Whether we would like to admit it or not, I am confident that each of us has had a time-related encounter, perhaps minor in nature, where we experienced a future instant or event likely through a dream that publishes a moment in time coincidentally before it takes place. It almost feels holographic where an idea or event is actually encoded material captured and projected into patterns of pictorial experiences that often lack sequential plausibility, as though our aesthetic and linguistic limitations attempt to translate what we conceptually prohibit when conscious. Whilst it is easy to repudiate the experience as an isolated and perhaps even a negligible event or at polar opposite as divine providence, I sought to traverse this irrational landscape devoid of three-dimensional space and found myself compelled to the colossal subject of an infinite dimensional hypothesis of time, of cognition and the quantification of consciousness, and interconnectivity or entanglement theories. It has always been an intriguing thought for me to contemplate what the state of our physical universe would look like without an arrow of time and whether time dilation and the effect of motion could be taken to another level. What if there is a universe where effect precedes cause, or where we have memories of the future whilst the past remains elusive? What if a mirror universe existed from the Janus point where time fractured and split in two different directions, the one forward as we know it and the other backward? And finally, what if our universe was interacting with these extra dimensions where gravitational waves – if we could call it that – somehow transgresses quantum states and where communication between parallel worlds relative to our own experience of time and space somehow leaks and where inter-world exchange becomes possible?

Understanding the subatomic world is not without its *weirdness* and however vast the literature on the topic of cosmology, the reality is that we still do not know how the universe came to begin, despite the many various interpretations each with an astounding logic. But let us assume at this point that there is no *known* origin of the universe in physics because any attempt requires a fundamental understanding of space and time, knowledge that we simply do not have and so a study of ‘time’ before the universe cannot be implicitly understood. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume the universe simply came from some quantum origin where the initial conditions were right and focus on the astronomical plateau relative to our cognitive limitations. As said by Newton: “I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”[1] Nevertheless, diverging from classical physics, the concept of quantum physics and in particular parallel universes established a revolutionary change in our understanding of the material world. First considered in the mid-twentieth century[2], it is relevant to know that there are several interpretations of PUs with the first and widely known many-worlds theory, which is that each quantum experience exists in parallel worlds within the one universe suggesting an invalidity of randomness from the quantum state. I should note that these postulations require an appreciation of epistemic internalism insofar as those external factors cannot *completely* explain certain phenomena and requires reasoning to support reflective accessibility relative to the individual. Think Schrödinger’s cat experiment[3] and this is particularly true when determining our own experience vis-à-vis mathematical formalism and how we interact within this broader framework comprised of elementary particles, or should I say the quantum state of those particles. Ultimately, there is nothing that we can absolutely distinguish as ‘definite’ whether internally or externally and it is what makes our existence remarkable (just as remarkable as the egocentricity of the many people who have puffed themselves up to think that what they see in front of them and their day-to-day is somehow everything).

Nevertheless, the many-worlds theory involves an infinite variety of localised quantum states that equally correspond to the quantum probabilities of those states; that is, the wavefunction itself never collapses but rather becomes alternate realities. Going back to Schrödinger’s cat, the dual probability of the cat being alive and dead exists in parallel and that both are possible prior to opening the box; the cat is neither alive nor dead and so the cat is both alive and dead right up until we open the box, at which point one or the other realities collapse. As the question itself seeks to ascertain possible communication between these alternate realities – something that was clearly rejected even by Everett who proposed the idea – one must assume that both possibilities exist and instead it is the observer who is divided between alternate realities, sitting in Hilbert space containing a finite and infinite number of dimensions. Thus it is one of me that sees the cat dead and the other of me that sees the cat alive rather than it being solely one of me seeing only one or the other. Conversely, Neils Bohr purported that a quantum particle exists in all of its possible states at once and must *choose* one probability that then becomes the observable state; so the cat is dead *or* alive and the other probability collapses. It becomes an intriguing philosophical topic of free-will and determinism with a more scientific angle, namely whether the multiples of ‘me’ have decided on each and every single probable choice in each of the universes or whether, no matter the apparent choice, each and every possible choice will manifest.

**“The probability that a given measurement has a given outcome is equal to the fraction of the parallel universes in which that outcome occurs. Since probabilities are real numbers that can assume any value between zero and one, the set of parallel universes must be infinite. Every measurement or measurement-like process in every universe therefore creates an infinity of new parallel universes.”****[4]**

I remember watching an episode of Star Trek Original (though, if you care to know Picard will always remain favoured as the ideal ‘man’ for me!) where an error occurred in the transporter room and Kirk, McCoy, Scotty and Ahura were transported to a parallel universe where the crew – including Spock! – were all dominated by a philosophy of aggression and evil. This parallel universe contained a Federation where authority was based on fear mongering and power and due to an error during transporting, the same Kirk, McCoy, Ahura and Scotty in the possible alternate universe crossed over. There has been some interesting discussions highlighting the possibility of inter-world exchange through energy coupling using quantum optical equipment[5] and with experimental results favouring the possibility that parallel universes could indeed exist. The experiment runs along the lines of isolating an ion molecule while forming two parallel worlds in another system through a quantum measurement, whereby the ion interaction should display excitation with only one, however, the idea is that through low bandwidth information [weak coupling] sent through the parallel reality, the ion’ excitation could be displayed in the other parallel world, becoming evidence for not just for the many worlds interpretation but also for communication between worlds. The properties that define these ‘worlds’ are connected and interact within an infinitely vast yet interstitial space that separates all the interactions.

Taking it up a notch is the inflationary model of the multiverse theory and whilst both theories have similarities, this multiverse model contains a different design, namely that pockets of multiple universes exist due to cosmological expansion. That is, the early universe contained a small Ø>=0 or ≥10-26 m patch [that is cH- whereby the age of the universe is more or less a calculation of the speed of light times the inverse of the Hubble constant] that expanded exponentially at a constant threshold through gravitational repulsion (Fv). It becomes slightly interesting when exploring the multiverse with string theory – the inflationary model recognises particles as quanta excitation of a field; a scalar field spins in all directions [that is, the field being at the lowest energy density where the particles within are the exited states; a false vacuum is the temporary state where the highest energy density is stuck and acts as a vacuum that cannot be lowered] – where we could visualise an interesting scene of these other pocket universes containing entirely different particles, fields and energy states. The string theory model purports that our universe is actually a three-brane – a brane being an object that allows multiple dimensions to exist within it [string theory of quantum gravity claims that particles as ‘strings’ of vibrating energy within ten spatial dimensions][6] – whilst we merely experience the three dimensions of space as it dominates the brane. While particles like quarks are attached to the dimensions that we experience, gravitons being closed strings cannot ‘attach’ and therefore gravity could leak off the 3-brane and travel to higher dimensions and thus travel through dimensions that we fail to experience. It could also explain dark matter and energy as well as why we experience weak gravity, but I don’t want to get carried away right now and will leave that for another post. What I do have in mind, however, is the relationship between gravity and time in relation to the 3-brane model considering that if an object moves away from the source of gravity at different rates, time moves faster depending on the gravitational field.

The fact is that there exists no applicable law in physics that requires the direction of time to move forward as we experience it. What we assume is that entropy is the cause of the arrow of time – the second law of thermodynamics – but we also know that the initial conditions of the early universe started off with very low entropy, which has stifled physicists and developed a plethora of various ideas that have yet to clearly describe temporal direction. Turning back to the inflationary model, there have been discussions raised by prominent physicists about the possibility of an inverse mirror of time where particles expand into two different directions similar to the parallel hypothesis of space. The Janus Point [the moment before expansion] as explained by Julian Barbour purports that the initial conditions of low entropy and the cosmic certainty of increasing entropy is not essentially required when discussing the arrow of time and that it is merely an inevitable product of physical laws.[7] He and his colleagues imply, unlike most cosmologists, that the arrow of time is centred on gravity rather than thermodynamics. Gravity is not just a force; when you think of floating through space, you think of the slowing of time just as you would its speed when you are freefalling 10,000 feet from the earth’s surface. Analysing the dynamical behaviour of particles through a computer simulation where particles interact through Newtonian gravity, the system showed that each particle would evolve toward maximum uniformity and the lowest distance between pairs before the force of gravity itself reaches a condition that refracts time into two different directions, both symmetrical but opposite viz., temporal arrows. That is, time moves in two directions but like Schrödinger’s Cat, the question is are we only able to experience one arrow of time or have we split into two possible dimensions where time moves backwards in one and the other forwards with two of ‘me’ experiencing one or the other?

Let us assume that we can communicate with ourselves across these two dimensions and the Song of Solomon was a poem communicated from a parallel universe about a love story between two people that has yet to happen in our future but has already occurred in their past, the unknown author singing praises of an event – the outcome of which has already been revealed to them but not yet to us – and transmitted as part of this interactive phenomena, hence why the song was written thousands of years ago regarding an event that has yet to take place? The problem to consider here is that in a universe where infinite variables exist cohesively, it would imply that everything that has happened will happen and again ∞ that therefore nothing is really happening.

The result happens to be that everything is futile.

Whilst it is essential to avoid nonsense as much as one often can and to be perfectly honest with you I have only touched on the idea in this blog post, unfortunately topics relating to subjects like quantum mechanics or biblical hermeneutics can inadvertently lead to conversations of a dubious nature. Nevertheless, let us not forget that the subject of chemistry originated through alchemy and to capture the factual from fiction requires a particular type of mind. A mind that embraces novelties, that wanders eloquently down toward the school of error as pride is advantageously used to embrace presumptions, such indifference to wisdom is perhaps the general character of those who misunderstand what it is that I write about.

As said by Michel Montaigne: “Que sçais-je?” (What do I know?)”

**[1]**** Isaac Newton, From Brewster, Memoirs of Newton (1855)**

**[2]**** Hugh Everett “Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29: 454–462 (1957)**

**[3]**** John Gribbin, In Search Of Schrodinger’s Cat , Random House (2003)**

**[4]**** R. Laurence Moore, Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe, Oxford University Press, (1991) 129**

**[5]**** R.Plaga, Proposal for an experimental test of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics**

**[6]**** Michio Kaku, Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory, Springer Science & Business Media (1999) 463**

**[7]**** J. Barbour, T. Koslowski, and F. Mercati, A gravitational origin of the arrows of time**

### Like this:

Like Loading...

Whether we would like to admit it or not, I am confident that each of us has had a time-related encounter, perhaps minor in nature, where we experienced a future instant or event likely through a dream that publishes a moment in time coincidentally before it takes place. It almost feels holographic where an idea or event is actually encoded material captured and projected into patterns of pictorial experiences that often lack sequential plausibility, as though our aesthetic and linguistic limitations attempt to translate what we conceptually prohibit when conscious. Whilst it is easy to repudiate the experience as an isolated and perhaps even a negligible event or at polar opposite as divine providence, I sought to traverse this irrational landscape devoid of three-dimensional space and found myself compelled to the colossal subject of an infinite dimensional hypothesis of time, of cognition and the quantification of consciousness, and interconnectivity or entanglement theories. It has always been an intriguing thought for me to contemplate what the state of our physical universe would look like without an arrow of time and whether time dilation and the effect of motion could be taken to another level. What if there is a universe where effect precedes cause, or where we have memories of the future whilst the past remains elusive? What if a mirror universe existed from the Janus point where time fractured and split in two different directions, the one forward as we know it and the other backward? And finally, what if our universe was interacting with these extra dimensions where gravitational waves – if we could call it that – somehow transgresses quantum states and where communication between parallel worlds relative to our own experience of time and space somehow leaks and where inter-world exchange becomes possible?

Understanding the subatomic world is not without its

weirdnessand however vast the literature on the topic of cosmology, the reality is that we still do not know how the universe came to begin, despite the many various interpretations each with an astounding logic. But let us assume at this point that there is noknownorigin of the universe in physics because any attempt requires a fundamental understanding of space and time, knowledge that we simply do not have and so a study of ‘time’ before the universe cannot be implicitly understood. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume the universe simply came from some quantum origin where the initial conditions were right and focus on the astronomical plateau relative to our cognitive limitations. As said by Newton: “I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”[1] Nevertheless, diverging from classical physics, the concept of quantum physics and in particular parallel universes established a revolutionary change in our understanding of the material world. First considered in the mid-twentieth century[2], it is relevant to know that there are several interpretations of PUs with the first and widely known many-worlds theory, which is that each quantum experience exists in parallel worlds within the one universe suggesting an invalidity of randomness from the quantum state. I should note that these postulations require an appreciation of epistemic internalism insofar as those external factors cannotcompletelyexplain certain phenomena and requires reasoning to support reflective accessibility relative to the individual. Think Schrödinger’s cat experiment[3] and this is particularly true when determining our own experience vis-à-vis mathematical formalism and how we interact within this broader framework comprised of elementary particles, or should I say the quantum state of those particles. Ultimately, there is nothing that we can absolutely distinguish as ‘definite’ whether internally or externally and it is what makes our existence remarkable (just as remarkable as the egocentricity of the many people who have puffed themselves up to think that what they see in front of them and their day-to-day is somehow everything).Nevertheless, the many-worlds theory involves an infinite variety of localised quantum states that equally correspond to the quantum probabilities of those states; that is, the wavefunction itself never collapses but rather becomes alternate realities. Going back to Schrödinger’s cat, the dual probability of the cat being alive and dead exists in parallel and that both are possible prior to opening the box; the cat is neither alive nor dead and so the cat is both alive and dead right up until we open the box, at which point one or the other realities collapse. As the question itself seeks to ascertain possible communication between these alternate realities – something that was clearly rejected even by Everett who proposed the idea – one must assume that both possibilities exist and instead it is the observer who is divided between alternate realities, sitting in Hilbert space containing a finite and infinite number of dimensions. Thus it is one of me that sees the cat dead and the other of me that sees the cat alive rather than it being solely one of me seeing only one or the other. Conversely, Neils Bohr purported that a quantum particle exists in all of its possible states at once and must

chooseone probability that then becomes the observable state; so the cat is deadoralive and the other probability collapses. It becomes an intriguing philosophical topic of free-will and determinism with a more scientific angle, namely whether the multiples of ‘me’ have decided on each and every single probable choice in each of the universes or whether, no matter the apparent choice, each and every possible choice will manifest.“The probability that a given measurement has a given outcome is equal to the fraction of the parallel universes in which that outcome occurs. Since probabilities are real numbers that can assume any value between zero and one, the set of parallel universes must be infinite. Every measurement or measurement-like process in every universe therefore creates an infinity of new parallel universes.”[4]I remember watching an episode of Star Trek Original (though, if you care to know Picard will always remain favoured as the ideal ‘man’ for me!) where an error occurred in the transporter room and Kirk, McCoy, Scotty and Ahura were transported to a parallel universe where the crew – including Spock! – were all dominated by a philosophy of aggression and evil. This parallel universe contained a Federation where authority was based on fear mongering and power and due to an error during transporting, the same Kirk, McCoy, Ahura and Scotty in the possible alternate universe crossed over. There has been some interesting discussions highlighting the possibility of inter-world exchange through energy coupling using quantum optical equipment[5] and with experimental results favouring the possibility that parallel universes could indeed exist. The experiment runs along the lines of isolating an ion molecule while forming two parallel worlds in another system through a quantum measurement, whereby the ion interaction should display excitation with only one, however, the idea is that through low bandwidth information [weak coupling] sent through the parallel reality, the ion’ excitation could be displayed in the other parallel world, becoming evidence for not just for the many worlds interpretation but also for communication between worlds. The properties that define these ‘worlds’ are connected and interact within an infinitely vast yet interstitial space that separates all the interactions.

Taking it up a notch is the inflationary model of the multiverse theory and whilst both theories have similarities, this multiverse model contains a different design, namely that pockets of multiple universes exist due to cosmological expansion. That is, the early universe contained a small Ø>=0 or ≥10-26 m patch [that is cH- whereby the age of the universe is more or less a calculation of the speed of light times the inverse of the Hubble constant] that expanded exponentially at a constant threshold through gravitational repulsion (Fv). It becomes slightly interesting when exploring the multiverse with string theory – the inflationary model recognises particles as quanta excitation of a field; a scalar field spins in all directions [that is, the field being at the lowest energy density where the particles within are the exited states; a false vacuum is the temporary state where the highest energy density is stuck and acts as a vacuum that cannot be lowered] – where we could visualise an interesting scene of these other pocket universes containing entirely different particles, fields and energy states. The string theory model purports that our universe is actually a three-brane – a brane being an object that allows multiple dimensions to exist within it [string theory of quantum gravity claims that particles as ‘strings’ of vibrating energy within ten spatial dimensions][6] – whilst we merely experience the three dimensions of space as it dominates the brane. While particles like quarks are attached to the dimensions that we experience, gravitons being closed strings cannot ‘attach’ and therefore gravity could leak off the 3-brane and travel to higher dimensions and thus travel through dimensions that we fail to experience. It could also explain dark matter and energy as well as why we experience weak gravity, but I don’t want to get carried away right now and will leave that for another post. What I do have in mind, however, is the relationship between gravity and time in relation to the 3-brane model considering that if an object moves away from the source of gravity at different rates, time moves faster depending on the gravitational field.

The fact is that there exists no applicable law in physics that requires the direction of time to move forward as we experience it. What we assume is that entropy is the cause of the arrow of time – the second law of thermodynamics – but we also know that the initial conditions of the early universe started off with very low entropy, which has stifled physicists and developed a plethora of various ideas that have yet to clearly describe temporal direction. Turning back to the inflationary model, there have been discussions raised by prominent physicists about the possibility of an inverse mirror of time where particles expand into two different directions similar to the parallel hypothesis of space. The Janus Point [the moment before expansion] as explained by Julian Barbour purports that the initial conditions of low entropy and the cosmic certainty of increasing entropy is not essentially required when discussing the arrow of time and that it is merely an inevitable product of physical laws.[7] He and his colleagues imply, unlike most cosmologists, that the arrow of time is centred on gravity rather than thermodynamics. Gravity is not just a force; when you think of floating through space, you think of the slowing of time just as you would its speed when you are freefalling 10,000 feet from the earth’s surface. Analysing the dynamical behaviour of particles through a computer simulation where particles interact through Newtonian gravity, the system showed that each particle would evolve toward maximum uniformity and the lowest distance between pairs before the force of gravity itself reaches a condition that refracts time into two different directions, both symmetrical but opposite viz., temporal arrows. That is, time moves in two directions but like Schrödinger’s Cat, the question is are we only able to experience one arrow of time or have we split into two possible dimensions where time moves backwards in one and the other forwards with two of ‘me’ experiencing one or the other?

Let us assume that we can communicate with ourselves across these two dimensions and the Song of Solomon was a poem communicated from a parallel universe about a love story between two people that has yet to happen in our future but has already occurred in their past, the unknown author singing praises of an event – the outcome of which has already been revealed to them but not yet to us – and transmitted as part of this interactive phenomena, hence why the song was written thousands of years ago regarding an event that has yet to take place? The problem to consider here is that in a universe where infinite variables exist cohesively, it would imply that everything that has happened will happen and again ∞ that therefore nothing is really happening.

The result happens to be that everything is futile.

Whilst it is essential to avoid nonsense as much as one often can and to be perfectly honest with you I have only touched on the idea in this blog post, unfortunately topics relating to subjects like quantum mechanics or biblical hermeneutics can inadvertently lead to conversations of a dubious nature. Nevertheless, let us not forget that the subject of chemistry originated through alchemy and to capture the factual from fiction requires a particular type of mind. A mind that embraces novelties, that wanders eloquently down toward the school of error as pride is advantageously used to embrace presumptions, such indifference to wisdom is perhaps the general character of those who misunderstand what it is that I write about.

As said by Michel Montaigne: “Que sçais-je?” (What do I know?)”

[1]Isaac Newton, From Brewster, Memoirs of Newton (1855)[2]Hugh Everett “Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29: 454–462 (1957)[3]John Gribbin, In Search Of Schrodinger’s Cat , Random House (2003)[4]R. Laurence Moore, Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe, Oxford University Press, (1991) 129[5]R.Plaga, Proposal for an experimental test of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics[6]Michio Kaku, Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory, Springer Science & Business Media (1999) 463[7]J. Barbour, T. Koslowski, and F. Mercati, A gravitational origin of the arrows of time## Share this:

## Like this: