Time and the Multiverse

[deleted]

Noel,

I'm in agreement with you. The point I keep trying to make is that the constant is what is physically present, ie. now, the effect of time is one of turning potential into actual and then residual information. In other words, it is the future becoming the past, as opposed to the perception of the present moving from the past into the future. Clearly, it is not that the earth travels the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

The problem is that the narrative effect is at the base of our linear rationality, so that we try incorporating it, first as the "flow" of time and now as a geometric dimension, into our understanding of its existence.

If you can't put your ideas in some mathematical formula though, they probably won't get much traction. If the Mass isn't in Latin, it's not real religion.

[deleted]

John,

Every mathematical statement can in principle be expressed in natural language. The reason that we use the numerical precision of mathematical language in science, is to plug the gaps of reason that colloquial language often leaves -- so that we don't have to unnecessarily invoke ineffable causes, and we can demonstrate that we understand a subject to the extent that the state of current knowledge allows. That we can formalize our knowledge.

Not everyone thinks that mathematical language is infinitely progressive, however. Some, like Lev Goldfarb, say we have already hit the wall. He is working on a whole new formalistic system.

Come to "The destiny of the universe" article forum, and you will find support for your basic idea of the future becoming the past. The idea, however, is only where the serious work begins.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Lawrence,

These models aren't truly a 12-D lattice, or a 28-D lattice. Maybe they act like pseudo-12-D or pseudo-28-D in the sense that there are that many different diagonal basis vectors. They act more like kissing spheres within each individual brane - much like a larger multiplicative version of CDT.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Tom,

I understand math is a form of language, a system of symbolic communication used to express and develop understanding and that like all language, it is constantly growing and evolving. Also, that since it is trying to model an incredibly complex reality, must also be quite complex and often inventive. The problem I see is that as a discipline, it is subject to the same self referential myopia as most other disciplines, as the efforts to formalize the structure starts to conflict with the necessity of both expanding on it and keeping it relevant to a larger reality. As with everything from philosophy, to economics, to politics, there is a tendency to detach, rather than adapt. It usually only becomes apparent the profession has gone off the tracks when it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that something is wrong. I'm referring to both physics and mathematics here, but it should be noted that math is not really the platonic model it is often assumed, but is really an extension and abstraction of physics.

I've read through the Destiny thread, but haven't yet time to fully consider it.

[deleted]

John, you miss the point. There isn't anything expressed in mathematical symbols that cannot, in principle, be expressed in natural language. So when one goes off on "what's wrong with math," my trigger finger itches. Unless or until we communicate telepathically, we're stuck with formal language if we want to say anything meaningful at all.

Tom

[deleted]

The relevancxe of these words are so important.......thanks dear John

you said ....there is a tendency to detach, rather than adapt.

Indeed indeed ...unfortunally for the evolution and the short moment in a specific locality....here the Earth system and its intrinsic parameters of course....

Best Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Ray,

I am trying to remember where the issue of H_{12} came up. I wrote a little mathematical derivation sometime back on how the 4 and 5 dimensional dodecahedron tessellated a hyperbolic space, such as AdS. The H_4 are the Weyl groups of E_8, 120 and 600 cells, and this connects up with the AdS group in E_8. The H_{12}, which is in Conway and Sloane, is a bit of an oddity. Is it a self-dual part of the Leech lattice?

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Dear Lawrence,

I don't recall H12?

K12 is the Coxeter-Todd lattice (Conway & Sloane, 3rd Ed., pp. 127-129). I originally called my "lattice" E12 (12x(2*28+1)) because I based it on an extrapoloation of the mathematical formulation of G2 (2x(2*3+1)), F4 (4x(2*6+1)), and E8 (8x(2*15+1)). E6 (6x(2*6+1)) didn't exactly fit the pattern (instead of (6x(2*10+1))) . I later called it K12' because it has significant similarities to Coxeter-Todd (K12' is 8/9th's as large as K12, so they both share a "pentality" and "triality" symmetry). K12' also had the same order as some of the shallow holes in the Leech lattice (Conway & Sloane, 3rd Ed., pp. 517-520). Last year, you observed the similarities between K12' and E8xH4. I like E8xH4 because it specifically states the underlying symmetries of an 8-D Hyperspace E8 multiplied into a 4-D Spacetime H4.

Have Fun and Enjoy the 4th!

[deleted]

Right, I just used the wrong letter, H instead of K. I just needed a momentary reminder of what this structure is presumed to be.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

We have not been right when thought we have found the "whole thing". Nothing authorizes us to think our backyard-Universe is - that time - the whole. As long as we know, cosmic fabric has no starting point and that IS his exact nature: energized matter. Our Universe can be a very diminutive particle of an true infinite tissue.

Once the cosmos have not an start, time can not have start eighter. So, time is just a measure of movement of eternally energized matter.

[deleted]

Dear Wilton,

I once thought that our Universe was everything that there is. After having found scale invariance in my TOE models, I'm now convinced that our Universe is only a fractal fragment of Cantor dust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_set

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Dear Wilton,

Are you Brazilian? If so, I can cross-post:

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunto_de_Cantor

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Ray,

All of us were educated to think that our neighborhood-universe were all that existed. Perhaps we live badly together with the idea of an infinite cosmic fabric because we (unconsciously)desperately need the sensation of womb-like protective boundaries.

Unfortunately, ee have never found any boundaries and I am afraid we will never...

Yes, I am from Brazil. Thanks for your attention and Wikipedia address!

Cheers,

[deleted]

For a bacteria, glued to a sand grain, deep one meter in a large beach, dreaming about understanding the entire coast is as foul as we trying to understand the entire cosmos.

But we are something more intelligent...

[deleted]

Yes Noel

the only time is now

yours amrit

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000023000002000330000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

[deleted]

Wilton,

Bacteria or prokaryotes are not that dumb. In point of fact they really run this planet in a network that is a sort of biochemical internet. Eukaryotes are assemblies of prokaryotes, such as the mitochondria with their own DNA, and they evolved in some molecular biological response to the increased role of RNA (sRNA etc) in molecular pathways. We might see eukaryotes as assemblies of prokaryotes that increase the energy flow through in the planetary eco-system, primarily for the benefit of prokaryotes. For every somatic cell in our bodies there are 10 prokaryotic cells --- we are walking micro-ecosystems of prokaryotes.

On the other hand prokaryotes are not conscious, and I doubt there is any consciousness in this prokaryotic planet-net. So we have a transient advantage in that sense. In the end Homo sapiens is a very brief blip on the unfolding evolutionary tapestry of life.

As for the discussion of time, or ideas that time does not exist, it might be worthwhile to consider the opposite perspective. Maybe time, or some quantum process of elementary events that define time, is truly fundamental. If so then everything else emerges as a consistency condition. For instance, if there exists a discrete hyperbolic group system which defines time, then a non-signaling requirement that prevents some violation of that group (eg backwards time looping) requires the existence or emergence of unitary or modular transformations in a space. So not only might space emerge this way, but the gauge fields and their potentials that generate unitary transformations emerge as well.

Food for thought

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Nourishing food for thought, indeed.

In every context I can think of, Nature informs us that her redundance of simple elements self-organize into novel forms. As you point out, the overwhelming proponderance of single celled organisms and their constituents leads to higher forms that can be described as corporations of cooperating cells.

Likwise, out into the cosmos, we find that over 99% of matter is in its two simplest forms, the remainder of elements created in the crucible of star furnaces and scattered by exploding stars to self organize into the novel life that we know.

So it is only natural to push back a little further, to ask what happens when we consider evolution from space and time alone.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

With all this talk about time not existing, maybe the opposite view should be at least entertained. Maybe time is some elementary quantum effect, upon which all else emerges.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Dear Lawrence,

I was reading Constantinos' papers yesterday, and although I think he simply rederived some existing Hamiltonian and/or Lagrangian mathematics and physics, his papers do bring an emphasis back to action.

The Planck unit is the minimum change in action. If space (and its conjugate variables momentum) are "REAL" enough to cause changes in action, and if time (and its conjugate variable energy) is "REAL" enough to cause changes in action, then time must be as "REAL" as space, momentum and energy.

I'm getting tired of this no-time-trend. Perhaps we can describe geometrical gravity with space curvature, but I think it is a joke to try to use relativity to describe black holes and the quantum gravity that most likely exists there. In one of my models, a time-like dimension prevents the collapse of the black hole "singularity". Without that time-like dimension, we might all collapse into a super black hole singularity, instead the "singularity" is effectively truncated.

What do you think of AdS_5~CFT_3?

Have Fun!

[deleted]

The point of AdS_n ~ CFT is that the boundary of AdS_n, a space E_{n-1}, is equivalent to the CFT on a sphere S^n. The result is a holographic principle, where the boundary or horizon of a spacetime holds all the information in that spacetime. In this case it is this hyperbolic space AdS_n with a group O(n-1, 2). There are some subtle issues of the conformal completion on a patch of the AdS, and the boundary space E_n is this conformal completion. This is found with a discrete group on the O(n-1,2) that acts properly on AdS and then on the E_n it acts as a discrete conformal group.

The nature of time is rather odd, for it does not really have a conjugate variable relationship with energy. All that we do have is the Fourier transform result, which in quantum theory is the uncertainty principle. However, from a physical perspective the idea that "if energy exists then so must time" is not half off the mark. I suppose Constantino posted a website for these, but I don't have that.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Ah, yes, Lawrence. I think there is going to be a great deal of research in the near future devoted to the proposition that time is causal.

After all, when we routinely calculate quantum effects by conjugate variables, and t = 1, can we be far from where it all began? I don't think so. Once we have negative space of 2 dimensions, a modulus squared implies to me that action has bootstrapped itself from imaginary to real. Self organization on the complex plane seems quite logical to me, given the algebraic completeness of C*.

Tom

[deleted]

It is possible to look at this in some ladder or hierarchy. Goyal illustrates how a noncommutative logic leads to complex arithmetic for quantum mechanics. So there is in that mathematics a noncommutative structure which permits any observer to see only half the degrees of freedom for a system. We might consider the prospect there is a deeper level, where Goyal abandons the noncommutative logic. This would then imply some noncommutative mathematics, or quaternionic representation of observables. So this next level might then be a C* noncommutatve geometry. Here the metric variables of are such that [x, y] =! 0, or they do not close up under a parallel translation, even in spacetime that might be classically flat. There is some quantum uncertainty which prevents one from a parallel translation of this sort with complete closure. We might then be tempted to go one level deeper where things are nonassociative. At this deeper level we might be at some pre-geometric structure that connects our spacetime cosmology with other cosmologies in the grand super-geometry or superspace of all cosmologies (multiverse). The restriction to associative might then restrict any spacetime cosmology to have a unique direction in time.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Dear Lawrence,

You have been working with a 27-D SO(3)-like three-octonian Jordan transform. What about a 28-D SO(4)-like six-quaternion Jordan transform? I relate a Quaternion to an H4, and an Octonian to an E8, but E8~H4xH4.

Perhaps we can't see half (or three-quarters?) of the degrees of freedom. In my models, these relate to my unseen dimensions, Supersymmetry, and scale invariance.

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Dear Lawrence,

Yes - It does look F-theoretic. That's why I was studying that Heckman paper. I'm just a stuborn Particle Physicist who keeps running into more String Theory than I bargained for. I am convinced that G2 x G2 implies imaginary time (the simplest way that we can have four mutually perpendicular basis vectors in one 2-D plane?), and if that is the primary difference between M-Theory and F-Theory, then I'm forced to study F-Theory. As a result, I don't think that the event horizon is a simple 2-D spherical surface - I think it is effectively 4-D (2-D surface x real/imaginary). This probably starts sounding more like some of Tom's ideas.

Certainly, QM limits us to position OR momentum, but not both simultaneously, so we have lost half of our dgf's. But what about SUSY? Are SUSY partners much heavier than anything we have explored to date, or does QM also limit our observation of SUSY (such that we only observe a quarter of the implied dgf's)?

Have Fun!

[deleted]

Ray,

In the J^3(O) there are the three O's, one is a vector E_8, the vector being A, and the other two are spinor valued, and form conjugate pairs (ω, ω-bar). So the J^3(O) defines superfields

Φ = A θ-bar φ θφ-bar.

There are 24 dimensional, and construct the Mathieu group or Leech lattice Λ_{24}. Now the 3x3 matrix has diagonal entries which are scalars z_1, z_2, z_3 and the off diagonal terms are the octonions O_1, O_2, O_3, for the vector and the two spinor valued E_8's. With the diagonal entries we have that for a light cone condition that one element is constrained by the others. This reduces the number of degrees of freedom by one, reducing this to 26 dimensions, and there is the resulting Chern-Simons Lagrangian z_i∂_jz_k = L_{cs}. The action of a coboundary operator on this results in a full lagrangian, and the field density is ρ = v*(∂_iv)x(∂_jv) which is a topological soliton for v the vector formed from the scalars. There is a dual description on the octonion level, and the topological soliton is the string.

Supersymmetry breaks at the end of renormalization group flow, starting somewhere in the 10^3-10 TeV range in energy. So the end or RG flow is where the large SUSY pair masses emerge at Higgs breaking.

I have to confess I am not that familiar with F-theory, only a bit. The extension of this to an added dimension means the scalars are two component objects z_i - -> (z_i, σ), for the same component direction σ with all scalars. I am not sure what this means right away. This might somehow connect up with Tom ideas, but right now I am not quite sure how.

Cheers LC

« Previous Page Next Page »