Essay Abstract

The interplay between continuous and discrete structures results in a duality between the moduli space for black hole types and $AdS_7$ spacetime. The $3$ and $4$ Q-bit structures of quantum black holes is equivalent to the conformal completion of $AdS$.

Author Bio

I did my graduate work at Purdue University and have since worked in affiliation with the AIAS and industry, which has been with spacecraft navigation and software. For the last several years I have been working to set up the problem which this paper is related. Quantum cosmology is a quantum error correction process.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

Lawrence, it is good to see your essay has been posted. It is quite a technical paper and I want to understand it better, so I am likely to ask some questions once I have looked at it some more.

Phil,

Unfortunately this paper is a bit sketchy in some ways. The later part I illustrate the role of a G_2 holonomy. This Killing vectors, N for N-SUSY, satisfy a commuting condition except for one which is K_t, which is not covariantly constant. There is a U(1) fibration over the 6 dimensional space given by the coset condition G_2/SU(3), where G_2 can be seen as decomposed into SU(3) x S^6. Therefore the space cannot be factorized and the holonomy is equal to G_2, which is a property of G_2 manifolds. This constitutes a fixed point set, and a set of timelike geodesics. These geodesics are identified on the coset space for the gauge connection, which is the moduli space

For a given Killing vector k, a hypersurface defined by |k|^2 = 0 is the fixed point

set and degenerates if the surface gravity vanishes, The fixed points of all Killing vectors are non-degenerate which implys a periodic identification along the Killing direction to ensure the absence of conical singularities. This fact is well known from non-extreme black holes where the event horizon is a non-degenerate fixed point set for a timelike Killing vector. In the case here, the compactness of the Killing direction ensures that the Kaluza-Klein gauge group becomes U(1) and that the D6-branes, which are identified as the fixed point set.

The G_2 is 14, which in complexification is a 28. This then provides a map between these orbits on the SO(4, 4)/SO(2, 2)xSO(2, 2) moduli space of the 4 qubit system, where the orbits of SO(4; 4) are the adjoint 28 for the black hole, with the holonomy of G_2. The holonomy is a geodesic on a timelike direction in the two moduli spaces. The difference is there is a triality condition here, which means the map between the two are 3 to 1, and the Z_3 is the cyclicity.

By taking the AdS_7/Z_3 this collapses this condition, where in addition this discrete condition defines the conformal completion on the AdS. This may be used to construct the boundary of the AdS, where the isometries of AdS are conformal fields on the boundary. These conformal fields are the T^6 coincident with the D6-brane. This is then a qubit discrete approach to the Maldecena result AdS ~ CFT.

Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    Hi all,

    Congratulations for this beautiful maths extrapolation and superimposings.

    It's a mix of some theories of strings.

    Probably it could be interesting if Mr Witten, Mr Baez and Mr Penrose come here for a discussion in transparence about some points of vue.That will be interesting it seems to me.

    I invite them to see your beautiful mathematical play.and we shall discuss about the relevances and the errors.

    The QM is logic and all its superimposings must be rational.

    All road conducts to truth if and only if they are purely correlated with our universal constants.

    Good luck.

    Ed Witten probably has a lot better things to do than peruse the FQXi essays. The guy is utterly brilliant. He writes very long papers, where he is one of the few people who write 60 page papers I am willing to read. For the most part I prefer not to read papers over 25 pages in length. Of course one point in writing these essays is to put at least one ball into the basket so that I might get a bit of attention --- Warhol's 15 minutes of fame.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    I translate my french a little,

    Notes of Math overlook the confusion.

    Such a sweet and serene symphony clearing the unlimited sharps.

    Is it important to devote training practices of these notes in series without changement of speeds?

    It would become, you will agree, though unsuccessfully to play the score universal score, without these so-called harmonic overlays.

    Good luck for the contest, sincerely.

    Steve

    Lawrence - I just noted your comment to Darth on my page and feel compelled to offer the following clarification. I am probably responsible for some of the confusion. If you are interpreting my version of the gravito-electro-magnetic field to be the same as Sweetser's GEM, then I have mislead you. I show Sweetser's diagrams because I believe they are relevant to understanding significant aspects of 'metric' vs 'potential' approaches to physics. I do NOT accept all of his approach to GEM. Part of the confusion is that I have been using the abbreviation 'GEM' for years before knowing about Sweetser, and neither he nor I have a monopoly on this term. It often refers to Maxwell's original invention--based on symmetry--of the gravito-electro-magnetic (GEM) equations analogous to his electro-magnetic field equations. I don't know a way around this confusion. I often refer to the 'Gene Man' theory, which is more specific, but also more self-referential, and less familiar to all.

    My field equations (see my essay) are neither Maxwell's nor Sweetser's.

    I regret the confusion.

      The clear problem with GEM idea in general is these are an intermixing of internal and external symmetries in ways that are problematic.

      The Einstein field equations are similar to Maxwell's, and in the post^3 Newtonian form are identical (modulo a factor of 2) to Maxwell's equations. The post^2 form is similar to electric and magnetic statics. The magnetic field analogue is similar in some ways to magnetism in EM theory. This is usually what is meant by gravito-magnetic field,

      Cheers LC

      Lawrence,

      The equations are similar in appearance, but electromagnetic fields are essentially linear, whereas the gravitomagnetic (C-) field is inherently non-linear, and is therefore a Yang-Mills equation, not a 'Maxwell'-type equation. This has extremely significant consequences.

      The difficulty remains if the field theory is abelian, as in U(1) QED, or if it is nonabelian in the YM sense. This comes from the problem of characterizing the symmetries of the S matrix if there is a mass. Review the Dirac equation and the mass-gap in the two solutions which separate by a gap p ~ m on the momentum light cone.

      The S-matrix acts on shift the state or momentum state of a particle. A state with two particle states |p, p'> is acted upon by the S matrix through the T matrix

      S = 1 - i(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')T

      So that T|p, p'> != 0. For zero mass plane waves scatter at almost all energy. The Hilbert space is then an infinite product of n-particle subspaces H = (x)_nH^n (here (x) = "otimes" or Cartesian product). As with all Hilbert spaces there exists a unitary operator U, often U = exp(iHt), which transforms the states S acts upon. U transforms n-particle states into n-particle states as tensor products. The unitary operator commutes with the S matrix

      SUS^{-1} = [1 - i(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')T]U[1 + i(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')T^†]

      = U + i(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')[TU - UT^†] + [(2π)^4 δ^4(p - p')]^2(TUT^†).

      By Hermitian properties and unitarity it is not difficult to show the last two terms are zero and that the S-matrix commutes with the unitary matrix. The Lorentz group then defines operator p_μ and L_{μν} for momentum boosts and rotations. The S-matrix defines changes in momentum eigenstates, while the unitary operator is generated by a internal symmetries A_a, where the index a is within some internal space (the circle in the complex plane for example, and we then have with some

      [A_a, p_μ] = [A_a, L_{μν}] = 0.

      This is a sketch of the infamous "no-go" theorem of Coleman and Mundula. This is what prevents one from being able to place internal and external generators or symmetries on the same footing.

      The way around this problem is supesymmetry. The generators of the supergroup, or a graded Lie algebra, have 1/2 commutator group elements [A_a, A_b] = C_{ab}^cA_c (C_{ab}^c = structure constant of some Lie algebra), plus another set of graded operators which obey

      {Q_a, Q_b} = γ^μ_{ab}p_μ,

      which if one develops the SUSY algebra you find this is a loophole which allows for the intertwining of internal symmetries and spacetime generators. One might think of the above anti-commutator as saying the momentum operator, as a boundary operator p_μ = -iħ∂_μ which has a cohomology, where it results from the application of a Fermi-Dirac operator Q_a. Fermi-Dirac states are such that only one particle can occupy a state, which has the topological content of d^2 = 0. This cohomology is the basis for BRST quantization.

      This is why most physicists who work on this stuff take supersymmetry seriously. It is also one reason why many schemes which purport to derive gravitation or unify gravitation with EM in some elementary was can be subject to strong questions. Of course supersymmetry remains a hypothetical, though some signatures of it have been detected. We will have to wait for the LHC to yield such results before anything is conclusive.

      Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      Indeed, indeed,....but why they mix like that.

      It's even not to imply confusions.

      NUCLEAR CRYOGENICS???? magnetic polarizations..........YANG !!!

      beta particles ...electrons....see the cobalt for example!!!The apparatus of Ambler,Hudson,Wu ...mesures that whith He and N2.

      I don't see concrete mixing of our equations,physical.How is it possible to derivate or intergrate correctly if the real physicality isn't inserted with the biggest rationality.

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      rEVERSIBILITY OR IRREVERSIBILITY........ENTROPY CHANGEMENT.......POSITIVE IN A WHOLE !!!

      informations and entropy can better be understood.....see the demon of maxwell.

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      Hi Lawrence,

      WOW! A little bit of light reading for the next time I have trouble sleeping...

      I like these qubits - they are simultaineously discrete kissing-sphere particle-like and continuous string wave-like.

      Ceratinly, Philip's 4 qubit is an important sub-symmetry. My models require this for icosian symmetries.

      Regarding your 3 qubit idea, Could we have a 5 qubit (the NS5-brane) decomposing into a (3+2) qubit?

      Have Fun!

      The 4 quantum bits with an SO(8) realization have an 24-cell realization. The 24-cell is represented by the B_4 ~ SO(9), D_4 ~ SO(8) and F_4. With a part of what I am doing in this paper, in particular within the attachment, is to work out a G_2 holonomy for these quantum bits. The G_2 is the automorphism of E_8 and F_4 the centralizer. I think by this means we can push this up to the 8-qubit entanglement problem. A part of what I have laid out is what I think are some step in this direction.

      The 5-qubit problem I think is outstanding, though one can derive a combination of 4-quibits into a 5. Also within an E_8 system there are two dualities that exist with respect to the Steiner system (or Hamming distance). The standard one is [3, 5, 8] and the self-dual system is [4, 4, 8] that has a Hilbert space correspondence. The Steiner system has a dual between 3 and 5, so within the E_8 system the 3-quibit subsystem is equivalent to the 5-qubit subsystem. By this is would mean that the 3-qubit system would have 5 separable states plus 3-qubits in a W or GHZ state.

      Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      Dear Lawrence,

      If I recall correctly you promised to include pictures in your essay that will show how to imagine something like spacetime foam. Did I got you wrong, or did you decide to hide your colorful results?

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      I guess I am not seeing on this page here where I made such a promise. I might have said something about including a picture of a tessellated AdS spacetime. This is one of MC Escher's prints, where this illustrates the lattice system on the AdS_2.

      Cheers LCAttachment #1: AdS_circlelimit.JPG

      The discrete nature of time might be compared to a numerical ordering. I carry this further to consider a discrete structure in general.

      Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      On Dec. 7, 2010 in 782#post_29212 you wrote:"Signatures of this structure lie around us in the universe, such as the images I attach. So fractal geometry is important, and in fact what I outline above is what my essay will entail.

      Cheers LC

      attachments: cosmic_filaments.JPG, cmb_popup.jpg "

      "AdS circlelimit.JPG" is also a nice but naked figure without an explaining legend. I have humbly to admit to be a layman who not even heard of tessellated AdS. Let me try a wild guess: In't there a Tom Essel, and could dS stand for de Sitter? A? Hm, maybe Arahonov? Anyway, a certain part of your readers would certainly appreciate at least a list of abbreviations.

      Eckard