Time at the Event Horizon

If you get the idea in my paper, you might see that we could test some of the physics behind multiverse (multiple cosmologies), at least in principle. Aspects of black hole complementarity are involved with this, and we could detect physics associated with the generation of nascent spacetime vacua or "universes."

It is terribly unlikely we will ever be able to communicate with these cosmologies, or measure information internal to them. Yet since the process for their generation is analogous to a Lamb shift in a quantum gravitational setting, we might be able to detect that. We should be able to measure quantum amplitudes (channel production) for black holes starting in the upper TeV range of energy. So, we will have to see of course.

Cheers LC

Lawrence,

"The racked balls represent a very limited number of states (positions on the table) in a configuration which is unique."

Doesn't gravity serve to "collect the balls" into a state of high energy, low entropy? Much as gravity builds stars, until they start to break down and radiate it away. Where does this energy go? If it isn't absorbed, it travels at least 13 billion lightyears and from all other stars creates a level of radiation in intergalactic space. Now in this intergalactic space are clouds of gas that collapse into galaxies and stars. Is there a stage where that radiation transforms into the gas?

"Just consider a model where quantum fluctuations of the vacuum state in the universe results in some vacuum energy, as determined by the cosmological constant, is quantum tunneled out of the spacetime. This packet is the seed for another spacetime vacuum or universe."

This really leaves a lot of practical issues. What is it tunneling through? It seems there is a whole dimensional medium or structure in which these seeds would need to "germinate."

The cosmological constant was originally proposed to balance gravity from causing the universe to collapse to a point. So this vacuum energy is the opposite of gravity. If it's going to fall into some tunnel, wouldn't that be gravitational collapse? Possibly that radiant energy collapsing into a gas?

The problem I keep pointing out about the concept of space being defined as "three dimensional" is that three dimensions are essentially the coordinates of a center point. Now there are infinite numbers of points in space, so if you are going to insist on space as being three dimensional, then it would seem every point constitutes its own universe. Is the multiverse simply the consequence of trying to insist space is three dimensional and having the math insist there must then be infinite numbers of other universes, which are simply other center points?

We (the sciences) really don't fully understand gravity, nor is the linear dimensionality of time anything more than a mathematical formulation of narrative. Not to mention all the other aspects of physical reality we have poor explanations of. Yet an enormous structure of theory is being built on this. Maybe some of it does point in directions that will prove to be fruitful, yet doesn't the possibility exist that some of those loose ends can actually be tied together? It would certainly be far more efficient.

In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.

-Eric Hoffer - Longshoreman, Philosopher

Yes, John, to think in terms of "space-time", "arrow of time" for me is a world that no longer exists.

yours amrit

Entropy increases with gravity clumping matter together. The ultimate form of this entropy is a black hole with entropy proportional to area of the event horizons. The radius of the black hole is proportional to its mass, so the more mass it acquires the higher the entropy.

Multiverse ideas stem from the fact that the universe, which is approximately a de Sitter vacuum, and objects in it such as black holes is not quantum mechanically stable. The cosmological constant is related to a vacuum energy density ρ

Λ = (8πG/c^4)(ρ 3p),

with a pressure p = -ρ. Tiny fractions of his vacuum energy density ρ, which is very small, quantum mechanically tunnels into other spacetime "bubbles," for lack of a better term here, and serves as a mass-gap or seed for the generation of a nascent spacetime or "universe." These new cosmologies will then do much the same and "ad infinitum."

There are lots of questions which could be asked, such as whether these are just quantum amplitudes that are in fact mathematical constructions, or whether these are honest to God real universes. I am not out to make anyone "believe" these ideas, and nobody working on these believes them as such. These are working hypotheses which solve some theory problems, which in turn may have observable consequences.

I think it is possible that spacetime is an emergent classical field, which exhibits quantum corrections, but none of the horrid violent fluctuations (quantum foam) that is considered by many. We might think of quantum physics as due to a quantum field potential (invoking a bit of Bohm's idea for the moment) which then quantum perturbs spacetime on a small scale. What underlies this is I think an abelian Skyrmion type field with Fermionic content. This is what is quantized at higher energy. If we are to think of spacetime as an emergent physics, then the arrow of time is similar to the direction of magnetization in a ferromagnet. At low temperature these are defined locally, say with each emergent spacetime, but on the higher energy perspective there is no global arrow of time. Our universe is then analogous to a small domain of magnetization in a ferromagnet, and these other universes are other domains. These are connected to each other in a larger superspace, which ... . It gets a bit complicated.

Cheers LC

Lawrence,

"Multiverse ideas stem from the fact that the universe, which is approximately a de Sitter vacuum, and objects in it such as black holes is not quantum mechanically stable. The cosmological constant is related to a vacuum energy density ρ

Λ = (8πG/c^4)(ρ 3p),

with a pressure p = -ρ. Tiny fractions of his vacuum energy density ρ, which is very small, quantum mechanically tunnels into other spacetime "bubbles," for lack of a better term here, and serves as a mass-gap or seed for the generation of a nascent spacetime or "universe." These new cosmologies will then do much the same and "ad infinitum." "

This was what I originally thought was the explanation for expanding space, that the quantum energy falling into black holes was essentially tunneling back out/traveling other dimensions, to less dense space, causing it to expand. It was someone else who convinced me that radiation would have the same effect.

The point I'm making about time isn't complicated. Any energy, motion, activity, etc. is going to change the configuration of the elements involved, be they quantum or classical. Now the conventional view is that time goes from configuration A to configuration B. My point is that the effect of the motion of the elements is creating and then replacing these configurations, so there is no "arrow" from A to B, but that both A and B come into existence and then pass out of it. A ferromagnet has orientation. Time has no orientation because the are infinite numbers of magnets pointing in all directions and the future emerges from the past, like a chick emerges from its shell, as the old crumbles away and the new gathers energy. A further point about this, that I made in response to Julian Barbour's essay on time, is that there can be no "point" in time, since it is a measure of motion, not the dimensional frame on which the series of events exist. So the only dimensionless "point" in time would require freezing the very motion being measured. It would be like stopping the fluctuation of the vacuum. Since most, if not all, energy is the motion, reality would cease to exist. So there could be no quanta of time, since that would require some point of reference to distinguish one from the next and there could be no initiation and termination points. There is simply the field of energy in motion and events/time is an effect of it.

amrit,

Yes, I see myself as less and less as something separate from and traveling through my context and more as part of the events streaming away from the ferment of the present.

The process is related to the quantum evaporation of a black hole. A black hole will lose a bit of mass and radiate away bosons with equal amounts of mass-energy. This can also polarize the vacuum structure and squeeze off a tiny portion of vacuum energy into a bubble which will inflate into a nascent cosmology. The de Sitter spacetime can also decay in such a manner that the cosmological constant is reduced due to a radiative response. This can carry off a bit of vacuum energy as a "seed" or mass-gap for the production of a nascent cosmology.

I attach some notes I just rendered up on this. I probably should check the mathematics to correct for possible errors. Yet I think the over all scheme is correct.

Cheers LCAttachment #1: CC_decay_and_baby_universe.pdf

Lawrence,

That doesn't disprove my point. Not that I get all the math, but you have energy falling into black holes and evaporating away. At the same time we have dark energy causing space to expand constant with a cosmological constant. Say the quantum energy does pop back up somewhere else. Why does it have to do so in another universe, when we have this dark energy coming from somewhere else? Do we need to pass it through other universes? Ockham wouldn't approve.

This is a tunneling process. The cosmological horizon at r = sqrt{3/Λ) defines a tunneling potential barrier and a pole. The part about the computation of

S = (sqrt{3}π/4)δΛ

involves a singularity in the complex plane and a branch cut with a residue of 2πi*res(f(z)). So this connects one space with another. The emission of radiation from the cosmological horizon is then a scattering phenomenon, where the horizon decays in the transition and sends radiation into the existing cosmology plus some tunneling bit into other spacetimes. The attachment of a numerical rendering of this process I worked up.

Cheers :LCAttachment #1: cosmic_tunnel.gif

Lawrence,

Yes, but where does it tunnel to? Even if it scattered billions of light years away, then sources billions of light years away could be tunneling in the opposite and all other directions and this would be the source for dark energy. Why does it have to be seeding another universe when ours is evidently being seeded with a similar energy?

I tunnels into superspace, or the space of super-gravity. Of course this invokes ideas which I suspect you and many others object to. Think of the entire universe, or what is called the multiverse, as a grand system in 10 dimensions evolving in 11 dimensions. This system evolves ultimately as a great quantum Feynman-like path integral. There are then many different paths the system "samples," and what we call our spacetime universe is one of them. There may then be others, and with different time directions. As such from this grand perspective the whole "shebang" is time reversal invariant and nice in a unital (unitarey-like) setting, but we only see at large a very local aspect of this which appears to have a strict arrow of time.

Cheers LC

"Arrow of time" is math model only.

In the universe exists numerical order of material change that we measure with clocks. Numerical order itself has no direction, it runs in timeless space.

yours amrit

I think locally, should I say on the frame bundle on this D3-brane, the unidirectionality of time does exist. It is just that more globally it might not. The unidirection of time is a local symmetry breaking of sorts, similar to the magnetization direction in a ferromagnetic domain.

It is interesting that it is regarded as "hip" somehow to say time does not exist and so forth. Yet for something which is presumed not to exist we live out our days very much involved with time, eg time = money, and devote a lot of energy in time keeping and scheduling.

Cheers LC

Lawrence,

So we live in this multiverse, Energy is exiting stage left/black holes/gravitational collapse and entering stage right/dark energy, doppler expansion. Even if there is lots going on behind stage that we can't see, unless there is an imbalance between what is coming and going, then the stage/the universe is not expanding/collapsing.

As for time, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's a consequence of motion, not the basis for it. Which would make it similar to temperature. I certainly don't say temperature doesn't exist. I find it interesting that you don't seem to understand this basic point, even to disagree with it. I certainly doubt it is beyond your facilities, so there is some suspicion you would simply prefer not to address it.

John

Yes time is a consequence of measuring motion.

For physical time to exist you have to measure motion with clocks.

No measurment, no time.

I publish on that recently in Indian Journal of Physics

Amrit S. Sorli, Time is Derived from Motion, The Icfai University Press, Journal of Physics, Oct 2009 http://www.iupindia.org/Physics.asp

yours amrit

PS

hange run in timeless space and are independent on time as a run of clocks.

Clocks (time) are devices to measure change.

There is no physical time behind run of clocks.

I think there is little point in dabate over whether motion induces time or visa versa. This strikes me as a sort of non-problem.

Cheers LC

Lawrence

Measuring of motion induces time.

Motion itself does not induce time.

yours amrit