Time and the Multiverse

Ray, If I understand correctly, the boundary between space and hyperspace in your model is time -- true? I mean, because time is continuous with space up to d = 4 (GR), and you suggest that space is quantized without time parameter in d >= 5, that your quantized space has no time parameter leads me back to our previous discussions on Lisi and El Naschie, and I am going to ask the same question: what is physically real in your theory, and how do you know it?

I.e., If spacetime ceases to be physically real at the boundary, what do extra dimensions add to the theory?

Tom

Dear Tom,

My Hyperspace Physics carries quantum numbers and/or information (where is Hilbert space, how does every electron "know" that it has a rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2?), and is separated from Spacetime by Black Hole Event Horizons. Yes - we only observe Spacetime with a geometrical gravity, so the Spacetime and Hyperspace solutions must asymptotically approach being two independent solutions, but I feel that a unified theory must include quantized mass and quantum gravity, and that the geometrical gravity that we observe is an incomplete holographic projection from Hyperspace. If you can find a unified theory of Spacetime without including Hyperspace, it will involve so many obviously broken symmetries that it will imply the existence of Hyperspace.

El Naschie's E-Infinity effectively says that our Universe is a fragment of fractal dust in an infinite Multiverse. I agree.

Lisi tried his best to claim that his E8 Theory did not include the dimensions of String Theory. I think that these Lie algebras imply different levels of dimensionality. Many people consider the order of a group to be its dimensionality, 248 for E8. I consider the rank of a group to be its minimum dimensionality, 8 for E8. I had many e-mail conversations with Lisi in 2008-09, and we are just on different pages. Quite honestly, I think this E8 represents the 8 dimensions of Hyperspace: a 5-brane, a 2-brane, plus a second time dimension (is our time imaginary, and this time is real?).

I'm still playing with TOE models. If you think you see a flaw in my reasoning, I'll reconsider it.

Have Fun!

Ray,

CPT symmetry pertains in d = 10, 11 or 26 dimensions. The CP symmetry may pertain at the quantum gravity limit, but might be violated with the onset of semi-classical gravity and the dominance of the inflaton field. The inflaton field obeys the standard Klein-Gordon equation

[math]

(\dot\phi)^2/2 (\nabla\phi)^2/2 = V(\phi)

[/math]

where the potential function has this odd behavior with a very small slope for some time, where this quickly transitions to a V(φ) ~ φ^2/2, for some value of φ. The value of the potential function is just V(φ) = sqrt(8πGρ/3} where ρ is the vacuum energy density during the inflationary period, about 10^{123} times what it is today. The universe during this period exhibited an expansion of the scale parameter by a ~ e^{Ht} up to 50 or 60 e-folds. This ended with this cliff-off into the quadratic behavior. This large vacuum energy was converted into the mass-energy in the universe. Now during the period where the inflaton field is slowly rolling off the small sloped potential field something strange happens. Let us consider the Lagrangian density

[math]

L = {\dot\phi}^2/2a^3 - V(\phi)/a^3,

[/math]

where we assume the spatila variation (\nabla\phi)^2/2 is small. I am assuming the density is just measured by cubes of dimension a^3. Well run this through our Euler-Lagrange equation and you find

[math]

\ddot\phi 3({\dot a}/a}\dot\phi = -\partial\phi/\partial\phi

[/math]

which is the motion of a particle in some media with a viscosity. Incidentally, the Hubble parameter H = a-dot/a. Now we might ponder where these lost degrees of freedom are going. It is really due to the exponential expansion of the universe that is diluting the field. Yet, it is clear there is a unidirectional aspect to dynamics with respect to time here.

The point is that the arrow of time appears to have been set by the transition from quantum gravity to classical (or semi-classical) gravity during the onset of inflation. This unidirectional nature of time is involved with some small entropy increase. The field φ is stretched rapidly and some components of are expanded across the horizon length L = sqrt{3/Λ}, for the cosmological constant Λ = 8πGρ/3 = 8πGH^2Ω/3. Due to the huge value of the vacuum energy this horizon length is very small ~ 10^{-25}cm. This is of course very different from the value today ~ 10 billion light years, predicted by the value at the pit of the quadratic potential. This stretching of fields across the horizon induces a causal break up and freezing of the inflaton fields. There is then entropy associated with this, though it is not huge. The huge entropy increase occurs with the reheating period where the field plummets into the quadratic pit.

To the onset of an arrow of time might be induced by the transition from quantum to classical gravity in the most early phase of the universe. This may occur with the tunneling of some vacuum energy from one cosmology to another.

Cheers LC

I have no idea why this rescripted things before the first equation and a portion of the equation this way. Just ignore that rubbish and it still reads ok.

With the RHS of last equation should read -∂V(φ)/∂φ

Cheer LC

Dear Lawrence,

I agree with inflation. I think that inflation also leads to self-similar scales. You mentioned 10,11 and 26 dimensions, but I thought your model was 27 dimensional, and mine is 28 dimensional.

Have Fun!

The 26 dimensions is for the bosonic string, and this type of theory can emerge from the 27 dimensional Jordan matrix theory under the light cone or infinite momentum gauge condition. To go to 28 dimension this amounts to a sort of F-theoretic construction.

Largely I am trying to crane things up to these extended theoretical models. If you start out with the ultimate theory I think few people will listen to you.

I decided to restart this thred, for I find these large nested threads are annoying.

Cheers LC

Oh how Tempus Fugit?

There is nothing(literally)in the FUTURE,that can influence the PRESENT,and thus be logged or verified as a PAST?

There is something in the PAST, that influences the PRESENT that has a baring on outcomes of the FUTURE!

How can Universes be external to each other?..if there is a multiverse, then these must all reside inside NOT outside each other?..like balloons of differing coulours that are blown up one inside the other, then using different colour lasers, can be deflated without bursting the outer balloon?

The something in the "past" has to be information about what was?..what used to be "today" that dissapears,we cannot see yesterday?.. but today must also retain a little bit of missing information, and relevant information at that.

Hi

It seems that the roads begin to unfold themselves in harmony.

It's a good thing for the research of fundamentals.

I am glad that scientists are beginning to focus on my theory of Spherization,a GUT of Rotating Spheres.

There is so much work still to do.

These quantum spheres are the key to our mass.

The entanglement of the uniqueness is specific and finite....the evolution is correlated furthermore, thus the lattices between spheres also.Furthermore the volumes are specifics for the serie towards the Planck scale, this ultim sphere, the main volume where the fractal of spheres begins of course.Our laws are our laws, the imaginaries are pure maths without real physical sense....it's foundamental......the rotation of a sphere is proportional with mass and the volume is important also.....

The different parameterizations and substitutions are bad utilized where the hyperspaces and the spacetime are thus not understood in its pure serie of evolution .

It seems to me that the thermodynamics, the mechanics,.....are forgotten unfortunally.....it's a catastrophe for our proportionalities,constants, .....

We can thus understand why we see these ideas, irreals and without respecting the uniqueness of the Universe....and the uniqueness of the quantic system also...the infinity is bad understood , only because they don't understand the universal entropy and the walls between the physicality and the unknown without these laws and constants,

there the ideas of Amrit are so relevants but for a complete understanding of these walls and entropy , some extrapolation are necessary.

The first big error of these scientists is this one, they don't understand the universe and its equation behind this physicality.Thus the infinity, the - and the 0 are bad used ........

Their ideas are globbally falses and pure sciences fiction for the invention and the lost of monney of a time machione for example or others impossible things.

That has no sense.All sciences are linked , in this cases all sciences aren't coordonated and synchronized......it exists axiomatic hypothesis and it exists sciences fiction hypothesis ....to meditate.

Steve

Ray, I am still having a problem with identifying what is physically real ("independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions.")

If your model has two independent solutions in spaces that never meet, what compels the physical reality of solutions in hyperspace? I know the conventional approach is to construct symmetries from the top down. However, there are so many ways to break symmetry at decreasing energies, that the huge field of solutions starts to look like a field of myths -- by what physically real criterion does one pick the unique solution?

Admittedly, I prefer the elegance of the classical approach that assumes deep physical reality (spacetime) from the start, and follows the consequences from a condition of zero time, zero energy, zero measure.

Now if the average energy density of the vacuum is zero, my bet is on quantum information theory to ramp up the energy in a nonperturbative theory (i.e., incorporating a classical continuum) from a 2-dimension fundamental field of complex numbers. Then we never have to depart from Euclidean space, and all geometrical relationships, including fractal shapes and hyperspatial unity, follow as a consequence of this fluctuating, physical, 2-dimensional sheet in the Hilbert space. In the real world of Lebesgue measure, we can forget about the Hilbert space; local measure squares with unitarity and the Euclidean universe unfolds.

For better or worse, that is how I reach my identity between time and quantum information. It is clear, whether the theory ultimately proves right or wrong, what is physically real, what space I'm working in, and what conditions follow physically--no need to pose existential objects and wonder whether they are causative. Any secondary cause can be explained by feedback in the limit.

I'm aware that you think like a particle physicist and I like a classical relativist. Where do our conclusions converge?

Tom

"Space is what we measure with a ruler. Time is what we measure with a clock." A. Einstein

A ruler has only one part, so it can only measure one dimension at a time, but a clock has two parts, the hand(s) and the face, so time is a relational aspect between these two. Since our minds are programed to perceive the series of events we encounter, time would seem to be a function of moving from past events to future ones. Given that there is no universal order by which events are recorded, or absolute rate by which they are spaced, Albert Einstein devised an ingenious method of correlating spatial and temporal positions. Unfortunately a serious leap of faith must be taken, in accepting the present moment as being as subjective as the events occupying it are transitory, even though all of physical reality only exists as this presence.

What if though, it is not the hand of the clock that moves from one unit of time to the next, but the hand, representing this state of presence, which is the constant and it is the units of time passing through it, as the process of this physical presence turns potential into actual and then residual?

That it is the face moving counterclockwise in relation to the hand, much as the earth rotates west to east, rather than the perception of our terrestrial location that it is the sun moving east to west.

The clock evolved from the sun dial and the hand is a representation of that shadow produced by the light of the sun. Most of us do accept it is actually the earth which moves, why not start applying that fact to the clock?

John, I am very disappointed that you have still not grasped the rudiments of general relativity.

A "clock" is the number of vibrations per unit of time in a cesium atom (or any other arbitrary way of counting cycles). It has no "hands," no "face." Spacetime is a continuum, however, of rod and clock measurements -- special relativity, the physics of uniform motion, informs us that the constant speed of light converts clock measurements to a spatial metric; general relativity, the physics of accelerated motion, informs us that we share a common space regardless of one's state of motion.

Tom

I will give John one benefit of the doubt here. General relativity has two notions of time. The invariant time is proper time ds^2 = g_{ab}dx^adx^b, which is the most important concept of time --- it is physical time. The other is coordinate time, which is really just a book keeping device to compute in some frame bundle or metric choice. Quantum mechanics relies upon coordinate time since quantum fields are fixed on spatial manifolds determined by some coordinate condition. The wave equations depend upon the coordinate time. A clock on a reference frame measures the proper time, but it has working components. An atomic clock is something which measures a quantum oscillation of a system, and the dynamics of this system is Schrodinger. So the clock works according to this coordinate time. This does mean in a funny way there is no "pure clock," so to speak. Time may then be some sort of quantum effect.

Cheers LC

Dear Tom,

If you look at my older models, you will see that I use a hybrid bottom-up and top-down approach simultaneously. I have always been a bit of a maverick, but my models have slowly evolved in dimensionality from 4 to 7 to 10 to 12 to 14 to 28. I thought that Lisi's TOE should have been a 12-dimensional 4-D of Spacetime plus an 8-D E8 of Hyperspace.

Yes - I think like a particle physicist, and you and Lawrence think like relativists. Shouldn't a TOE include all of those ideas?

I said that the Spacetime solution and the Hyperspace solution approach independent solutions. The Black Hole Event Horizon represents the boundary between these two solutions. Thus, having a first-order guess at both solutions will enable us to better understand the Event Horizon.

Perhaps Lawrence is correct. I am trying too hard to find the ultimate symmetry without working out all of the intermediate steps. People will doubt my ideas. Luckily, Lawrence is working out many of those intermediate ideas - perhaps our ideas will converge...

Have Fun!

Dear Ray ...after it's 46 or 50 hihihihi and after 92 hihih

Fascinating.

Steve

Let's be serious a little and rational.

The use of imaginary numbers, as well as overlapping groups involve serious decoherences .

Especially when the space time is not used in its development from the start of calculations.

Relativity is not a mathematical game with infinite faceted mirrors.

The energetical steps involve obviously some brokens of our fields but how can we understand the proportionality without these basic rules.

If relativity is accounted for in this way, it results in considerable difficulties for an axiomatic objectivity.I say that humbly.

This reflects the confusion of what is really the basic space-time and its evolution.

The duration, I think, is not surrounded by its constant, local and global.Linked, different but purely irreversible.

It's not a problem of Euclidian referential but a problem about the utilization of tools inside a referential, it's totaly different.

The relations, geometrical, algebrical.......are in a dance of logic and always in this 3D even for the "not seen localities" like the ultim sphere and its code......The complex and imaginaries are bad used like the time also.

The consequences do not prove anything about the hyper space.

It is the unity of the system whic is challenged.It'sq very important this point of analyze about the uniqueness of all things.The number also, and all relatively correlated proportions.

We can understand why it exist multiverses.and others...and time reversibility....and this and that....The maths creativity becomes sciences fiction.It's probably a virus due to strings theory.if the sciences become like that that becomes bizare.

The relativity is totally different than these extrapolation in fact.

Regards

Steve

Ray,

Instead of increasing the dimensionality to accommodate growing symmetry, have you thought about the advantages of growing symmetry from the dimensionality we have?

Tom

Dear Tom,

Of course, I played with 4-D first. So far, the most useful 4-D symmetry that I have used is the rank-4 (4-D?) Georgi-Glashow SU(5) = 4!. Perhaps I should play with F4 more. For years, I also studied the rank 10 (10-D?) SU(11) = 5!. I like both of those symmetries a lot, but I was eventually lead to the rank 28 (28-D?) SU(29) = 7!/3!. IMHO, Lisi's E8 TOE cannot exist in 4-D, and a single E8 is not large enough for a TOE (because it isn't supersymmetric and fails the Coleman-Mandula Theorem), which implies more than 8-D.

Dear Steve,

You know that I have been playing with Fibonacci's sequence: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ... Pick a number, any number. It doesn't matter which number you pick, they are all "golden". HAH! ROTFLMAO!

Have Fun!

Tom,

For someone with a great deal of respect for math, you don't seem to have much comprehension of equivalent functions. Obviously the vibrations are the units being measured, the face of the clock. So, I ask, what is doing the measuring? Yes, in relativity the present is subjective, but there must be some device tracking the length of time/duration between one vibration and the next! That would be the hand of the clock.