Time and the Multiverse

The biverse here is a sort of device. Here this device is an instanton or tunneling state, which is used to connect different spacetime cosmologies in a quantum scaffold --- so to speak.

When it comes to the nature of time I am not particularly impressed with the idea of time not existing. This idea comes from the ADM Hamiltonian for "space plus time" approach to general relativity which obeys NH = 0 and the momentum version N^iH_i = 0. The first of these H = K R, K being symbolic for the trace conditions on the extrinsic curvature and R the Ricci curvature of the spatial manifold, is extended to the quantized for in the Wheeler-DeWitt (WD) equation HΨ[g] = 0. This outwardly has the appearance of a Schrodinger equation HΨ[g] = i∂Ψ[g]/∂t, but where the right hand side is zero. Of course this has to be the case, for there is no universal time variable t one can appeal to properly. What is time is imposed by the analyst in how spatial manifolds with the constraint H = 0 are linked to each other. It is not hard to extend the WD equation to include a harmonic oscillator field σ so that one introduces a time variation and you have HΨ[g,σ] = i∂Ψ[g,σ]/∂t in some local (within a saddle point integration) region. The point is that the AdM and WD equations do not mean time does not exist, but rather that these are constraints imposed on a spatial manifold.

Cheers LC

Dear Lawrence,

It sounds like our ideas may be merging again.

Dear Steve and Amrit,

It is obvious to me that Space-time must be a broken (3+1)-brane symmetry, and this idea of time not existing as an independent dimension is just a fad. As a particle physicist myself, I enjoy looking for unified symmetries and broken symmetries. The fact that this broken dimensional symmetry is so evident should allow us to seriously consider the idea of Hyperspace dimensions that exist under the rules of another broken symmetry. Consider how ugly the Standard Model symmetries are: SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). IMHO, It is hypocritical to seriously consider the "truth" of such a complicated Standard Model symmetry, and simultaineously deny the "truth" of time and space being seperate brane symmetries. Steve says his model is 3-D, but he has hidden time within his "spin" degrees of freedom. Likewise, Amrit has tried to hide time within his "block". Give me a break, guys - these models are *NOT* exclusively 3-D! You have both introduced extra degrees-of-freedom that resemble dimensions. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck!

Once upon a time, I didn't believe in Hyperspace or the Multiverse. How do you prove that which you can't see? Now these ideas (and scale invariance) seem to naturally fall out of my mathematical models. Is it wrong to use this mathematics to model reality? All I can say is that the mathematics seems consistent...

Have Fun!

Hi Ray,

Like all the time, I am frank.

I think humbly what people wants my ideas or wants the grants .....money monney always these stupidities which cause our global problem, I can understand people have seen the potential of my theory .But it's a little strong no all that ......I say that because I know the human nature and the pleasure for some people to like monney .....I dislike this money ....

The complexity is in 3D the simplicity also , that's all ....

People can use all the strategies that they want, never that will change.

I am parano yes ,it's like that ......EUREKA with humility if people are jaleous or try ....it's not my road.

Regards

Steve

Of course like I am parano, thus my words must be taken with a balance and a sorting,

Dear Ray,

I insist on this 3D , the division rests in 3D , the hidden dimensions are in 3D ....all maths extrapolations must be rational also, we can't play like we want with physics.....the time is a constant of evolution and we can't invent these pseudos sciences where all the universal coherences and global irreversibilities aren't considered in its pure serie and limits, the referential always dear Ray.

My model is in 3D and will rest always in 3D .....let's find the correct fractal of the uniqueness please...the volumes, theirs velocities of rot spinals and orbitals, their densities, their number finite, the lattices between spheres......if we insert falses parameters, that will imply a lot of confusions.

The incompleteness dear Ray do not prove nothing , is it a reason to extrapolate thet ....no for me fortunaly.

Your ideas are interestings, you, Lawrence, Florin, Girn,lisi.....the team what....hahaha interestings but falses because you have all fear to rebegin in the good road , ....vanity+business+maths without limits=extradimensions and lie algebras without real physicality .....these algebras are falses dear friends for the physics...the groups .......always the groups and their superimposings....The globality of these ideas are falses, simply

Regards

Steve

Let's have fun, Ray, I am going to begin really in fact, at this moment you know I am very quiet and very cool.I read , I analyze, I study, I link...AND I WILKL COMMENT SOON .hihihihi REVOLUTION

Regards

Steve

Duck is flaying into space

Clock is running into space measuring duck flight

Unconscious observer experiences duck flight into "past-present-future" that is of the mind

Conscious Observer is laughing into eternal now in which duck is flaying

Ray,

There is this strange idea that time does not exist. Of course we have to wonder whether time exists in the same way as a particle does. Maybe it does not exist in that sort of hard ontological sense. Yet it is something which we measure with a clock, and from an operational perspective that is sufficient. Quantum mechanically events are marked by the outcomes of measurements, or where quantum probabilities are realized. We might be tempted to think that time is a quantum process of some basic nature and that space "hangs" on it as a garment hangs on a rack. So there might be some prospect that thinking about this in some inverted way is a strategy worth considering.

Cheers LC

Lawrence,

Time is not "something" that we measure with clocks.

With clocks we measure numerical order of material change.

Time as "something" in ontological sense is a mind model into which you experience numeric order of material change.

amrit

Amrit,

Ultimately you are burying the concept in time in the notion of change. Change v. [Chanj] To become different, to alter or vary. Then how does something vary? It does so according to this thing called time.

This trend of regarding time as nonexistent is silly. I will not say with certainty time is ontic quite in the same way that a hard particle is. However, quantum events determine eigenvalued outcomes which occur in a sequence ordered temporally. I can't prove that time exists, but science is not about proving things exist, science is only about making measurements and determining whether things measured satisfy certain relationships. Those relationships are what we call theories.

Calling time something we simply perceive mentally as objects moving in space is really just a word game. You have in the end just come up with another definition of time.

Cheers LC

I'm in the camp that regards time as physically real, where time is identical to information. In connection with my definition of time -- n-dimensional infinitely orientable metric on random self-avoiding walk -- I found this interesting paper:

Olber's Paradox

Tom

Yes, I replace concept of time with numerical order. With clocks we measure numerical order of material change that run in the universe. We experience change in a perspective "past-present-future" that is a mind construct (psychological time).

PS

Time is not information. We all see that information moves in space:

-post DHL moves in space

-telephone information run on wires

- mobile and internet information run on electromagnetic waves

No one ever has seen information moving in time as time does not exist.

Concept of time is not corresponding to the physical reality. Concept of numerical order is corresponding perfectly to the physical reality.

The case is that we experience information motion in space through time that is of the mind.

Yours Amrit

Hi Tom

Rad my paper on file attached and you will see what i mean by "mind"

yours amritAttachment #1: INTEGRATION_OF_RATIONAL_AND_CONSCIOUS_EXPERIENCE.pdf

A version of this work by Diao could be used to describe the path integral in the sense that Goyal does in his elementary logic of quantum physics.

I think is associated with fundamental quantum events, which form a scaffold for spacetime. In that sense I could say that time exists. Time in the continuous meaing of the word exists "well enough" as I see it.

Cheers LC

Again you are replacing time with verbs, such as run. Information does move in time. If I send a light signal pulse from x and y with a distance d it moves in a time t = d/c.

Back in the early 1990's there was a silly pundit-news program called "The McLaughlin Report." The sound bites you give remind me of that program.

Cheers LC

Lawrence, nice observation. It supports empirical extension of the quantum domain to the cosmic, and thus adds nonzero time to quantum event analysis n the classical scale. Throw in scale invariance and n-dimension continuity of the time unit, and you've got my theory of physical time and gravity dissipation over n-dimension kissing spheres.

Tom

Time has everything to do with conciousness. Time and conciousness are the same thing. Time moves in the direction of our focus. Without time, there is no conciousness. Without consciousness, there is no time.

I'm not replacing time with anything,

photon moves in space.........with clocks we measure numerical order of its motion.

Read INTRODUCTION on file attached.Attachment #1: 2_Block_Universe.pdf

All what you say above is utterly wrong.

yours amrit

PS

read my papers on viXra

and also without time , there isn't evolution.....the increase of mass on this line of time shows us the increase of intelligence and consciousness evidently.

Best Regards

Steve