Forces of Nature Chapter 6 - Black Holes Chapter 7 - Black Holes Ain't So Black Chapter 8 - The Origin and Fate of the Universe Chapter 9 - The Arrow of Time Chapter 10 - Wormholes and Time Travel Chapter 11 - The Unification of Physics Chapter 12 - Conclusion Glossary Acknowledgments & About The Author FOREWARD I didn’t write a foreword to the original edition of A Brief History of Time. That was done by Carl Sagan. Instead, I wrote a short piece titled “Acknowledgments” in which I was advised to thank everyone. Some of the foundations that had given me support weren’t too pleased to have been mentioned, however, because it led to a great increase in applications. I don’t think anyone, my publishers, my agent, or myself, expected the book to do anything like as well as it did. It was in the London Sunday Times best-seller list for 237 weeks, longer than any other book (apparently, the Bible and Shakespeare aren’t counted). It has been translated into something like forty languages and has sold about one copy for every 750 men, women, and children in the world. As Nathan Myhrvold of Microsoft (a former post-doc of mine) remarked: I have sold more books on physics than Madonna has on sex. The success of A Brief History indicates that there is widespread interest in the big questions like: Where did we come from? And why is the universe the way it is? I have taken the opportunity to update the book and include new theoretical and observational results obtained since the book was first published (on April Fools’ Day, 1988).
    [Show full text]