• [deleted]

Sean and Flavio,

Beautifully written essay. I just have a comment and a question.

Comment: You claim that the problem of time stems from the different way that time and space enter into the formalism of general relativity, and that the evolution equations cannot be solved starting from nonspacelike initial data. The latter is not known to be the case. Certainly for the wave equation, one can begin with data on a nonspacelike hypersurface and evolve in the spacelike direction. (The Holmgren-John theorem guarantees uniqueness, and the work of Craig and myself shows that a solution exists if one begins with data satisfying a nonlocal constraint.) As for the problem of time, I would think that it has something more specific to do with general relativity, since it doesn't arise in the quantization of other relativistic fields.

Question: I see where coarse-graining is important for the fascinating result you get for the Shape formalism, but where does renormalization come in?

Steve

    Hi Steve,

    Thanks for your input and kind words. Next time I'm at PI, we should discuss your paper on the wave equation.

    In regards to your comment, you are right that the problem of time is much more intricate than what we had time to discuss in this short essay and, indeed, there are many things we didn't mention or had to simplify. I remember discussing the wave equation with you at some point but I have never read your paper (I will try to do so now!). I can certainly believe the result for the wave equation, although the Einstein equations are bit different.

    The point we were trying to make in this regard was perhaps not completely clear from the text. What one calls the Hamiltonian constraint is ambiguous because of the ambiguity in how you do your decomposition. If you do a radial decomposition of spacetime, the corresponding "radial" Hamiltonian constraint generates hyperbolic evolution equations rather then the elliptic equations of the usual ADM Hamiltonian constraint. Hyperbolic equations are USUALLY only well defined as boundary value problems, however I'm interested in your results about the wave equation. For the Einstein equations, it is certainly much more natural to solve the radial evolution as a boundary value problem and the time evolution as an initial value problem. Perhaps there is something fundamental about this?

    Also, the problem of time does arise in other Machian toy models of the Universe. For example, the quantization of Jacobi's theory has a problem of time similar to what you would get in a mini-superspace quantization of GR. Julian Barbour might say that the problem of time is ubiquitous for temporally relational systems (and I think I would agree).

    In regards to your question, the model we looked at was a very oversimplified model that we used to try to suggest that some info about gravity could be buried in a coarse graining of shape space. The setup is similar to Verlinde's entropic gravity idea, inspired by ads/cft, where radial evolution is emergent from RG flow in a holographic theory. In our case, the dual theory is meant to be on shape space. Loosely, renormalization is related to how the system changes as we change the coarse graining. Ultimately, we want to think of RG flow as time evolution though. Clearly, we need to make this much more precise. Flavio and Matteo Lostaglio have made some progress on this and I think their paper, which will come out soon, should fill in some of the gaps. Anyway, we're working on making this more precise and would love to have more discussions about this! So any input/questions are welcome.

    Cheers,

    Sean.

    ****************** UPDATE ******************

    Our ref [9] has now appeared on the arxiv. The reference is:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4858

    Sean and Flavio.

    Thanks Lawrence for the detailed reply.

    You point out many things that may have connections with Shape Dynamics. I am not an expert on twistors but I have heard the suggestion that they could be linked to Shape Dynamics before. One possibility way to make this more concrete is to explore the symmetry groups of the local homogeneous spaces used to model geometry in SD vs GR. In GR, the relevant group is the Poincare group ISO(3,1) but in SD we have spatial conformal symmetry so the relevant group is the conformal group in 3d, which is Conf(3) = SO(4,1). Our recent preprint (http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4858) shows that SD, in 2+1 dim, can be understood as a gauge theory of Conf(2). It might be that one can use the relation with the conformal group to make a connection with twistors. It's an option I'd like to explore a bit more.

    Also, I definitely agree that the toy model we present could be relevant to Verlinde's paper. Actually, the calculation was motivated by his paper. We wanted to ask ourselves: is shape space holographic? and could this property be used to derive gravity? It seems like that may be the case but it is still pretty early in the game and our toy model needs to be made much more precise!

    Cheers,

    Sean.

    • [deleted]

    For Shape Dynamics theory to fit my proposal about one analogy between geometry and physics

    See http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

    Sean & Flavio,

    I think many will agree with me, that there are more prize winning essays in this contest than there are prizes ... yours is among the top. So good luck! -- and I hope you get a chance to vist my essay ("The Pefect First Question") that soundly agrees with your statement, "The truth is that quantum mechanics requires some additional structure, which can be thought of as the observer, in order for it to make sense. In other words, quantum mechanics can never be a theory of the whole Universe."

    Tom

      • [deleted]

      Verlinde's Entropic gravity and AdS/CFT Beyond the Standard

      Model discussion is just a superstrings extrapolations.In fact,they confound the theory of informations witrh a real quantization.

      In fact the works are not bad, but they are weak and not sufficient. The strings theories were just a faschion. Several convergence are relevant but it is time to be rational. The entropy is proportional with my rotating 3D spheres. Me I have explaine the gravity, him no !!! them , no !!!

      • [deleted]

      The conformal group in 3+1 spacetime would then be SO(4,2) ~ SU(2,2). The connection to twisters of course is through this conformal symmetry. One can of course see this according to Desargues' theorem; Two triangles are axially perspective if and only if they are in perspective centrally. The projective rays in spacetime have a similar correspondence ω_a = ω(0)_a + ε_{aa'}π^{a'}, π^a = π(0)^a, which in the null construction is a projective Lorentz spacetime.

      Your paper on 2+1 Chern-Simons SD has much the same structure as some work I just completed and will be sending to publication soon. The AdS_3 spacetime (2 space +1 time) has the CFT_2 on its boundary S^1xR. This CFT is SL(2,R)^2/Z_2, which with

      1 --- > Z_2 --- > SL(2,C) --- > SL(2,R)^2 --- > 1

      constructs spacetime symmetries in 4-dim. The S^1xR is the string world sheet or tube, and the CFT constructs the gravitons states. The holography here is with the boundary of the AdS_3. However, there is an additional symmetries on the string corresponding to four dimensions

      There was some interesting discussion last week about commuting and anticommuting operators with SD and with causal set theory. I think this might have some interesting implications. It might provide some category theory of functors between spacetime and supersymmetry.

      Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      "Moreover, the toy model may shed light on the nature of the Plank length. In this model, the Plank length is the emergent length arising ....

      This dimensionful quantity, however, is not observable in this model. What is physical, instead, it the dimensionless ratio r=R. This illustrates how a dimensionful quantity can emerge from a scale independent framework. Size doesn't matter but a ratio of sizes does. The proof could be gravity."

      Dear Sean

      Be careful with Planck length and read Wilczek doubts about it

      Wilczek:"we must extract roots",

      "can be taken outside the square roots",

      "In the strong system of units no square roots

      at all appear in [M], [L], [T ]."

      Read Wilczek http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4361

      Flavio

      You said on Sept 12 "I'm reading your essay with interest...". I hope you have, or do, as I think it may be very important in context, and am looking forward to your comments.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Hi Tom,

      Thanks for your kind words. You're right that there are many good essays in this competition and, unfortunately, too few prizes. I had a look at your essay. It seemed like there were some interesting points but I'm not knowledgeable enough with Joy and other's work to really make detailed comments. I certainly agree with the importance of the measurement problem though.

      Good luck in the competition!

      Sean.

      Thanks for your comments Lawrence.

      I think you're right that there could be some connections with causal set theory, but there is a subtly related to your first comment. Perhaps a point that is not clear is that, in SD, we have *spatial* conformal invariance so that the relevant group is the conformal group in 3 spatial dimensions, i.e., SO(4,1). I think the connection to causal sets could be through the causal structure of de Sitter space in 3+1 dimensions, whose isometry group is also SO(4,1).

      A connection with supersymmetry in SD is hinted by the BRST algebra of the theory. This is explored in a paper by Gomes and Koslowski that you might find interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4823. I could put you touch with those authors if you're interested.

      Cheers,

      Sean.

      • [deleted]

      Sean,

      Maybe my insight into this is not complete hogwash. It will take a bit to digest the Gomes and Koslowski paper. BRST quantization is a cohomology of supergenerators, where this is a modern cornerstone of SUSY. It does appear this is derived from shape dynamics without reference to causal set theory. I'd be interested in contacting these two authors.

      I agree that the isometry of the anti-de Sitter spacetime plays a role. The anti de Sitter spacetime exhibits periodic time which is removed by considering a universal cover or a patch on the spacetime. The AdS spacetime on this patch is

      ds^2 = (1/x)(dt^2 + dx^2 - Σ_idz^idz^i)

      which in the limit as x --> 0 defines a Minkowski metric

      dx^2 = -dt^2 + Σ_idz^idz^i

      which is a Minkowski spacetime. This means that the evolute of AdS from a spatial surface is an entire spacetime. So there is a loss of causality here. What is then required is a conformal completion of AdS. In doing so the Cauchy data on the AdS is defined on a conformal set of metrics. The boundary space ∂AdS_{n+1} is a Minkowski spacetime, or a spacetime E_n that is simply connected that with the AdS is such that (AdS_{n+1})UE_n is the conformal completion of AdS_{n+1} which exhibits a conformal completion under the discrete action of a Klienian group. For the Lorentzian group SO(2,n) there exists the discrete group SO(2,n,Z) which is a Mobius group. For a discrete subgroup Γ subset SO(2,n,Z) that obeys certain regular properties for accumulation points in the discrete set AdS_{n+1}/Γ is a conformal action of Γ on the sphere S_n. This is then a map which constructs an AdS ~ CFT correspondence.

      The quotient space AdS/ Γ is a Kleinian structure. The group SO(2,n) is a map from the unit ball B_{n+1}, with boundary ∂B_{n+1} = S_n, into R^{n+1}. The discrete group Γ acts as a conformal on the sphere S^n by the action of the Mobius transformation on S_n. The discrete set of maps on S^n has accumulation points on the limit sphere S^n_∞ are determined by the limit set g_i \in G for i --> ∞. This is denoted by Λ(G), G = O(2,n). The discontinuous set is then the complement of this or Ω(G) = S_n - Λ(G). The manifold Ω(G)/G is an orbifold. This means that the Mobius transformation on the limit sphere S^2_∞ is equivalent to the conformal transformation of N^{n+1} which is equivalent to the isometries of AdS_{n+1}. The Ω(Γ)∩E_n/Γ is then a Lorentzian manifold ∂AdS_{n+1), and a set of discrete points in E_n pertaining to spatial hyperbolids of equivalent data. In this way the data on any spatial surface of AdS_{n+1} is contained in this conformal completeness of AdS_{n+1}. This is equivalent to the discrete action of Γ on S_n..

      These discrete structures I think play a role analogous to causal set theory or to shape dynamics. I am of course not certain about this right now. I think this also has some connection to the AdS/CFT correspondence as well.

      Cheers LC

      Dear Mr. Sean and Mr. Flavio

      Your explanation of distinction between space and time in special relativity is very similar as mine. The distinction is in minus sign in your equation (3), it implies causality. I wrote also pedagogically that imaginary distance means that interaction between two events is not possible.

      But, it seems to me, that time is basis of everything and that space is only a consequence of time. I wrote also that time runs only in rest matter and that everything can be reduced to dimensionless masses of elementary particles. It seems to me that this is against your and Barbour's theory? I quickly read your and his article, but I did not found similarity. Please correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise I agree with Mach principle.

      Your write also about measurement problem. I have my own solution, which is at the end of this essay . It says that every quantum collapse is a conscious decision of units of primitive consciousness. This does not disturb all quantum calculations. Thus every our decision is a quantum event.

      • [deleted]

      Dear Sean Gryb,

      I found your essay lucid, absorbing and relevant but I found the final section on solutions a little difficult to follow. That's OK though because the enjoyment of the rest of the essay more than compensated for the difficult bit at the end. (I would need to spend far more time on that bit to properly appreciate it.)You chose a really interesting selection of assumptions to consider. Well done. Good luck in the contest.

        • [deleted]

        Dear flavio Mercati,

        So sorry I should have addressed that last post to you as well. Well done, it is a very good essay, and good luck to both of you. Kind regards Georgina.

        Dear Georgina,

        Thank you for your flattering words. I understand that the last section was probably a little hard to handle. We tried to put in a little something for everyone but I'm glad that the technical discursion didn't ruin the essay for you!

        Good luck to you too! I'm looking forward to having a look at your essay.

        Cheers,

        Sean.

        ps. Flavio is a bit swamped with bureaucracy at the moment so I'm handling most of the posts on this forum.

        I'm not really sure exactly what you're getting at here. We're suggesting that the flow of time may be intimately connected with the measurement process. This is suggested by the observation that the mathematics of coarse graining resembles the flow of time in general relativity. We are still not entirely sure what this means concretely, but we are working on it. One thing is certain, if the idea is right, it will mean a radical rethinking of time and measurement.

        Cheers,

        Sean.

          If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

          Sergey Fedosin

          Thanks for the heads up. There are definitely better systems.