If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Thomas Ray**: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...."
*in* 2015 in Review: New...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..."
*in* Physics of the Observer -...

**Lee Bloomquist**: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..."
*in* Physics of the Observer -...

**Lee Bloomquist**: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lee Bloomquist**: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Thomas Ray**: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..."
*in* “Spookiness”...

**Thomas Ray**: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..."
*in* “Spookiness”...

**Joe Fisher**: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..."
*in* Inferring the Limits on...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Complexity Conundrum**

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

**Quantum Dream Time**

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

**Our Place in the Multiverse**

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

**Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena**

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

**Watching the Observers**

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

FQXi FORUM

February 23, 2018

CATEGORY:
The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008)
[back]

TOPIC: Is the notion of time really fundamental? by Florian Girelli [refresh]

TOPIC: Is the notion of time really fundamental? by Florian Girelli [refresh]

From the Physics point of view, time is now best described through General Relativity, as part of space-time which is a dynamical object encoding gravity. Time possesses also some intrinsic irreversibility due to thermodynamics, quantum mechanical effects... This irreversibility can look puzzling since time-like loops (and hence time machines) can appear in General Relativity (for example in the Godel universe, a solution of Einstein's equations). We take this apparent discrepancy as a warning bell pointing to us that time as we understand it, might not be fundamental and that whatever theory, lying beyond General Relativity, may not include time as we know it as a fundamental structure. We propose therefore, following the philosophy of analog models of gravity, that time and gravity might not be fundamental per se, but only emergent features. We illustrate our proposal using a toy-model where we show how the Lorentzian signature and Nordstrom gravity (a diffeomorphisms invariant scalar gravity theory) can emerge from a timeless non-dynamical space.

F. Girelli has done his PhD in Marseille (France). He went to the Perimeter Institute (Canada) and SISSA (Italy) for some postdocs. He is now postdoc at the University of Sydney. S. Liberati has done his PhD in SISSA. He did a postdoc at the University of Maryland (USA) before becoming assistant professor at SISSA. L. Sindoni is currently finishing his PhD at SISSA.

Dear Florian,

I have read your interesting work. I have a doubt concerning the boundary conditions in the evolution problems which arise in your model. For the fields psi I would expect boundary conditions like those for the Laplace equation, namely some condition in the boudary of a closed domain of (4-dimensional) euclidean space. On the contrary for the perturbations phi I would expect different boundary conditions because the evolution equations are hyperbolic (thus the boundary conditions would have to be given on a Cauchy hypersurface). Now, psi'=psi+phi is just another psi type solution, thus it must satisfy the first type of boudary conditions that I mentioned above, but then I would expect phi to be constrained on the boundary of a closed set in 4 dimensional space and not on a open hypersurface. There seems to be a conflict between the evolution problems. How is it solved? Many thanks, Ettore

I have read your interesting work. I have a doubt concerning the boundary conditions in the evolution problems which arise in your model. For the fields psi I would expect boundary conditions like those for the Laplace equation, namely some condition in the boudary of a closed domain of (4-dimensional) euclidean space. On the contrary for the perturbations phi I would expect different boundary conditions because the evolution equations are hyperbolic (thus the boundary conditions would have to be given on a Cauchy hypersurface). Now, psi'=psi+phi is just another psi type solution, thus it must satisfy the first type of boudary conditions that I mentioned above, but then I would expect phi to be constrained on the boundary of a closed set in 4 dimensional space and not on a open hypersurface. There seems to be a conflict between the evolution problems. How is it solved? Many thanks, Ettore

dear Ettore, thanks for your question.

Let us restate it: at first order, the field Psi coincides with the perturbations phi, and in this sense, both of them must satisfy hyperbolic boundary conditions, if the Minkowski metric has emerged. This might seem contradictory with the fact that the field Psi a priori is living in a euclidian space and therefore should have some elliptic boundary conditions.

There is in fact no contradiction:

If one considers the full theory, that is we have nonlinear kinetic terms, there is a mismatch between signature of the metric and hyperbolicity-ellipticity, the latter being determined by a matrix involving the metric AND the derivatives of the fields. More precisely, the signature of the metric tensor determines the hyperbolicity-ellipticity only for canonical kinetic terms, for which the matrix in front of the second derivatives in the PDE is just the metric tensor. For nonlinear kinetic terms (our case), this is not true.

As a consequence, when dealing with the full theory, the chosen boundary conditions can be elliptic or hyperbolic, but when restricted to the (linear) operator constructed at *first* order (so that everything becomes linear), they can definitely be interpreted as hyperbolic boundary conditions, and there is no mismatch.

Hope this helps!

Florian, Stefano, Lorenzo

Let us restate it: at first order, the field Psi coincides with the perturbations phi, and in this sense, both of them must satisfy hyperbolic boundary conditions, if the Minkowski metric has emerged. This might seem contradictory with the fact that the field Psi a priori is living in a euclidian space and therefore should have some elliptic boundary conditions.

There is in fact no contradiction:

If one considers the full theory, that is we have nonlinear kinetic terms, there is a mismatch between signature of the metric and hyperbolicity-ellipticity, the latter being determined by a matrix involving the metric AND the derivatives of the fields. More precisely, the signature of the metric tensor determines the hyperbolicity-ellipticity only for canonical kinetic terms, for which the matrix in front of the second derivatives in the PDE is just the metric tensor. For nonlinear kinetic terms (our case), this is not true.

As a consequence, when dealing with the full theory, the chosen boundary conditions can be elliptic or hyperbolic, but when restricted to the (linear) operator constructed at *first* order (so that everything becomes linear), they can definitely be interpreted as hyperbolic boundary conditions, and there is no mismatch.

Hope this helps!

Florian, Stefano, Lorenzo

Dear Dr. Girelli, Dr. Liberati and Dr. Sidoni,

You raise a counterargument against the fundamental nature of time: the discrepancy between the irreversibility and the possibility of closed timelike curves. Starting from here, and from condensed matter inspired emergent gravity, you construct an interesting toy model, which shows a possible mechanism for the emergence of Lorentz and diffeomorphism symmetries (and time). I think that this idea worth to be explored.

Congratulations,

Cristi Stoica

Flowing with a Frozen River

You raise a counterargument against the fundamental nature of time: the discrepancy between the irreversibility and the possibility of closed timelike curves. Starting from here, and from condensed matter inspired emergent gravity, you construct an interesting toy model, which shows a possible mechanism for the emergence of Lorentz and diffeomorphism symmetries (and time). I think that this idea worth to be explored.

Congratulations,

Cristi Stoica

Flowing with a Frozen River

Login or create account to post reply or comment.