This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# I can't find the post right now, but earlier David and I were talking about a layered look

to the universe with a total of 26 spatial dimensions (based on Bosonic string theory).... I've been thinking further about it, and I've come up with an expanded version which divides the omniverse into four layers (4 is a number which recurs frequently in cosmology as in numbers of dimensions and forces), and the structure I outlined and will present in Origin 17 is as follows (note that I multiply everything by 2 because it is my belief that as each layer expands into the next layer it bifurcates or divides into 2 via pair production.)

2 (1 s X 1 t) the basal layer of the omniverse-- one dimension of space and one of time. Bifurcates into 2 s X 2 t.... this is the layer of exotic matter and wormhole building. Gravity originates here.

2 (4 s X 1 t) what I call the megaverse layer, or the layer upon which new universes bubble up as virtual particles (ZPE) amongst the sea of exotic matter (layer 1) that lies just beneath. Layer 1 and 2 also form the basis for 5D Kaluza Klein theory and comprise quantum foam and can be considered the quantum layers of the omniverse. Bifurcation divides this into 8 s X 2 t dimensions or the 10 D of superstring theory. The 8 spatial dimensions are divided as follows:

2 (5 s X 1 t) the supersymmetry superverse layer.... in superstring theory, universes of 6D and 4D are the most stable, and this would be the 6D superverse, which is divided into a matterverse and antimatterverse via pair production and superquadverse with mirror and antimirror matter.

2(3 s X 1 t) is layer four, or our universe, formed inside a black hole inside the superverse. Notice that the 3 spatial dimensions of this layer plus the 5 spatial dimensions of the superverse equal the 8 spatial dimensions of layer 2. This further bifurcates via pair production to form universes made of matter and antimatter and quadverse with mirror and antimirror matter. The 8 total dimensions of this layer after bifurcation also define the number of dimensions our consciousness can exist within and explore.

I had earlier mentioned that the omniverse is like a recursive inverse fractal and recurs in a ringlike fashion.... these 4D and 6D universes exist inside each other as babyverses alternately, until you get back to where you started from.

Further notes: Big bounce and expansion/contraction cycles occur when a universe in a given layer expands so much that it bumps up against its superverse in another layer through dimensional expansion. Gravity originates in the first layer, but since it possesses no degrees of freedom in 1D it is action at a distance on the other layers, just like how the strong force works and preserves that duality. Dimensions bifurcate via pair production and the superverse's matter is our supermatter, just like our matter is the superverse's supermatter because it exists in a different frequency (different layer.)

When constructing this, I noticed the pythagorean triplets 3,4,5 and via pair production 6,8,10 recur in the dimensional structure..... furthermore, the total of 26 spatial dimensions and 8 temporal dimensions shows another triplet of 5, 12 and 13 and via pair production, 10, 24, and 26 dimensions depending on the number of layers being observed. The 8 temporal dimensions define the degrees of freedom available to us in 3D time; there are 2^3 possible directions time can take.

Many other theories can be derived from the above structure-- for example, Vafa's F-theory can be derived from 2(3s X 1t) + 2(1s X 1t), 5D Kaluza Klein theory as has already been stated, can be derived from layer 2 (4s X 1t), M theory can be derived from layer 3 2(5s X 1t). Supersymmetry can be derived from the superverse layer. The 10 D of superstring theory come from the megaverse layer. I can't find the post right now, but earlier David and I were talking about a layered look to the universe with a total of 26 spatial dimensions (based on Bosonic string theory).... I've been thinking further about it, and I've come up with an expanded version which divides the omniverse into four layers (4 is a number which recurs frequently in cosmology as in numbers of dimensions and forces), and the structure I outlined and will present in Origin 17 is as follows (note that I multiply everything by 2 because it is my belief that as each layer expands into the next layer it bifurcates or divides into 2 via pair production.)

2 (1 s X 1 t) the basal layer of the omniverse-- one dimension of space and one of time. Bifurcates into 2 s X 2 t.... this is the layer of exotic matter and wormhole building. Gravity originates here.

2 (4 s X 1 t) what I call the megaverse layer, or the layer upon which new universes bubble up as virtual particles (ZPE) amongst the sea of exotic matter (layer 1) that lies just beneath. Layer 1 and 2 also form the basis for 5D Kaluza Klein theory and comprise quantum foam and can be considered the quantum layers of the omniverse. Bifurcation divides this into 8 s X 2 t dimensions or the 10 D of superstring theory. The 8 spatial dimensions are divided as follows:

2 (5 s X 1 t) the supersymmetry superverse layer.... in superstring theory, universes of 6D and 4D are the most stable, and this would be the 6D superverse, which is divided into a matterverse and antimatterverse via pair production and superquadverse with mirror and antimirror matter.

2(3 s X 1 t) is layer four, or our universe, formed inside a black hole inside the superverse. Notice that the 3 spatial dimensions of this layer plus the 5 spatial dimensions of the superverse equal the 8 spatial dimensions of layer 2. This further bifurcates via pair production to form universes made of matter and antimatter and quadverse with mirror and antimirror matter. The 8 total dimensions of this layer after bifurcation also define the number of dimensions our consciousness can exist within and explore.

I had earlier mentioned that the omniverse is like a recursive inverse fractal and recurs in a ring-

like fashion.... these 4D and 6D universes exist inside each other as babyverses alternately, until you get back to where you started from.

Further notes:

When constructing this, I noticed the pythagorean triplets 3,4,5 and via pair production 6,8,10 recur in the dimensional structure..... furthermore, the total of 26 spatial dimensions and 8 temporal dimensions shows another triplet of 5, 12 and 13 and via pair production, 10, 24, and 26 dimensions depending on the number of layers being observed. The 8 temporal dimensions define the degrees of freedom available to us in 3D time; there are 2^3 possible directions time can take.

Many other theories can be derived from the above structure-- for example, Vafa's F-theory can be derived from 2(3s X 1t) + 2(1s X 1t), 5D Kaluza Klein theory as has already been stated, can be derived from layer 2 (4s X 1t), M theory can be derived from layer 3 2(5s X 1t). Supersymmetry can be derived from the superverse layer. The 10 D of superstring theory come from the megaverse layer. High Energy Physics - Theory Title: From Petrov-Einstein to Navier-Stokes Authors: Vyacheslav Lysov, Andrew Strominger (Submitted on 28 Apr 2011) Abstract: We consider a p+1-dimensional timelike hypersurface \Sigma_c embedded with a flat induced metric in a p+2-dimensional Einstein geometry. It is shown that imposing a Petrov type I condition on the geometry reduces the degrees of freedom in the extrinsic curvature of \Sigma_c to those of a fluid in \Sigma_c. Moreover, expanding around a limit in which the mean curvature of the embedding diverges, the leading-order Einstein constraint equations on \Sigma_c are shown to reduce to the non-linear incompressible Navier-Stokes equation for a fluid moving in \Sigma_c. Comments: 4 pages Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Fluid Dynamics (physics.flu-dyn) Cite as: arXiv:1104.5502v1 [hep-th]

First of all, I would like to know the value of P.... the rest, I can sort of work with, if we say that the visible universe is expanding into a hypersphere of our universe+1 dimensions (the volume of a torus is the same as the surface area of a hypersphere, so there is something in that.)

I don't know where they are getting P+2 Einstein Geometry-- they may be talking about two dimensions of time, or two extra spatial dimensions. I remember reading on physorg that theories of quantum physics in the subplanck realm start with 5 dimensions (it wasn't made clear if these were all spatial).... so it sort of sounds like the rehashing of old information.

You can connect them with wormholes in a lattice structure, I would think. This means that adjacency is maintained and the extra dimensions they are talking about (the +1 or the +2) are the ones in which that adjacency would exist. This would apply within a universe (intrauniverse) as well as in a multiverse or omniverse (in the aforementioned lattice structure). Think of a crystal on a really large scale, Allen :P

They may be reflected as topological cosmic strings with nearly 1D structure (when looking from our perspective, since our sensory equipment is not built to receive input in these +1 or +2 dimensions.)

BTW, as David has repeatedly said, this would maintain all conservation laws, as virtual particles would merely be moving adjacently through these +1 or +2 higher dimensions, seeming to appear and disappear to us at will, because our sensory equipment only handles 3+1.

This may actually explain what quantum foam is and how it facilitates virtual particle transport.

I agree David-- at the very least, it has to "reinvent" itself at every bounce.... I think the concept of "no time" is flawed in the sense that they are actually blending space and time together. I believe the same people said there was " no space " for the very same reason in another article. They are merely treating them as equivalent terms.

I agree David-- at the very least, it has to "reinvent" itself at every bounce.... I think the concept of "no time" is flawed in the sense that they are actually blending space and time together. I believe the same people said there was " no space " for the very same reason in another article. They are merely treating them as equivalent terms.

I have been giving that a lot of gray matter lately. I am seeing Qfoam much like a large volleyball net…..incompasing everything and spereading its adjacency around in most disturbing manners….

I agree, and Im sure you also read with great interest the modeling of quantum foam that was made with metamaterials and talked about on MIT's Technology Review Blog. I find it really intriguing too, because I think this "net" may also be responsible for holding in some of the paranormal phenomenon you investigate and I very recently came across some work that showed that electrons themselves behave as if they are caught in a net-- which led to a theory of space-time existing as a net, with particles at intersecting points and energy in between.

Yes that is so correct Alex. Like a spider web

You mean like particles only appear that way, instead they are really more like packets of information deciding to exchange values only at certain times ?

Not speaking for David, but I envision it as them not exactly "deciding" but doing it involuntarily as they are all interconnected in this web-- think of dominoes, when it's their turn, they go down.....

Not speaking for David, but I envision it as them not exactly "deciding" but doing it involuntarily as they are all interconnected in this web-- think of dominoes, when it's their turn, they go down.....

Thanks, David-- these topological cosmic strings have been around since the Big Bang and one would think that they preserve the connections between disparate regions of the universe that were once adjacent in 3+1 spacetime in these higher dimensions. Minus dimensions? That is the realm of antimatter ;) The quadverse that comes into being from the superquadverse can arise in a number of ways, which includes each part arising from its super component when black holes collide (because all time exists simultaneously this can happen even if different components are at opposite ends of the big bounce cycle, because everything is simultaneous in the first 2 layers. There is direct exchange of matter and supermatter between both quadverses as different components are at the central black hole and central white hole end of the cycle, keeping everything balanced. divergence/convergence sounds good to me because the universe seems to act like that on a multitude of levels and if there are such things as multiple timelines I'd expect them to be organized in that fashion also. The whole big bounce cyclic universe idea is divergence and convergence on a cosmic scale.

The 4D idea presented is interesting and, in a way, allows us to view time as a 4th spatial dimension. We can even toy around with the idea that these dimensions and forces were created through the same divergence/convergence process that controls the fate of the universe. We sometimes use different terminology: unification and phase transition. Inflation, dark energy, gravity and even time might also merely just be ways for the universe to satisfy the balances of divergence and eventually convergence while an equal and opposite reaction occurs elsewhere. BTW the fundamentally static part stuck out at me also-- if you view that all pasts, presents and futures can exist simultaneously, then the universe itself is fundamentally static, what we experience as time is merely our movement between frames that all exist together.... taking all these frames collectively (multiverse) we have a structure that exists through all of spacetime in all its phases, simultaneously. Note I said multiverse and not omniverse, because there can easily be other multiverses with a similar organized structure. And if we use the cyclic model of the universe or the multiverse, superverse, omniverse, whatever-- there has to be more than one dimension of time to account for what happened before the big bang/bounce.... as having multiple dimensions of time actually removes the singularity problem (something Hawkings' examined in his theory of Imaginary Time-- which we can view as a dimension of time that exists independent of the expansion of our universe.)

Sounds like the kind of convergence that could produce a baby big bang..... Think of time as a starburst, a series of vectors expanding out from a single expansion point. Now think of this occurring everywhere there was a big flow. What may happen when those vectors cross paths? Emergence of time is dependent on creation, or emergence of matter/energy. Time begins with the flow of matter and energy into our universe. Ahh, I anticipated this with my previous post :P Intersection of vectors can cause this big whatever to jump start ;) Of course, I am not entirely convinced that this recursive looping structure only consists of 4 and 6 dimensional universes and their complementaries-- it's still quite possible that what David suggested earlier-- that there are an infinite number of dimensions-- turns out to be true. After all, as new universes are created and fill in the loop, you can have an infinite structure that is still limited -- like traveling around the earth, you could go on forever, but you would end up reaching the same point. There are no edges. But you can create a near infinite number of points during that journey to returning back to the same point. Sort of like the cyclical omniverse may not have a true beginning or end. If this superverse=supersymmetry association works out, then it shows us that the source of SUSY dark matter in our universe may actually be the parent universe that gave birth to us. This could be the universe of different kind of matter you were speaking of (other sources may be universes made of mirror matter or antimatter.) But one of a near infinite number of dimensions might actually be easier to understand if we view dimensional structure from the outside (as a thought experiment.) That is, it is only complex to us because we are actually inside one of these structures. From the outside, it may just have to do with how gravity affects various currents or flows of exotic matter and ZPE just prior to the creation of a new universe.

BTW I recall reading somewhere that Heinlein actually wrote a novel based on a universe of 3 temporal dimensions.... I'll try to link the wiki here: Agreed. I am an adherent to Big flow…multiple sourced Big Flow. The recent findings of extremely old galaxies is reinforcing to me that our universe is much bigger than we thought, and is expanding in several different directions at varying rates, depending on direction Im betting on the concept that time runs at different rates in different parts of the universe also. I bet they are not giving us all the info and are looking for even more exotic matter (maybe quite literally).... there are indications that sterile neutrinos (which may be able to travel backward through time) have been found in pulsars, as well as mirror matter. Think of time as a starburst, a series of vectors expanding out from a single expansion point. Now think of this occurring everywhere there was a big flow. What may happen when those vectors cross paths? Sounds like the kind of convergence that could produce a baby big bang..... Or certainly rend a tear in the fabric and create an alternative flow, mini perhaps but still…flow could this create an antiverse with a reverse time flow relative to the parent?

That is the beauty of entanglement. What is the immediate connection between particles that are supposedly "far apart" ? Is there a cord between them, or in their own perspectives, are the not immediately adjacent along "that" dimension ? And space then is the oddity Yes this is where layers and dimensions come in. We seem to come to the same conclusions using the same paths. I too have been honing on 4 and noticed how often it appears in cosmology--- four forces, four dimensions, 2x2 entanglement, matter/antimatter/mirror matter/antimirror matter dualities. There are even more exotic ideas out there that present state can be altered by the future. Retrocausation is possible if one assumes that the past, present and future can all exist simultaneously. This seems to indicate that uncertainty has both a weak and a strong phase-- it shows why partial wave collapse can be brought back to its original state, but not full collapse. I also found the comments about multiple time dimensions below to be interesting.

Probing the spacetime structure of vacuum entanglement Andrzej Dragan, Ivette Fuentes (Submitted on 5 May 2011) We introduce a framework for probing the spacetime structure of vacuum entanglement that exhibits infinite range correlations between the future and the past, as well as spatially separated regions. Our results are non-perturbative and analytical. Comments: I.F. previously published as Fuentes-Guridi and Fuentes-Schuller Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc) Cite as: arXiv:1105.1192v1 [quant-ph] Some Black Holes May Pre-Date The Big Bang, Say Cosmologists If the Universe expands and contracts in cycles of Big Bangs and Crunches, some black holes may survive from one era to the next, according to a new analysis kfc 05/03/2011 10 Comments Black holes are regions of space in which gravity is so strong that nothing can escape, not even light. Conventionally, black holes form during a gravitational collapse, after a large supernova for example. But there is another class of objects called primordial black holes that cosmologists think must have formed in a different way. These are essentially leftovers from the hugely dense ball of stuff from which the universe expanded, some parts of which must have been dense enough to form black holes. These primordial black holes would then have been widely dispersed as the universe expanded.

Primordial black holes are very different beasts to the ones that form when stars die, in particular because they ought to be much smaller. Although nobody has yet seen a primordial black hole, our knowledge of them comes from thinking about the processes that must have occurred shortly after the Big Bang. In recent years, however, cosmologists have begun to think seriously about processes that occurred before the Big Bang. One idea, is that the Universe may eventually collapse leading to an endless cycle of Big Bangs and Crunches. Today, Bernard Carr at Queen Mary University of London, UK, and Alan Coley at Dalhousie University in Canada, ask what might happen in such a universe in the moments before a crunch. By some accounts, a Big Crunch generates a singularity that ought to cause everything in the Universe to merge. But Carr and Coley say that in some circumstances, black holes of a certain mass could avoid this fate and survive the crunch as separate entities. The masses for which this is possible range from a few hundred million kilograms to about the mass of our Sun. That leads to a problem, however. Coley and Carr say that since the mass of primordial and precrunch black holes is similar, they will be very difficult to tell apart. Nobody has yet seen a primordial black hole, although efforts are underway to search for the telltale signatures they ought to produce. Small black holes ought to evaporate away in relatively short period of time, finally disappearing in a violent explosion of gamma rays. The hope is that observatories such as the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope will see such events. Indeed, some cosmologists say this thinking might explain the gamma ray bursts that we already see from time to time. What all this means, of course, is that there may be objects in our Universe that predate the Big Bang. And if we can somehow find a way to distinguish them from primordial black holes, we may yet be able to observe these most ancient of objects. Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1104.3796 : Persistence Of Black Holes Through A Cosmological Bounce http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26724/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_10_dimensions#Number_of_dimensions

Extra dimensions [edit] Number of dimensions An intriguing feature of string theory is that it involves the prediction of extra dimensions. The number of dimensions is not fixed by any consistency criterion,[dubious – discuss] but flat spacetime solutions do exist in the so-called "critical dimension". Cosmological solutions exist in a wider variety of dimensionalities, and these different dimensions—more precisely different values of the "effective central charge", a count of degrees of freedom which reduces to dimensionality in weakly curved regimes—are related by dynamical transitions.[14]

One such theory is the 11-dimensional M-theory, which requires spacetime to have eleven dimensions,[15] as opposed to the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time. The original string theories from the 1980s describe special cases of M-theory where the eleventh dimension is a very small circle or a line, and if these formulations are considered as fundamental, then string theory requires ten dimensions. But the theory also describes universes like ours, with four observable spacetime dimensions, as well as universes with up to 10 flat space dimensions, and also cases where the position in some of the dimensions is not described by a real number, but by a completely different type of mathematical quantity. So the notion of spacetime dimension is not fixed in string theory: it is best thought of as different in different circumstances.[16] Nothing in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or Einstein's theory of relativity makes this kind of prediction; these theories require physicists to insert the number of dimensions "by both hands", and this number is fixed and independent of potential energy. String theory allows one to relate the number of dimensions to scalar potential energy. Technically, this happens because a gauge anomaly exists for every separate number of predicted dimensions, and the gauge anomaly can be counteracted by including nontrivial potential energy into equations to solve motion. Furthermore, the absence of potential energy in the "critical dimension" explains why flat spacetime solutions are possible. This can be better understood by noting that a photon included in a consistent theory (technically, a particle carrying a force related to an unbroken gauge symmetry) must be massless. The mass of the photon which is predicted by string theory depends on the energy of the string mode which represents the photon. This energy includes a contribution from the Casimir effect, namely from quantum fluctuations in the string. The size of this contribution depends on the number of dimensions since for a larger number of dimensions; there are more possible fluctuations in the string position. Therefore, the photon in flat spacetime will be massless—and the theory consistent—only for a particular number of dimensions.[17] When the calculation is done, the critical dimensionality is not four as one may expect (three axes of space and one of time). The subset of X is equal to the relation of photon fluctuations in a linear dimension. Flat space string theories are 26-dimensional in the bosonic case, while superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions for flat solutions. In bosonic string theories, the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation.[18] Starting from any dimension greater than four, it is necessary to consider how these are reduced to four dimensional spacetime. [edit] Compact dimensions Calabi–Yau manifold (3D projection) Two different ways have been proposed to resolve this apparent contradiction. The first is to compactify the extra dimensions; i.e., the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small as to be undetectable by present day experiments. To retain a high degree of supersymmetry, these compactification spaces must be very special, as reflected in their holonomy. A 6-dimensional manifold must have SU(3) structure, a particular case (torsionless) of this being SU(3) holonomy, making it a Calabi–Yau space, and a 7dimensional manifold must have G2 structure, with G2 holonomy again being a specific, simple, case. Such spaces have been studied in attempts to relate string theory to the 4-dimensional Standard Model, in part due to the computational simplicity afforded by the assumption of supersymmetry. More recently, progress has been made constructing more realistic compactifications without the degree of symmetry of Calabi–Yau or G2 manifolds. A standard analogy for this is to consider multidimensional space as a garden hose. If the hose is viewed from a sufficient distance, it appears to have only one dimension, its length. Indeed, think of a ball just small enough to enter the hose. Throwing such a ball inside the hose, the ball would move more or less in one dimension; in any experiment we make by throwing such balls in the

hose, the only important movement will be one-dimensional, that is, along the hose. However, as one approaches the hose, one discovers that it contains a second dimension, its circumference. Thus, an ant crawling inside it would move in two dimensions (and a fly flying in it would move in three dimensions). This "extra dimension" is only visible within a relatively close range to the hose, or if one "throws in" small enough objects. Similarly, the extra compact dimensions are only "visible" at extremely small distances, or by experimenting with particles with extremely small wavelengths (of the order of the compact dimension's radius), which in quantum mechanics means very high energies (see wave-particle duality). [edit] Brane-world scenario Another possibility is that we are "stuck" in a 3+1 dimensional (i.e. three spatial dimensions plus the time dimension) subspace of the full universe. If such sub-spacetimes are exceptional sets within a larger-dimensional one, there typically exist properly localized matter and Yang–Mills gauge fields.[19] These "exceptional sets" are ubiquitous in Calabi–Yau n-folds and may be described as subspaces without local deformations, akin to a crease in a sheet of paper or a crack in a crystal, the neighborhood of which is markedly different from the exceptional subspace itself. However, until the work of Randall and Sundrum,[20] it was not known that gravity too can be properly localized to a sub-spacetime; their proof that it can made such cosmological scenarios realistic. In addition, spacetime may well be stratified, containing strata of various dimensions so that we may be inhabiting a 3+1 dimensional stratum; such geometries occur naturally in Calabi–Yau compactifications.[21] Such sub-spacetimes are supposed to be Dbranes, hence such models are known as a brane-world scenarios. [edit] Effect of the hidden dimensions In either case, gravity acting in the hidden dimensions affects other non-gravitational forces such as electromagnetism. In fact, Kaluza's early work demonstrated that general relativity in five dimensions actually predicts the existence of electromagnetism. However, because of the nature of Calabi–Yau manifolds, no new forces appear from the small dimensions, but their shape has a profound effect on how the forces between the strings appear in our four-dimensional universe. In principle, therefore, it is possible to deduce the nature of those extra dimensions by requiring consistency with the standard model, but this is not yet a practical possibility. It is also possible to extract information regarding the hidden dimensions by precision tests of gravity, but so far these have only put upper limitations on the size of such hidden dimensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory

Extra dimensions See also: Why does consistency require 10 dimensions? Our physical space is observed to have only three large dimensions and—taken together with duration as the fourth dimension—a physical theory must take this into account. However, nothing prevents a theory from including more than 4 dimensions. In the case of string theory, consistency requires spacetime to have 10 (3+1+6) dimensions. The conflict between observation and theory is resolved by making the unobserved dimensions compactified. Our minds have difficulty visualizing higher dimensions because we can only move in three spatial dimensions. One way of dealing with this limitation is not to try to visualize higher dimensions at all, but just to think of them as extra numbers in the equations that describe the way the world works. This opens the question of whether these 'extra numbers' can be investigated directly in any experiment (which must show different results in 1, 2, or 2 + 1

dimensions to a human scientist). This, in turn, raises the question of whether models that rely on such abstract modelling (and potentially impossibly huge experimental apparatuses) can be considered scientific. Six-dimensional Calabi–Yau shapes can account for the additional dimensions required by superstring theory. The theory states that every point in space (or whatever we had previously considered a point) is in fact a very small manifold where each extra dimension has a size on the order of the Planck length. Superstring theory is not the first theory to propose extra spatial dimensions; the Kaluza-Klein theory had done so previously. Modern string theory relies on the mathematics of folds, knots, and topology, which were largely developed after Kaluza and Klein, and has made physical theories relying on extra dimensions much more credible. Unsolved problems in physicsIs string theory, superstring theory, or M-theory, or some other variant on this theme, a step on the road to a "theory of everything," or just a blind alley? [edit] Number of superstring theories Theoretical physicists were troubled by the existence of five separate string theories. A possible solution for this dilemma was suggested at the beginning of what is called the second superstring revolution in the 1990s, which suggests that the five string theories might be different limits of a single underlying theory, called M-theory. Unfortunately, however, to this date this remains a conjecture.String theories Type Spacetime dimensions SUSY generators chiral open strings? heterotic compactification? gauge group tachyon Bosonic (closed) 26 N = 0 no no no none yes Bosonic (open) 26 N = 0 no yes no U(1) yes I 10 N = (1,0) yes yes no SO(32) no IIA 10 N = (1,1) no no no U(1) no IIB 10 N = (2,0) yes no no none no HO 10 N = (1,0) yes no yes SO(32) no HE 10 N = (1,0) yes no yes no M-theory 11 N = 1 no no no none no The five consistent superstring theories are: The type I string has one supersymmetry in the ten-dimensional sense (16 supercharges). This theory is special in the sense that it is based on unoriented open and closed strings, while the rest are based on oriented closed strings. The type II string theories have two supersymmetries in the ten-dimensional sense (32 supercharges). There are actually two kinds of type II strings called type IIA and type IIB. They differ mainly in the fact that the IIA theory is non-chiral (parity conserving) while the IIB theory is chiral (parity violating). The heterotic string theories are based on a peculiar hybrid of a type I superstring and a bosonic string. There are two kinds of heterotic strings differing in their ten-dimensional gauge groups: the heterotic E8×E8 string and the heterotic SO(32) string. (The name heterotic SO(32) is slightly inaccurate since among the SO(32) Lie groups, string theory singles out a quotient Spin(32)/Z2 that is not equivalent to SO(32).) Chiral gauge theories can be inconsistent due to anomalies. This happens when certain one-loop Feynman diagrams cause a quantum mechanical breakdown of the gauge symmetry. The anomalies were canceled out via the Green–Schwarz mechanism. Please note that the number of superstring theories given above is only a high-level classification; the actual number of mathematically distinct theories which are compatible with observation and would therefore have to be examined to find the one that correctly describes nature is currently believed to be at least 10500 (a one with five hundred zeroes). This has given rise to the concern

that superstring theories, despite the alluring simplicity of their basic principles, are, in fact, not simple at all, and according to the principle of Occam's razor perhaps alternative physical theories going beyond the Standard Model should be explored. This is aggravated by the fact that it is exceedingly hard to make predictions from any superstring theory which can be falsified by experiment, and in fact no current superstring theory makes any falsifiable prediction. [edit] Integrating general relativity and quantum mechanics General relativity typically deals with situations involving large mass objects in fairly large regions of spacetime whereas quantum mechanics is generally reserved for scenarios at the atomic scale (small spacetime regions). The two are very rarely used together, and the most common case in which they are combined is in the study of black holes. Having "peak density", or the maximum amount of matter possible in a space, and very small area, the two must be used in synchrony in order to predict conditions in such places; yet, when used together, the equations fall apart, spitting out impossible answers, such as imaginary distances and less than one dimension. The major problem with their congruence is that, at Planck scale (a fundamental small unit of length) lengths, general relativity predicts a smooth, flowing surface, while quantum mechanics predicts a random, warped surface, neither of which are anywhere near compatible. Superstring theory resolves this issue, replacing the classical idea of point particles with loops. These loops have an average diameter of the Planck length, with extremely small variances, which completely ignores the quantum mechanical predictions of Planck-scale length dimensional warping. [edit] The five superstring interactions The five superstring interactions There are five ways open and closed strings can interact. An interaction in superstring theory is a topology changing event. Since superstring theory has to be a local theory to obey causality the topology change must only occur at a single point. If C represents a closed string and O an open string, then the five interactions are OOO, CCC, OOOO, CO and COO. All open superstring theories also contain closed superstrings since closed superstrings can be seen from the fifth interaction, and they are unavoidable. Although all these interactions are possible, in practice the most used superstring model is the closed heterotic E8xE8 superstring which only has closed strings and so only the second interaction (CCC) is needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

Physics Special relativity describes spacetime as a manifold whose metric tensor has a negative eigenvalue. This corresponds to the existence of a "time-like" direction. A metric with multiple negative eigenvalues would correspondingly imply several timelike directions, i.e. multiple time dimensions, but there is no consensus regarding the relationship of these extra "times" to time as conventionally understood. Nonetheless, theories with more than one dimension of time have sometimes been advanced in physics, whether as a serious description of reality or just as a curious possibility. Itzhak Bars's work on "two-time physics"[1], inspired by the SO(10,2) symmetry of the extended supersymmetry structure of M-theory, is the most recent and systematic development of the

concept (see also F-theory). [edit] Philosophy An Experiment with Time by J.W. Dunne (1927) describes [2] an ontology in which there is an infinite hierarchy of conscious minds, each with its own dimension of time and able to view events in lower time dimensions from outside. His theory was often criticised as exhibiting an unnecessary infinite regress. The conceptual possibility of multiple time dimensions has also been raised in modern analytic philosophy.[3] The English philosopher John G. Bennett posited a six-dimensional Universe with the usual three spatial dimensions and three time-like dimensions that he called time, eternity and hyparxis. Time is the sequential chronological time that we are familiar with. The hypertime dimensions called eternity and hyparxis are said to have distinctive properties of their own. Eternity could be considered cosmological time or timeless time. Hyparxis is supposed to be characterised as an ableness-to-be and may be more noticeable in the realm of quantum processes. The conjunction of the two dimensions of time and eternity could form a hypothetical basis for a Multiverse cosmology with parallel universes existing across a plane of vast possibilities. The third time-like dimension hyparxis could allow for the theoretical existence of sci-fi possibilities such as time travel, sliding between parallel worlds and faster-than-light travel. While Bennett has put forward some curious speculation, his ideas stop at some subjective aspects of the perception of time which does not place them on a fully scientific basis. The question of measurement, how one would measure these hypothetical extra time-like dimensions, is left unaddressed. [edit] In fiction The Number of the Beast by Robert A. Heinlein (1980) features a six-dimensional cosmology in which there are three time dimensions, denoted t, tau (Greek τ) and teh (Cyrillic cursive т). The Ware Tetralogy by Rudy Rucker features aliens called Metamartians who "are from a part of the cosmos where time is two-dimensional".[4] In Diane Duane's Star Trek novel, The Wounded Sky, the Hamalki physicist K't'lk states that time has three dimensions, called "inception," "duration," and "termination."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028101.700-uncertainty-entangled-the-limits-ofquantum-weirdness.html > > You will have to sign in, but I would do it fast...has only 8 days on the article > Uncertainty entangled: The limits of quantum weirdness 03 May 2011 by Anil Ananthaswamy Magazine issue 2810. Subscribe and save For similar stories, visit the Quantum World Topic Guide In a battle between the star principles of the quantum story, there can be only one winner. Or can

there? SOME middle-aged men have trains in their attics. Niels Bohr had Werner Heisenberg. In the winter of 1926-1927, the brilliant young German was working as Bohr's chief assistant, billeted in a garret at the top of the great Dane's Copenhagen institute. After a day's work, Bohr would come up to Heisenberg's eyrie to chew the quantum fat. They often sat up late into the night, in intense debate over the meaning of the revolutionary quantum theory, then its infancy. One puzzle they pondered were the trails of droplets left by electrons as they passed through cloud chambers, an apparatus used to track the movements of charged particles. When Heisenberg tried calculating these seemingly precise trajectories using the equations of quantum mechanics, he failed. One evening in mid-February, Bohr had left town on a skiing trip, and Heisenberg had slipped out to catch some night air in the broad avenues of Faelled Park, behind the institute. As he walked, it came to him. The electron's track was not precise at all: if you looked closely, it consisted of a series of fuzzy dots. That revealed something fundamental about quantum theory. Back in his attic, Heisenberg excitedly wrote his idea down in a letter to fellow physicist Wolfgang Pauli. The gist of it appeared in a paper a few weeks later: "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa." Thus Heisenberg's notorious uncertainty principle was born. A statement of the fundamental unknowability of the quantum world, it has stood firm for the best part of a century. But for how much longer? Rumblings are abroad that a second quantum principle - entanglement - could sound the death knell for uncertainty. Is it goodbye Heisenberg, hello quantum certainty? The profound implications of the uncertainty principle are hard to overstate. Think of our classical, clockwork solar system. Given perfect knowledge of the current positions and movements of its planets and other bodies, we can predict their exact positions and movements any time in the future with almost perfect accuracy. In the quantum world, however, uncertainty does away with any such ideas of perfect knowledge revealed by measurement (see "Fuzzy logic"). Its assertion that there are pairs of "complementary" quantities such as position and momentum, where exact knowledge of one precludes knowing the other at all accurately, also undermines any concept of predictable cause and effect. If you cannot know the present in its entirety, you can have no idea what the future might bring. Since that Copenhagen winter, generations of physicists have tugged at Heisenberg's principle, giving it a tweak here or a new formal expression there as we have learned more about the vagaries of quantum measurements and the exchange of quantum information. The nowfavoured version of the principle was constructed in 1988 by two Dutch physicists, Hans Maassen and Jos Uffink, using concepts from the theory of information devised by the American mathematician Claude Shannon and others in the years following the second world war. Squeezed entropy Shannon had shown how a quantity that he termed entropy, by analogy with the measure of thermodynamic disorder, provided a reliable indicator of the unpredictability of information, and so quite generally of uncertainty. For example, the outcome of the most recent in a series of coin tosses has maximal Shannon entropy, as it tells you nothing about the result of the next toss. Information expressed in a natural language such as English, on the other hand, has low entropy, because a series of words provides clues to what will follow. Translating this insight to the quantum world, Maassen and Uffink showed how it is impossible to reduce the Shannon entropy associated with any measurable quantum quantity to zero, and that the more you squeeze the entropy of one variable, the more the entropy of the other increases. Information that a quantum system gives with one hand, it takes away with the other.

But is that always the case? Not according to Mario Berta, a quantum information theorist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, and his colleagues. Quantum entanglement can have a distinctly weird effect on uncertainty. Suppose an observer called Bob creates a pair of particles, such as photons of light, whose quantum states are somehow entangled. Entanglement means that even though these states are not defined until they are measured, measuring one and giving it a definite value will immediately pin down the state of the other particle. This happens even if the distance between the two particles is too great for any influence to travel between them without breaking the cosmic speed limit set by light - the seemingly impossible process decried by Einstein as "spooky action at a distance". Bob sends one of these entangled photons to a second observer, Alice, and keeps the other close by him in a quantum memory bank - a suitable length of optical fibre, say. Alice then randomly measures one of a pair of complementary variables associated with the photon: in this case, polarisations in two different directions. Her measurement will be governed by the usual rules of quantum uncertainty, and can only ever be accurate to within a certain limit. In Maassen and Uffink's terms, its entropy will be non-zero. Alice tells Bob which of the quantities she measured, but not the value that she obtained. Now comes the central claim. Bob's job is to find out the result of Alice's measurement as accurately as possible. That is quite easy: he just needs to raid his quantum memory bank. If the two photons are perfectly entangled,he need only know which quantity Alice measured and measure it in his own photon to give him perfect knowledge of the value of Alice's measurement better even than Alice can know it. Over the course of a series of measurements, he can even squeeze its associated entropy to zero. Berta's group published their work in July last year (Nature Physics, vol 6, p 659). Just a few months later, two independent teams, led by Robert Prevedel of the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and Chuan-Feng Li of the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, performed the tests. They worked: uncertainty could be reduced to previously unachievable levels simply by increasing entanglement (arxiv.org/abs/1012.0332, arxiv.org/abs/1012.0361). "The experiments are in perfect agreement with our theoretically derived relation," says Berta. "We were surprised how quickly the experiments were realised." So is uncertainty's grip finally loosening? Initial reactions have been cautious. "This is a very beautiful and important extension of the Maassen-Uffink uncertainty relations," says Paul Busch, a quantum theorist at the University of York, UK, who was not involved with any of the teams. Uffink himself, a researcher at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, agrees. "It is admirable work," he says, "but there is of course a 'but'." That "but", Uffink says, is that even if Bob is armed with entanglement and quantum memory, the experiments show only that it is possible for him to predict precisely the result of either of the two possible measurements that Alice makes - not both at the same time. Uncertainty is dead To both Uffink and Busch, the thought experiment devised by Berta and his team is reminiscent of the famous "EPR" thought experiment devised in 1935 by Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. It, too, came to a similar conclusion: that entanglement could remove all uncertainty from one measurement, but not from both at once. In keeping with Einstein's general scepticism about quantum weirdness, he interpreted the tension between the two principles as indicating that quantum mechanics was incomplete, and that a hidden reality lying beneath the quantum world was determining the outcome of the experiments. While that debate is now largely considered settled (New Scientist, 26 February, p 36), the latest work opens up an entirely new perspective. Traditionally, debates about the validity of the

uncertainty principle and the interpretation of the EPR experiment have remained distinct. Now there is another possibility: not that uncertainty is dead, but that there is a relationship between uncertainty and entanglement that has previously not been fully appreciated. "They are different sides of the same coin," says Busch. Where two particles are perfectly entangled, spooky action at a distance calls the shots, and uncertainty is a less stringent principle than had been assumed. But where there is no entanglement, uncertainty reverts to the Maassen-Uffink relation. The strength of the Berta interpretation is that it allows us to say how much we can know for a sliding scale of situations in between, where entanglement is present but less than perfect. That is highly relevant for quantum cryptography, the quantum technology closest to real-world application, which relies on the sharing of perfectly entangled particles. The relation means there is an easier way to test when that entanglement has been disturbed, for example, by unwanted eavesdroppers, simply by monitoring measurement uncertainty. As for the duel between uncertainty and entanglement, it ends in a draw, with the two principles becoming the best of friends after the event. "Because they are now part and parcel of the same mathematical scheme, you can't pick one and say this is logically superior to the other, or the other way around, because everything is logically connected somehow," says Busch. But, he says - there is another "but" - while that is true within the confines of quantum theory, we might be able to tell which is the stronger principle by zooming out and considering a mathematical framework more general than that of quantum theory. A quantum game that Stefanie Wehner played can help explain. Along with Jonathan Oppenheim of the University of Cambridge, Wehner, a researcher at the National University of Singapore, played it with 12-year-old kids in a cafe. She gave them a board with two squares, and gave one child a zoo of two tigers and two elephants. The child could place one tiger on each square, one elephant on each square, or a tiger on one and an elephant on the other. Without looking, a second kid had to guess which animal was on one of the squares. "It made them understand why it's not possible to win all the time," says Wehner. Without some illicit sharing or extraction of information, they could only hope to guess right half the time. The significance of the game is that it expresses questions of uncertainty and entanglement in terms of information retrieval. Guessing an animal or a photon state correctly depends on the correlation between information already held and information being sought. Entanglement provides a way to increase that correlation - effectively, to cheat. Long live uncertainty Oddly, though, even the weird "non-locality" embodied by entanglement does not guarantee success. Yet it is possible to envisage theories that do not break any laws of physics - in particular, the strict condition that no influence should travel faster than light, laid down in Einstein's special theory of relativity - and still allow you to be right 100 per cent of the time (New Scientist, 21 August 2010, p 33). What is it that keeps quantum theory as weird as it is, and no weirder? Oppenheim and Wehner's answer, published in November last year, is disarmingly simple: the uncertainty principle (Science, vol 330, p 1072). It is a satisfying twist to the story. Within the confines of quantum theory, entanglement can help to break down uncertainty, allowing us to be more certain about the outcome of certain experiments than the uncertainty principle alone would allow. On this level, entanglement comes up trumps. But zoom out and ask how the confines of quantum theory are set, and it seems that it is the uncertainty principle that stops things in the quantum world being weirder and more correlated than they already are. Uncertainty rules, and puts entanglement in a straitjacket. "It shows quite clearly that the uncertainty principle is far from dead," says Busch.

Iwo Bialynicki-Birula, a physicist who did seminal work reformulating the uncertainty principle in terms of information in the 1970s, once wrote that every physical theory has an eye-catching equation that can grace a T-shirt. Where relativity has E = mc2, quantum mechanics has its uncertainty relation. Heisenberg's baby, born in an attic, could be adorning T-shirts for a while yet. Fuzzy logic In the 1927 paper that introduced the uncertainty principle to the world, Werner Heisenberg established that there are pairs of quantities in the quantum world that cannot both be measured to an arbitrary level of precision at the same time. One such pair is position and momentum - essentially a measure of a quantum particle's movement. If you know a particle's position x to within a certain accuracy ¥Äx, then the uncertainty ¥Äp on its momentum p is given by the mathematical inequality ¥Äx ¥Äp ¡Ã ©¤/2. Here, ©¤ is a fixed number of nature known as the reduced Planck constant. This inequality says that, taken together, ¥Äx and ¥Äp cannot undercut ©¤/2. So in general, the more we know about where a particle is (the smaller ¥Äx is), the less we can know about where it is (the larger ¥Äp is), and vice versa. The uncertainty principle also applies to other pairs of quantities such as energy and time, and the spins and polarisations of particles in various directions. The energy-time uncertainty relation is the reason why quantum particles can pop out of nothingness and disappear again. As long as the energy, ¥ÄE, they borrow to do that and the time, ¥Ät, for which they hang around don't bust the uncertainty bound, the fuzzy logic of quantum mechanics remains satisfied. How two people's heartbeats become synchronized, even when they are far from each other In a small Spanish town, people celebrate the summer solstice by walking over beds of hot coals. A team of scientists wondered how this fire-walking ritual could enhance group bonding, and discovered something extraordinary. Led by Danish neuroscience researcher Ivana Konvalinka, the scientists wanted to measure the excitement levels of participants, so they attached portable heart monitors to several fire-walkers, their family members, and other people in the crowd. When the fire-walkers stepped onto the coals, their heart rates spiked with excitement and fear. This isn't very surprising. What was surprising was that their family members' heart rates spiked at exactly the same time. People unrelated to the firewalkers didn't experience any change in their heart rates, so the shared heart rate is likely a phenomenon that occurs between people who are already emotionally connected. What Konvalinka and her colleagues believe, after analyzing a dozen fire-walkers and their loved ones, is that rituals like this promote social bonding via shared biological states. Previous studies attributed feelings of group bonding to shared movements, like those you find in dances and some religious services. But Konvalinka's research suggests that people can share the same physical sensations even when they are not moving as one. Scientists call it "synchronized arousal." In a paper published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Konvalinka and her colleagues wrote: We hypothesized that synchronized arousal even in the absence of synchronized action might be one mechanism responsible for these social effects of collective rituals. These effects have never been quantitatively investigated in a natural setting. The present ﬁndings show synchrony over time of bodily arousal between active participants with their related onlookers, a social modulation

that is ampliﬁed in the ritual itself. A qualitative look at the data showed that the ﬁre-walkers' heart rates had a distinctive "signature," as seen across all 12 ﬁrewalkers, with a high peak distributed around the walk itself. The same pattern was seen with related spectators, whose heart rates peaked for the walk of their relatives and friends. So what causes this peculiar ability to influence our loved one's heart rates? The researchers say it's simply caused by what amounts to sympathy. Knowing a loved one is doing something potentially dangerous causes our hearts to race - just as our loved one's heart is racing in response to facing that danger. Konvalinka and her fellow researchers were excited to discover this new facet of synchronized arousal because it allows for "the quantiﬁcation of social effects in human physiology." In other words, we can measure just how bonded you feel to people around you. Now you can look forward to the day when you'll have to wear a heart monitor during trust exercises at work, to make sure you're bonding with everybody properly. Or perhaps, before you get married, you'll have to watch your fiancee do something dangerous and prove with your heart rate that you are fully committed to them. Fundamental question on how life started solved? May 9th, 2011 in Physics / General Physics For carbon, the basis of life, to be able to form in the stars, a certain state of the carbon nucleus plays an essential role. In cooperation with US colleagues, physicists from the University of Bonn and Ruhr-Universitat Bochum have been able to calculate this legendary carbon nucleus, solving a problem that has kept science guessing for more than 50 years. The researchers published their results in the coming issue of the scientific journal Physical Review Letters. "Attempts to calculate the Hoyle state have been unsuccessful since 1954," said Professor Dr. Ulf-G. Meißner (Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik der Universität Bonn). "But now, we have done it!" The Hoyle state is an energy-rich form of the carbon nucleus. It is the mountain pass over which all roads from one valley to the next lead: From the three nuclei of helium gas to the much larger carbon nucleus. This fusion reaction takes place in the hot interior of heavy stars. If the Hoyle state did not exist, only very little carbon or other higher elements such as oxygen, nitrogen and iron could have formed. Without this type of carbon nucleus, life probably also would not have been possible. The search for the "slave transmitter" The Hoyle state had been verified by experiments as early as 1954, but calculating it always failed. For this form of carbon consists of only three, very loosely linked helium nuclei - more of a cloudy diffuse carbon nucleus. And it does not occur individually, only together with other forms of carbon. "This is as if you wanted to analyze a radio signal whose main transmitter and several slave transmitters are interfering with each other," explained Prof. Dr. Evgeny Epelbaum (Institute of Theoretical Physics II at Ruhr-Universität Bochum). The main transmitter is the stable carbon nucleus from which humans - among others - are made. "But we are interested in one of the unstable, energy-rich carbon nuclei; so we have to separate the weaker radio transmitter somehow from the dominant signal by means of a noise filter." What made this possible was a new, improved calculating approach the researchers used that allowed calculating the forces between several nuclear particles more precisely than ever. And in JUGENE, the supercomputer at Forschungszentrum Jülich, a suitable tool was found. It took JUGENE almost a week of calculating. The results matched the experimental data so well that the researchers can be certain that they have indeed calculated the Hoyle state.

More about how the Universe came into existence "Now we can analyze this exciting and essential form of the carbon nucleus in every detail," explained Prof. Meißner. "We will determine how big it is, and what its structure is. And it also means that we can now take a very close look at the entire chain of how elements are formed." In future, this may even allow answering philosophical questions using science. For decades, the Hoyle state was a prime example for the theory that natural constants must have precisely their experimentally determined values, and not any different ones, since otherwise we would not be here to observe the Universe (the anthropic principle). "For the Hoyle state this means that it must have exactly the amount of energy it has, or else, we would not exist," said Prof. Meißner. "Now we can calculate whether - in a changed world with other parameters - the Hoyle state would indeed have a different energy when comparing the mass of three helium nuclei." If this is so, this would confirm the anthropic principle. More information: E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee, Ulf-G. Meißner, Ab initio calculation of the Hoyle state, Physical Review Letters, 2011. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.192501 Abstract The Hoyle state plays a crucial role in the helium burning of stars heavier than our Sun and in the production of carbon and other elements necessary for life. This excited state of the carbon-12 nucleus was postulated by Hoyle as a necessary ingredient for the fusion of three alpha particles to produce carbon at stellar temperatures. Although the Hoyle state was seen experimentally more than a half century ago nuclear theorists have not yet uncovered the nature of this state from first principles. In this Letter we report the first ab initio calculation of the low-lying states of carbon-12 using supercomputer lattice simulations and a theoretical framework known as effective field theory. In addition to the ground state and excited spin-2 state, we find a resonance at -85(3) MeV with all of the properties of the Hoyle state and in agreement with the experimentally observed energy. Provided by University of Bonn "Fundamental question on how life started solved?." May 9th, 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-fundamental-life.html http://www.physorg.c...-dimension.html Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension April 25th, 2011 in Physics / General Physics Enlarge

Scientists propose that clocks measure the numerical order of material change in space, where space is a fundamental entity; time itself is not a fundamental physical entity. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons. (PhysOrg.com) -- The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, we define an object’s speed as its displacement per a given time. But some researchers theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the

physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change. In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar from the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have described in more detail what this means. No time dimension They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence. This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.” “Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.” As the scientists added, the roots of this idea come from Einstein himself. “Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.” In the future, the scientists plan to investigate the possibility that quantum space has three dimensions of space, as Sorli explained. “The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.” Numerical order in space The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.

As the researchers explain, without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time. Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state space” provides a more accurate framework. The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time. The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space - as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists. An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known. “Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable, you cannot prove it or disprove it, you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.” How it makes sense In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed. Here, the researchers explain that the paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time. The researchers also briefly examine how this new view of time fits with how we intuitively perceive time. Many neurological studies have confirmed that we do have a sense of past, present, and future. This evidence has led to the proposal that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model). However, some recent studies have challenged this traditional view, and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space. Finally, the researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers. “In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.” More information:

Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar. “Replacing time with numerical order of material change resolves Zeno problems of motion.” Physics Essays, 24, 1 (2011). DOI: 10.4006/1.3525416 Amrit Sorli, Dusan Klinar, and Davide Fiscaletti. “New Insights into the Special Theory of Relativity.” Physics Essays 24, 2 (2011). To be published.

"Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension." April 25th, 2011. http://www.physorg.c...dimension.html Well, it seems like whenever we get to what we think of as describing the fundamental structure of the universe, we end up with more questions than answers. What seems to happen is that learning more just opens up a whole new unexplored area with its own set of questions. But in answer to your question, there are actually five basic units in the universe (an interesting analogy physicists draw is to the ancient Greek five elements.) They are: elementary particles (1-leptons and 2-quarks), 3-neutrinos, 4-force carriers or gauge bosons (photons, gluons, W and Z particles, possibly the Higgs Boson) and quintessence (5-dark energy-- if it exists.) Dark energy is referred to as the fifth element because it, in some ways, resembles the classical Greek fifth element of aether, and was formulated by Einstein into the Cosmological Constant.

One of the interesting properties of dark energy is that, in some theories (namely the quintom scenario) it could mean the universe isn't open ended, but rather cyclic in nature and instead of a big bang we would have a big bounce.

http://en.wikipedia....uintom_scenario

Quintom scenario is a hypothetical scenario of dark energy with the equation of state crossing the cosmological constant boundary (w = − 1) from above to below, or oppositely. Theoretically, a No-Go theorem has been proved showing that, to generate this scenario, at least two degrees of freedom are required for dark energy models. If this scenario exists, it may indicate how the universe avoids the dooms of time-like singularities, such as Big Bang, Big Rip, and so on. For example, one application of quintom scenario in 2008 was to a model of inflationary cosmology without big bang singularity. One application of quintom in 2007 was in a big bounce model of the universe. Im having this really interesting discussion with George Rodart about emergent dimensions (from a 1D universe) which is one of the centerpieces of my Origin series, and I wanted to repost it here from physorg..... you might find this intriguing. Keep in mind it is conjecture, but I love seeing how our ideas come together from many different perspectives.

If we assume there was a big bang, and it was 1D+t. Visualize it like spray string. Its pure energy confined to 1D. A 1D space can wiggle and curve around in a higher dimensional containment space and still be only 1D. So what can occur in a 1D space filled with energy? As the space gets longer the energy cools down (giving us a time arrow direction as well). Eventually energy becomes matter, and if this is symmetric we could expect matter and antimatter particles to be created. Matter and antimatter particles couldn't exist in a 1D space, they would revert back to energy. For matter to exist, the space has to bifurcate into 2D. Since the antimatter time arrow is opposite the matter time arrow (i.e. negative) the matter and antimatter separate into the positive and negative sides of the plane. ...cont. report abuse quote send PM George_Rodart 23 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) Continued.. I'm not quite sure how to visualize the 2D space. Maybe it's just occupied by energy and massless particles or strings. However at some point the cooling will lead to the creation of particles with mass. So the space takes on another dimension to 3D. The matter space has positive coordinates relative to the bifurcation points and the antimatter space has negative coordinates relative to the bifurcation points. There is NO jet of matter in one direction and antimatter in the other direction because the arrow of time is set by entropy in the 1D phase before the existence of matter. When the transformation from 2D to 3D occurs, the matter is on one side and the antimatter is on the other side. The antimatter has a negative time arrow but because antimatter has negative spatial coordinates, its time arrow points in the same direction as the matter time arrow. ...cont. report abuse quote send PM George_Rodart 23 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) Cont-3.. Matter and antimatter exist simultaneously in a single 3D space but can't communicate across the zero boundary. Well maybe the graviton can because it's a spin 2 particle but the others are isolated by the direction of the matter and antimatter time arrows. Never the less, matter and antimatter can gravitationally deform the common 3D space which could account for the galaxy clustering and the observed voids.r report abuse quote send PM Alex_Reynolds 22 hours ago Rank: not rated yet George, that's a very interesting view of how dimensions can emerge from 1D.... is it possible for

two universes to emerge when the universe bifurcates from 1D, with one universe made of matter and the other with antimatter? What would be the implications of this? I agree with you about the reverse arrow of time relative to the other universe, but forward relative to itself. report abuse quote send PM Alex_Reynolds 22 hours ago Rank: not rated yet Also, what would separate the two universes, some boundary of energy-- like the luxon wall? If we go by this description, it's possible that the "other" (or antiverse as it were) universe's particles would always seem to exceed the speed of light (if we could perceive it-- which we can't) while we would likewise seem to exceed c from the viewpoint of this antiverse with the energy existing along the luxon wall always moving at the speed of light.... however, in reality (or from our own perspective and the perspective of the antiverse regarding it's own matter) neither exceeds c. report abuse quote send PM Alex_Reynolds 22 hours ago Rank: not rated yet Your views are very intriguing, and very similar to those I have expressed. I likened the dimensions to primary colors + background.... and viewed the antiverse (if one exists) to have dimensions complementary to our own-- for example, using color theory, we can analog our own universe to consist of the additive primaries as dimensions.... RGB and time can be symbolized as the fabric (black), with the antiverse consisting of the subtractive primaries as dimensions CMY on a background of white. report abuse quote send PM Alex_Reynolds 22 hours ago Rank: not rated yet BTW this idea of six spatial dimensions (3 additive primaries and 3 subtractive primaries) seems to agree with the concept of 6 dimensional CY manifolds. report abuse quote send PM Jotaf 21 hours ago Rank: not rated yet At first I didn't think much of this proposal, due to the discrete nature of the transitions. At what point do you "bump" from 2 to 3, or 3 to 4? Talk about a huge discontinuity! But then I remembered there is already a well-established description of what *fractional* dimensions may look like, and it's very intuitive and easy to understand. It turns out that an infinite fractal curve doesn't fill a 1D space, but can fill a space closer to 2D; for example the well-known Koch snowflake has a dimension of about 1.26 (I'm talking about fractal dimension if you want to

get technical). http://en.wikiped...operties To understand why, look at a space-filling curve and see that 1D fractals are so "large" they can be interpreted as occupying more than just 1D, like this: http://en.wikiped...ng_curve It's not a big stretch to imagine a complicated curve (our Universe) taking on more and more dimensions as it stretches and gains complexity. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 George_Rodart 21 hours ago Rank: not rated yet @Alex, remembering I'm only speculating here. When 1D+T opens up, it's in a positive direction. There is no matter involved, only energy and the arrow of time is positive. What I speculating is that the increase in dimension occurs because matter comes into existence. At high energies this split into 2D could initially pop in and out of existence like virtual particles do in the 3D universe we know. However at some point the bifurcation caused the 2D+T surface to appear. In order for matter and antimatter to coexist in this 2D space, one of them has to be in the negative coordinate part of the space. For everything to continue pointing in the right direction, towards entropy, the boundary is zero time relative to either the matter or antimatter side. For everything to continue pointing in the right direction, towards entropy, the boundary is zero time relative to either the matter or antimatter side. In 3D it's like matter and antimatter are on opposite sides of a sheet. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 George_Rodart 20 hours ago

Rank: not rated yet In 2D you can visualize the space like this. Fold a sheet of paper in half, then flatten it again. On the left side of the crease write some pluses and the word "matter". On the right side of the crease write some minus signs and the word "antimatter". Refold the paper. It's now a smaller sheet with matter on one side and antimatter on the other side. If you glue it together, it's a single sheet in 2D with an antimatter world on one side and a matter world on the the other. While the folding occurs in 3D, what really has happened is that the coordinate systems have just been transformed so the arrows of time both point in the same direction. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Dingdongdog 18 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) Trying to explain the actual nature of multidimensional (1-2-3d) space, time and real or antimatter-energy by comparing unconditioned absolute empty space with a sheet of paper, folds, and lines on both sides is like trying to explain the taste of honey or the smell of a rose with numbers, mathematical symbols, and/or words. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 hush1 11 hours ago Rank: not rated yet @Ddd: You are ahead of the game. All (human) language is still in gestation. Be it numbers, mathematical symbols, and/or words. If your mind was 'enhanced' with CPU functionality, the digital-ized version (the 'printout' of '0's' and '1's') of Beethoven's' Fifth contains the same 'meaning' as the Fourier Transform your mind performs on the 'original' acoustical performance. The perfect 'translation'? Hardly. No one knows (yet) what those 'sounds' have for meaning to you. The perfect replication? Yes.

Perhaps later physics will translate with universal meaning. After the birth of the human languages. Until then, the physics community rejoices at mere replication. And nothing is so wonderful, that it can not be repeated. The 'George/Alex/Jotaf' input is nevertheless, enlightening. "unconditioned absolute empty space" expresses a physics desire, from what I sense, to have an 'independent' event (input) from Nature - an Absolute Frame (of reference). My sentiments are expressed - cont report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 hush1 11 hours ago Rank: not rated yet cont... by the following (ancient) article: http:://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/10/science/useful-invention-or-absolute-truth-what-ismath.html (Delete the extra colon to implement the link) report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Alex_Reynolds 3 hours ago Rank: not rated yet George, I appreciate your easily understood example.... it got me thinking about another scenario. Is there anyway this universe could bifurcate in four directions? Bifurcate is probably not the right word for this (quadfurcate?) Basically, Im thinking of a cartesian coordinate system with space (of however many dimensions) on the y axis and time on the x axis. We can call the Origin the point of big bang. Ok so now we have four quadrants.... (positive space, positive time), (negative space, negative time), (positive space, negative time), (negative space, positive time). I don't know if this fourway arrangement can exist (perhaps there would be some sort of overlap, which might be the source of dark matter and dark energy?)..... but if this can exist, we may be able to subdivide this universe into a matterverse, antiverse, mirrorverse and antimirrorverse.... with the other two units consisting of mirror matter and anti mirror matter. There has been some

preliminary evidence report abuse quote send PM Alex_Reynolds 3 hours ago Rank: not rated yet posted elsewhere on this site about the existence of mirror matter, but of course that is still tentative. Nevertheless, perhaps it accounts for some of the dark matter (if that exists.) This quadverse structure while admittedly just speculation, seems interesting. report abuse quote send PM George_Rodart 3 hours ago Rank: not rated yet @Alex. Remembering this is just conjecture on my part. Actually there are 8 possible coordinate cubes to be considered. The others all have at least one axis in a negative direction and my hunch is that this would cause problems with the math involving CPT down the line. My thought was that at the point when the new dimension opens up it also establishes the zero point for the time arrows, The spatial transformation I suggested serves to cause the two time arrow to point in the same direction. Even though their signs are opposite one another they both point towards increasing entropy. I think that antimatter and anti-gravity are a plausible replacement theory for the unknown/undiscovered dark matter and dark energy. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404224 Dark Energy Constraints from the Cosmic Age and Supernova Bo Feng, Xiulian Wang, Xinmin Zhang (Submitted on 11 Apr 2004 (v1), last revised 23 Dec 2004 (this version, v3)) Using the low limit of cosmic ages from globular cluster and the white dwarfs: $t_0 > 12$Gyr, together with recent new high redshift supernova observations from the HST/GOODS program and previous supernova data, we give a considerable estimation of the equation of state for dark energy, with uniform priors as weak as $0.2<\Omega_m<0.4$ or $0.1<\Omega_m h^2<0.16$. We find cosmic age limit plays a significant role in lowering the upper bound on the variation amplitude of dark energy equation of state. We propose in this paper a new scenario of dark energy dubbed Quintom, which gives rise to the equation of state larger than -1 in the past and less than -1 today, satisfying current observations. In addition we've also considered the implications of recent X-ray gas mass fraction data on dark energy, which favors a negative running of the equation of state. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609040 Crossing the Phantom Divide Martin Kunz, Domenico Sapone (University of Geneva) (Submitted on 4 Sep 2006 (v1), last revised 27 Jan 2007 (this version, v2)) We consider fluid perturbations close to the "phantom divide" characterised by p = -rho and discuss the conditions under which divergencies in the perturbations can be avoided. We find that the behaviour of the perturbations depends crucially on the prescription for the pressure

perturbation delta-p. The pressure perturbation is usually defined using the dark energy restframe, but we show that this frame becomes unphysical at the divide. If the pressure perturbation is kept finite in any other frame, then the phantom divide can be crossed. Our findings are important for generalised fluid dark energy used in data analysis (since current cosmological data sets indicate that the dark energy is characterised by p ~ -rho so that p < -rho cannot be excluded) as well as for any models crossing the phantom divide, like some modified gravity, coupled dark energy and braneworld models. We also illustrate the results by an explicit calculation for the "Quintom" case with two scalar fields. http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0819 A Model Of Inflationary Cosmology Without Singularity Yi-Fu Cai, Tao-tao Qiu, Jun-Qing Xia, Xinmin Zhang (Submitted on 6 Aug 2008) In this letter, we propose a model of inflationary cosmology with a bounce preceded and study its primordial curvature perturbations. Our model gives rise to a primordial power spectrum with a feature of oscillation on large scales compared with the nearly scale-invariant spectrum generated by the traditional slow rolling inflation model. We will show this effect changes the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature power spectrum and the Large Scale Structure (LSS) matter power spectrum. And further with a detailed simulation we will point out this signal is detectable to the forthcoming observations, such as PLANCK and LAMOST. http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2776 Quintom Cosmology: Theoretical implications and observations Yi-Fu Cai, Emmanuel N. Saridakis, Mohammad R. Setare, Jun-Qing Xia (Submitted on 15 Sep 2009 (v1), last revised 22 Apr 2010 (this version, v2)) We review the paradigm of quintom cosmology. This scenario is motivated by the observational indications that the equation of state of dark energy across the cosmological constant boundary is mildly favored, although the data are still far from being conclusive. As a theoretical setup we introduce a no-go theorem existing in quintom cosmology, and based on it we discuss the conditions for the equation of state of dark energy realizing the quintom scenario. The simplest quintom model can be achieved by introducing two scalar fields with one being quintessence and the other phantom. Based on the double-field quintom model we perform a detailed analysis of dark energy perturbations and we discuss their effects on current observations. This type of scenarios usually suffer from a manifest problem due to the existence of a ghost degree of freedom, and thus we review various alternative realizations of the quintom paradigm. The developments in particle physics and string theory provide potential clues indicating that a quintom scenario may be obtained from scalar systems with higher derivative terms, as well as from non-scalar systems. Additionally, we construct a quintom realization in the framework of braneworld cosmology, where the cosmic acceleration and the phantom divide crossing result from the combined effects of the field evolution on the brane and the competition between four and five dimensional gravity. Finally, we study the outsets and fates of a universe in quintom cosmology. In a scenario with null energy condition violation one may obtain a bouncing solution at early times and therefore avoid the Big Bang singularity. Furthermore, if this occurs periodically, we obtain a realization of an oscillating universe. Lastly, we comment on several open issues in quintom cosmology and their connection to future investigations.

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/how-many-dimensions-there.html Theories of the Universe How Many Dimensions Are There? Theories of the Universe It's All Held Together with Strings A Brief History of String Theory The Important Part The Second Requirement, Extra Dimensions How Many Dimensions Are There? In the last section, we saw how the extra dimensions in supersymmetry allowed for the extra rotation that fermions required to get back to their original starting point. In superstring theory the extra dimensions play a different role. But are there eight dimensions as in SUSY, or five, as described by the Kaluza-Klein theory? Maybe there's more? Well as it turns out there are a different amount of dimensions for each of the two basic groups of particles. Do you remember what those are? The fermions make up matter, and the bosons carry the force charges. Universal Constants Modular functions were first discovered by the Indian mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan. He has been compared to a bursting supernova, illuminating the darkest, most profound corners of mathematics, before being tragically struck down by tuberculosis at the age of 33. Scattered throughout his notebooks are sets of very obscure equations called modular functions. These are some of the strangest equations ever found and appear only in distant, unrelated branches of mathematics. One of these modular functions, called the Ramanujan function in his honor, appears in string theory as the underlying mathematical theory that shows how strings vibrate in 10 and 26 dimensions. If we begin with just one extra dimension, as in the Kaluza-Klein theory, that one dimension is a simple curled-up circle, very similar to our second dimension that we found upon close inspection of our garden hose. Each dimension that is added changes the geometric shape of the curled-up dimension. But in principle, whether it's one or ten extra dimensions, the concept of them being curled up and hidden, as opposed to being large and extended is still the same. So to answer our question “How many dimensions are there?” we could say, “As many as it takes to make the theory work.” There could be an infinite number of dimensions. But as it turns out, at least for SST, 10 dimensions work for fermions and 26 dimensions work for bosons. Remember that a particle is defined by the particular vibrational pattern is has and that pattern is defined by the shape of the space in which it vibrates. It was found that the vibrating waves of fermions travel clockwise using 10 dimensions and the vibrating waves of bosons travel counterclockwise in 26 dimensions. This is one of the most unusual aspects of the theory and also one of the least understood. The mathematical theory of modular functions is where this is all explained. But no one has the slightest understanding why 10 and 26 dimensions are singled out as the dimensions in which strings vibrate. The Short Version of the Second Superstring Revolution Most of this section has been devoted to explaining the fundamental concepts found in the first superstring revolution. In this last section, I would like to summarize for you the main points of the second revolution in string theory. The essential concepts that you learned about string theory in the previous pages still lie at the core of this second revolution, but there have been some subtle additions that are too technical to go into. So for the sake of your brain and mine, I'll just define for you what has happened. By the late 1980s and very early '90s, string theory was definitely the theory that everyone felt would eventually lead to the TOE. There were just two basic problems with it. Physicists had developed five different versions of string theory. Without spending the next five

chapters telling you all about them, I'll just give you their names. We have Type I, Type II, Type IIB, Heterotic O, and Heterotic E. They are all fundamentally the same, but the way that they incorporate supersymmetry and explain the vibrational patterns vary from theory to theory. These five versions each ended up having many possible solutions to the equations that defined them. There were different possible ways to curl up the extra dimensions with each solution corresponding to a universe with different properties. What lies at the heart of this problem is that the equations in string theory are so complicated that no one knows their exact form. Universal Constants Heterotic comes from the same Greek root as in “heterosexual,” which implies the combination of at least two different things. In string theory it refers to the version that explains the two different sets of dimensions that are applied to the fermions and bosons, 10 dimensions for fermions and 26 dimensions for bosons. However, in 1995, which is considered to be the date for the start of the second superstring revolution, some great new developments were introduced to resolve the two problems mentioned above. As it turns out, the equations that define each of the five versions are very intimately related. So rather than having five distinct versions, physicists are convinced that there is one theory that brings all five together under one umbrella. Picture a five-pointed star, like a starfish, with one of the five versions at each tip and you have the new model for SST called MTheory. And although there is still a lot of work to be done, we can summarize two of its chief features. M-theory operates in eleven dimensions instead of ten. The extra dimension provides the space in which all five versions can be synthesized into one theory. Besides the vibrating strings that define string theory, it's been discovered that there are other vibrating objects: two-dimensional membranes, undulating three-dimensional blobs called “threebranes,” and a whole bunch of other things as well. Just one final thought before we close this section. Although SST gives us a compelling formulation of the theory of the universe, the fundamental problem is that an experimental test of the theory seems beyond our present day technology. In fact, the theory predicts that the unification of all forces occurs at the Planck energy, or 1019 billion electron volts, which is about 1 quadrillion times larger than energies currently available in our accelerators. This can be a little disappointing, because it means that experimental verification, the engine that drives progress in physics, is no longer possible with our current generation of machines or with any generation in the conceivable future. But be that as it may, the true nature of M-theory remains mysterious, which is one of the suggested meanings for the M. Acquiring a full understanding of M-theory could well be the Holy Grail of the twenty-first-century physics. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/second-requirement-extra-dimensions.html Theories of the Universe The Second Requirement, Extra Dimensions Theories of the Universe It's All Held Together with Strings A Brief History of String Theory The Important Part The Second Requirement, Extra Dimensions How Many Dimensions Are There? Okay, you now have one of the most important parts of string theory under your belt. But you're not off the hook yet. There is another important point we need to discuss and this point is equally significant. (I know, you thought I said the last section was the most important. It is, but so is this section.) We'll start by stating exactly what this other requirement is and then work backward from there. As in SUSY, extra dimensions are required for SST. Cosmonotes

The difficulty in describing the extra dimensions that are needed in SST lies in the ability to express their geometrical form. These extra dimensions are not just crumpled up any old way. In 1984, four physicists showed that the extra six dimensions needed can be described using what's called a Calabi-Yau shape. The name is derived from the two mathematicians, Eugenio Calabi and Shing-Tung Yau that developed the model. The closest I can come in telling you what it looks like is that it resembles the famous “Gordian Knot” that Alexander the Great unraveled with one swipe of his sword. Just imagine an incredibly complex ball of twine and you'll get a good visual image, though still not an accurate representation. You already know that the vibrational pattern created by the strings defines the type of particle it is. But what physicists found was that these patterns needed more than our three dimensions of space to express all of their possible patterns. In a sidebar, I recently explained that after the moment of the big bang, four dimensions uncurled and many other dimensions didn't. They remained curled up. It is these uncurled dimensions that are necessary for the patterns of the strings to vibrate in. Let me reword this a different way for clarity. All of the possible vibrational patterns that strings can assume are constrained and strongly influenced by the shape of the extra dimensions that are twisted up and curled back on each other. This means that the extra-dimensional geometry determines the fundamental physical attributes, like particle masses and charges, which we observe in the usual three large space dimensions of the everyday world. In other words, the vibrational patterns that define each type of particle are based on the shape of the extra dimensions that the string vibrates in. Got it? What do these curled up dimensions look like? That's harder to describe than anything else we've discussed so far. There are very exotic names given to the unusual forms that these curled up dimensions can take. And they're too lengthy and mathematical to explain here. But I think I can give you a good idea of how just one extra dimension is possible to imagine, so let's see what that looks like. The Kaluza-Klein Dimension Cosmonotes The term “Kalazu-Klein model” has come to be applied to any version of grand unification that operates in many dimensions and requires compactification. Superstring theory requires a total of ten dimensions, six more than the three of space and one of time. The extra dimensions are accounted for by compactification in just the same way as the one extra dimension is in the original Kaluza-Klein theory. The idea that our universe may have more dimensions than meets the eye originated in 1919 with a German mathematician by the name of Theodor Kaluza. Oscar Klein, a Swedish physicist, later refined it when he applied it to quantum theory. They introduced the idea of a five-dimensional model to unify gravity and electromagnetism. In the same way that gravity ripples space in four dimensions, the Kaluza-Klein equations showed that electromagnetism ripples in the fifth dimension. But where is this fifth dimension? The standard explanation is that the fifth dimension is hidden from us by compactification. Over the next couple of paragraphs you'll get a good idea of what this term means. Mindwarps Kaluza first proposed his theory to Einstein in 1919, who upon reading it was initially impressed, but upon careful reconsideration felt that the notion of an extra dimension was too unprovable. However, two years later, after he digested the theory more fully, he gave it his full support. And even though it's called the Kaluza-Klein theory, the two of them never worked together on it. The most common analogy used to describe this extra dimension is that of a garden hose. If you stretch a long garden hose across a gorge, from a distance it looks one-dimensional. The actual thickness of the hose would not be evident from a distance. And if there were a bug crawling on

it, and someone wanted to know where it was, you would only have to tell him its location based on one dimension, left/right. But now, if we view the hose with a powerful pair of binoculars, we see that the hose actually has thickness to it. The bug on the hose has in reality two choices facing him when he moves. He can move left/right or clockwise/counterclockwise in a circular motion around the hose. So from a distance what appeared to be one-dimensional, upon much closer examination is revealed to be two-dimensional. And this is the central point of the extra dimensions, and part of the Kaluza-Klein theory. One of the dimensions is long, extended, and easily visible, just like the four dimensions we live in all of the time. But the other dimension on the hose is short, “curled” up and can only be discovered with much greater precision. This is the dimension that is hidden from our normal experience and is compacted into tiny, curled-up shapes. Unification in Higher Dimensions In the last section, I introduced you to the idea of “quantum foam.” When we looked at the quantum universe, magnified almost to the Planck scale, we saw that the uniform smoothness of space warped by gravity was a boiling, frothing area of space far different than that created by gravity alone. So how does SST get rid of that quantum foam? If you can imagine a birthday cake that just had the icing put on it, it's rather lumpy and chaotic. But with the use of a large butter knife, you can “smear” the roughness out into a smooth surface. This is essentially what the tiny, curled-up extra dimensions do. Because of their geometric shape, they can “smear” the quantum foam, more or less, into the smoother surface reflected in the forces of gravity. Mindwarps While most of the extra dimensions in SUSY and SST are spatial dimensions, some theorists think that to arrive at a full understanding of a primary theory that will completely de-scribe and unify the microcosm with the macrocosm, some extra time dimensions will be required as well. For example, a time dimension applied to the spin of a particle could allow it to rotate through its full revolution so that it would return to the same moment in time it was at before it began its rotation. You could think of it as a particle starring in its own version of the movie Groundhog Day. If we magnify an area of space almost to the Planck scale, we see that it is made up of tiny, curled-up shapes, the extra dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory. Of course in their theory, there is only one extra dimension, but I think you have a good idea of how this one dimension is described. So to reiterate their theory one more time: The spatial fabric of the universe can possibly have two types of dimensionality, the large, extended, easily visible dimensions that we operate in, three of space and one of time, and the hidden, curled-up, circular dimensions. This is a new dimension, but one that exists curled up at every point in space in the familiar larger dimensions. In the same way that you can move, up/down, left/right, forward/backward in three dimensions, if you were small enough you could also move in the other dimension as well. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/important-part.html Theories of the Universe The Important Part Theories of the Universe It's All Held Together with Strings A Brief History of String Theory The Important Part The Second Requirement, Extra Dimensions How Many Dimensions Are There? In this section we'll make the connection between vibrating patterns and the theory of everything. If you understand this section, you'll have a good foundation on which to explore SST in more detail. It's worthwhile to repeat the last sentence of the last paragraph, because herein lies the key. The characteristics and properties of an elementary particle, its mass, and the forces that it can carry, are determined by the precise resonant pattern of vibration that its internal string

“plays” or performs. For example, let's take a particle's mass. The energy of any vibrating string is defined by its wavelength and its amplitude. The shorter the wavelength and the greater the amplitude, the more energy it has. If we compare this to a violin again, you can see that if you pluck one of the strings vigorously (with more energy), the more intense the vibration. And if you pluck it more softly (with less energy), it vibrates less vigorously. Mindwarps Do you know of anywhere else in nature that uses strings as a fundamental structure? I think a moment's thought will reveal that nature has reserved the string for a special role, as a basic building block for other forms. The essential feature of life on earth is the string-like DNA molecule, which contains the complex information and coding of life itself. When building the stuff of life as well as subatomic matter, strings seem to work incredibly well. The distinguishing feature of a string is that it is one of the most compact ways of storing vast amounts of data in a way in which information can be replicated. For living things, nature uses the double strands of the DNA molecule, which unwind and form duplicate copies of each other. Also, our bodies contain billions upon billions of protein strings, formed of amino acid building blocks. Our bodies then, in a sense, can be viewed as a vast collection of strings—protein molecules draped around our bones. As you know from special relativity, mass and energy are interchangeable. And the greater the mass, the more energy there is to convert, and the same is true in reverse. So if we calculate the energy of the vibrational pattern of the internal string of an elementary particle, we should be able to convert that information into finding its mass. Lighter particles have internal strings that vibrate less energetically (like the softer plucked string), so of course, the heavier particles have internal strings that vibrate more energetically (like the harder plucked string). As you can see, this method can be used to determine a basic characteristic, the mass. But what about finding out about the force it carries? If you know the mass of a particle, you can also determine its gravitational properties, because as you know, there is a direct relationship between the mass of an object and how this mass reacts to gravity. This means that there is a direct association between the pattern of string vibration and the particle's response to the gravitational force. Using this reasoning, physicists have shown that the detailed aspects of a string's pattern of vibration can also be related to the three other forces. In other words, the vibrational pattern of a particular string will determine which force (weak, strong, or electromagnetic) is being carried by that string. This vibrational pattern is then also used to determine which of the particles are associated with which force. Of particular importance was the discovery that among all the different vibrational patterns, one matched perfectly with the properties of the graviton, the particle thought to carry the force of gravity. Here then is also the unification of gravity with the other three forces. Universal Constants The graviton is the theoretical particle assumed to carry the gravitational force. Since the other three of the four fundamental forces is carried by a particle, it is a natural conclusion that gravity should be carried by a messenger particle as well. It plays a part in quantum gravity analogous to the role of the photon in electromagnetic interactions described by QED that we covered in the last section. Our key concept then can be defined in the following way—each elementary particle is composed of a single string, or better yet, each particle is a single string. And all strings are totally identical. What makes particles different is the fact that each of their respective strings has a unique vibrational pattern, their own vibratory fingerprint you could say. And because every physical event or dynamic process in the universe consists of the most basic units that interact with each other, either producing matter or applying a force, SST provides a system of unification that makes it a good candidate for a TOE. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/brief-history-string-theory.html

Theories of the Universe A Brief History of String Theory Theories of the Universe It's All Held Together with Strings A Brief History of String Theory The Important Part The Second Requirement, Extra Dimensions How Many Dimensions Are There? String theory began with the observation that elementary particle resonances (the different energies at which new elementary particles are produced in the colliding beams from particle accelerators) form regular patterns, not unlike the overtones from a plucked string. This led the Italian physicist Gabriele Veneziano to propose in 1968 that the hadrons, the strongly interacting elementary particles, are in fact energy vibrations of incredibly small strings. In geometry, the most elementary unit is a point, like the period at the end of this sentence. But Veneziano thought that the most elementary unit in geometry was not a point in space, but a tiny extended string. Cosmonotes If you remember in the last section on supersymmetry, the goal was to unite the particles that carry the four forces—the bosons, with the particles of matter—the fermions. This is the route being taken in physics to unite all of the particles under one theory. The common concept to both supersymmetry and superstring theory is the need to have more dimensions in order for these particles to unify. His theory was pretty ingenious, but soon ran into difficulties. It was discovered that the only way for the mathematics of the theory to satisfy both quantum mechanics and general relativity was if the strings existed in a space of 26 dimensions for bosons or 10 dimensions for fermions. At the time, physicists persisted in trying to connect string theory to the theory of quarks, suggesting that quarks are actually the ends of strings. The reason that isolated quarks have never been seen became immediately obvious—break a string in half in the hope of capturing a free end and all you end up doing is creating a new end. Mindwarps As we've seen in earlier sections, music has been used as a metaphor to describe the structure of the cosmos more than once. We had Pythagoras's “music of the spheres,” Schrödinger's and de Broglie's vibrating string and musical atom, and now the musical analogy is again being used to describe the fundamental quality of string theory. Who's to say if in reality the universe isn't one big cosmic symphony! Let me explain this in another way, just in case the last paragraph left you feeling a little unclear. The quarks inside hadrons are held together by the exchange of gluons, and the effect is as if two quarks are joined by a piece of elastic. The force between quarks (the color force, which also indirectly gives rise to the strong interaction) is so strong that the energy in the “elastic” is comparable to the mass energy in the quarks themselves. Under these conditions, a pair of quarks is joined by the color force and behaves in many ways like a stretched piece of string. A good image for this would be the chain shot used in sea battles in the days of sail. A pair of cannonballs joined by a chain would whirl around one another as they stuck the rigging of a manof-war ship, and would end up doing far more damage than two single balls passing through the sails. Cosmonotes If the theory of superstrings, like supersymmetry, has so many dimensions, why do we sense only three of space and one of time? Theory has it that all the dimensions were created at the instant of the big bang, when the size of the entire cosmos was far smaller than that of an elementary particle. In the period of rapid expansion that followed, four of these dimensions expanded and

unrolled, while the remaining dimensions remained tightly curled up. Today the four dimensions define the universe we live in, while the other dimensions are effectively invisible, yet their effects are felt throughout the forces of nature. But to get back to our story, this first version of string theory was soon superceded by the development of supersymmetry. The basic concepts developed by string theory about the unification of fermions and bosons through extra dimensions replaced the notion of strings, and supersymmetry replaced the theory that had given it birth. Once the idea of supersymmetry had been placed in the minds of physicists, it was easy to incorporate it into the then standard model of the particle world, as we discussed in the last section. As a matter of fact, that is the way generations of students after 1976 were introduced to supersymmetry, without any mention of strings at all. In the early 1980s, the English physicist Michael Green and the American John Schwarz married the ideas of string theory to those of supersymmetry to create, yes you guessed it, superstrings. The Cosmic Onion Between 1984 and 1986, thousands of research papers were written by physicists from around the world. This three-year period is regarded as the first superstring revolution. What was this first theory about? Why was it replaced with the second revolution in superstring theory? And what are these strings made of? To answer these questions let's look at some of the basic concepts that define this first revolution. To clarify the most essential point of string theory, we need to change how we view the whole set of elementary particles. In SST, which is the abbreviation I'll use when discussing superstring theory, the idea of a particle as just a point in space, which is the most general concept associated with a particle, is replaced with the idea of a tiny vibrating string, a string that's connected together to form a loop. That's it! You now have the secret of the theory of everything. But as with all theories, there is more to the whole picture. What are these strings made of? In truth, no one knows, and I'll tell you why in a moment. I can tell you that they are the size of the Planck length. Remember that unit of measurement from the last section? That was 10-35 meter, or about 100 billion billion (1020) times smaller than a proton. Now, regarding their composition, well that's the trick. If they are truly the most fundamental units out of which everything else is made, then to say that they are composed of something would mean that there was something even smaller than these strings, and then, of course, they wouldn't be what they are. We would have the dilemma of a cosmic onion, in which each layer that's peeled away just reveals another layer. Mindwarps The analogy of a cosmic onion to a continually unfolding universe is an interesting image. While many physicists think that SST will turn out to be the theory of everything, some also feel that strings may not be the ultimate building blocks. There may even be units that make up the string loops. If this is the case, who's to say that the process may not keep on going. If the universe is infinitely large as well as infinitely small, as we peel away layer by layer of its structure, we may find the cosmic onion to have no end to its layers. Musical Strings A deeper look at the analogy of a vibrating musical string can take us to a better understanding of how the first SST revolution saw string theory as a possible answer to unification. If we use a violin as our musical instrument to explain how strings work, I think you'll get a clear picture of how physicists understand SST. The four strings on a violin can each vibrate at almost an infinite number of vibrational patterns called resonances. These are the wave patterns that fit between the two fixed ends of the violin string. When we hear these different vibrational resonances, we experience them as the different musical notes. The way the strings vibrate in string theory is very similar. Each closed loop can support almost an infinite number of resonant vibrational patterns within its structure. Instead of having a string fixed on both ends, the closed loop provides the

same kind of structure so that it can vibrate in the same way as the violin string. Universal Constants Resonance is usually understood as the oscillation of a system, like a guitar, piano, etc., at its natural frequency of vibration, triggered by an outside stimulus with an appropriate frequency. For example, if you play a note on a piano with the exact frequency of one of the open strings of a guitar, the string on the guitar will resonate, even though it hasn't been plucked. You may have also experienced this while singing in the shower. Certain notes will resonate better than others giving you a deeper- or mellower-sounding voice. In the way the word is used in the context of string theory, it simply refers to the number of waves or the frequency at which a string can vibrate. So how does this analogy help explain the central concept of SST? What this means is that just as the different vibrational patterns of a violin string create the different sounds that we hear, so, too, the different vibrational patterns of the strings in string theory create the different masses and force charges. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/its-all-held-together-with-strings.html Imaginary time (think imaginary numbers) is an interesting concept from Stephen Hawking. “ One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds? ” —Stephen Hawking

http://en.wikipedia..../Imaginary_time Imaginary time is also used in cosmology. It is used to describe models of the universe in physical cosmology. Stephen Hawking popularized the concept of imaginary time in his book A Brief History of Time. The relationship of real and imaginary time can be visualised as perpendicular axes of direction. Imaginary time is difficult to visualize. If we imagine "regular time" as a horizontal line running between "past" in one direction and "future" in the other, then imaginary time would run perpendicular to this line as the imaginary numbers run perpendicular to the real numbers in the complex plane. However, imaginary time is not imaginary in the sense that it is unreal or made-up — it simply runs in a direction different from the type of time we experience. In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space: you can move forward and backward along imaginary time, just like you can move right and left in space. The concept is useful in cosmology because it can help smooth out gravitational singularities in models of the universe (see Hartle-Hawking state). Singularities pose a problem for physicists because these are areas where known physical laws do not apply. The Big Bang, for example, appears as a singularity in "regular time." But when visualized with imaginary time, the singularity is removed and the Big Bang functions like any other point in spacetime.

In quantum mechanics Imaginary time is obtained from real time via a Wick rotation by in the complex plane: . It can be shown that at finite temperature T, the Green's functions are periodic in imaginary time with a period of . Therefore their Fourier transforms contain only a discrete set of frequencies called Matsubara frequencies. Another way to see the connection between statistical mechanics and quantum field is to consider the transition amplitude between an initial state I and a final state F. H is the Hamiltonian of the system. If we compare this with the partition function we see that to get the partition function from the transition amplitudes we can replace , set F = I = n and sum over n. This way we don't have to do twice the work by evaluating both the statistical properties and the transition amplitudes. Finally by using a Wick rotation one can show that the Euclidean quantum field theory in (D + 1)-dimensional spacetime is nothing but quantum statistical mechanics in D-dimensional space. [edit] In cosmology“ One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds? ” —Stephen Hawking Imaginary time is also used in cosmology. It is used to describe models of the universe in physical cosmology. Stephen Hawking popularized the concept of imaginary time in his book A Brief History of Time. The relationship of real and imaginary time can be visualised as perpendicular axes of direction. Imaginary time is difficult to visualize. If we imagine "regular time" as a horizontal line running between "past" in one direction and "future" in the other, then imaginary time would run perpendicular to this line as the imaginary numbers run perpendicular to the real numbers in the complex plane. However, imaginary time is not imaginary in the sense that it is unreal or made-up — it simply runs in a direction different from the type of time we experience. In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space: you can move forward and backward along imaginary time, just like you can move right and left in space. The concept is useful in cosmology because it can help smooth out gravitational singularities in models of the universe (see Hartle-Hawking state). Singularities pose a problem for physicists because these are areas where known physical laws do not apply. The Big Bang, for example, appears as a singularity in "regular time." But when visualized with imaginary time, the singularity is removed and the Big Bang functions like any other point in spacetime. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110504183407.htm? utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+ %28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29 Attention, Please: How Innovations and Nobel Prize Winners Make It ScienceDaily (May 4, 2011) — "The rich-get-richer effect" is famous not only in sociology. It applies to the success of innovators as well. But if attention is paid only to people who are already at the top, how are scientific revolutions possible? A new publication investigating careers of Nobel Prize winners gives insight into this stunning phenomenon.

"Attention is a scarce resource in today's society," says Dirk Helbing, professor at ETH Zurich, and Bernardo Huberman, Director of the Social Computing Lab at HP, immediately adds: "We live in a world where information overload is normal. Attention is precious. The money goes where the attention is. And often people are willing to trade money for the attention of others." Hence, understanding the laws of attention economics is a prerequisite of success. As a new study of publications of Nobel Prize laureates shows, the same is true for scientific achievements. Success in science is measured in citations. That is, the more citations by others a researcher collects in important journals, the more acclaimed he is. In a sense, citations are for scientists what bonuses are for bankers, or, likewise, what applause means for artists. Boosting Nobel Prizes Information overload is known in science as well. The amount of publications exceeds by far the amount of what a researcher can read in his whole life. Additionally, scientific fields of research are usually dominated by a few outstanding scientists that attract most of the attention. In this almost hostile environment, how can unknown researchers bring about a paradigm shift? How are groundbreaking discoveries feasible at all? A recent publication by the teams of Dirk Helbing of ETH Zurich and Santo Fortunato of the Institute for Scientific Interchange (ISI) in Turin throws light on this matter. In their paper, the researchers investigate several million citations in the scientific area, references to Nobel Prize laureates in particular. "Remarkably, innovations are able to overcome the rich-gets-richer dynamics," Helbing says. The explanation of this phenomenon is based on a new key parameter, the so-called boost factor. "Sometimes, a paper gets cited overwhelmingly often and thus overcomes the rich-gets-richer effect. We then see citation cascades," Helbing says. These papers are called landmark papers. The boost factor represents a powerful instrument in accurately describing the careers of researchers. Its peaks precisely indicate the landmark papers. New Talents Citations have become a widespread method to measure scientific excellence. For example, they are frequently used in academic recruitment procedures. Furthermore, they play an important role in university rankings and for the distribution of funds among scholars and scientific institutions. However, the boost factor proposed by the teams of Helbing and Fortunato goes beyond the indices that are commonly used in its sensitivity to identifying landmark events: The sharp peaks allow one to identify scientific breakthroughs and talents much earlier than through classical citation analysis. The authors propose that the boost factor could be used together with other measures to evaluate the performance of scientists. Interestingly, the boost factor also shows that, when a groundbreaking paper receives abundant attention, the scientist's body of work overall enjoys a greater impact. A specific paper thus influences even the success of publications in the past. The benefitting pieces of work do not even have to be from the same area of research. "Similar feedback effects are likely to affect the influence of a politician, or the price of a product," suggests Helbing. "Otherwise brands would not be so important." A Self-organized Critical System? Interestingly, the statistical distribution of the peaks of the boost factor looks like a power law. This suggests that the boosts may reach any possible size. "In fact, we observe everything, from

small cascades that reflect quasi-continuous scientific progress all the way up to scientific revolutions, which change our perception of the world fundamentally," says Helbing. Nobel Prize winners, for instance, usually have a significantly larger boost compared to other scientists. This power law behavior indicates that science undergoes phase transitions, where sudden systemic shifts occur. For example, new scientific concepts such as Quantum Mechanics or Einstein's Theory of Relativity may be understood as paradigm shifts. Furthermore, the scientific system seems to drive itself toward the tipping point, where citation avalanches occur on all scales. "It's only for this reason that innovations sometimes have a chance to overcome established paradigms," concludes Helbing.

The authors of this paper seem to agree with me that the universe can be single dimensional, bidimensional, tridimensional and even higher multidimensional all at the same time, it just depends on what scale and energy you are working with.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420152059.htm

Primordial Weirdness: Did the Early Universe Have One Dimension? Scientists Outline Test for Theory ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2011) — Did the early universe have just one spatial dimension? See Also: Space & Time Cosmology Big Bang Astrophysics Matter & Energy Quantum Physics Physics Albert Einstein Reference Shape of the Universe Spacetime Introduction to general relativity Large-scale structure of the cosmos That's the mind-boggling concept at the heart of a theory that University at Buffalo physicist Dejan Stojkovic and colleagues proposed in 2010. They suggested that the early universe -- which exploded from a single point and was very, very small at first -- was one-dimensional (like a straight line) before expanding to include two dimensions (like a plane) and then three (like the world in which we live today). The theory, if valid, would address important problems in particle physics. Now, in a new paper in Physical Review Letters, Stojkovic and Loyola Marymount University physicist Jonas Mureika describe a test that could prove or disprove the "vanishing dimensions" hypothesis. Because it takes time for light and other waves to travel to Earth, telescopes peering out into

space can, essentially, look back into time as they probe the universe's outer reaches. Gravitational waves can't exist in one- or two-dimensional space. So Stojkovic and Mureika have reasoned that the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), a planned international gravitational observatory, should not detect any gravitational waves emanating from the lowerdimensional epochs of the early universe. Stojkovic, an assistant professor of physics, says the theory of evolving dimensions represents a radical shift from the way we think about the cosmos -- about how our universe came to be. The core idea is that the dimensionality of space depends on the size of the space we're observing, with smaller spaces associated with fewer dimensions. That means that a fourth dimension will open up -- if it hasn't already -- as the universe continues to expand. The theory also suggests that space has fewer dimensions at very high energies of the kind associated with the early, post-big bang universe. If Stojkovic and his colleagues are right, they will be helping to address fundamental problems with the standard model of particle physics, including the following: The incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are mathematical frameworks that describe the physics of the universe. Quantum mechanics is good at describing the universe at very small scales, while relativity is good at describing the universe at large scales. Currently, the two theories are considered incompatible; but if the universe, at its smallest levels, had fewer dimensions, mathematical discrepancies between the two frameworks would disappear. The mystery of the universe's accelerating expansion. Physicists have observed that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, and they don't know why. The addition of new dimensions as the universe grows would explain this acceleration. (Stojkovic says a fourth dimension may have already opened at large, cosmological scales.) The need to alter the mass of the Higgs boson. The standard model of particle physics predicts the existence of an as yet undiscovered elementary particle called the Higgs boson. For equations in the standard model to accurately describe the observed physics of the real world, however, researchers must artificially adjust the mass of the Higgs boson for interactions between particles that take place at high energies. If space has fewer dimensions at high energies, the need for this kind of "tuning" disappears. "What we're proposing here is a shift in paradigm," Stojkovic said. "Physicists have struggled with the same problems for 10, 20, 30 years, and straight-forward extensions of extensions of the existing ideas are unlikely to solve them." "We have to take into account the possibility that something is systematically wrong with our ideas," he continued. "We need something radical and new, and this is something radical and new." Because the planned deployment of LISA is still years away, it may be a long time before Stojkovic and his colleagues are able to test their ideas this way. However, some experimental evidence already points to the possible existence of lowerdimensional space. Specifically, scientists have observed that the main energy flux of cosmic ray particles with energies exceeding 1 teraelectron volt -- the kind of high energy associated with the very early universe -- are aligned along a two-dimensional plane. If high energies do correspond with lower-dimensional space, as the "vanishing dimensions" theory proposes, researchers working with the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator in

Europe should see planar scattering at such energies. Stojkovic says the observation of such events would be "a very exciting, independent test of our proposed ideas." Primordial weirdness: Did the early universe have 1 dimension? April 20th, 2011 in Physics / General Physics (PhysOrg.com) -- Did the early universe have just one spatial dimension? That's the mindboggling concept at the heart of a theory that University at Buffalo physicist Dejan Stojkovic and colleagues proposed in 2010. They suggested that the early universe -- which exploded from a single point and was very, very small at first -- was one-dimensional (like a straight line) before expanding to include two dimensions (like a plane) and then three (like the world in which we live today). The theory, if valid, would address important problems in particle physics. Now, in a new paper in Physical Review Letters, Stojkovic and Loyola Marymount University physicist Jonas Mureika describe a test that could prove or disprove the "vanishing dimensions" hypothesis. Because it takes time for light and other waves to travel to Earth, telescopes peering out into space can, essentially, look back into time as they probe the universe's outer reaches. Gravitational waves can't exist in one- or two-dimensional space. So Stojkovic and Mureika have reasoned that the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), a planned international gravitational observatory, should not detect any gravitational waves emanating from the lowerdimensional epochs of the early universe. Stojkovic, an assistant professor of physics, says the theory of evolving dimensions represents a radical shift from the way we think about the cosmos -- about how our universe came to be. The core idea is that the dimensionality of space depends on the size of the space we're observing, with smaller spaces associated with fewer dimensions. That means that a fourth dimension will open up -- if it hasn't already -- as the universe continues to expand. The theory also suggests that space has fewer dimensions at very high energies of the kind associated with the early, post-big bang universe. If Stojkovic and his colleagues are right, they will be helping to address fundamental problems with the standard model of particle physics, including the following: * The incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are mathematical frameworks that describe the physics of the universe. Quantum mechanics is good at describing the universe at very small scales, while relativity is good at describing the universe at large scales. Currently, the two theories are considered incompatible; but if the universe, at its smallest levels, had fewer dimensions, mathematical discrepancies between the two frameworks would disappear. * The mystery of the universe's accelerating expansion. Physicists have observed that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, and they don't know why. The addition of new dimensions as the universe grows would explain this acceleration. (Stojkovic says a fourth dimension may have already opened at large, cosmological scales.) * The need to alter the mass of the Higgs boson. The standard model of particle physics predicts

the existence of an as yet undiscovered elementary particle called the Higgs boson. For equations in the standard model to accurately describe the observed physics of the real world, however, researchers must artificially adjust the mass of the Higgs boson for interactions between particles that take place at high energies. If space has fewer dimensions at high energies, the need for this kind of "tuning" disappears. "What we're proposing here is a shift in paradigm," Stojkovic said. "Physicists have struggled with the same problems for 10, 20, 30 years, and straight-forward extensions of extensions of the existing ideas are unlikely to solve them." "We have to take into account the possibility that something is systematically wrong with our ideas," he continued. "We need something radical and new, and this is something radical and new." Because the planned deployment of LISA is still years away, it may be a long time before Stojkovic and his colleagues are able to test their ideas this way. However, some experimental evidence already points to the possible existence of lowerdimensional space. Specifically, scientists have observed that the main energy flux of cosmic ray particles with energies exceeding 1 teraelectron volt -- the kind of high energy associated with the very early universe -- are aligned along a two-dimensional plane. If high energies do correspond with lower-dimensional space, as the "vanishing dimensions" theory proposes, researchers working with the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator in Europe should see planar scattering at such energies. Stojkovic says the observation of such events would be "a very exciting, independent test of our proposed ideas." More information: Detecting Vanishing Dimensions via Primordial Gravitational Wave Astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 101101 (2011) [4 pages] DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.101101 Abstract Lower dimensionality at higher energies has manifold theoretical advantages as recently pointed out by Anchordoqui et al. [arXiv:1003.5914]. Moreover, it appears that experimental evidence may already exist for it: A statistically significant planar alignment of events with energies higher than TeV has been observed in some earlier cosmic ray experiments. We propose a robust and independent test for this new paradigm. Since (2+1)-dimensional spacetimes have no gravitational degrees of freedom, gravity waves cannot be produced in that epoch. This places a universal maximum frequency at which primordial waves can propagate, marked by the transition between dimensions. We show that this cutoff frequency may be accessible to future gravitational wave detectors such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. Provided by University at Buffalo "Primordial weirdness: Did the early universe have 1 dimension?." April 20th, 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-primordial-weirdness-early-universe-dimension.html George_Rodart 1 hour ago Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote @em2, you're going to get into trouble if you try to visualize the 1D+t or 2D+t worlds in terms of

where we are now 3D+t. In a 1D world there probably aren't any kinds of "particles" at all. I suspect it's all energy, and that the energy "makes" space, first just in 1D then... It's not likely that this energy is uniform but varies in density along the 1D axis Like this -> |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| At some point the density could get so great it 'breaks' the 1D dimension, forming a 2D sheet. Moreover, if the 1D dimension exists in a higher dimensional hyperspace, it wouldn't have to be a straight line but could be coiled or tangled without any joins or cuts and still be viewed as a 1D space. This leaves the possibility that the 1D 'line' is deformed in hyperspace by its uneven energy densities eventually causing the break into 2D. OD is theoretical only. report abuse quote send PM CSharpner 1 hour ago Rank: not rated yet @MM, I was trying to help. Apologies, I took it the wrong way. Not used to people on this site being nice, that's about me not you. Again very sorry. Apology accepted. Thanks. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Alex_Reynolds 3 minutes ago Rank: not rated yet George Rodart, thanks for your awesome explanation :) So following your hyperspace analogy.... let's say that our universe is just one amongst many, in this so-called omniverse, where the "bulk" (or the area outside of the universes aka hyperspace), consists of 4S+1T dimensions.... would the time "on the outside" be different-- for example-- Hawkings' "Imaginary Time"-- than the time that we exist within? This goes along with F-theory, which predicts 10+2 dimensions. If so, then in the one dimensional phase, our universe may have been like a mobius strip..... the question is, what does the "twist" signify-- the source of the big bang?

PinkElephant 11 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (2) one who lives in a 1D dimensional realm; i.e., a line. All that he can see is a point ahead of him on that line. He can see more than that: he can measure distance between points on that line. He can define line segments on that line (bounded by two points each), and measure their lengths. An object of a higher dimension that intersects his line will be seen as only a point. Depends on the object, and the manner in which it intersects the line; most nontrivial objects will generate at least one line segment, but possibly more than one if the shape is concave. The "flatlander," who dwells in a plane, can see nothing outside that plane. Anything of a higher dimension that intersects that plane will appear to him as being a line. No, he can define shapes on a plane: circle, triangle, square, line segment, etc. Higher-order shapes intersecting a plane will create bounded planar cross-sections. For an example of a 3D projection of a 4D object, look up "tesseract". report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 deepsand 10 hours ago Rank: not rated yet The line dweller cannot look "down" on his line to see any marks. The flatlander cannot look "down" on his plane to see a geometric shape; he can only see the intersection of it with his plane, that intersection being a line. Seen edge on, there is nothing to distinguish one planar shape from another. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Ethelred 10 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (2) Deepsand your error is that you haven't applied the same thinking to OUR universe even though you think you have.

Using the same thinking you used for 1 and 2 D space we do NOT see three dimensions, we only see a planar section of 3 D objects. Since we have two eyes our brains can compare the two slightly different planar sections and this allows us to perceive depth as well. A 2D entity could also have two receptors and thus perceive the depth of the lines it sees. You don't see any 3D objects as a whole. If you could do that THEN you would be seeing the objects from outside the volume that contains the object. Now using this sort of thinking to analyze how perception would take place in a 4D space tends to make the brains of 3D creatures hurt. Which is ample evidence that I am a 3D creature. Ethelred report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 deepsand 9 hours ago Rank: not rated yet Somewhere out there is an interactive animated presentation that visually displays what I peak of. As I'm not now locating that, these two pages will have to do. http://www.kcptec...gle1.htm http://www.kcptec...cene.htm Note that the boxes labeled "Show," "Hide," etc. are actionable. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Ethelred 9 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (2) Yes that is exactly what I am talking about. That is a 2D analogue of what we see. The 2D creatures see in line segments and we see in PLANE segments. A 3D creature and see INSIDE a 2D creature but the 2D creature cannot do so unless the it is transparent. Same for us. We

cannot see within 3D objects unless they are transparent. We don't see line sections we see plane sections. Again your error isn't at the 2D level its at the 3D level. You think we see 3D objects. We see plane sections of 3D objects. Ethelred report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 PinkElephant 9 hours ago Rank: not rated yet @deepsand, Ethelred is quite correct, but I thought I'd also address your statements directly: The line dweller cannot look "down" on his line to see any marks. He can look (and move) along the line, thereby inspecting all the points on it. The flatlander cannot look "down" on his plane to see a geometric shape Again, he can move within the plane to inspect the overall configuration of the shape. Or, in both of the above cases, instead of moving around and "feeling" the scene out like a blind person, he could just shoot light rays at the shapes, and measure roundtrip times thereby determining the geometry by lidar. Seen edge on, there is nothing to distinguish one planar shape from another. To see, one must use light. And with light, one can measure depth and distance. Furthermore, one can move around the scene and observe how the projection of the object changes. Based on this, one can reconstruct the complete cross-section of the object. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 George_Rodart 4 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) 1D worlds do not have to be bounded by a point. In a 1D world all points lie relative to the viewer, either in a positive or negative direction.

If we embed a 1D world into a higher dimension, it could have a shape, imagine a coil for example. This higher dimensional shape would not be visible from within the 1D world but might be inferable mathematically. A 1D world could be like a Turing machine with each of its points carrying a bit of information. If one could store a bit, it could calculate (maybe that takes 2D). It's an interesting question whether or not we have to include time when talking about a 1D world. Would moving 'forward' or 'backward' mean anything different than observing a new coordinate on the line? report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Modernmystic 3 hours ago Rank: not rated yet I was trying to help. Apologies, I took it the wrong way. Not used to people on this site being nice, that's about me not you. Again very sorry. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 George_Rodart 2 hours ago Rank: not rated yet Stojkovic includes time so its 1D+t

emsquared 2 hours ago

Rank: not rated yet Thank you, everyone, for expanding on this, I especially found Rodarts words helpful. Another question though, does it have to be denoted 1D+t (or 2D+t or 3D+t, etc.) or does the existence of a spatial reality (a reality > 0D) pre-clude or necessitate time, what with the spacetime continuum thing (thereby at the same time negating the existence of 0D? as time is a variable? and 0D = no variables?)? And then it makes me wonder, it sounds like some sub-atomic particles only exist on certain dimentions and therefore all dimensions exist separately but together all at once(?), but can 0D exist at all anywhwere in the entirety of existence if greater dimensions exist anywhere else? Because it kind of seems like 0D is literally all-or-nothing, or something... ? And once we've "escaped" the 0D, it no longer eists, or maybe it's always everything, or maybe it never exists, and is just a mathematical necessity to be expressed? Okay, I'm rambling, but fun thought experiments. The universe is still 1D on the highest energy levels if this is true. Consider us-- and our perception-- limited because of how are senses can only perceive our local environment. There may be less (or more) dimensions depending on how we look at the universe-- sort of how the characteristics of light can change if you're looking at it through a visible light, infrared or x-ray telescope. Basically, how we see reality is entirely subjective, just because our senses are wired a certain way.

The authors of this paper seem to agree with me that the universe can be single dimensional, bidimensional, tridimensional and even higher multidimensional all at the same time, it just depends on what scale and energy you are working with. MorituriMax 16 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) So the strings were rigid at first, then as space expanded, they exploded like a cable under high tension when it snaps. Then as they unraveled from the "primordial bundle" they took on various properties depending on the force that each of them took from the expansion. Or not? Neat ideas here. Science never ceases to amaze me when it comes to ideas that get generated. Keep the ideas coming! report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Dingdongdog 15 hours ago Rank: not rated yet (And if all that is true to conclude)

... Since the infinite spin momentum of the absolute zero-point must occur on infinite axes, its law of cycles governing all potential physical laws in any cosmos or universe must be fundamental. Thus, all such universes would penetrate each other and be mutually invisible. However, the dark matter-energy within each universal sphere could possibly contribute to its overall gravitational effects, and the apparent acceleration of its expansion (which may simply be the carry over of the overall initial cosmic inflation)... With the apparent red shift in our universe being merely the loss of energy as photons collide with cosmic dust during their travels from the most distant physical event horizons beyond the reach of our most powerful telescopes. In addition, such spatial conditions would indicate, information and consciousness are as fundamental as potential time, mass and energy. See illustrations/descriptions at: http://www.jcer.com/i report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 beelize54 7 hours ago Rank: not rated yet loss of energy as photons collide with cosmic dust during their travels from the most distant physical event horizons Not just with dust, but with CMBR photons and all other smaller density fluctuations of vacuum in similar way, like the waves are dispersed at the surface of water. During this dispersion the dimensionality of wave increases into account of the rest of wave, whose dimensionality decreases instead. The surface of incompressible water doesn't illustrate this behavior particularly well, but if we would model the vacuum with the surface of more elastic fluid (like the supercritical fluid), we would see, how the surface ripples are dispersing into longitudinal waves and back again repeatedly - which would create an impression of universe generations at the surface for every standing wave (soliton) at this surface. We shouldn't think, the universe filled with longitudinal waves is too distant from us - we are walking on it, because it's forming the Earth surface.

beelize54 4 hours ago Rank: 1 / 5 (1) In special relativity whole the Universe would appear void and empty (with no gravitational lens, massive bodies the less). The world of special relativity is an example of hyperdimensional slice of multiverse. In AWT the special relativity describes the thin slice of Universe at the dimensional

scale, corresponding the wavelength of CMBR (like if we would observe the Universe through narrow-band FFT filter tuned to the wavelength of our brain waves). Only the microwaves aren't dispersed with microwave photons very much, so we could look into black holes with them. The shortwavelength light is focused with common gravitational lens, the longer wavelenght light (radiowaves) is dispersed with them. With compare to it, the radiowaves are focused with passing of the rest of the whole sky (the void places at the sky are serving like the antimatter gravitational lens for them). This perspective may appear weird, but it's actually imaginable quite easily. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 beelize54 4 hours ago Rank: 1 / 5 (1) AWT explains the space-time fabric like the density fluctuations inside of dense gas (supercritical fluid), which are of stringy mesh appearance. http://www1.chem....co24.jpg The structure of dark matter illustrates, how such space-time foam appears from inside. http://www.davidd...tion.jpg The important aspect of space-time foam in AWT is, it effectively disappears, when you close come to it, because we can detect only gradients and differences in aether density - not the aether itself. So that every observer flying through quantum foam can get an illusion, he is passing the void in the foam, which travels together with him. Actually it's the similar perspective, like we can experience during traveling through fog or foam. http://arxiv.org/.../9906290 In this way our perspective both violates, both confirms the Copernican principle at the same moment. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Husky

56 minutes ago Rank: not rated yet It would be convenient for the antimatter/antigravity crowd to have a 1 dimensional start as it would provide a path for missing antimatter to fly the other way as a a Jet Bang rather than a big bang, the two opposing jets would loose self-pinching coherence as they form a bar magnet that is overstretched and the magnetic fieldstrength per unit lowers to the point the jets can uncurl in higher dimension, but like i said more convenience than science.

What you depicted sounds like opposing jets emanating from pulsars or from the centers of very active galaxies. It also sounds a bit like the jets that occur when particles are collided at super high speeds to produce quark jets. George_Rodart 8 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) Stojkovic includes time so its 1D+t report abuse quote send PM emsquared 5 hours ago Rank: not rated yet Thank you, everyone, for expanding on this, I especially found Rodarts words helpful. Another question though, does it have to be denoted 1D+t (or 2D+t or 3D+t, etc.) or does the existence of a spatial reality (a reality > 0D) pre-clude or necessitate time, what with the spacetime continuum thing (thereby at the same time negating the existence of 0D? as time is a variable? and 0D = no variables?)? And then it makes me wonder, it sounds like some sub-atomic particles only exist on certain dimentions and therefore all dimensions exist separately but together all at once(?), but can 0D exist at all anywhwere in the entirety of existence if greater dimensions exist anywhere else? Because it kind of seems like 0D is literally all-or-nothing, or something... ? And once we've "escaped" the 0D, it no longer eists, or maybe it's always everything, or maybe it never exists, and is just a mathematical necessity to be expressed? Okay, I'm rambling, but fun thought experiments. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 George_Rodart 4 hours ago

Rank: 5 / 5 (1) @em2, you're going to get into trouble if you try to visualize the 1D+t or 2D+t worlds in terms of where we are now 3D+t. In a 1D world there probably aren't any kinds of "particles" at all. I suspect it's all energy, and that the energy "makes" space, first just in 1D then... It's not likely that this energy is uniform but varies in density along the 1D axis Like this -> |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| At some point the density could get so great it 'breaks' the 1D dimension, forming a 2D sheet. Moreover, if the 1D dimension exists in a higher dimensional hyperspace, it wouldn't have to be a straight line but could be coiled or tangled without any joins or cuts and still be viewed as a 1D space. This leaves the possibility that the 1D 'line' is deformed in hyperspace by its uneven energy densities eventually causing the break into 2D. OD is theoretical only. report abuse quote send PM CSharpner 4 hours ago Rank: not rated yet @MM, I was trying to help. Apologies, I took it the wrong way. Not used to people on this site being nice, that's about me not you. Again very sorry. Apology accepted. Thanks. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Alex_Reynolds 3 hours ago Rank: not rated yet George Rodart, thanks for your awesome explanation :) So following your hyperspace analogy.... let's say that our universe is just one amongst many, in this so-called omniverse, where the "bulk" (or the area outside of the universes aka hyperspace), consists of 4S+1T dimensions.... would the time "on the outside" be different-- for example-- Hawkings' "Imaginary Time"-- than the time that we exist within? This goes along with F-theory, which predicts 10+2 dimensions. If so, then in

the one dimensional phase, our universe may have been like a mobius strip..... the question is, what does the "twist" signify-- the source of the big bang? report abuse quote send PM emsquared 3 hours ago Rank: not rated yet I suspect it's all energy Makes sense, on the level that if a particle must have a mass or structure to be a particle, than of course it couldn't be less than 3D. But I guess I was thinking more like a graviton type thing, when I said sub-atomic particle. Perhaps more what I was trying to say was, "different types of energy" exist only on certain dimensions? ...this energy is... varies in density along the 1D axis Like this -> |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| At some point the density could get so great it 'breaks' the 1D dimension, forming a 2D sheet. I follow you, but to have density, don't you have to have 2 non-t variables? Would it be any more or less accurate to say frequency, for 1D? I see how you could have a quantifiable energy density at 2D, you can have areas and varying concentrations of energy within them, but 1D it'd just be a series of faster or slower "blips"? Sorry for the nagging I'm trying to put the article in the context of all this... or vice versa. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 George_Rodart 1 hour ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) Thats what this little diagram was about |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| where the | represents something (a bit) and the . an empty space. Or like a bunch of BB's in a straw clumping together. I actually think its a bit different than that and that the 1D space is contained in a higher dimensional space. From outside the 1D space, it would appear that the 1D space 'vibrates' with its energy and at some point 'breaks' to form a 2D space. The higher dimensional space is not part of the 1D to 3D space but contains it only. report abuse quote send PM Alex_Reynolds 1 hour ago Rank: not rated yet

I agree, our universe's dimensions are contained within the higher dimensional space.... and actually, one can envision that "from the outside" our universe would always appear to either be a point particle or "vanish" altogether as it increased in dimensionality on the inside.....because our universe's dimensions are not among the dimensions of the exterior but only contained within. This applies to our time also. report abuse quote send PM Dingdongdog 1 hour ago Rank: not rated yet To get back to the original article making sense if the following conditions are true:(continued) (5) Since the initial ZPE was also spinning at right angles to the pole of the initial triple cycle loop, its continual repeating (at its initial, near infinite spin frequency) would form a 3-dimensional hypersphere consisting of two spheres within a surrounding sphere like twin bubbles within a larger bubble. (6) Following the same spiral vortex, double helix pattern, these inner bubbles (3-dimensional hyperspace-time fields) composed of near infinite lines of 1-dimensional ZPE or G-force spinergy, would continue to fractal involve (harmonically) down to their ZPE centers, so as to form analogous triple cycle hyperspherical involutions like bubbles within bubbles, within bubbles, within bubbles, etc., ad infinitum. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Dingdongdog 1 hour ago Rank: not rated yet (continued) 7) This triple cycle harmonic involution, at constant reduction in frequency phase orders, would continue, until after three such initial fractal iterations (involutions) our 4th lowest phase order physical universe appears. (8) The physical space-time universe analogously and correspondingly continues to fractal involve until, on its fourth lowest frequency phase order (EM frequency spectrum, light velocity) the symmetry breaks and the first quantum particle wave forms appear at the Planck level. (9) This analogous involution replicates down through all the sub-quantum virtual particles within the Planck volume to the smallest particle-waveforms closest to the zero-point. (10) Accordingly, all such particle-fields, up to the cosmos itself, would be, fundamentally, hyperspherical standing waveforms with electromagnetism (& weak force) being the nature of the outgoing (expansive) wave, and Gravity (& strong force) being the nature of the incoming (compressive) wave. report abuse quote send PM

Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Dingdongdog 57 minutes ago Rank: not rated yet (continued) If all that is true then the theory discussed in this article is only a small part of a much bigger picture which not only considers that the universe is a hologram, but that it and its governing nature is cyclic, that both it and the cosmos are eternal, and that the so called big Bang is nothing but a big bounce within a bigger bounce (at the next higher frequency phase level) on up through an even bigger bounce, to the biggest bounce of the highest frequency phase of the initial cosmos itself. (How many bounces there are in between is yet to be determined). However, it appears that everything is fundamentally cyclic in nature. Such a picture also gives credence to the existence of invisible dark matter/energy on two other axes within this universe, as well as the possibility of infinite other analogous and corresponding cosmoses and universes... (more) George_Rodart 8 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) Stojkovic includes time so its 1D+t report abuse quote send PM emsquared 5 hours ago Rank: not rated yet Thank you, everyone, for expanding on this, I especially found Rodarts words helpful. Another question though, does it have to be denoted 1D+t (or 2D+t or 3D+t, etc.) or does the existence of a spatial reality (a reality > 0D) pre-clude or necessitate time, what with the spacetime continuum thing (thereby at the same time negating the existence of 0D? as time is a variable? and 0D = no variables?)? And then it makes me wonder, it sounds like some sub-atomic particles only exist on certain dimentions and therefore all dimensions exist separately but together all at once(?), but can 0D exist at all anywhwere in the entirety of existence if greater dimensions exist anywhere else? Because it kind of seems like 0D is literally all-or-nothing, or something... ? And once we've "escaped" the 0D, it no longer eists, or maybe it's always everything, or maybe it never exists, and is just a mathematical necessity to be expressed? Okay, I'm rambling, but fun thought experiments. report abuse

quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 George_Rodart 4 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) @em2, you're going to get into trouble if you try to visualize the 1D+t or 2D+t worlds in terms of where we are now 3D+t. In a 1D world there probably aren't any kinds of "particles" at all. I suspect it's all energy, and that the energy "makes" space, first just in 1D then... It's not likely that this energy is uniform but varies in density along the 1D axis Like this -> |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| At some point the density could get so great it 'breaks' the 1D dimension, forming a 2D sheet. Moreover, if the 1D dimension exists in a higher dimensional hyperspace, it wouldn't have to be a straight line but could be coiled or tangled without any joins or cuts and still be viewed as a 1D space. This leaves the possibility that the 1D 'line' is deformed in hyperspace by its uneven energy densities eventually causing the break into 2D. OD is theoretical only. report abuse quote send PM CSharpner 4 hours ago Rank: not rated yet @MM, I was trying to help. Apologies, I took it the wrong way. Not used to people on this site being nice, that's about me not you. Again very sorry. Apology accepted. Thanks. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4

5 Alex_Reynolds 3 hours ago Rank: not rated yet George Rodart, thanks for your awesome explanation :) So following your hyperspace analogy.... let's say that our universe is just one amongst many, in this so-called omniverse, where the "bulk" (or the area outside of the universes aka hyperspace), consists of 4S+1T dimensions.... would the time "on the outside" be different-- for example-- Hawkings' "Imaginary Time"-- than the time that we exist within? This goes along with F-theory, which predicts 10+2 dimensions. If so, then in the one dimensional phase, our universe may have been like a mobius strip..... the question is, what does the "twist" signify-- the source of the big bang? report abuse quote send PM emsquared 3 hours ago Rank: not rated yet I suspect it's all energy Makes sense, on the level that if a particle must have a mass or structure to be a particle, than of course it couldn't be less than 3D. But I guess I was thinking more like a graviton type thing, when I said sub-atomic particle. Perhaps more what I was trying to say was, "different types of energy" exist only on certain dimensions? ...this energy is... varies in density along the 1D axis Like this -> |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| At some point the density could get so great it 'breaks' the 1D dimension, forming a 2D sheet. I follow you, but to have density, don't you have to have 2 non-t variables? Would it be any more or less accurate to say frequency, for 1D? I see how you could have a quantifiable energy density at 2D, you can have areas and varying concentrations of energy within them, but 1D it'd just be a series of faster or slower "blips"? Sorry for the nagging I'm trying to put the article in the context of all this... or vice versa. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 George_Rodart 1 hour ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) Thats what this little diagram was about |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| where the | represents something (a bit) and the . an empty space. Or like a bunch of BB's in a straw clumping together.

I actually think its a bit different than that and that the 1D space is contained in a higher dimensional space. From outside the 1D space, it would appear that the 1D space 'vibrates' with its energy and at some point 'breaks' to form a 2D space. The higher dimensional space is not part of the 1D to 3D space but contains it only. report abuse quote send PM Alex_Reynolds 1 hour ago Rank: not rated yet I agree, our universe's dimensions are contained within the higher dimensional space.... and actually, one can envision that "from the outside" our universe would always appear to either be a point particle or "vanish" altogether as it increased in dimensionality on the inside.....because our universe's dimensions are not among the dimensions of the exterior but only contained within. This applies to our time also. report abuse quote send PM Dingdongdog 1 hour ago Rank: not rated yet To get back to the original article making sense if the following conditions are true:(continued) (5) Since the initial ZPE was also spinning at right angles to the pole of the initial triple cycle loop, its continual repeating (at its initial, near infinite spin frequency) would form a 3-dimensional hypersphere consisting of two spheres within a surrounding sphere like twin bubbles within a larger bubble. (6) Following the same spiral vortex, double helix pattern, these inner bubbles (3-dimensional hyperspace-time fields) composed of near infinite lines of 1-dimensional ZPE or G-force spinergy, would continue to fractal involve (harmonically) down to their ZPE centers, so as to form analogous triple cycle hyperspherical involutions like bubbles within bubbles, within bubbles, within bubbles, etc., ad infinitum. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Dingdongdog 1 hour ago Rank: not rated yet (continued) 7) This triple cycle harmonic involution, at constant reduction in frequency phase orders, would continue, until after three such initial fractal iterations (involutions) our 4th lowest phase order physical universe appears.

(8) The physical space-time universe analogously and correspondingly continues to fractal involve until, on its fourth lowest frequency phase order (EM frequency spectrum, light velocity) the symmetry breaks and the first quantum particle wave forms appear at the Planck level. (9) This analogous involution replicates down through all the sub-quantum virtual particles within the Planck volume to the smallest particle-waveforms closest to the zero-point. (10) Accordingly, all such particle-fields, up to the cosmos itself, would be, fundamentally, hyperspherical standing waveforms with electromagnetism (& weak force) being the nature of the outgoing (expansive) wave, and Gravity (& strong force) being the nature of the incoming (compressive) wave. report abuse quote send PM Current rank 1 2 3 4 5 Dingdongdog 57 minutes ago Rank: not rated yet (continued) If all that is true then the theory discussed in this article is only a small part of a much bigger picture which not only considers that the universe is a hologram, but that it and its governing nature is cyclic, that both it and the cosmos are eternal, and that the so called big Bang is nothing but a big bounce within a bigger bounce (at the next higher frequency phase level) on up through an even bigger bounce, to the biggest bounce of the highest frequency phase of the initial cosmos itself. (How many bounces there are in between is yet to be determined). However, it appears that everything is fundamentally cyclic in nature. Such a picture also gives credence to the existence of invisible dark matter/energy on two other axes within this universe, as well as the possibility of infinite other analogous and corresponding cosmoses and universes... (more) http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-13097370 Neutrons could test Newton's gravity and string theory By Jason Palmer Science and technology reporter, BBC News Neutrons produced at the ILL can be used to probe fundamental aspects of physics Continue reading the main story Related Stories Limits of quantum world stretched Bridging the gap to quantum world How long is a piece of string? A pioneering technique using subatomic particles known as neutrons could give microscopic hints of extra dimensions or even dark matter, researchers say. The idea rests on probing any minuscule variations in gravity as it acts on slow-moving neutrons

in a tiny cavity. A Nature Physics report outlines how neutrons were made to hop from one gravitational quantum state to another. These quantum jumps can test Newton's theory of gravity - and any variations from it - with unprecedented precision. The "quantum states" of atoms, light particles known as photons, molecules and even objects big enough to be seen have been extensively studied. They are called quantum because it takes a packet of energy of a very specific size - a quantum to create the states. However, of the four fundamental forces, gravity is by far the weakest, and it took until 2002 before gravity's quantum nature was proven. That work, by a group of researchers at the Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL) and published in a paper in Nature, used slow-moving neutrons falling due to gravity. Now a team of researchers from the Vienna University of Technology have refined the technique at the ILL to examine and exploit gravity's quantum ways. Before the fall The neutrons are created in a fission reactor, and slowed to incredibly low speeds by materials known as moderators. They are gathered up and injected into the quantum experiment at speeds of around five meters per second - just a hundredth the speed of the molecules flying around in the air. What is useful about neutrons for these experiments is that they are electrically neutral - within the experiment, they are as isolated from all the forces of nature as they can possibly be, with only gravity to act on them. The neutrons are shot between two parallel plates, one above another and separated by about 25 micrometres - half a hair's width. The upper plate absorbs neutrons, and the lower plate reflects them. As they pass through, they trace out an arc, just like a thrown ball falling due to gravity. If they hit the bottom surface before passing through, they are reflected off and absorbed at the top - and thus are not detected at the other end of the plates. The new work has added what is known as a piezoelectric resonator to the bottom plate; its purpose is to jiggle the bottom plate at a very particular frequency. The ILL is the most intense continuous source of neutrons in the world The researchers found that as they changed the bottom plate's vibration frequency, there were distinct dips in the number of neutrons detected outside the plates - particular, well-spaced "resonant" frequencies that the neutrons were inclined to absorb. These frequencies, then, are the gravitational quantum states of neutrons, essentially having energy bounced into them by the bottom plate, and the researchers were able for the first time to force the neutrons from one quantum state to another. The differences in the frequencies - which are proportional to energy - of each of these transitions

will be an incredibly sensitive test of gravity at the microscopic scale. While it is easy to measure the effects of gravity on grander planetary or even galactic scales, the force's weakness has meant its detailed nature has been difficult to observe up until now. And any variations from the gravity that Newton's theory predicts could be a hint of some new physics. "With theory you can assume there's only purely Newton's gravity, then to make a transition you need a certain energy," study co-author Peter Geltenbort of the ILL told BBC News. "Now we can compare this energy with what we've measured and if there is a deviation then it would be a hint that Newton's gravity on these short distances is not 100% valid." Any such deviations could give hints of the postulated particle known as the axion, which could in turn prove the existence and nature of dark matter. "The experiments in astrophysics and astronomy give limits [for the axion's existence] over long distances very stringently, but not for the short distances. These are the same theories you would use to describe phenomena on a large length scale, but we have with our method the possibility to look for these axions on this short scale," Dr Geltenbort said. The same holds true for supersymmetric particles, part of some formulations of string theory that suggest that many extra dimensions exist over tiny length scales, which would require the precision that is only now possible with the team's approach. "We'll never be as sensitive as the methods on those astronomical scales but we can be far more sensitive on the scale between millimetres and less than micrometres," Dr Geltenbort said. Michael Gutperle1∗ and Wafic Sabra2† 1Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 2 Center for Advanced Mathematical Sciences (CAMS) and Physics Department, American University of Beirut, Lebanon. Abstract Instanton and wormhole solutions are constructed in a d-dimensional gravity theory with an axion-dilaton pair of scalar fields. We discuss the cases of vanishing, positive and negative cosmological constant. ∗email: gutperle@riemann.harvard.edu †email: ws00@aub.edu.lbPage 2 1 Introduction Wormholes may have relevance to many interesting questions in quantum gravity. For instance, in the past it has been argued that they can play role in the renormalisation of the coupling constants in nature, topological fluctuations, quantum decoherence, the question of the vanishing of the cosmological constant and creation of baby universes (see for example [1–12]). Instanton solutions in supergravity theories can be responsible for non-perturbative effects in string theories. For example the D-instanton solution of type IIB supergravity found in [13] induces higher derivative non-perturbative corrections of the IIB action [14]. Supergravity solutions corresponding to Euclidean wrapped branes were found in [18,17,15,16]. Axionic wormholes in four dimensions were first considered in [9], where a system consisting of an axion, described by a rank three antisymmetric tensor, coupled to gravity was considered. The case of string theory was considered in [12,19] where in addition to the axion one also includes a massless dilaton. The solutions are characterized by an integration constant and instanton solutions are extremal in the sense that the integration constant vanishes and some of the (Euclidean) supersymmetry is preserved, whereas

wormholes are non-extremal and supersymmetry is broken [20]. In semi-classical quantum gravity, the action of an Euclidean wormhole solution is related to the weight for the insertion of wormhole operators in the path integral (or the rate of baby universe production). For stringy wormholes it was found [12,19] that the existence of non-singular solutions with finite action depended on the details of the coupling of the dilaton to the axion. In particular for axion-dilaton systems arising from string theory compactification there are no finite action wormholes. However, it was argued that instantons could still contribute when dilaton acquires mass due to supersymmetry breaking. Generalization of axionic instantons to the case of a positive cosmological constant was later obtained in [21,22]. In this paper we study instantons and wormholes for an axion-dilaton system in d dimensions and obtain a formula for critical values for couplings below which non-singular solutions do exist. We will first consider the Minkowski case and thus obtain generalizations of the known results in four dimensions to an arbitrary d-dimensional space. Our 1Page 3 main result is the study of instantons and wormholes in de Sitter and Anti-de Sitter spaces. 2 Axion-Dilaton gravity We start our analysis by considering the theory of d-dimensional gravity coupled to an axion-dilaton system. We will find generalizations of the results of [12,19] to arbitrary dimensions. For Minkowski signature, the action we consider is given by Sm = ∫ ddx√−g (R − 12∂µφ∂µφ − 12ebφ∂µχ∂µχ − V (φ)). (2.1) The potential V will not depend on the axion χ since we assume an exact shift symmetry χ → χ + ϵ. The value of b is determined by the particular theory one considers1. In d dimensions the axion χ can be dualized to a d − 1 form field strength Fd−1 = dCd−2 via dχ = e−bφ ∗ Fd−1. The dualized action takes the form Sm = ∫ ddx√−g (R − 12∂µφ∂µφ − e−bφ2(d − 1)!F2 d−1 − V (φ)). (2.2) In this form the continuation to Euclidean signature is not problematic [13,14,23]. However the dualization and analytic continuation to Euclidean signature do not commute. This leads to the fact that upon continuation to Euclidean space and dualization the kinetic term for the axion χ changes sign Seucl = ∫ ddx√g (R − 12∂µφ∂µφ + 12ebφ∂µχ∂µχ − V (φ)). (2.3) In addition to the bulk term (2.3) there is a boundary term in the action which is important for the proper definition of the variational principle and also for the calculation of the 1For example, in ten dimensional type IIB string theory one has b = 2. 2

action [13,14,12,19]. The boundary term is given by Sb = ∮ (eb2φ∂nχ + K), (2.4) where K is the intrinsic curvature on the boundary. The Euclidean equations of

motion derived from (2.3) are given by ∇µ(ebφ∂µχ)=0, ∇2φ + b2ebφ(∂χ)2 − ∂V (φ)∂φ = 0, Rµν − 12∂µφ∂νφ + 12ebφ∂µχ∂νχ − 1d − 2V (φ)=0. (2.5) In the following we will only consider a potential independent of φ corresponding to a cosmological constant V = Λ. We are also interested in the most symmetric instanton and wormhole solutions and so we shall consider the following O(d) invariant ansatz for the metric ds2 = dr2 + a®2dΩ2 d−1, (2.6) where dΩ2 d−1 is the metric of the (d − 1) round sphere Sd−1. In addition we demand that the dilaton φ and axion χ depend only on the radial coordinate r. One could imagine an ansatz where the sphere metric dΩ2 d−1 is replaced by the metric on flat space Md−1 or the metric on hyperbolic space Hd−1. However such a slicing would lead to solutions with infinite action coming from (2.4), because the (unit) volume of Md−1 and Hd−1 is infinite and one integrates over the volume in (2.4). For the ansatz (2.6), the equation of motion for the axion gives ∂r (ebφad−1∂rχ) = 0, (2.7) which implies a first-order differential equation for the axion field given by ∂rχ = qad−1e−bφ. (2.8) 3Page 5 Upon using (2.8), we obtain from the gravitational equations of motion (2.5) −(d − 1)∂2 r aa − 12 (∂rφ) 2 + q22a2d−2e−bφ − 1d − 2Λ = 0, (d − 2)(1 − (∂ra)2) − a∂2 r a − 1d − 2a2Λ=0, where we have used Rrr = −(d − 1)∂2 r aa, Rij = [(d − 2)(1 − (∂ra)2) − a∂2 r a]δij. (2.9) Also, upon using (2.8) and our metric ansatz, the dilaton equation of motion becomes ∂2 r φ + (d − 1)∂raa∂rφ + bq22a2d−2e−bφ = 0. (2.10) It follows from (2.10) that there exists an integral (∂rφ) 2 − q2a2d−2e−bφ − ca2d−2 = 0, (2.11)

where c is a constant of integration. Using this integral, the gravitational equations of motion (??) give 1 − (∂ra)2 + c2(d − 1)(d − 2)a2d−4 − Λ(d − 1)(d − 2)a2 = 0. (2.12) Equation (2.12) can be integrated to find a® and (2.11) can then be solved to find φ®. The detailed properties of these solutions will depend on the choice of Λ and c. For c = 0 one finds an ‘extremal’ instanton whereas for c = 0 one finds ‘non-extremal’ wormhole solution. The cases of Λ = 0, Λ < 0 and Λ > 0 correspond to (asymptotically) flat, anti-de Sitter and de Sitter space respectively. All the possible cases will be discussed in the following. 4Page 6 3 Instantons For c = 0, (2.12) can be solved and one finds the three solutions corresponding to flat, de Sitter and anti-de Sitter space respectively. Λ=0: a2® = r2, (3.1) Λ>0: a2®=(d − 1)(d − 2)Λ sin2 (√Λ(d − 1)(d − 2) r), (3.2) Λ<0: a2®=(d − 1)(d − 2)|Λ|sinh2 (√|Λ|(d − 1)(d − 2) r). (3.3) If c = 0 in (2.11), the solution of the dilaton is of the form eb2φ = const − |bq|2∫ dra®d−1. (3.4) 3.1 Flat space For Λ = 0, the metric (in the Einstein frame) is flat space. The dilaton (3.4) is then given by eb2φ = eb2φ∞ + |bq|2(d − 2)1rd−2, (3.5) where φ∞ is the value of the dilaton at infinity. The fact that the equations of motion are equivalent to a first order equation is a hint that this solution is related to a Killing spinor equation. This implies that in a supergravity theory these solutions are BPS and preserve some supersymmetry. We also note that the dilaton diverges as r → 0. However the action (2.4) of the instanton is finite and solely given by a contribution from infinity Sinst = V ol(Sd−1)|q|e−b2φ∞ . (3.6) Such instantons are responsible for non-perturbative effects. The broken supersymmetries are related to fermionic zero modes and integration over fermionic zero modes induces higher dimensional terms in the effective action. Such terms are weighted by the instanton action (3.6). Often such effects can be attributed to Euclidean wrapped branes or Dinstantons [18, 17, 15, 16]. 5Page 7

3.2 Anti-de Sitter space In this case the dilaton solution for the instanton in AdS space is given by eb2φ = const − |bq|2∫ dra®d−1 = const − |bq|2(|Λ|(d − 1)(d − 2)) d−12 ∫ dr sinhd−1 (√|Λ|(d − 1)(d − 2) r).(3.7) The behavior of the instanton is very similar to the one of flat space, in particular the action of the instanton is again given by a boundary term Sinst = V ol(Sd−1)|q|e−b2φ∞ . (3.8) In the calculation of the action of the above Euclidean gravitational instantons, one has to include the contribution of the gravitational action which diverges because of the infinite volume of AdS. To render the action finite one needs to employ the counterterms subtraction method which was proposed for computing the boundary stress tensor associated with a gravitating system [24,25]. The appearance of the logarithmically divergent contributions has a physical meaning2. They are related to the conformal anomaly of the dual field theory living on the boundary. In some sense the AdS/CFT correspondence relates the infinite volume singularity in the AdS to the UV divergence in the CFT. This regularization is independent of the presence of an instanton and the instanton (q dependent) part of the action is given by (3.8). 3.3 de Sitter space In this case the dilaton solution for the instanton in dS space is given by eb2φ = const − |bq|2∫ dra®d−1 = const − |bq|2 (Λ(d − 1)(d − 2)) d−12 ∫ dr sind−1 (√Λ(d − 1)(d − 2) r).(3.9) 2The counterterms subtraction method of [24] was employed in [25] and explicit calculations have been performed for the gravitational action for our metric in the dimensions d = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Logarithmically divergent contributions have been obtained for d = 3, 5, 7. 6Page 8 Since Euclidean d-dimensional de Sitter space is simply the d-dimensional sphere the range of r is r ∈ [0,π√(d − 1)(d − 2)Λ]. The integral on the right hand side ranges between -∞ and +∞. Since eb2φ ranges between 0 and +∞ , the dilaton must become singular and therefore instantons do not exist in de Sitter space. 4 Wormholes If c = 0 the equations become more complicated. As we shall see solutions in this case correspond to wormholes. This means that the metric factor a® reaches a minimal value a0 > 0 where ∂ra® = 0, defining the neck of the wormhole. Here ∂ra = ±√1 + c2(d − 1)(d − 2)a2d−4 − Λ(d − 1)(d − 2)a2. (4.1) Hence there is a sphere of non-zero minimal size. Such an Euclidean configuration can be

continued to Minkowski space, where the minimal sphere becomes a ’baby universe’. The Euclidean wormhole is the bounce for the creation of such baby universes. Alternatively, one can glue a second copy of the wormhole onto the sphere giving a tunneling event between two asymptotic spaces. The dilaton can be determined from (2.11) and we get ∫ dφ √q2e−bφ + c = ± ∫ drad−1. (4.2) In the following we will solve these equations for all possible values of Λ and c. 4.1 Flat space For Λ = 0, the space will be asymptotically flat. Recall from (2.12) that 1 − (a )2 + c2(d − 1)(d − 2)1a2d−4 = 0. (4.3) If c < 0, one has a minimal size sphere at a0 = (2(d − 1)(d − 2)|c|) 12d−4 , where ∂ra = 0. This is the neck of the wormhole, connecting two asymptotically flat regions, located at r → ±∞. Integrating the φ equation (2.11) gives 7Page 9 1|c|1/2|b| ∫ d˜φ√e−˜φ − 1 = ± ∫ daad−1√1 − |c|2(d − 1)(d − 2)1a2d−4, (4.4) where we have defined ebφ = q2|c|e ˜φ . (4.5) Equation (4.4) can be easily integrated. Using the fact that a → ∞ corresponds to φ → φ∞ one finds the following solution arcsin (√|c|q2eb2φ®) − arcsin (√|c|q2eb2φ∞ ) = ∓|b|√d − 12(d − 2) arcsin (√|c|2(d − 1)(d − 2)1a®d−2) . As one approaches the neck of the wormhole (a → a0), the argument of the arcsin on right hand side of (??) becomes one. The dilaton should be regular on the neck. This implies that there is a ’critical value’ bc of the dilaton coupling and for non-singular solutions we must have3 |b| < bc = √2(d − 2)d − 1. (4.6) Note that the integration constant c does not appear in (4.6). The Euclidean action of the wormhole is still given by a boundary term only, however in contrast to the instanton case the region of the neck of the wormhole does contribute. Seucl = V ol(Sd−1)|q| (e−b2φ∞ − e−b2φ0 ). (4.7) In order to have a positive wormhole action (4.7) and a smooth limit to the instanton solution as |c| → 0 we have to choose the plus sign in (??). 3Note that in [12], the derivative of the dilaton was assumed to vanish at the throat of the wormhole. Moreover, our dilaton solution for the case of d = 4, differs from that given in [19] though we agree on the critical value bc. 8Page 10

Here φ0 is the value of the dilaton at the neck and is given by eb2φ(r0) = |q||c|12 sin (arcsin (√|c|q2eb2φ∞ ) + |b|π2√d − 12(d − 2)) . (4.8) The finiteness of the wormhole action depends on the value of b. If |b| > bc the Euclidean action is infinite and the wormholes are completely suppressed in the semi-classical approximation. The above analysis constitutes the generalization of the results known in the literature for four dimensions to d dimensions. 4.2 Anti de Sitter space For c < 0, the existence of the integral (2.11) implies the relation 1√|c||b| ∫ d˜φ √e−˜φ − 1 = ± ∫ daad−1√1 − |c|2(d − 1)(d − 2)1a2d−4 + |Λ|(d − 1)(d − 2)a2. (4.9) The above equation can be easily integrated in terms of elementary functions for the case of d = 3. In this case we obtain arcsin (√|c|q2eb2φ®) − arcsin (√|c|q2eb2φ∞ ) = ± |b|2(arcsin (−|c|2 + a 2 ®a2®√1 + |cΛ|2) − arcsin (1√1 + |cΛ|2)) . This wormhole solutions for certain dilaton couplings would not be finite if one turns on Λ. The neck is at a2 0 = √1 + |Λc|2 − 1|Λ|. (4.10) At the neck we obtain arcsin (√|c|q2eb2φ0 ) − arcsin (√|c|q2eb2φ∞ ) = ∓ |b|2(π2 + arcsin (1√1 + |cΛ|2)) . 9Page 11 In this case the critical value of |b| < bc is given by bc = 2 [1+2π arcsin (1√1 + |cΛ|2)] −1 . (4.11) Hence setting Λ → 0 one gets bc = 1 which is the correct flat space value (See (4.6) for d = 3). The choice of the negative sign in (??) leads to a positive action and smooth limit to the anti de Sitter instanton solution4. Note however that for non-zero Λ the value of bc decreases. These wormhole solutions for certain dilaton couplings would not be finite if one turns on a negative cosmological constant Λ. For d = 4, 5 the integral on the right hand side of (4.9) can still be solved in terms of elliptic integrals, however the results are not very illuminating, the general feature that there is a critical value of bc which is smaller than the flat space value persist. For d > 5 one can only solve the integrals numerically.

4.3 de Sitter space In this section we will consider wormholes solutions for de Sitter spaces, i.e., for the case of positive cosmological constant. In this case the equation of the metric takes the form (for Λ > 0) 1 − (∂ra)2 + c2(d − 1)(d − 2)1a2d−4 − Λ(d − 1)(d − 2)a2 = 0. (4.12) The instanton for which c = 0 was discussed in section 3.3. For c = 0, the dilaton is determined by the integral ∫ dφ √q2e−bφ + c = ± ∫ daad−1√1 + c2(d − 1)(d − 2)a2d−4 − Λ(d − 1)(d − 2)a2. (4.13) 4For the instanton solution in anti-de Sitter three dimensional space we have eb2φ® − eb2φo = |bq|2√|Λ|2(cosh√|Λ|2r sinh√|Λ|2r − 1) 10Page 12 In what follows we will consider the three dimensional case for simplicity. It is clear that the two cases c > 0 and c < 0 are qualitatively different and will discuss both of them in turn. For c < 0, and for the case of d = 3, (4.12) can have either two or no values of a where ∂ra = 0, if 0 < |cΛ| < 2, (4.14) then we have two real zeros given by a2 ± = 1 ± √1 − |Λc|2Λ. (4.15) The solution for the dilaton is given by arcsin √|c|q2eb2φ® − arcsin √|c|q2eb2φ− = ±|b|2(arcsin (2a2® − |c|2a2®√1 − |cΛ|2) + π2) , (4.16) where φ → φ± as a → a±. Note that a non-singular dilaton configuration is only possible if the dilaton coupling b satisfies |b| < bc = 1. (4.17) Here we have only displayed the results for d = 3. For d = 4 and d = 5, the relevant integrals can be solved in terms of elliptic integrals, however the results are not very illuminating. For d > 5, the integrals can only be solved numerically. The Euclidean solution has two finite size spheres and would furnish as the appropriate bounce for a creation of a baby universe in dS space. On the other hand a wormhole with opposite axion charge could be glued onto the first one. As pointed out in [12], the dilaton makes this impossible since it would have to have vanishing derivative at both necks in order to be continuous. This is only possible if the dilaton becomes singular. Now for c > 0, there is only one value of a where ∂ra = 0, a2 0 =1+ √1 + cΛ2Λ, (4.18) 11Page 13 hence the metric function has the range a ∈ [0,a0]. The solution for the dilaton equation in this case reads arcsinh (√cq2eb2φ®) − arcsinh (√cq2eb2φ0 ) = ∓|b|2arcosh (2a2® + c2a2®√1 + cΛ2) . (4.19)

where φ0 is the value of the dilaton at a = a0. Note however that this solution contains a curvature singularity at a = 0. At this point a® ∼ r1/(d−1) as r → 0 and it is easy to show the Ricci scalar diverges. Since only non-singular solutions are admissible as semiclassical saddle points, the solution with c > 0 cannot be used as an Euclidean wormhole. 5 Axionic Solutions The case of b = 0 is special since then there is no coupling of the axion to the dilaton and the dilaton can be consistently set to zero. The axion is still given by the equation ∂rχ = qad−1. (5.1) The role of the integration constant c is now simply played by −q2. The gravitational equations are equivalent to (∂ra)2 = 1 − 12q2(d − 1)(d − 2)a2d−4 − Λa2(d − 1)(d − 2). (5.2) Here it is useful to perform a change of variable r = a®, and we obtain for the metric ds2 = 11 − 12q2(d − 1)(d − 2)r2d−4 − Λr2(d − 1)(d − 2)dr2 + r2dΩ2 d−1. (5.3) In these coordinates (5.1) can be solved χ = const ± ∫ drqrd−11√1 − 12q2(d − 1)(d − 2)r2d−4 − Λr2(d − 1)(d − 2). (5.4) 12Page 14 The integral (5.4) is very similar to the ones discussed in the previous section. For Λ =0 the solution is χ − χ∞ = ∓√2(d − 1)(d − 2) arcsin √12q2(d − 1)(d − 2)r2d−4. (5.5) For Λ = 0, explicit formulae can be obtained for d = 3, 4, 5 as discussed in section 4.2 and 4.3. Again only the case of d = 3 has a simple realization in terms of elementary functions. For example for Λ < 0 and d = 3 one finds χ − χ∞ = ± (arcsin (−q22 + r 2 r2√1 + |q2Λ|2) − arcsin (1√1 + |q2Λ|2)) . (5.6) 6 Discussion In this paper we have discussed instanton and wormhole solutions in axion-dilaton gravity theories. Such theories are abundant in string theories and supergravities in various dimensions. Instanton solutions exist for flat and AdS spaces in arbitrary dimensions, however in dS space there are no non-singular instanton solutions. The existence of wormholes depends on the dimensionality of spacetime and the dilaton coupling constant b. There is a critical value bc above which the instanton solution becomes singular and has an infinite action. Wormholes induce non-local interactions in the theory and there may be a connection between wormholes and non-local string theories found in [26,27]. It would be interesting to see whether one can find an example in string theory where b is in the range where non-singular wormholes exist. In certain theories (e.g. in gauged supergravities), the dilaton can acquire a nontrivial

potential, Sm = ∫ ddx√−g (R − 12∂µφ∂µφ − 12ebφ∂µχ∂µχ − V (φ)). (6.1) Using the ansatz for the metric given by (2.6), the dilaton equation of motion is given by ∂2 r φ + (d − 1) ∂raa∂rφ + bq22a2d−2e−bφ − ∂V (φ)∂φ = 0, (6.2) 13Page 15 and it is not possible to find a simple integral like (2.11) which allowed for the decoupling of the metric and dilaton equations. Hence the equations in these cases are considerably more complicated. However it may be possible to find first order differential equations as in the case for domain walls [28,29]. Also it might be interesting to study these equations further and in particular investigate whether it is possible to stabilize the dilaton and get wormhole solutions which are more like axionic ones. We hope to report on these issues in a future publication. Acknowledgments: The work of M.G. was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-91ER40655. M.G. gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the Stanford Theory Group during the final stages of this work.

References [1] A. Strominger, “Vacuum Topology And Incoherence In Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 1733. [2] S. W. Hawking, “Quantum Coherence Down The Wormhole,” Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987) 337. [3] S. W. Hawking, “Wormholes In Space-Time,” Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 904. [4] G. V. Lavrelashvili, V. A. Rubakov and P. G. Tinyakov, “Particle Creation And Destruction Of Quantum Coherence By Topological Change,” Nucl. Phys. B 299 (1988) 757. [5] S. R. Coleman, “Black Holes As Red Herrings: Topological Fluctuations And The Loss Of Quantum Coherence,” Nucl. Phys. B 307 (1988) 867. [6] S. R. Coleman, “Why There Is Nothing Rather Than Something: A Theory Of The Cosmological Constant,” Nucl. Phys. B 310 (1988) 643. [7] S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, “Baby Universes, Third Quantization And The Cosmological Constant,” Nucl. Phys. B 321 (1989) 481. 14Page 16 [8] S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, “Loss Of Incoherence And Determination Of Coupling Constants In Quantum Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 307 (1988) 854. [9] S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, “Axion Induced Topology Change In Quantum Gravity And String Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 890. [10] I. R. Klebanov, L. Susskind and T. Banks, “Wormholes And The Cosmological Constant,” Nucl. Phys. B 317 (1989) 665. [11] T. Banks, “Prolegomena To A Theory Of Bifurcating Universes: A Nonlocal Solution To The Cosmological Constant Problem Or Little Lambda Goes Back To The

Future,” Nucl. Phys. B 309 (1988) 493. [12] S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, “String Wormholes,” Phys. Lett. B 230 (1989) 46. [13] G. W. Gibbons, M. B. Green and M. J. Perry, “Instantons and Seven-Branes in Type IIB Superstring Theory,” Phys. Lett. B 370 (1996) 37 [arXiv:hep-th/9511080]. [14] M. B. Green and M. Gutperle, “Effects of D-instantons,” Nucl. Phys. B 498 (1997) 195 [hep-th/9701093]. [15] M. Gutperle and M. Spalinski, “Supergravity instantons and the universal hypermultiplet,” JHEP 0006 (2000) 037 [arXiv:hep-th/0005068]. [16] M. Gutperle and M. Spalinski, “Supergravity instantons for N = 2 hypermultiplets,” Nucl. Phys. B 598 (2001) 509 [hep-th/0010192]. [17] K. Becker and M. Becker, “Instanton action for type II hypermultiplets,” Nucl. Phys. B 551 (1999) 102 [arXiv:hep-th/9901126]. [18] K. Becker, M. Becker and A. Strominger, “Five-branes, membranes and nonperturbative string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 456 (1995) 130 [arXiv:hep-th/9507158]. [19] S. Rey, “The Confining Phase of Superstrings and Axionic Strings,” Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 526. 15Page 17 [20] Y. Park, M. Srednicki and A. Strominger, “Wormhole Induced Supersymmetry Breaking In String Theory,” Phys. Lett. B 244 (1990) 393. [21] R. C. Myers, “Baby Universes In Higher Dimensional Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 323 (1989) 225. [22] R. C. Myers, “New Axionic Instantons In Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 38 (1988) 1327. [23] E. Cremmer, I. V. Lavrinenko, H. Lu, C. N. Pope, K. S. Stelle and T. A. Tran, “Euclidean-signature supergravities, dualities and instantons,” Nucl. Phys. B 534 (1998) 40 [arXiv:hep-th/9803259]. [24] V. Balasubramanian and P. Kraus, “A Stress Tensor for Anti-de Sitter Gravity,” Commun.Math.Phys. 208 (1999) 413 [arXiv:hep-th/9902121]. [25] R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, “Surface terms as counterterms in the AdS/CFT correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 104001 [arXiv:hep-th/9903238]. [26] O. Aharony, M. Berkooz and E. Silverstein, “Multiple-trace operators and nonlocal string theories,” JHEP 0108 (2001) 006 [arXiv:hep-th/0105309]. [27] O. Aharony, M. Berkooz and E. Silverstein, “Non-local string theories on AdS3× S3 and stable non-supersymmetric backgrounds,” arXiv:hep-th/0112178. [28] O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser and A. Karch, “Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 046008 [arXiv:hepth/9909134]. [29] K. Skenderis and P. K. Townsend, “Gravitational stability and renormalization-group flow,” Phys. Lett. B 468 (1999) 46 [arXiv:hep-th/9909070]. 16

"Axionic wormholes in four dimensions were first considered in [9], where a system con-sisting of an axion, described by a rank three antisymmetric tensor, coupled to gravitywas considered. The case of string theory was considered in [12,19] where in addition to the axion one also includes a massless dilaton". Full article by Michael Gutperle and Wafic Sabra quoted below http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-antimatter-gravity-universe-expansion.html

(PhysOrg.com) -- In 1998, scientists discovered that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Currently, the most widely accepted explanation for this observation is the presence of an unidentified dark energy, although several other possibilities have been proposed. One of these alternatives is that some kind of repulsive gravity – or antigravity – is pushing the Universe apart. As a new study shows, general relativity predicts that the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is mutually repulsive, and could potentially explain the observed expansion of the Universe without the need for dark energy. Ads by Google Particle Identification - Particle size, shape & make-up Using SEM/EDS/AFA Analysis www.herguth.com Ever since antimatter was discovered in 1932, scientists have been investigating whether its gravitational behavior is attractive – like normal matter – or repulsive. Although antimatter particles have the opposite electric charge as their associated matter particles, the masses of antimatter and matter particles are exactly equal. Most importantly, the masses are always positive. For this reason, most physicists think that the gravitational behavior of antimatter should always be attractive, as it is for matter. However, the question of whether the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is attractive or repulsive so far has no clear answer. In the new study, Massimo Villata of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino (Observatory of Turin) in Pino Torinese, Italy, has shown that an answer can be found in the theory of general relativity. As Villata explains, the current formulation of general relativity predicts that matter and antimatter are both self-attractive, yet matter and antimatter mutually repel each other. Unlike previous antigravity proposals – such as the idea that antimatter is gravitationally self-repulsive – Villata’s proposal does not require changes to well-established theories. The study is published in a recent issue of EPL (Europhysics Letters). “The significance of this study is actually twofold,” Villata told PhysOrg.com. “On one side, that of physics in general, it is to have shown that one of the most heretical concepts debated in the last several decades, i.e., that of antigravity, can be found as a prediction of the coupling of two of the best-established theories of the last century, providing the extension of general relativity to antimatter, considered as space-time-reversed matter, as requested by CPT symmetry. On the other side, the cosmological implications of this finding have shown antigravity as an alternative to (or explanation of) the wooly concept of dark energy for the accelerated expansion of the Universe.” Repulsive gravity At first, the idea of repulsive gravity between matter and antimatter seems to go against intuition, since we usually consider mass to be the only component determining an object’s gravitational behavior. But as Villata explains, there is more than just mass involved in gravity. In this case, time and parity are involved.

The idea is based on the concept that all physical laws have CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry. CPT symmetry means that, in order to transform a physical system of matter into an equivalent antimatter system (or vice versa) described by the same physical laws, not only must particles be replaced with corresponding antiparticles (C operation), but an additional PT transformation is also needed. From this perspective, antimatter can be viewed as normal matter that has undergone a complete CPT transformation, in which its charge, parity and time are all reversed. Even though the charge component does not affect gravity, parity and time affect gravity by reversing its sign. So although antimatter has positive mass, it can be thought of as having negative gravitational mass, since the gravitational charge in the equation of motion of general relativity is not simply the mass, but includes a factor that is PT-sensitive and yields the change of sign. As Villata explains, CPT symmetry means that antimatter basically exists in an inverted spacetime (the P operation inverts space, and the T operation inverts time). He gives the following analogy: if an anti-apple falls onto the head of an anti-Newton sitting on an anti-Earth, it would fall in exactly the same way as if all of these objects were made of normal matter. But if an anti-apple falls on the (normal) Earth, or a (normal) apple falls on an anti-Earth, then the result is different. In both cases, a minus sign arises in the equation of motion, which reverses the gravitational interaction between the anti-apple and Earth, or apple and anti-Earth, making it repulsive. Observations and experiments The theoretical prediction of antigravity between matter and antimatter could have significant consequences, if it’s true. Whenever matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate and produce photons. But if matter and antimatter repel each other, then they would tend to isolate themselves apart from each other and not annihilate. The force of this matter-antimatter repulsion could explain why the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, eliminating the need for dark energy and possibly dark matter. Villata suspects that antimatter could exist in the Universe in large-scale voids that have been observed in the distribution of galaxy clusters and superclusters. Previous studies have found that these voids can originate from small negative fluctuations in the primordial density field, which repel surrounding matter – as if they have a negative gravitational mass. With diameters of tens of megaparsecs (about a hundred million light years), these voids are the largest structures in the Universe. The problem is that, so far, researchers have not observed antimatter in these locations. Villata plans to investigate this question in a future study on the invisibility of antimatter in voids. “The relevant ideas are there, but I'm looking for the best way to formalize them,” he said. “However, you can find anticipations on this and many other features of matter traveling backwards in time in the novel by Max Wells (which is my literary pseudonym, in honor of J. C. Maxwell and H. G. Wells), The Dark Arrow of Time, which is currently published only in Italian (La freccia oscura del tempo), but I hope to find an English publisher soon.” As for testing the possibility of antigravity between matter and antimatter, the upcoming AEGIS experiment at CERN could provide some answers. The experiment will compare how the Earth’s gravity affects hydrogen and antihydrogen atoms, and could give scientists a better understanding of antimatter’s gravitational properties. “Antigravity has always been controversial, and likely it will still be so until we can get an experimental (or observational) response,” Villata said. “However, I hope that my work, in the meantime, can at least dissipate some prejudices against antigravity.”

More information: M. Villata. “CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity.” EPL (Europhysics Letters), 94 (2011) 20001. DOI:10.1209/0295-5075/94/20001 http://www.physorg.c...s191562687.html

(PhysOrg.com) -- Dark matter, which contains the "missing mass" that's needed to explain why galaxies stay together, could take any number of forms. The main possible candidates include MACHOS and WIMPS, but there is no shortage of proposals. Rather, the biggest challenge is finding some evidence that would support one or more of these candidates. Currently, more than 30 experiments are underway trying to detect a sign of dark matter. So far, only two experiments claim to have found signals, with the most recent observations coming just a month ago. Now, physicist Robert Foot from the University of Melbourne has shown that the results of these two experiments can be simultaneously explained by an intriguing dark matter candidate called mirror matter. As it name implies, mirror matter is basically a spatial reflection of ordinary matter. Matter particles can be either left-handed or right-handed, so if an ordinary matter particle were lefthanded, its mirror particle would be right-handed, but exactly identical in every other way. In the theory of mirror matter, every ordinary matter particle (e.g. protons, electrons, etc.) would have a mirror particle, thus doubling the number of particles in the universe. The inspiration for mirror matter came from an experiment performed in 1956 that showed that the laws of nature are not left-right symmetrical (also called parity-symmetrical, or p-symmetrical). Specifically, the experiment showed that particles in weak interactions display a preference for left-handedness, so that in a way, the Universe is left-handed. Since the other two forms of symmetry - rotational and translational - do seem to be symmetrical everywhere in nature, scientists wonder why nature doesn’t have p-symmetry as well. But if mirror matter exists, it would solve this problem by having slight right-handedness and restoring the Universe’s psymmetry. At first, mirror matter may sound a bit like antimatter (which is ordinary matter with an opposite charge). In both theories, the number of known particles would double. However, while antimatter interacts very strongly with ordinary matter, annihilating itself into photons, mirror matter would interact very weakly with ordinary matter. For this reason, some physicists have speculated that mirror particles could be candidates for dark matter. Even though mirror matter would produce light, we would not see it, and it would be very difficult to detect. However, mirror matter would not be impossible to detect, and Foot thinks that the DAMA experiment and the CoGeNT experiment may have detected mirror matter. In DAMA, scientists observed a piece of sodium iodide, which should generate a photon when struck by a dark matter particle. Since the experiment is Earth-based, the scientists predicted that they would observe more photons during the time of year that the Earth is moving toward the dark matter background than away from it - and they did. The more recent CoGeNT experiment is similar, where scientists found evidence of dark matter collisions in a germanium crystal. Interestingly, both DAMA’s and CoGeNT’s results involve particles of a similar mass range. In Foot’s model, if ordinary and mirror particles interact with each other via a process called photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing, then mirror particles could explain both results. In Foot’s theory, a mirror particle plasma would be the predominant ingredient in galactic halos, where dark matter seems to be “hiding” based on observations of its gravity’s effects. While this proposal supports the possibility of mirror matter as dark matter, Foot added that experiments in the near future will further test this idea.

More information: Robert Foot. "A CoGeNT confirmation of the DAMA signal." arXiv:1004.1424v1 [hep-ph] via: Technology Review http://www.physorg.c...anism-dark.html

This 3D map shows the large-scale distribution of dark matter, reconstructed from measurements of weak gravitational lensing with the Hubble Space Telescope. The field of view covers about nine times the size of the full moon. Image credit: NASA/ESA/Richard Massey. (PhysOrg.com) -- Through precise cosmological measurements, scientists know that about 4.6% of the energy of the Universe is made of baryonic matter (normal atoms), about 23% is made of dark matter, and the remaining 72% or so is dark energy. Scientists also know that almost all the baryonic matter in the observable Universe is matter (with a positive baryon charge) rather than antimatter (with a negative baryon charge). But exactly why this matter and energy came to be this way is still an open question. In a recent study, physicists have proposed a new mechanism that can generate both the baryon asymmetry and the dark matter density of the Universe simultaneously. The scientists, Hooman Davoudiasl from Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York; David Morrissey and Sean Tulin from TRIUMF in Vancouver, British Columbia; and Kris Sigurdson from the University of British Columbia, also in Vancouver, have published their new proposal in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. They’ve dubbed the new mechanism "hylogenesis" from the Greek words "hyle," meaning "primordial matter," and "genesis," meaning "origin." "There are two problems in theoretical physics we are trying to address at once," Sigurdson said. "The baryon asymmetry (why do we have atoms but not antiatoms in the Universe?) has really been a problem since Paul Dirac proposed antimatter in 1928 and it was discovered in 1932. And what is the dark matter? Hints of dark matter have been around since Fritz Zwicky discovered missing mass in the Coma Cluster in 1933, but its identity is still unknown. This mechanism links the formation of atoms and dark matter and helps resolve the baryon asymmetry mystery, as the total dark plus visible baryon balance of the Universe is restored." In this matter-formation scenario, a new particle X and its antiparticle X-bar (of equal and opposite charge) are produced in the early Universe. X and X-bar are capable of coupling to quarks (the basic components of baryonic matter, e.g., protons and neutrons) in the visible sector as well as particles in a “hidden” sector (so-called because the particles in it interact only feebly with the visible sector). In this scenario X and X-bar would have been produced when the Universe heated up after inflation, in the first moments after at the start of the big bang. Later, X and X-bar would decay, partly into visible baryons (specifically, a neutron made up of one up quark and two down quarks) and partly into hidden baryons. As the scientists explain, X decays to neutrons more often than X-bar decays to antineutrons. By the same amount, X-bar decays to hidden antiparticles more than X decays to hidden particles. In this scenario, the quarks would be the baryonic matter that makes up almost everything we see, and the hidden antibaryons would be what we know as dark matter. Through this yin-yang decay pattern, the positive baryon number of the visible matter is in balance with the negative baryon number of the dark matter. “The energy densities of visible and dark matter are really close to each other (differing by a factor of five),” Tulin said. “In many scenarios, the processes that generate visible and dark

matter are unrelated, occurring during widely separated epochs in the early universe through completely different physics. So, this factor of five seems like either a really big coincidence, or it could be a clue that both kinds of matter had a common origin. I think this is the main reason to take seriously these unified models of visible and dark matter genesis.” The physicists predict that this matter-formation mechanism could provide an entirely new way to look for dark matter, since it would leave a signature that could be experimentally detected. As they explain, once in a while a dark matter antiparticle might collide with and annihilate an ordinary atomic particle, releasing a burst of energy. Although this is very rare, there is a chance that experiments on Earth that look for the spontaneous decay of protons could detect dark matter. “We plan to investigate, in more detail, the prospects for dark matter detection in nucleon decay experiments, as this constitutes a distinct signature of our proposal and can open up a new front in the experimental search for dark matter,” Davoudiasl said. “Other potential signals of hylogenesis can appear in astrophysical observations and perhaps particle accelerator data, and we intend to consider these possibilities in our future work as well.” More information: Hooman Davoudiasl, et al. “Unified Origin for Baryonic Visible Matter and Antibaryonic Dark Matter.” Physical Review Letters 105, 211304 (2010). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.211304