Two-Timing Universe

[John G]

From http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/29-3-ideas-that-are-pushing-the-edge-of-science


3) A Two-Timing Universe
For nearly a century, physicists have tried to reconcile Einstein’s vision of the universe (including three dimensions of space and one of time) with the bizarre realm of quantum physics, rife with such oddities as instant communication at a distance and being in two places at once. The effort to unify the views has resulted in a stream of elaborate hypotheses positing worlds with multiple dimensions of space, most notably string theory and its successor, M-theory.

Itzhak Bars, a theoretical physicist at the University of Southern California, thinks these hypotheses are missing a crucial ingredient: an extra dimension of time. By adding a second dimension of time and a fourth dimension of space to Einstein’s standard space-time, Bars has come up with a new model providing “additional information that remained hidden in previous formulations” of physics, including current versions of M-theory. Such a model could better explain “how nature works,” he says.

Physicists had never added a second dimension of time to their models because it opens the possibility of traveling back in time and introduces negative probabilities and other scenarios that seem nonsensical. In his equations Bars has solved these problems with a new symmetry that treats an object’s position and its momentum as interchangeable at any given instant.

Does this mean we could actually experience a second dimension of time? “Yes,” Bars says, “but only indirectly,” by thinking of the world around us as many shadows that look different depending on the perspective of the light source. “The predicted relations among the different shadows contain most of the information about the extra dimensions,” he explains. Next, Bars and his team are developing tests for two-time physics and investigating how to apply the theory to all the natural forces, including gravity. Adding two-time physics to M-theory, he says, should help us close in on “the fundamental theory that so far has eluded all of us.”

 

[mamadrama]

Thanks for posting this, John. My understanding of physics is very fundamental but I wonder why F- theory was left out of the article? Isn't this two-dimensional view of time based on Vafa's work, who was a student of Wittin's?

 

[John G]

Thanks for posting this, John. My understanding of physics is very fundamental but I wonder why F- theory was left out of the article? Isn't this two-dimensional view of time based on Vafa's work, who was a student of Wittin's?

This article mentions extending Einstein's spacetime so it is I think more directly an extension for Einstein's classical physics and they hope it will be useful for quantum physics too (string/M/F theory). The most straight-forward way to extend spacetime is I think this from a 1990 paper of Ark's:

http://quantumfuture.net/arkadiusz-jadczyk/papers/conformal_theories.pdf

"A light cone in (compactified) Minkowski M is fully characterized by its origin so that the space of these light-cones is M itself so it can be identified with M = SO(4,2)/(P x R+)."

Minkowski spacetime is a 4-dim Einstein general relativity spacetime and the 4,2 signature would be 4 spacelike and 2 timelike dimensions. Ark and the Cs talk about this in the transcripts too and Ark mentions taking slices where each slice is a universe so Ark is talking quantum physics also. Ark also mentions Matti Pitkanen and Tony Smith in the transcripts. Matti is into slices too I know and Tony is into the 4,2 signature both classicly and for M/F theory. Tony adds a complex dimension for M-theory (2 timelike ones) and a quaternionic dimension for F-theory (4 spacelike ones).

 

[ark]

What everybody is missing is understanding of the quantum: where it comes from?

 

[Ruth]

What everybody is missing is understanding of the quantum: where it comes from?

I looked up the word because I thought it was an interesting question. Unfortunately I am non-the-wiser, as physics isn't a language I understand, even if the word 'quantum' seems to be used a lot today. :)

5. Physics. a. the smallest quantity of radiant energy, equal to Planck's constant times the frequency of the associated radiation. b. the fundamental unit of a quantized physical magnitude, as angular momentum.
[Origin: 1610–20; n. use of neut. of L quantus how much]

 

[ark]

I was using kind of a slang. For explanation you may like to read this:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/04/quantum-pioneer-john-wheeler-dies.html

 

[mamadrama]

Thanks for these links. It will take me a while to study Ark's paper (yikes!) It's way beyond my knowledge base. Also, the entire articles aren't available at New Scientist unless you are a subscribing member.

What everybody is missing is understanding of the quantum: where it comes from?

So, are you referring to the big question here? Why Existence?
Laurel

 

[Russ]

I see "Why existence?", as in all of existence, as a strange question. There isn't anything BUT existence, how can it have a reason? Existence doesn't seem to be part of a system, but more like it IS the system which contains all reasons. Theres no way to step outside of it and see it affecting anything else but itself. And with the thought process "why?", there will never be an end to our searching. Its like a few C quotes:

991113
Q: It would seem as though we are caught in an endless loop,
which is ultimately futile.
A: It would seem that way if one is transposing 3rd density
linear thought from a physicalized standpoint upon that which
is infinitely more complex.

950617:
A: Imagine a conversation between two people: Billy and
Gene. Billy says to Gene, "There is no such thing as time."
Gene says, "Oh, really? But I want to know what it is." Billy
says, "But I just told you there is no such thing. Time does not
exist. It is not real in any form, in any frame of reference, in
any form of reality, any level of density. It simply does not
exist." And, Gene says: "Oh, that's interesting. Now, again,
what is this time?"

In the end, if we are in an endless loop, and all is done but our journey through it, then there will never be a REAL answer to the question "Why?". Our apparent understanding would be meaningless. It just seems to me that there needs to be a paradigm shift.

I mean, before we ever asked "why?", how did we know we could ask that? What if there is somthing else to ask? Or a totally different approach? Not that I have any suggestions, but it strikes me that "why?" is running out of steam. But a lot of things strike me and I later find out I'm wrong :)

 

[dant]

From my understanding of Gene's last statement, he does
not seem to grok the statement that time does not exist.
Gene perhaps believes time does exist and anything to the
contrary does not fit into his comprehension? I suppose the
question of existence is the same thing as:

Gene: Why do we exist?
Billy: Because we do.
Gene: But, Why?
Billy: I dunno, but we are here, aren't we?
Gene: Yes, but that doesn't explain why we exist.

And so, it is a mystery for us. Some seek the reason for
existence because s/he cannot accept it for what it is -or-
if he had accepted it, would they be asking this question in
the first place? Perhaps, being in this density is not the
proper "time" for this this lesson?

Didn't we read in the C's transcripts, that we exists only if
someone had dreamed us up first? Since we "exist", in
this infinite playground, "all there is, is lessons", as the C's
would say? And there are different lessons at each density,
according to its proper "time"?

Can we choose to believe in existence (BEing) or in non-existence
(non-BEing)? Isn't that a FW choice for us? Are we patient enough
to accept what we cannot explain nor understand, perhaps, until the
proper "time"?

Many questions and few answers ;)

FWIW,
Dan

 

[mamadrama]

I see "Why existence?", as in all of existence, as a strange question. There isn't anything BUT existence, how can it have a reason? Existence doesn't seem to be part of a system, but more like it IS the system which contains all reasons. Theres no way to step outside of it and see it affecting anything else but itself. And with the thought process "why?", there will never be an end to our searching.

I think we are delving into the realm of quantum philosophy where Wheeler was asking the RBQ's. (really big questions)
Why the quantum?
How come existence?
It from bit?
A "participatory universe"?
What makes "meaning"?

In the end, if we are in an endless loop, and all is done but our journey through it, then there will never be a REAL answer to the question "Why?". Our apparent understanding would be meaningless. It just seems to me that there needs to be a paradigm shift.

.
Ark's post on objective truth speaks to this paradox, but hopefully he'll post more on this.

We are operating with a finite set of concepts, therefore in our "definitions" it is difficult to avoid "defining by what is being defined". This is not always a disaster. We know from the mathematical "set theory" that, sometimes, self-referencing leads to paradoxes (A barber that shaves all those who do not shave themselves. Does this barber shave himself or not. If he shaves himself, then it is not true that he shaves only those who do not shave themselves. If he does not shaves himself, then it is also not true that he shaves ALL that do not shave themselves.) Recursive algorithms, that is algorithms with a function that calls itself work pretty well (though they are slow), but they do not always terminate. If our universe is not finite, then recursion, even one that does not terminate, can still "better and better" approximate the "solution". Here is another trap. I wrote "better and better" in quotation marks, because what is better and what is not depends on our choice of the distance estimating function. This function can change from step to step, and when things are getting complicated we arrive at the "Halt Problem." (Halt = Stop)

http://computing-dictionary.thefreedict … lt+problem

"The problem is determining in advance whether a particular program or algorithm will terminate or run forever. The halting problem is the canonical example of a provably unsolvable problem. Obviously any attempt to answer the question by actually executing the algorithm or simulating each step of its execution will only give an answer if the algorithm under consideration does terminate, otherwise the algorithm attempting to answer the question will itself run forever."

We will have a similar situation with my definition of the truth. It may be so that we do not know in advance (and there is no algorithm that would allow us to know in advance) whether our "algorithm" of getting to the truth will ever find its end or not. The only thing we can do is let it run it, wait and see.

(What I wrote above will be easier to understand for those who have some experience with programming. The terms "self-referencing" and "recursion" will then "tune" to the right frequency, and may ameliorate possible objections.)

.

I mean, before we ever asked "why?", how did we know we could ask that? What if there is somthing else to ask? Or a totally different approach? Not that I have any suggestions, but it strikes me that "why?" is running out of steam. But a lot of things strike me and I later find out I'm wrong

I think Wheeler was of the mind that the deepest lesson of quantum mechanics may be that reality is defined by the questions we put to it. But, if we have a "Self Aware" Universe, as Goswami theorizes in The Self-Aware Universe, self-referencing is important and then maybe the question becomes who instead of why.

 

[Ruth]

For Wheeler, it was not enough to say that quantum mechanics works - he wanted to know what was behind it.

How did he knew it 'worked' especially if he didn't know the 'how'.... and because it is an expanding area for study with some controversies? Maybe there are things missing? Perhaps finding out the 'how' would lead to Unified Field Theory?

It seems to the uneducated observer, such as myself, that scientists in this area have a lot of 'trouble' with paradoxes. Maybe once they get over that hump, or at least factor it into their equations, then things might become a little more clearer. Is there such a thing as factoring in a paradox?

 

[John G]

Ark certainly recognizes things necessary for the quantum picture that many haven't noticed as being needed, things like a many-worlds interpretation, a GRW-like decoherence and that recursive self-learning algorithm. Quantum probabilities are probably a very complex thing related to that self-learning algorithm. Even if the algorithms were fully known and could run in a reasonable amount of time on a computer, there's still the question of how free will operates in conjunction with all the quantum paths and their probabilities. Even if it all could be described with math there would still be the unknowable god question of why there had to be physics and free will to match up with math anyways. Just because something can be described by math doesn't mean it had to exist. As for time, I guess "no time" means all the past and future possibilities always exist in some sense, we just can't sense it all at once but only sense one point at a time on our worldline, perhaps there are other worldlines for us that we can sense all at once?

 

[Russ]

Yeah, if reality is like one big "wave" maybe we're collapsing it, and maybe the way it collapses (instead of being random), is to do with us personally, and if its a wave, then our personal reality wouldn't interfere with anyone elses, but would be more like we'd select it from a big pool. Which kind of is a bit strange because it means we'd be seeing our own personal universe.

I don't have much time sorry, lol, here is a video of the self aware universe which I saw quite a while ago: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wQ_YoGkrew
Its the kind of thing you say "so?" to, but is quite amazing I think. A bit like the terror of the situation, I didn't feel that at first. Now I feel it every day.