TOWARDS A SOLID QM THEORY: A Basis of FTL Travel By: Dr.

Paul Karl Hoiland Abstract: I will show that there exists a solution using some of De Broglie-Bohm Theory in conjuction with a modified particle picture that does account for certain quantum actions and non-locality if one accepts and off the brane fundamental subquantum Dirac ether of an absolute space and zero time frame De Broglie-Bohm Theory This is currently the only interpretation in which all quantum effects are explained through causal continuous motions in space-time. Although it has not yet been generalized to relativistic domains it has been shown to fully contain the manifest (quasiclassical) world . The Schrodinger equation can be treated the same way we would normally treat any other complex equation in physics just by separating real and imaginary parts and looking for the physical interpretation of each term. This was in essence the first hidden-variable theory proposed by de Broglie (as a direct consequence of his postulate of matter waves) and later developed by Bohm. In the 1950's when Bell was studying the hidden-variable theories he described the de Broglie-Bohm theory as having been `scandalously neglected'. The basic idea is that the particle has a real position and momentum and that it is guided by the matter wave so as to reproduce exactly the normal results of QM. We can see how this comes about if we start with Schrodinger's equation for a mass m in a potential V(r), ih/2π  Ψ=-  dt  d
h

/2π2  2  ∇ Ψ+ V Ψ, 2m 

if we now define real functions of position R and S such that Ψ = R exp(iS/h/2π), substitute and rearrange, separating real and imaginary parts we get, dR2 S   2 + ∇·  R ∇  =0 dt m  

and dS + dt where, Q = - (h/2p2/2m)Ñ2R/R . All we have done is to write Schrodinger's equation in terms of R and S but we can now see the physical ideas underlying the theory. Note that R2 equals |Ψ2|, which is the 2m 1 (∇S)2 + V - Q = 0,

probability density of finding a particle over a certain distance. Also if we assume that the particle has a velocity v = ∇S/m then dR2  S  2 + ∇·  R ∇  =0 dt m  

is just the equation of continuity for the probability density and the second and third terms of equation are the kinetic and potential energies of the particle. From separating the variables in the time dependant case it follows that [(d)/(dt)] S = - E, the total energy, and dS + dt 2m 1 (ÑS)2 + V - Q = 0,

is equivalent to the energy conservation equation with a modified potential. The last term, Q, is known as the `quantum potential' and the differences between quantum and classical predictions are due only to this additional term. Classical emergence occurs when this term is small and thus, becomes classical. THE SOLUTION However, if we backup and consider the particle, not as some point set of energy/mass being carried by the pilot wave, but as the whole pilot wave itself we then get the same basic picture the above has been trying to generate but we have abandoned the point particle picture of matter. The uncertainty principle still applies to this interpretation but it no longer means that reality is unsure about its self only that our observations of it are fundamentally limited. That limit is imposed by our own macro lightcone state under this view. Those portions of the pilot wave that are not C limited cannot be directly viewed in our classical space-time. As to the issue of the double slit experiments, this wave, which is actually are particle, would cross through both slits. The result is the same pattern we see duplicated over and over again.

If we back up a bit, to my proposed zero point frame of reference(1) then the quantum potential has its basis in a sub-quantum Dirac ether of an absolute space and zero time frame. If we were sitting in the rest frame of a photon, watching it from above as it sits like a floating feather of EM energy in the sea of space-time. Then the two slits apparatus hurtles past at the speed of light. We’d get exactly the same pattern reproduced as above. The difference is there acceleration is caused by space-time curvature. Thus, the source of acceleration and the arrow of time is the curvature of space-time at a local level with its combined effect producing the over all limit on information flow. Also if it were acceleration being caused by curvature, then we’d get no emission of photons. This then suggest how the underlying cause comes about from the fact that the quantum potential bends light and deflects the path of charged particles without making them radiate. But it also suggests that we have a hidden frame of reference in this universe with expanded lightcone states that only a modified version of SR/GR can take into account. Quantum tunneling and non-locality effects, like those in entanglement, would be due to actual wormhole like connections through space, not time. These connections I believe are the long mentioned off the brane states from M-Theory. All that is required from a QM perspective is to model the particle as the whole wave. From here, as shown above one naturally is led to such a conclusion. As one can see, this model fully abandons the point particle concept in favor of a more M-Theory like particle picture. Now, if we look at some of Kant’s ideas on space and time, as illustrated by the following diagram

Kant's idea that space and time do not exist among things-in-themselves has been curiously affirmed by Relativity and quantum mechanics. In Relativity, time simply ceases to pass at the velocity of light: for photons that have travelled to us as part of the Cosmic Background Radiation, time has stood still for most of the history of the universe. On the other hand, quantum mechanics now posits "non-locality," i.e. physical distances, and so the limitation of the velocity of light in Relativity, don't seem to exist,

as demonstrated by Entanglement. If, for instance, a positron and an election are both created from an energetic photon, the conservation of angular momentum requires that one be spinning one way, and the other the other. But the complementary spins are equally probably for each particle. Thus, in quantum mechanical terms, the wave functions of each particle separate without a discrete state being determined. The particles might then separate to even cosmological distances, but as soon as the spin of one particle is observed, the other particle must have the opposite spin, which means that the wave function has collapsed across those cosmological distances and caused the other particle to assume a predictable spin. If this occurs instantaneously, it would violate the limitation of the velocity of light in Special Relativity. This has now been shown to be true via experiments with entanglement(2). So at some level we have an already proven by experiment fact that SR is in need of a fundamental modification. Now, contemporary physics states that no object should be able to travel faster than the speed of light. What they fail to state is that whether superluminal speeds are possible in principle depends on the real structure of the space-time continuum, which contemporary physics ignores, however. The above argument begins to address that issue of the real struxture of the space-time continuum. Up until now we have had two basic choices: Galilean Space-Time (GST) Minkowski Space-Time (MST) Briefly, whereas Galilean space-time allows the realization of faster-than-light speeds, at least in principle, Minkowski space-time does not.
• •

It is important to note that without some definition of global time the physical quantity speed (and thus light-speed) has no definite meaning anyway. Why? Consider an example: Imagine an object moving from position A to B. Its speed v is given by the formula

Here, the start time t(A,start) and the finish time t(B,finish) are read off from two spatially separated clocks: one clock is located at point A and the other one at point B. Now, the difference of the two times in the denominator t(B,finish) - t(A,start) is an indefinite expression, unless there exists a rule how to synchronize both clocks, because clock B ignores the "current" time at clock A at first. But, in fact, the decision in favour of a particular synchronization rule is pure convention, because it seems impossible to send an "instantenous" (infinitely fast) message from A to B like "Initialize the clocks now!". Thus, the actual quantity of speed is conventional too, depending on the particular choice of the simultaneity definition. Minkowski Space-Time does not know any absolute time which is physically meaningful. It was the revolutionary idea of Albert Einstein to give the notion of simultaneity a new definition. Especially, because all experimental tests to determine the motion with respect to some absolute space-time frame had failed, he decided to abandon the notion of absolute time at all. In the famous theory of relativity he postulated two principles which should hold for all physics:

1) All physical laws appear according to the same laws in all reference frames. 2) The speed of light is constant in all reference frames. Now, while the first postulate seems well established by observation and experiments, the second one is simply an assumption. It implies, in contrast to Galilean Space-Time, that simultaneity is not an absolute physical quality, but a relative one, depending on the motion of the observer (ie. the reference frame). However, it has to be emphasized that although the existence of a physical absolute time (or, equivalently, a preferred reference frame) could not be established by experiments, the theory of special relativity does not disprove it either. So, let’s go back to the above discussion of a decent QM model. Under Bohm’s version one encounters aspects of the pilot wave that exceeds the local established value for C, and modern experimental aspects of entanglement we also encounter something similar. So let’s make the assumption that statement 2, is simply a limited case finding and that there are aspects to space-time in which this limited finding does not apply. What effect would this have? The general coordinate transformation from this particular reference frame R to a general one R' (primed coordinates) reads

where the relative speed v of R' with respect to R is chosen to be parallel to the x-axis. The transformation properly expresses the apparent contraction of moving rods (LorentzFitzgerald contraction) and the slowing of moving clocks (time dilation). The function S(x') simply determines the notion of simultaneity in frame R'. Generally, S(x') can be an arbitrary function, but it is convenient to impose S(0) = 0 such that the clocks of the reference frames R and R' are synchronized at the origin (x,t) = (0,0) = (x',t'). Furthermore, in order to avoid acceleratory effects, one usually imposes that S(x') is linear in x', ie. S(x') = s x'. But, if we substitute a different value for C into the above equation we maintain the Lorentz Invariance, at the expence that C is no longer a constant. However, if we try to project this altered situation back into a frame were C has the value we measure it at globally, we loose some of the information in the transfer and encounter a situation where the energies of such particles within the altered frame system crossing into our regular region would seem to be higher than we can account for due to their measurable velocity. We would also loose some of the information in any quantum accounting which would give the appearance then of action at a distance, or non-locality. So, by simply modifying Relativity to include states who’s value for C is higher than our own we have also provided a solid solution to the Non-locality problem proposed by Bell(3).

It can be shown that Einstein's second postulate is equivalent to setting S(x') = - v/c^2 x', so that one obtains the well known Lorentz transformation equations

with the speed of light c' = dr'/dt'(r=ct) = c constant in all frames. Thus, from the viewpoint of relativity, all reference frames are completely equivalent. And when we substitute in a new value for C we find this to still hold, until we try to compare systems whos local velocity for light, or information transfer is different. The Traditional QM approach has suffered this problem when it comes to bringing gravity into the fold. For most of us there is an inevitable logic in this sort of structure: an event at A causes an effect on an object at B, which later causes a reaction in a separate object at C, which may or may not have an effect on A at some time in "the future". That C comes objectively after A and is determined by it has the force of an axiom (the causal order A - B after all defines what we mean by "after"), and that objects like C are "made of" more fundamental component objects and processes like A is not even a "good theory" - it is more obvious than that, so obvious, indeed, that one needs constantly reminding that the formal expression of these concepts in the doctrine of micro reductive determinism was the result of centuries of European philosophical thought. This is a cultural invention, and was not always axiomatic; now it is not axiomatic again, because quantum theory (in principle if not quite yet in fact) quantizes gravity along with the other forces and by thus quantizing space-time (which is Einstein's gravity field) promises to deny us any way of making this matrix of space and time precise enough to define when and where an isolable event takes place, and the non-locality of quantum systems calls into question the very meaning of an "isolable event". The particular axiom which quantum gravity threatens to undermine, therefore, is the axiom that the causal order and the space-time order are the same thing. But, this view I have proposed keeps the casual order of events in this universe stable, while explaining the whole issue of Non-locality in general. In this model of quantum theory, casual order is preserved as is the space-time order. However, by the introduction of Bohm views into a model where the wave is itself the particle, we have automatically introduced on the surface a dual time frame. The reason is that with Bohm’s original pilot wave the particle was present within the wave, being carried along by it. Depending upon the particles mass its local velocity would always be less than the overall wave’s velocity. Even with a zero rest mass particle like the photon, this would still be true. Thus, when we picture the whole wave as the particle, we automatically introduce one state with a C limited time and another with an expanded lightcone state. Now, if we wish to include a proper string theory based view into this, we’d find these two states to be the result of the mixing of two separate time states themselves. So in

essence we’d have to introduce what actually amounts to a Triple time format into our model. One Time state is the resultant, the extended one is the compacted regions time, and the third would be the full off the brane time state which is negative. However, for the case in point of introducing this basic model I have simplified it to the brane and compacted region only. Now, to get a better picture of the structure at the quantum level we need to go a bit further in our quest. We need to examine the basic structure of this level and the information we can gain from this surface or volume. To do this we must study the most basic structure of the quantum level. That structure is defined by Loop Quantum Gravity and spin networks. INTRODUCTION TO LQG Research in loop quantum gravity today forms a vast area, ranging from mathematical foundations to physical applications. Among the most significant results obtained are: (i) The computation of the physical spectra of geometrical quantities such as area and volume, which yields quantitative predictions on Planck-scale physics. (ii) A derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy formula. (iii) An intriguing physical picture of the microstructure of quantum physical space, characterized by a polymer-like Planck scale discreteness. This discreteness emerges naturally from the quantum theory and provides a mathematically well-defined realization of Wheeler's intuition of a spacetime ``foam''. In this formulation, the field variable is a self-dual connection, instead of the metric, and the canonical constraints are simpler than in the old metric formulation. The idea of using a self-dual connection as field variable and the simple constraints it yields were discovered by Amitaba Sen(4). Abhay Ashtekar realized that in the SU(2) extended phase space a self-dual connection and a densitized triad field form a canonical pair(5), and set up the canonical formalism based on such pair, which is the Ashtekar formalism. Recent works on the loop representation are not based on the original Sen-Ashtekar connection, but on a real variant of it, whose use has been introduced into Lorentzian general relativity by Barber(6 ). Ted Jacobson and Lee Smolin, next realized that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, reformulated in terms of the new variables, admits a simple class of exact solutions: the traces of the holonomies of the Ashtekar connection around smooth non-selfintersecting loops. In other words: The Wilson loops of the Ashtekar connection solve the WheelerDeWitt equation if the loops are smooth and non self-intersecting(7). This discovery of the Jacobson-Smolin Wilson loop solutions prompted Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin to ``change basis in the Hilbert space of the theory'', choosing the Wilson loops as the new basis states for quantum gravity. Quantum states can be represented in terms of their expansion on the loop basis, namely as functions on a space of loops. This idea is well known in the context of canonical lattice Yang-Mills theory(8).

Certain classical quantities play a very important role in the quantum theory. These are: the trace of the holonomy of the connection, which is labeled by loops on the three manifold; and the higher order loop variables, obtained by inserting the E field (in n distinct points, or ``hands'') into the holonomy trace. More precisely, given a loop in M we define: and the points

and, in general

where defined by

is the parallel propagator of

along ,

These are the loop observables, introduced in Yang Mills theories and in gravity. The loop observables coordinatize the phase space and have a closed Poisson algebra, denoted by the loop algebra. This algebra has a remarkable geometrical flavor. For instance, the Poisson bracket between and is non vanishing only if lies over ; if it does, the result is proportional to the holonomy of the Wilson loops obtained by joining and at their intersection (by rerouting the 4 legs at the intersection). More precisely

Here

is a vector distribution with support on and

is the loop obtained starting at the is with reversed

intersection between and , and following first and then . orientation.

A (non-SU(2) gauge invariant) quantity that plays a role in certain aspects of the theory, particularly in the regularization of certain operators, is obtained by integrating the E field over a two dimensional surface S

where f is a function on the surface S, taking values in the Lie algebra of SU A subspace of is formed by states invariant under SU(2) gauge transformations. We . This basis represents a very important tool for in , which

now define an orthonormal basis in

using the theory. First, given a loop in M, there is a normalized state is obtained by taking and f(g)=-Tr(g). Namely

We introduce a Dirac notation for the abstract states, and denote this state as sates are called loop states. Using Dirac notation, we can write

. These

It is easy to show that loop states are normalizable. Products of loop states are normalizable as well. Following tradition, we denote with also a multiloop, namely a collection of (possibly overlapping) loops , and we call

a multiloop state. (Multi-)loop states represented the main tool for loop quantum gravity before the discovery of the spin network basis. Linear combinations of multiloop states (over-)span , and therefore a generic state on the multiloop states, namely by is fully characterized by its projections

The ``old'' loop representation was based on representing quantum states in this manner, namely by means of the functionals over loop space defined. Next, consider a graph . A ``coloring'' of is given by the following. 1. Associate an irreducible representation of SU(2) to each link of . Equivalently, we may associate to each link a half integer number , the spin of the irreducible, or, equivalently, an integer number , the ``color'' . 2. Associate an invariant tensor v in the tensor product of the representations , to each node of in which links with spins meet. An invariant tensor is an object with n indices in the representations that transform covariantly. If n=3, there is only one invariant tensor (up to a multiplicative factor), given by the Clebsh-Gordon coefficient. An invariant tensor is also called

an intertwining tensor. All invariant tensors are given by the standard ClebschGordon theory. More precisely, for fixed , the invariant tensors form a finite dimensional linear space. Pick a basis is this space, and associate one of these basis elements to the node. Notice that invariant tensors exist only if the tensor product of the representations contains the trivial representation. This yields a condition on the coloring of the links. For n=3, this is given by the well known Clebsh-Gordan condition: Each color is not larger than the sum of the other two, and the sum of the three colors is even. We indicate a colored graph by network''. , or simply , and denote it a ``spin

as follows. We take the Given a spin network S, we can construct a state propagator of the connection along each link of the graph, in the representation associated to that link, and then, at each node, we contract the matrices of the representation with the invariant tensor. We obtain a state , which we also write as

One can then show the following.
• • • • •

The spin network states are renormalizable(9). They are SU(2) gauge invariant. Each spin network state can be decomposed into a finite linear combination of products of loop states. The (normalized) spin network states form an orthonormal basis for the gauge SU(2) invariant states in (choosing the basis of invariant tensors appropriately). The scalar product between two spin network states can be easily computed graphically and algebraically(10).

The spin network states provide a very convenient basis for the quantum theory and fully allow us to break down the quantum space-time structure into descrete units. At this point we are actually breaking down the String or Membrane itself(The wave that is the particle) into separate units we can examine and measure information from off its surface or volume. Next, associate to a loop state a diagram in M, formed by the loop itself. Next, notice that we can multiply two loop states, obtaining a normalizable state. We represent the product of n loop states by the diagram formed by the set of the n (possibly overlapping) corresponding loops (we denote this set ``multiloop''). Thus, linear combinations of multiloops diagrams represent states in . Representing states as linear combinations of multiloops diagrams makes computation in easy.

Now, the spin network state defined by the graph with no nodes , with color 1, is clearly, by definition, the loop state , and we represent it by the diagram . The spin network

determined by the graph without nodes , with color n can be obtained as state follows. Draw n parallel lines along the loop ; cut all lines at an arbitrary point of , and consider the n! diagrams obtained by joining the legs after a permutation. The linear combination of these n! diagrams, taken with alternate signs (namely with the sign . The reason for determined by the parity of the permutation) is precisely the state this key result can be found in the fact that an irreducible representation of SU(2) can be obtained as the totally symmetric tensor product of the fundamental representation with itself. Next, consider a graph with nodes. Draw parallel lines along each link . Join pairwise the end points of these lines at each node (in an arbitrary manner), in such a way that each line is joined with a line from a different link. In this manner, one obtains a multiloop diagram. Now antisymmetrize the parallel lines along each link, obtaining a linear combination of diagrams representing a state in . One can show that this state is a spin network state, where is the color of the links, and the color of the nodes is determined by the pairwise joining of the legs chosen. Again, simple SU(2) representation theory is behind this result. This can be represented by the following:

Construction of ``virtual'' nodes and ``virtual'' links over an n-valent node. I now define the quantum operators, corresponding to the -variables, as linear operators on . These form a representation of the loop variables Poisson algebra. The operator acts diagonally

(Recall that products of loop states and spin network states are normalizable states). In diagrammatic notation, the operator simply adds a loop to a (linear combination of) multiloops

Higher order loop operators are expressed in terms of the elementary ``grasp'' operation. Consider first the operator , with one hand in the point . The operator , it

annihilates all loop states that do not cross the point gives

. Acting on a loop state

where we have introduced the elementary length by

and and are defined before. This action extends by linearity, by continuity and by the Leibniz rule to products and linear combinations of loop states, and to the full . All the operators in the theory are then constructed in terms of these basic loop operators, in the same way in which in conventional QFT one constructs all operators, including the hamiltonian, in terms of creation and annihilation operators. The construction of the composite operators requires the development of regularization techniques that can be used in the absence of a background metric. So at this point we have managed to eliminate the bachground metric period from our model. The next step in the construction of the theory is to factor away diffeomorphism invariance. This is a key step for two reasons. First of all, is a ``huge'' non-separable space. It is far ``too large'' for a quantum field theory. However, most of this redundancy is gauge, and disappears when one solves the diffeomorphism constraint, defining the diff-invariant Hilbert space . This is the reason for which the loop representation, as defined here, is of great value in diffeomorphism invariant theories only. The second reason is that turns out to have a natural basis labeled by knots. More precisely by ``s-knots''. An s-knot s is an equivalence class of spin networks S under diffeomorphisms. An s-knot is characterized by its ``abstract'' graph (defined only by the adjacency relations between links and nodes), by the coloring, and by its knotting and linking properties, as in knot-theory. Thus, the physical quantum states of the gravitational field turn out to be essentially classified by knot theory. There are various equivalent ways of obtaining from . One can use regularization techniques for defining the quantum operator corresponding to the classical diffeomorphism constraint in terms of elementary loop operators, and then find the kernel of such operator. Equivalently, one can factor by the natural action of the diffeomorphism group that it carries. Namely

There are several rigorous ways for defining the quotient of a Hilbert space by the unitary action of a group. In the quantum gravity literature, a big deal has been made of the problem that a scalar product is not defined on the space of solutions of a constraint , defined on a Hilbert space . This is actually not the case. It is true that if zero is in the continuum spectrum

of , then the corresponding eigenstates are generalized states and the scalar product is not defined between them. But the generalized eigenspaces of , including the kernel, inherit nevertheless a scalar product from . This can be seen in a variety of equivalent ways. For instance, it can be seen from the following theorem. If is self adjoint, then there exist a measure on its spectrum and a family of Hilbert spaces such that

where the integral is the continuous sum of Hilbert spaces(7). Clearly of equipped with a scalar product.

is the kernel

There are two distinct possibilities for factoring away the diffeomorphisms in the quantum theory, yielding two distinct version of the theory. The first possibility is to factor away smooth transformations of the manifold. In doing so, finite dimensional moduli spaces associated with high valence nodes appear(8), so that the resulting Hilbert space is still non-separable. The physical relevance of these moduli parameters is unclear at this stage, since they do not seem to play any role in the quantum theory. Alternatively, one can consistently factor away continuous transformations of the manifold. Finally, the definition of the theory is completed by giving the hamiltonian constraint. The simplest is as follows: We have

Here i labels the nodes of the s-knot s; (IJ) labels couples of (distinct) links emerging are the colors of the links emerging from i. is the operator that acts from i. on an -knot by: (i) creating two additional nodes, one along each of the two links I and J; (ii) creating a novel link, colored 1, joining these two nodes, (iii) assigning the coloring and, respectively, i. to the links that join the new formed nodes with the node

Action of

.

The coefficients , which are finite, can be expressed explicitly (but in a rather laborious way) in terms of products of linear combinations of 6-j symbols of SU(2). The

Lorentzian hamiltonian constraint is given by a similar expression, but quadratic in the operators. The operator defined above is obtained by introducing a regularized expression for the classical hamiltonian constraint, written in terms of elementary loop observables, turning these observables into the corresponding operators and taking the limit. The construction works rather magically, relying on the fact, that certain operator limits turn out to be finite on diff invariant states, thanks to the fact that, for and , sufficiently small, and are diffeomorphic equivalent. Thus, here diff invariance plays again a crucial role in the theory. It has recently be shown that the matrix elements of the operator U(T)

obtained exponentiating the (Euclidean) hamiltonian constraint in the proper time gauge (the operator that generates evolution in proper time) can be expanded in a Feynman sum over paths. In conventional QFT each term of a Feynman sum corresponds naturally to a certain Feynman diagram, namely a set of lines in spacetime meeting at vertices (branching points). A similar natural structure of the terms appears in quantum gravity, but surprisingly the diagrams are now given by surfaces is spacetime that branch at vertices. Thus, one has a formulation of quantum gravity as a sum over surfaces in spacetime. The interesting thing to note is that your String States actually form on the surface of all this and that, going back to our particle as the wave model, that membrane is itself a composite of many different spin forms. The Holographic Principle, yet unproven, states that there is a maximum amount of information content held by regions adjacent to any surface. Therefore, counterintuitively, the information content inside a room depends not on the volume of the room but on the area of the bounding walls. The principle derives from the idea that the Planck length, the length scale where quantum mechanics begins to dominate classical gravity, is one side of an area that can hold only about one bit of information. The limit was first postulated by physicist Gerard 't Hooft in 1993(9). The first assertion of the Holographic Principle is that all of the information contained in some region of space can be represented as a `Hologram' - a theory which `lives' on the boundary of that region. The basic idea is all the information in this universe is contained on its wall, or more exactly at the junction between our brane and the off the brane state.

The second assertion of the Holographic Principle is that the theory on the boundary of the region of space in question should contain at most one degree of freedom per Planck area. A Planck area is the area enclosed by a little square which has side length equal to the Planck length, a basic unit of length which is usually denoted Lp. The Planck length is a fundamental unit of length, because it is the parameter with the dimensions of length which can be constructed out of the basic constants G (Newton's constant for the strength of gravitational interactions), (Planck's constant from quantum mechanics), and c (the speed of light). A quick calculation reveals that Lp is very small indeed:

The way in which the Holographic Principle appears in M-theory is much more subtle. In M-theory we are the shadows on the wall. The `room' is some larger, five-dimensional space-time and our four-dimensional world is just the boundary of this larger space. If we try to move away from the wall, we are moving into an extra dimension of space - a fifth dimension. In Loop Quantum Gravity you have that surface volume being defined a bit further. In My own Zero Point idea you have that boundary being examined in relation to SR and the velocity of information transfer. But all these paths are now very much assumed to lead to the same basic heart, which is what we now call the Holographic Principle. The water shed of this is the adS/CFT correspondence which is a type of duality, which states that two apparently distinct physical theories are actually equivalent. On one side of this duality is the physics of gravity in a space-time known as anti-de Sitter space (adS). Five-dimensional anti-de Sitter space has a boundary which is four-dimensional, and in a certain limit looks like flat space-time with one time and three space directions. The adS/CFT correspondence states that the physics of gravity in five-dimensional antide Sitter space, is equivalent to a certain supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory which is defined on the boundary of adS. This Yang-Mills theory is thus a `hologram' of the physics which is happening in five dimensions. The Yang-Mills theory has gauge group SU(N), where N is very large, and it is said to be `supersymmetric' because it has a symmetry which allows you to exchange bosons and fermions. On our side there is no supersymmetry involved. In fact, we have what is called broken symmetry. The idea is then that the symmetry of all the forces is only broken because there would be information loss across the boundary. Another words, the way the holograph is produced brings about the broken symmetry we find in nature around us. A central key in this, one I have been trying to utilize is that lost information. I believe the reason it is lost goes back to how information is transferred within the brane and the local/global limit on that information transfer. Another words, it centers back on the issue of C. I also believe that we have other information in nature being transferred at a higher rate and that the conditions under which that information is being transferred are our key to developing honest FTL drive.

REFERENCE 1.) Author Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-5 Non-Orientation of Space-Time Proves MTheories Compacted or Embedded Regions. 2.) Dr. Serge Haroche, ENS & College de France (ITP 9-26-01) http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/haroche1/pdf/haroche1.pdf 3.) J.S. Bell, Physics 1(1964), p, 195. 4.) Sen, A., ``Gravity as a spin system'', Phys. Lett., B119, 89-91, (1982). 5.) .) Ashtekar, A., ``New variables for classical and quantum gravity'', Phys. Rev. Lett., 57(18), 2244-2247, (1986), Ashtekar, A., ``New Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity'', Phys. Rev., D36(6), 1587-1602, (1987). 6.) .) Barbero, F., ``Real-polynomial formulation of general relativity in terms of connections'', Phys.
Rev., D49, 6935-6938, (1994), Barbero, F., ``Real Ashtekar Variables for Lorentzian Signature Spacetimes'', Phys. Rev., D 51, 5507-5510, (1995). For a related online version see: F. Barbero, ``Real Ashtekar Variables for Lorentzian Signature Space-times'', (October, 1994), [Online Los Alamos Preprint Archive]: cited on 29 September 1997, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9410014, Barbero, F., ``Reality Conditions and Ashtekar Variables: a Different Perspective'', Phys. Rev., D 51, 5498-5506, (1995). For a related online version see: F. Barbero, ``Reality Conditions and Ashtekar Variables: a Different Perspective'', (October, 1994), [Online Los Alamos Preprint Archive]: cited on 29 September 1997, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/grqc/9410013.

7.) Jacobson, T., and Smolin, L., ``Nonperturbative quantum geometries'', Nucl. Phys., B299(2), 295-345, (1988). 8.) Grot, N., and Rovelli, C., ``Moduli-space of knots with intersections'', J. Math. Phys., 37, 3014-3021, (1996). For a related online version see: N. Grot, et al., ``Moduli-space of knots with intersections'', (April, 1996), [Online Los Alamos Preprint Archive]: cited on 29 September 1997, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9604010. 9.) Gerard 't Hooft Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity gr-qc/9310026, L. Susskind, The World as a Hologram J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377, hep-th/9409089)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful