Time and the Multiverse

We agree, Lawrence. An explanation of why the world is apparently four dimensional does not begin with an n-dimension universe. It ends there.

Tom

John,

No, there is no device tracking duration in GR. Time is treated as duration in Newtonian physics; Einstein's extension did away with that. Only spacetime is real.

Lawrence,

Time is not physically real in general relativity. John's case all along has assigned to time a role that it can't have, _in principle_. Of course, I agree that time is a quantum effect -- my model makes it identical to quantum information, and thus applies quantum rules to the classical domain.

Tom

Tom,

So you are saying a cesium clock is a purely theoretical device, that there is no physical entity that records the vibrations of an actual atom?

HAHAHAHA ALL THAT IS NOT FOUNDAMENTALS THEORIES ,IT'S a JOKE SIMPLY dear Students of all the world.......

To be honest this is what I think might be the most fundamental theory possible......ahahahaha to be honest I think you loose all your time....perhaps if it's reversible, you shall find ahhazha to be honest toi be honest and me I am the child of Obama and Bush ahahaha

We dream dear scientists we dream

Steve

John,

_We_ are the "physical entity" that counts the number of vibrations in an arbitrarily chosen unit of time. You are mistaking the ordered sequence of real integers -- a mathematical convention -- for phenomenological reality. The problem with that is, the phenomena must be defined within certain physically real parameters that reduce to special cases. This is the whole point of general relativity -- that processes happen at different rates throughout spacetime; we reconcile those varying rates with a unified (continuous) spacetime by manipulating coordinate points, as Lawrence mentioned, so that a transformation operation (Lorentz transform) informs us that although the simultaneity of events cannot be locally determined, the event space is continuous with time. I.e., the wave equation of the universe functions, as Lawrence also alluded to, on massless coordinates in which the time parameter t = 1. That's a quantum effect that can't be reconciled with the continuous spacetime of classical relativity, because we only measure changes in position between mass points (Mach's Principle). That's a lot of what the fuss over a unified theory boils down to.

There is a silver lining in our frustration of trying to communicate with each other. For one thing, it's made me realize that a lot of results that I thought were almost universally understood in classical physics, are not. And you know, you and I are quite close in our desires to have a well ordered sequence of events organically continuous with the real line of integers, i.e., a "natural" rather than axiomatic or assumed, counting order. That was the theme of my ICCS 2006 paper.

Tom

Dear Tom,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I am searching unity symmetries and broken symmetries. IMHO, it is critical that the unity symmetry must yield the observed broken symmetries of observed particles, of a (3+1)-brane of Spacetime, and must explain the nature of Einstein's Field Equations and the Minkowski metric.

Twenty-eight "dimensions" is the smallest number that gave me the type of Spacetime, Hyperspace, Supersymmetry, Scale Invariance, and Holographic Gravity Transform that I think I need. It also gives a useful (but expanded) particle spectrum. I think Steve and others would feel more comfortable if I called these dgrees-of-freedom instead of dimensions, but I consider them dimensions because they are directly correlated to the diagonal matrix elements of the 28-D group.

Dear Lawrence,

You are correct that we must set goals. IMHO, Occam's razor is a balance between Simplicity and Necessity. If it is necessary to include Hyperspace, Supersymmetry, Scale Invariance, and a Holographic Gravity, then it is necessary to consider more dimensions. Although we clearly have a very large number of degrees-of-freedom in the Universe, I would prefer not to count each of those as a fundamental dimension.

Dear Steve,

And here I thought you were "crazy" enough to actually understand 28-D. You are the child of Obama and Bush? How could that happen? It is easier to comprehend 28-D...

hihihi

Now we are going to have all the perfect explaination of the extradimensions, yes they are going to explain us the rules, the properties, the natures of these extradimensions.......like x,y,z ....let's go we wait all, all over the world.......the fractal is in 3D ,it's foundamental for the evolution, the origin of mass and all our universe.

Dear Ray, it's easy indeed to understand these extradimensions, it's the reason why I have this conclusion about these ideas.It's purely not foundamental.

I don't agree, the Occam Razor is more than that, it's a pure and necessary sorting of our extrapolations, dear Dr Cosmic Ray, we can't play like we want with our equations.

8 or 12 or 24 or 28 or x .....all that is false Ray because the maths tools do not respect the real referential and the pure rotations implying thermodynamical correlations and proportionalities.

The rotations of spheres explain all if and only if the pure 3D referential and the rotating mass are inserted with the biggest pragmatism and rationalism.

The Universal equation is not a play, simply and humbly.

It's not a question of competences but about your utilizations of your competences, it's totally different.

Friendly and sincerely

Steve

Lawrence,

You wrote, "Now obviously it would be crazy to try to write up a theory based on the monster group. At least at this time we have absolutely no basis to draw upon to work with this."

Maybe not so crazy, and just maybe "crazy enough." I really do need to get caught up on group theory. However, I find it interesting that the root space dimensionality of the monster group (196,883) automorphism is so close to the 24 dimension kissing number (196,560). IIRC, this known kissing number is based on a lattice construction. If a non-lattice construction is allowed, and the maximal dimensionality/kissing number turns out actually to be 196,884, then you'll have your basis -- because it will be consistent with (actually, extend) my theory of n-dimension self organized spacetime. Here's why:

First, the conjectured kissing number (196,884) has to be a member of the congruence subgroup n (mod 12) -- which it is -- because a 12-vertex lattice is the zeroth member (see table S1.2, p. 30, of my "time barrier" paper) and recurring zero of the kissing order; i.e., the 12 vertex lattice of 3 dimensions implies that the 3-manifold shell of 4 dimension space (k = 24, order 1) is not a dimensionless singularity, but rather, imparts dimensionality to n-dimensional space (my ICCS 2006 paper). IOW, the center of 4 dimensions (k = 24) is the origin of length 1 in hyperspace.

So I hope you can see that transferring the boundary of string field theory to the Euclidean group of kissing 3-manifolds allows infinite solutions, _unless_ there is a finite dimension limit beyond the 4 dimension horizon. To find that upper limit, which is where you seem to be going, is to raise some _very_ interesting questions about the deep nature of creation, and its dizzying variety of forms.

Tom

Dear Tom,

Yes - 24 dimensions are very important because of the Leech lattice. I'm not sure if the difference between my 28 and the Leech 24 is:

a) 4-D of time (which I seem to have real, imaginary and quaternionic time) or b) 4-D of observable (inflated, non-lattice-like) Spacetime, or

c) the 4 basis vectors of G2xG2, or

d) b and c.

Dear Steve,

I like to "play" with extra dimensions because "play" is how children learn, and I am but a child who lives in more dimensions than he understands.

Have Fun!

Hi Ray,

I can't imagine why it took you so long to conclude that your friend on the other side of the pond thinks we're doing recreational mathematics here. I thought he was pretty clear and emphatic about that. :-)

Anyway, yes. Mathematicians can add dimensions at will to represent added parameters. What I am still struggling with is what you deem physically real, and how it affects the mechanics of the space you are working in.

Tom

Ray,

Imaginary time doesn't require 4 dimensions, only 2 complex dimensions, and real time requires only one real dimension. Quaternionic time? I don't know--quaternions are noncommmutative, so I suppose a model could be made to work in which time is irreversible; however, one would have to sacrifice the reversible time trajectory of continuous function (classical) physics, which would rule out unification of quantum and classical functions.

In my theory, the only lattice construction that matters (although lattices of any higher number may result, as long as they belong to the mod 12 subgroup) is the 3 dimension lattice of S^2 topology.

Tom

Tom,

I do have a reasonably workable understanding of what spacetime is describing, in that there is no absolute sequencing or universal rate of change, ie. time. So it creates a workaround by correlating these differing effects to the spatial conditions, such as gravity fields, acceleration, velocity, etc. which affect otherwise stable processes, such as the vibrations of a cesium atom, in order to explain the narrative sequencing of events.

I am not "mistaking the ordered sequence of real integers -- a mathematical convention -- for phenomenological reality," because I'm not the one subscribing to time as anything more than emergent phenomena. I am saying that the measuring device and those conscious beings constructing it and reading it, are the "phenomenological reality." I am saying the vibrations being measured are the manifestation of "the ordered sequence of real integers." The atom is emitting them, the measuring device is registering their peak and then they fade away, to be followed by the next. In other words, these vibrations, representing units of time, are first potential, then actual, then residual information in the measuring device. The device and the people attending to it are not traveling some dimension from one vibration to the next. The vibrations are being created and replaced.

This is not time reversal, because the very concept of time reversal requires that fourth dimension on which it is assumed one might travel either direction. In this understanding, past and future have no other reality than as sequential configurations of the same energy manifesting the current configuration.

Nor is there any universal time, as the effect of time emerges from this process and if you were to change the circumstances of the atom at the heart of the measuring device, such as accelerating it, putting it in a gravity field, etc. it would have some corresponding proportional effect on the rate of vibration.

The possibility of simultaneity cannot be, as you say, "locally determined," but that is due to the fact that any coordinate points we may use and processes of measurement will vary according to circumstance. Also the very fact that time emerges from the process, rather than is a geometric basis for it, means we cannot specify a dimensionless point in time, without freezing the very process creating it.

I realize we have been over these points many times, but it is evident you have been viewing my arguments through some filter of your own, in which it has been conflated with time reversal. So I do feel it necessary to keep repeating them until such time as you at least understand what I'm saying. If you then can accurately deconstruct it and effectively describe what errors I may be making, so be it, but knocking down your own strawmen hasn't managed to affect my views.

Dear Tom,

It looks like I have 4 time-like dimensions, which is why I assume that I'm working with 1) Real Time, 2) Imaginary Time, 3) Quaternionic Real Time, and 4) Quaternionic Imaginary Time.

If your model has 3 mod 12 dimensions, then it is consistent with Lawrence's 27-D (27=3+2*12) model, and I probably have at least one too many time-like dimensions (or maybe one or two of these dimensions decompose into trivially decoupled solutions). I like your mod 12 - it reminds me of my E12 - 12 dimensions are a relevant subgroup of the problem.

Steve and I like to tease each other - we've been throwing this sort of friendly banter at each other across the pond for about a year now. He swears that the Universe is only 3-D, but then he adds in rotating spheres, and increases his degrees-of-freedom/ dimensionality.

Dear Steve,

Don't you want to see Avatar in 28-D? That would be awesome!

Have Fun!

C'mon, John, since I haven't erected any strawmen, you haven't knocked any down. Time reversibility in classical functions is not something I just made up -- it was always there and is not controversial.

Freezing a moment in time (mathematically) does not mean that the moment is a dimensionless point. All the dimensions are still "there."

Your hypothesis: " ... these vibrations, representing units of time, are first potential, then actual, then residual information in the measuring device. The device and the people attending to it are not traveling some dimension from one vibration to the next. The vibrations are being created and replaced" makes no physical sense. In order for this statement to be true, dimensionality couldn't exist at all. Do you even see why?

Tom

Hello Ray,

Hmmm. That's an interesting coincidence, and maybe more than a coincidence.

I take it you mean 3 = 27 (mod 12) is identical to two 12 dimensional subgroups or one Leech lattice of 24 dimensions, plus two dimensions of space and one of time. If so, it is possible that Lawrence's static mathematical model is dual to mine -- because the 2 1 (i.e., 3 dimensions) of the two- sphere (S^2) manifold is my zeroth order object. Lawrence can speak for himself, however.

I added one more step to convert this static model to a dynamic and kinetic theory. I realized after constructing the model mathematically that nothing compelled the normalized order to be physical ("nothing happens until something moves"), so the zeroth term could not have a _physical_ value of zero. There had to be an epsilon term between 0 and 1 to compel the dissipation of the time metric in the n-dimension order, thus adding kinetic meaning, with the dynamics on the inertial boundaries of kissing spheres, consistent with string field theory in infinite dimensions.

Does this epsilon term take a small or a large value, I wondered, and how does one derive it? I confess that it was a matter of months before I realized that I had already calculated the term in 2005, for a paper presented to NECSI ICCS 2006 ("Self organization in real and complex analysis") and it was entirely consistent with the physical definition of "time" that I put forward: "n-dimensional infinitely orientable metric on self avoiding random walk". You see -- a large value for 0 epsilon would mean a high inertial content for our universe, which doesn't comport with what we actually observe. I was absolutely flabbergasted to find that not only did my term match WMAP data _exactly_, but it predicted an upper bound for the acceleration of the universe at about 87% of the speed of light from the present point of observation. See table S3.1, p. 36 of my "time barrier" paper.

Tom

Dear Tom,

It is interesting that you thought you needed an epsilon term for stability, and I thought I needed a fractal term with self-similar scales for stability. Although we approached this problem from very different perpectives, there may be more similarities than differences. My reading list is growing. I need to reread your paper (I may have actually read a different paper, ICCS2006), and I need to read Lawrence's latest ideas on a Quantum Time Operator, and Lisi's latest paper on "An Explicit Embedding of Gravity and the SM in E8". Just in case it is useful for your applications, an important small number in my calculations is (phi)^(-6)= 0.055728...

Have Fun!

Tom,

I'll leave the point about strawmen alone, since it implies I know your mind, but I was saying you were knocking over your own strawmen, in the sense you were refuting what you think I'm saying.

The spatial dimensions would theoretically still be there, as you would have a non-fluctuating vacuum. The problem is that it would lack the activity of which time is an emergent property.

My point is that time doesn't exist as a dimension, but a process by which future possibilities coalesce into current events and then are supplanted by subsequent configurations. This is why I draw such strong distinctions between space and time.

The narrative projection of events, ie. time, is fundamental to any form of thought process, but the thought process is a far higher order of emergence than time is, so from our perspective, it may seem quite logical to conflate this narrative imperative with the dimensionality of space, but, as I've pointed out previously, we could use a very similar correlation of gas laws to argue temperature is another "dimension" of volume. If the clock slowing down due to acceleration means time is another dimension of space, why wouldn't a reduction in volume causing a proportional increase in temperature not also mean volume and temperature are the same? Other than the fact that while temperature is fundamental to our biology, it is less directly foundational to our rationality, as time is.

Tom,

Proper time is regarded by many as a "real" quantity. Of course coordinate time is a book keeping device, and is meshed into spacetime. Proper time is the invariant quantity in relativity theory, where its momentum conjugate is rest mass, and if I had to say there is a reality to time it is proper time.

Cheers LC

John,

You have no point to make regarding strawmen, period. I don't recall at any time in our dialogue departing from conventional, well known physics.

The mathematical treatment of a frozen moment does not _create_ a "non fluctuating vacuum." It is a picture, a photograph, of the moment. Even if time is an emergent property, it's in the photograph. An iterated series of photographs is the moving picture. Once again, the deep question is over discrete quantum moments vs. continuous field.

Time never _did_ exist as a discrete dimension in classical physics, and in quantum physics t = 1.

No one, no physicist at least, "conflates this narrative imperative with the dimensionality of space." One recognizes that psychological time is distinct from models of time in nature. The relation of temperature to volume has nothing to do with the issue. You ask, "If the clock slowing down due to acceleration means time is another dimension of space, why wouldn't a reduction in volume causing a proportional increase in temperature not also mean volume and temperature are the same?" You got it backwards, in the first place -- compression reduces temperature; temperature is just an instantaneous measure of average motion, and the less room for particles to move, the lower the temperature, because the action of compression releases heat energy.

"Other than the fact that while temperature is fundamental to our biology, it is less directly foundational to our rationality, as time is."

The body's _regulation_ of temperature is fundamental to our biology. This is a feedback effect, not a fundamental cause. This has nothing to do with time and volume.

Tom