In my essay I followed Weizsäcker to consider QM and the quantum measurement togeter with the problem of time.

The question is why one obtains [math]H\Psi=0[/math] (the Wheeler deWitt equation) for quantum gravity? The equation is stationary, no time. But a short look at the model uncovers: that is natural. I start with a global hyperbolic spacetime having always the form [math]\Sigma\times {\mathb R}[/math] and fulfilling strong causility. For every point at the Cauchy surfaces, I have a unique geodesics to future and to the past. I obtained the (borring) model of Parmenides block universe. In this universe there is no time in agreement with the Wheeler deWitt equation.

A change of the foliation will also change the situation. And exotic smoothness gives a natural explaination for a change of the foliation

But as I discuss in the essay, this special foliation (and exotic smoothness) gives also a model for a measurement. During the writing of the essay I obtained the interpretation.

More later

Torsten

Torsten, I feel that I have learnt about an interesting new perspective from your essay. I did not really know what the fuss with smooth structures was about before. Now I understand it a little better.

The idea that physics is derived from topology is an appealing one nut it depends on whether there is any non-trivial topological structure at small scales in space-time. I think physicists have gone to and fro with this idea. In the last few years I think that the boring flat topology has been winning out but with the new Susskind/Maldacena insight that entanglement is related to wormholes, we could see things swing back to non-trivial topologies. In that case the maths of smooth-structures should be a big topic of interest.

My own approach is to start from an algebraic structure and try to derive geometry as emergent. In a sense it is the opposite of your approach, but the real meat is in the relationships between algebra and geometry and relationships go both ways.

    Dr. Asselmeyor-Maluga

    I am a self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist. May I please make a comment about your essay? In my essay BITTERS, I contend that reality is unique, once.

    Writing about "bits" you stated "The sequence is an expression of the dynamics (of the timed motion of bits) and for a given position in the sequence we know the unique precursor and successor." (of)

    Respectfully, the only way we could suspect that the position of any precursor and successor bit placement was unique would be if the bit was unique. Each real bit is unique once and because each real bit is unique once, it cannot travel sequentially. It can only travel uniquely once. Only abstract bits can travel sequentially because they are not unique.

      Philip,

      thanks for your comment. The interesting point with exotic smoothness is that you don't need a complex topology. Also the boring flat R^4 carries exotic smoothness structures (uncountable infinite many). An exotic R^4 looks globally like a usual R^4 but at small scales it can be very complicated.

      I also used algebraic structures to understand topology/geometry. But I think it is very complicate to consider algebraic structures like groups by their own. Usually these objacts act on some other object, in most cases a space. You are right the relation goes both ways, see for instance Klein's Erlanger program. But maybe I have to read more about your work.

      Mr. Fisher

      Thanks for your helpful comment. Yes, you are right, for a sequence the bit must be real. In see the sequences more like sequences of measured results, i.e. I implicitly assume their existence. The ord 'bit' implies it, but I try to follow your approach and will read your essay soon.

      Best

      Torsten

      I finally got to read your paper with a fair amount of care to detail. I have not scored it yet. I read a hard copy last night and was not on line.

      The following comes to mind with this. Given the four manifold M^4 a subregion D^2xT^2 is removed and the complement or dual of D^2xKxS^1 in S^3xS^1 is surgically inserted. It is common to think of spacetime as M^4 = M^3xR. So the manifold constructed from the knot K is

      [math]

      M_k =((M^3\setminus D^2\times S^1)\times S^1) \cup_{T^3} ((S^3\setminus(D^2\times K))\times S^1).

      [/math]

      On the left the R^1 in M^4 = M^3xR is replaced by S^1, and we can think of the S^1 as a periodic cycle with a real number line as a covering. Think of a wheel rolling on the real number line, or a spiral covering of a circle. In this setting the crux of the matter involves replacing a circle S^1 with a knot K. Physically this avoids topologies with circular time or closed timelike loops such as the Godel universe.

      This substitution is then a type of cobordism. We think of there being a "tube" connecting a circle as a boundary at one end and the knot at the other end. This results in "crossings" or caustics of the tube, which suggest this image is viewed completely in higher dimensions. I attach an image of a situation where the knot is a trefoil. This is an interesting way to do cobordism. The boundaries of this space are a circle and the trefoil knot, and the relationship between these two is given by the Jones polynomial. The Jones' polynomial is a Skein relationship for a knot. The function W(C) = exp( i∫A•dx) is the Wilson line or loop integral for the valuation of a gauge connection. The expectation value is the path integral

      [math]

      \langle W(C)\rangle = \int D[g,A]W(C)e^{-iS}

      [/math]

      The element α = 1 - 2πi/kN, for N = mode number and k = momentum vector, and z = -2πi/k. Clearly then α^{-1} = 1/(1 - 2πi/kN). For k very large α^{-1} =~ 1 + 2πi/kN. The Skein relationship is then

      [math]

      \langle W(L^+)\rangle -\langle W(L^-)\rangle = 4\pi i/kN \Big(\langle W(L^+)\rangle + \langle W(L^-)\rangle\Big) = 2\pi i/k\langle W(L^0)\rangle.

      [/math]

      The trefoil is then under this polynomial equal to the circle plus two circles in a link, which is the Hopf link in the S^1 --- > S^3 ---- > S^2 series.

      This enters into path integrals as

      [math]

      Z[g] = \int D[g] e^{iW(C)}e^{-iS[g]}.

      [/math]

      The cobordism then reflects a thin sandwich, to use Wheeler's terminology in Misner Thorne and Wheeler "Gravitation." The thin sandwich has a spatial surface of Cauchy initial data as the bottom slice of bread and Cauchy data on the top slice of bread or spatial surface. At the top slice the data corresponds to S^3\D^2xS^1, that is filled out into M^4\D^2xT^2, and the top slice is S^3\KxS^1. The action at the top and bottom of the thin sandwich is evaluated on the two topologies. This thin sandwich is in a sense "thick" if we think of the lapse function or diffeomorphism (homomorphism) connecting the two slices as R, and this is much larger than 2πr of the circles S^1 which "thickens" the spatial surfaces S^3\D^2xS^1 and S^3\KxS^1 into finely thin spacetimes. The action on the bottom is

      [math]

      S = \int_{M\setminus D^2\times T^2}dtd^3x \sqrt{-g}R + \int_{D^2\times T^2}dtd^3x \sqrt{-g}R,

      [/math]

      and at the top is is

      [math]

      S = \int_{(M\setminus T^2\times S^1)\times S_1)}dtd^3x \sqrt{-g}R + \int_{(T^2\times S^1)\times S_1)}dtd^3x sqrt{-g}R

      [/math]

      and the Willson loop is the ingredient that dictates the behavior of the

      [math]

      \delta S = \Big( \int_{(T^2\times S^1)\times S_1)}~~~ -~~~~ \int_{D^2\times T^2}\Big)dtd^3x \sqrt{-g}R.

      [/math]

      The knot topology or quantum group then dictates the quantum amplitude for the transition between the two configurations.

      I don't know whether this connection to knots is strictly correspondent with the infinite number of "exotic" structures. It makes sense that one can have a fusion of knots in an arbitrary set of configurations. There is also the infinitely recursive knot-like topologies that Spivak discusses in his "Differential Geometry" books.

      Cheers LCAttachment #1: knotcorb.PNG

        Hi torsten,

        I wrote a longer post on some of this. The Hamilton constraint or the Wheeler-DeWitt equation amounts to the problem that lapse functions or diffeomorphisms between spatial surfaces do not define time. I might be wrong, but I have thought this seems to be an aspect of the inability to define a coordinate atlas on 4-dim spaces that is diffeomorphic to all others. I expand on this in greater detail below.

        Cheers LC

        Dear Sir,

        How do you say that: "Information refers to an inherent property concerning the amount of uncertainty for a physical system." Information can lead to decrease in uncertainty. But it cannot tell us about the degree or amount of uncertainty. Whether we can have "ALL" information about a system, is doubtful. You cannot apply Heisenberg's principle to information.

        Wheeler's definition of "It" as "apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits" has to be read with "registering of equipment-evoked responses". The binary unit, or bit, is a message representing one of two choices: 1 or 0 - on or off - yes or no. The 'on's are coded (written in programming language) with 1 and the 'off's with 0. By themselves 1 or 0 does not mean anything. Related to a context, 1 signals some concept representing information about materials objects exists in that context and 0 means it does not exist. Thus, except signaling the agreement or non-agreement with something predefined (i.e., a concept), binary has no other use. Thus, "It" stands for the information content or the concept about something, which is the "Bits". Information is always about something, say, some material, but it not the material itself. There is no need to bring in several weird concepts to deny this simple truth.

        The state is the direct expression of information, provided it is measured (perceived as such) by a conscious agent to collapse to a fixed state at a given time. Otherwise it may evolve in time independently on its own, but would be meaningless to the observer (superposition of all possible states). Hence "It implies the Bit" does not hold because "It" stands for the information content or concept of an object as distinct from the object proper - "Bits". It may report the state of the quarks, leptons or bosons, but it is not the same as the quarks, leptons or bosons in that state. These two are distinctly different.

        If "every 'it' - every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself - derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely - even if in some contexts indirectly - from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits", then the existence of space-time continuum itself should be derived from the "apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits". In other words, the existence of space-time is due to information. Then how can space-time "contain information", which makes the existence of information dependent on space-time? The only logical interpretation is, both exist independently, but inseparably linked as observable and result of observation - matter and its property. You also admit it in your conclusion No.1. In that case, the whole paragraph is redundant and amounts to name dropping only.

        The rest of your essay follows a similar pattern. It would have been better to have presented a cogent analysis of real observables without aimlessly pulling in various directions and importing unrelated hypotheses to spread the cult of incomprehensibility.

        Regards,

        basudeba

          Lawrence,

          these are great ideas. I also thought about knot cobordisms but not in connection with path integrals and knot polynomials. In the knot surgery above, one generates the infinite number (countable) of smoothness structures by the infinite number of knots.

          I agree that the knot controls the amplitude for the transition.

          Thanks for bringing to my attention. I have to further think about.

          Best wishes

          Torsten

          Dear Sir,

          thanks for the special instructions.

          Information in this context refers to entropy. But what you wrote is not a contradiction to my intention.

          I completely disagree with you to obtain spacetime from information. Information is conncetd with matter. We use the abstract concept of a state to express it. But it is our view of the world. We obtain information by measurements, I agree with you in this point. But this information is not connected to an observer. In particular the observer needs a coordinate system to expres the result.

          In my essay, I discussed the relation between spacetime and matter. So if spacetime is matter then information as connected to matter should be also contained in spacetime. Nothing more, nothing less.

          Torsten

          Unfortunately time is a bit narrow right now. I will try to expand on this in greater depth maybe this evening or tomorrow. Ed Witten sees a great foundation to the knot polynomial approach to path integrals. The occurrence of knot topology suggests a Chern-Simons type of theory, where there are underlying cocycle conditions for a L_{cs} = A/\dA (1/3)A/\A/\A with a quantum interpretation.

          Cheers LC

          The role of the knot polynomial I think is involved with holography. The Lagrangian for spacetime

          S = ∫sqrt(g)(R L_m)dtd^3x (1/8π)∮ρdS

          Here the curvature ρ is evaluated on the null boundary of the spacetime. This is composed of the extrinsic curvature K_{μν} which is K = dP, for P a displacement on the surface, and in addition the CS term L_{cs}. This is a division of a cochain into a coboundary plus cocycle.

          Physically the cocyle can be seen according to Lorentz transformations. Near the horizon as measured afar there is a Lorentz contraction of the radial direction. In the (M^3/KxS^1)xS^1 the contraction eliminates the spatial S^1 and this leaves the knot on the stretched horizon. This is a part of the quantum information on the horizon.

          I have yet to assign scores. The problem is that some "trolls" have been assigning ones, and this has the effect of making a 5 in a sense the "new 10." I would probably give your paper an 8 to 10, the 8 reflecting a bit of a problem I might have with something, but with the renormalized score I have been unsure what to do. I decided to give your paper a 7, which reflects a top or near top score with this unfortunate tendency for these "troll scores" that drop everyone's score down.

          Cheers LC

          Lawrence,

          at first thanks for the vote. I gave you an "8" long ago (for the same reasons you gave me an "7").

          But now back to physics. Maybe there is an easier way to obtain the knot polynomials. Consider the Einstein-Hilbert-action for the knot cobordism. In particular near the boundary of the knot it looks like (Knot) x [0,1]. So you can made a ADM splitting to get the Einstein-Hilbert action of the 3dim boundary boundary terms. But the 3D Einstein-Hilbert action is the Chern-Simons term (as shown by Witten) and from the boundary terms (afetr another splitting) you obtain the Wilson line. So one part of the path intergral over the knot cobordism is the knot polynomial, in particular the Kauffman polynomial (you have an SO(3) group for the Chern-Somons action).

          I will be also interested in some of the problems I had with my essay.

          Jochen,

          I'm deeply sorry for overlooking your answer in my essay thread.

          In particular I have to read the refernces you gave. The whole subject is not easy reading, I know it. We (Carl and me) needed 7 years to write the book "Exotic smoothness and physics", in particular to present the topic as easy as possible.

          The idea of the usage of wild embeddings as quantum states was born last year before the FQXi essay contest. I understand your problems with "geometrization of the quantum". It took me also a long time to accept it.

          But let me clarify, my main interest is in the interplay between 3D and 4D. The introduction of smoothness structures is necessary if you consider the path integral in quantum gravity. You have to integrate over all exotic smoothness structures. It was folklore in the 90s that the man contribution came from the exotic part. But no one was able to proof it. For the exotic R^4 I'm not far away to proof it.

          In my whole work I was driven by "naturalness". The next structure afetr the topology (before geometry) is the smoothness structure which is not unique in 4D. Therefore one must consider them.

          I also enjoy reading your essay and I agree in most points. I'm also glad that you also like Weizsäcker (which is mostly forgotten in the physics community).

          All the best for the contest

          Torsten

          Hi Torsten,

          there's no need for apologies, the way this forum is structured, I keep losing the thread ('verliere den Faden') myself constantly. All the information one gets via the email updates is that *somewhere* within the 100-something replies in a thread, someone has added something... I think there's maybe room for improvement.

          Unfortunately, our university library does not seem to have a copy of your book in stock, I will check whether it is available via remote order. I will have to step up my game if I want to have a meaningful discussion on the subject...

          I think I've heard someone flaunting the idea that in the path integral, one should somehow integrate over all geometries (though how exactly that works, I'm not sure), and R^4 then may be singled out as giving the dominant contribution due to the plethora of smoothness structures---but I'm unsure as to how viable this is, or whether I am remembering correctly.

          Anyway, thanks for your reply,

          Jochen

          Dear Torsten!

          Excellent essay, and especially liked the conclusion: Time, among all concepts in the world of physics, puts up the greatest resistance to being dethroned from ideal continuum to the world of the discrete, of information, of bits. ... Of all obstacles to a thoroughly penetrating account of existence, none looms up more dismayingly than 'time.' Explain time? Not without explaining existence. Explain existence? Not without explaining time. To uncover the deep and hidden connection between time and existence ... is a task for the future. » Let's try together, physics and lyrics - the Universe is one ... Best regards, Vladimir

            Dear Torsten,

            I've had a quick look at your essay - nice approach. I'll read over more thoroughly before rating. I noticed the torus arises, which I've seen recently here http://www.labmanager.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35988/title/New--Simple-Theory-may-Explain-Dark-Matter/ related to dark matter via anapoles. Could this further your model?

            A unified field theory I'm working on has the Pi squared component, so perhaps our two models overlap.

            Anyway, best of luck with the contest. Hopefully you'll get chance to read, comment and rate my essay too.

            Best wishes

            Antony

              What you are arguing is that considering the CS Lagrangian, or counting degrees of freedom therein, and the Einstiein-Hilbert action and its DOFs in effect double counts. They are ultimately the same.

              The group of course in Lorentz setting is SO(2,1), which is the anyon system. I think in a graded system this leads naturally to supersymmetry or supergravity.

              As for scores, I thought about giving you an 8, which as I said is sort of the gold standard any more. I have some questions about what appears to be naked singularity implications. I don't think naked timelike singularities can exist in a classical setting. Check out Strominger et al and the relationship between solutions to the Einstein field equation and the Navier-Stokes equation. Naked singularities would correspond to a singular breakdown in the set of solutions to the NS equation. Of course naked singularities lead to other nettlesome matters of time loops and the rest.

              I am though trying to wrap my head around the prospect that for quantum black holes with an uncertain horizon that an observer has an uncertainty as to whether states measured are exterior or interior to the BH. Maybe for Kerr-Newman type solutions the timelike singularity inside the inner horizon then plays some sort of role in this case.

              I hope to write a more complete discussion on the knot polynomial, cobordism and the CS Lagrangian in the near future.

              Cheers LC

              Dear Vladimir,

              thanks for your interest. Wheeler expresses very well my own opinion.

              Time is the key to undrestand a lot.

              Best

              Torsten

              Dear Antony,

              I thought your essay was about Fibonacci numbers? I remembered on the phrase that "the whole world is contained in the number Pi but we miss only coding".

              All the b est for contest too.

              Torsten