Wormholes and time in quantum gravity (last part)

0:00 Well, they're important. I mean, I didn't say they were important. I assumed they were the only important things between the Planck scale and what I call the Rimmel scale. I assumed there was a separation of an order of magnitude. Is that believable? Well, that's the question of whether these exist at all in the sense of gravitational instant pounds and whether there are other gravitational instant pounds of more exotic pathological character which is missed because they are not quite so symmetric. That might be making even more important contributions. I can say nothing about that. Once I have done that though, once I've gotten to the other side of the wormhole summation formula, then the rest of the thing goes. The four sphere is important on the other side because the four sphere is the unspun space of the minimum action which is possible in a mathematical When it would have been a four-dominer on the other side, it's an awful, awful space of infinite units for, you know, Ian Donaldson's, why are these not going to expand? That, that, that would have, that would, that would have been there. It happens that this, this problem is, I don't know, I was trying to recall that, but three or four years ago, there was a paper in King's Letters, from somebody by the name of I.G., who did, basically, I mean, began off, basically, similar... The similarity is just to say, if he didn't talk in three days, that would be as a consolation for wormholes. Really? I didn't know wormholes were known then. No, but then he generalized it before he did it. And actually, he actually did the thing... Well, he may have anticipated me. I know right... At some stage, I mean, I just want you to remember what he did. But at some stage, it's the first thing what they did, because he then went on to write down an effective axiom, but then he identified that it was some sort of a coolant gas. And then the idea was, in fact the fact of the paper was, something about cosmology and physics, why the cosmology and physics. May I borrow your pen, Jim? I'll write it down and look it up. It's a nice name, I don't know about it. Since he hasn't written to me, I sent it back to you.

2:30 The initial is S and the last one is R-A-G-E. R-A-G. Oh, it's not the right thing to find out. R-A-G-E. R-A-G-E. He used to be at MIT. Yeah, yeah, I know him. And this is in fizz letters? That's the most, the best remark has made me more nervous than anything else we've done here since around three or four years ago. I look it up tonight when I get back to thinking. I was just wondering if you could amplify a remark at the very end. You were arguing that one could sort of then determine some of these other algorithms. You couldn't have gotten this one whole summation formula because that I noticed. That's been published for several months, and you could certainly have told me at the end of that. Right. Now, I don't think it was a... It began similarly, but anyway, it dealt with the inexpensive mechanics. Okay. So it's just sort of interesting to compare. At the end, you were giving this argument about how you can consider some of the other alpha families by going to higher orders. But you have this cryptic remark, well, that doesn't just cover all the low-energy... No, okay, yes, I will talk about that. Sure. You know it's a determination. That's right. No, in fact, I know it's not going to do that. Remember we have gamma is a minus 1 over alpha naught plus gamma naught over alpha m dot dot dot. Gamma naught, and remember also that the radius of the minimizing hemisphere is like 1 over alpha naught. So gamma naught comes from the volume independent terms. Now, I know among those volume independent, if I look at the operating... There's no reason that one of them could not be the originator. Now, if such a term appears, it's about one kind of wormhole, some even call it what do you call it? I'm sure there's a denser way of calling it. The whole assumption is that there's nothing of exotic topology that's significant

5:00 Keep on integrating all the fluctuations out of the normalization. Therefore, this term can have absolutely no effect on your energy physics. It's a full divergence. There's nothing, there's nothing there underneath the wormhole. So it doesn't matter whether the coefficient here is 7 or 12, some function of all the alphas. It doesn't matter whether it's totally undeterminable. On the other hand, it makes a non-trivial contribution to gamma naught. Okay, because I integrate this with the force here, this thing gives me two. Okay, and it's this totally unknown dependence on alpha. So that means there is at least one parameter in gamma naught which can't be deduced from low energy experiments, and which makes a non-trivial increase to a non-trivial alpha dependence. That means in order to figure out what values of alpha minimize gamma naught, I have to know the coefficient of the term, which of course I do know if I really know the theory of everything, because then I can compute all the properties of the term, but it's not going to leave zero energy here. This one, at least, matches it also. No, no, this is all, this is the sum, this is, this is all we go over the same old force here. It's a, it's a space, it's a maximally symmetric space where I have small changes of reaction at full space of force that all of it happens in the same way.

7:30 Oh, you mean this term you think is like this? Because if it is like this, this term should be computable in terms of low-energy physics, and so it's before all these topological terms, and then it should be minimized, and I could point out it is just right. Okay, and if it turns out that minimization of this 10 meets the minuses, then everything is down the garbage can. I'm not having to worry about including this one in the garbage. I see why it is that there's no fluid power to the bandwidth on that. That's the entire order of purposes. Because there's nothing for the reading. How do you know that? I mean, things like the terms are complicated things that we've calculated and we've taken into account for that. Why couldn't one of the courses be in something like one of the rounds of physics? Well, then I didn't know. You're right. There's no way of knowing that that doesn't happen. If it does, if it does involve a globe to be compromised at this time, then the whole, this part of the scheme at least falls apart. Also, it's possible that these things happen immediately. Sub-manifolds. After all, there's nothing such as a sub-manifold without the space where the cosmological consciousness is not there. It's not compact, maybe, when you look at this next problem, you can make it as negative as you want, by going off as far as the target is concerned. Well, I don't know about the question of the validity of the, uh, the lit gas approximation. If you take Peter's own point of view, you can suspect wormholes on wormholes out in tonight. And, uh, that's it. Yeah, I think that's an independent question. No, there are many places where the scheme could explode. Certainly, it's not... Let me answer Richard's question, Bryson, and I'll return to you. There are certainly... You know, it's not like a normal theory where you can say, well, that's not going to happen because it would violate unitarity or the mark-time bound or something like that. It's a... Nothing is certain, including on this matter.

10:00 So, promising results are going to change by just, by probably, probably the most productive people following your notes, you know. No, you're not clear, but I'm not going to go off the edge of your message. Yeah, right. Yeah, well, I mean, the, we're, I think, we're just saying you expected the, um, the, you expected infinite topological complication. I, I don't remember. Well, the smaller you get, the more you get. Well, I don't think that's true. I mean, if you believe anything the string theory guys are saying, you don't go that much smaller. You go down to someplace close to the trunk and you start going, you know, depending on what you mean by going smaller, you let string be string at higher energy scales, but you don't see anything that looks like normal space-time at small distances. And who knows if the string guys are right? In fact, the outside of the world is the first thing that was ever tried in this direction. I think they've got anywhere. But still, probably something that is light is maybe even strength of inspiration. And there are all kinds of reasons, you know. How do you see things? In quantum gravity, how do you see things on very small distances? You've got to go to very large energies, but then when the two particles collide, they're within an entire system that's more than a fourth of the radius. They don't seem to know that this never gets outside. Hold on. In this sort of theory, we're assuming we're starting out with something that's a normal field here, but one way to point that is we're going to go down and we're going to go down and we're going to move one way.

12:30 We move one way this field, if you want to take me. And we're going to think that there are all these magnitudes here, so it sounds like, that's what I hope, there are all these magnitudes, so it sounds like something lies right there. And then we'll just keep on going. The question is whether we will accept or accept some of the other concepts that you have answered. I see. Well, I've got about four people lined up, so that's good. I think it's a nice bargain. Just a comment. It seems, to be true of this, that, um, there's a few different interpretations of the word function, and they're moving on. And that one is that you can use the word function of the universe to make, uh, accept optimally and probability. That's right, that's right. I'm assuming this formula is true. Okay, although in the paper I talked endlessly and I'm now being cutelessly about the waveforms of the universe, all I really need to use for the computation This is a formula of this kind, that this does define something that is the actual expectation value of these particular qualities. That is really expectation value. If this would make sense, you could use the other field to say that there really is an a priori expectation value for the spatial average of the field. And that a priori expectation itself is not so valid, or at least not designed to be governed by that model, and not by any other model. I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

15:00 That's right, but typically these are small shifts. No, no, no, no, because I carried that out. That's the series. But you're going to get something like this near alpha naught equals zero, possibly with the logarithmic direction, which is what it's explaining. When you actually compute gamma at the stationary point as an alpha-naught of u with a cosmological option, alpha-naught of ui, it's the fourth most important. Alpha-naught of ui, okay. Then certainly near alpha-naught equals zero you will get something like this. A marginal logarithmic model. Now, are you saying there may be some other singularity off someplace else associated with a little tiny wrinkled up manifold or a small sphere? That would certainly be there if there were higher derivative terms in the thing. We would normally feel that, you know, that those were, it's a tenable position to say that those other stationary points are delusory. They're a result of making an unjustified, using an approximation outside the range of parameters for which it's justified. But Stanley is never going to make this one over alpha plus seven or something. I think he's suggesting back at the stage when we found the stationary problem. Oh yes, of course it would make a small change in our theory.

17:30 Well, but it's not necessarily small, because you've got another parameter. And then if you fix the coefficient in the last stage, then you'd be trying to fix that or one that's the last. You know, that would be by the time that the maximum is added. So it would probably be used value of the secondary all-spheres. Yeah, but that one could well say that that... If I'm trying to pin down the zero to the function, I make more and more derivatives at the point at which I know the zero, and of course whenever I add an extra derivative or replace the function by a higher and higher order polynomial, I get more and more zeros out there near infinity. And normally one doesn't worry much about them, perhaps one should in this context, but one normally thinks that's going to be an artifact of derivative expansion. The point is that the one near alpha equals zero does not move from alpha equals zero, the one at lambda equals zero does not move from lambda equals zero. It's not that it goes from lambda equals zero to lambda equals zero plus epsilon. That's right, but then further corrections to the expansion reaction do not affect this. No, no, even when I retain the next term, still the point where it blows up remains alchemology for zero in the world. Okay, actually, maybe someone would suggest that maybe we should formally break it up and then those that want to, I have about five people in line to one of them, but let me just formally break it so that those of you that have to go to the bathroom are aware of it. And then dinner is at 7, isn't it? I unfortunately can't. Well, anyway, according to my list, it would be Raphael, well, it means I saw Raphael Sorkin was next, and then Bob Yorke, and then John Friedman, and then Bill Unruh, and whoever. Yeah, Raphael.

20:00 Via wormhole, that is to say, via transition through a baby universe, they back out again, from one large nanopole to another large nanopole. There's things that are making the cosmological times in general. Okay, maybe I shouldn't call them babies, but they have the same relationship. Yes, that's right, they're on the other side of the wormhole. But then, do they die out there? Is that because of the... What? There's only one alphabet. It's only one, there may be many of them, but they have the same value everywhere. Yes, that's the result of the one-hole summation formula, because what determines the values of alphas is in fact the number of baby universes on the boundary, or more appropriately, some coherence of the position of space with different ones. And it's the same boundary. One's us and one's them, yeah, but I mean we both see the same day the universe background. A wormhole end that ends up making a change in the effect of Lagrangian in our world could be, could end on the same day the universe as that... This wormhole end that starts out of this big universe has a certain amplitude for ending here and a certain amplitude for ending here. And it has the same effect when it ends here as it ends here. The only difference between the probability of it ending here and ending there is that in one case you have more volume to integrate over, but that's the way it is with the branch density. Then go ahead, I think it's even harder. Yeah, I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder.

22:30 I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. I think it's even harder. A wormhole in here, a wormhole in there, the question asked and does not depend on the difference between the wormhole and the linear coordinate there and then. So it looks for all the world, it looks like psychic research, the sort of phenomenon Dr. Ryan likes to talk about. No follow-up with systems, we see here is not a quality. It doesn't. It simply doesn't, and I think the essential reason it doesn't is precisely because it's at the independent location of the end. But you see when you look into this end of the wormhole, not the universe there or the universe in the other place, but the average over everything. And you see that same average everywhere, but it's like it's changing the ground here. But does that seem to be a function of space? No. No, no, no, because it comes in at the operator level. I get e to the a plus a answer on time sometimes. Okay? That's the effective action. That's at an operator level. And those terms, which you think of as introducing non-locality, just come to normal order in the A-plus-A algorithm. When you normal order them, of course, you get bilinear terms. And they look non-local. You're right. They look like you have integral D4L, D4X, integral L, D4Y. Okay, that looks awfully non-local. You think of it as all there is. But if you realize it's just second-order perturbation theory, it's not so non-local at all. I mean, I could think of a few of them, but I think some of them are the same.

25:00 Thank you for your attention. And so then if you stick them in and get out the knot and move back to the front of the knot, it won't look like one was an out the knot. If you notice that either one was an out the knot, then you're good. Thank you for watching. What is the thing that is a bully thing that there are a bunch of really big old reasons that we can't work on now? One word. Well, the only thing is, talking about it has been strained in some times, and Google's Arthrometer actually constructs a theory that looks something like the real world, but actually it hasn't been built yet. I won't make any categorical statements, but when I saw Simon do describe his notion of sartorium and Euclidean plasmas, I was quite sure, and am quite sure, that the method's been changed, and that he was wrong, and that he makes no sense of it. It wasn't right? Yeah. You had a line assigned that makes us all nervous, but it comes off as a different sign.

27:30 What is the explanation? I don't know the explanation, but I'm pleased to... You know, I've heard people tell me that it's correct. I mean, I know... There's no... I mean, the amount of problem that I can solve... There's no reason to be able to scale it with a fundamental scale. With a field with an index... Mm-hmm. ...stressed into it, made by a product... I mean, in his thing, he assumes... I mean, in his thing, he assumes... I mean, in his thing, he assumes... I mean, in his thing, he assumes... I mean, in his thing, he assumes... I mean, in his thing, he assumes... Thank you for your time, and I look forward to seeing you again soon. It really is a static problem, and you can do the actions, you can do the actions for both fields, and the solutions for both fields, and you can do the analysis for both fields, precisely. And if you did what Strom just did on those, the whole thing would completely fall apart. In other words, it would just be completely inconsistent in the case where we know you can really do analysis and simulation, which is when you have a static surface plane in front of you. So, I mean, I know the milestones, that's that. But what I don't understand is how you can, how are you sure that it's logically correct to assume that the Euclidean fields are real, because then when you analytically think of it as a, you've got an index, so you make a substitution of I, B, and you make a, you go in, you make the transformation of B, B, 5, and you pick up an R. And it changes the outcome. It changes the... What, is it an instrumental formulation, or...? If you start off with a real Euclidean field and then do the analytic continuation back to the Lorentzian time, there's an I and you have to transform the B mu phi with a ketogen that introduces an I as well. We've got a real Euclidean action. We can keep the expectation values 1 and 2 straight. And you certainly get a real number in Euclidean space. It's a three-space component. And then you say, well, that's right. If you say Euclidean space, it's a three-space component.

30:00 You know, suppose it wasn't a gravity problem. It could be a gravity obstacle. It's just this four-form element. You've got this three-form element on some compact manifold times time. And then you say, if it's real in Euclidean space, I can keep... I find the indices that have zero in them are zero, and the IJ-4 indices have some epsilon I's or X's. I asked Andy at the time, he wouldn't remember to play it. No, no, but I mean, I'm not... It was his fault. No, but isn't that so? I mean, I'm just trying to. No, no, no, it's correct. It's correct? No zero derivatives in it, and obviously not. No, no, I think it's important that if you do it in terms of the form, like you said, with no zero derivatives, that it works. If you try to do it in terms of scale, it doesn't work. Yeah, and even doing the scalar field in that way was probably the very beginning of it. It was probably the very beginning of it. Okay, well, we had a long talk afterwards, and perhaps we were talking about it, because I've done this, and it doesn't work that way. Did that answer your question? Okay, so I had some questions out of the first paper that I've been reviewing with my own ignorance. So let's suppose we start, we talk about starting in an arbitrary state, it's not an arbitrary state, and now suppose you look at an experiment with a group of baryons, a group of 100 baryons in a box, and you wait for a while and they spontaneously collapse and form black, they enter black holes and they evaporate. Hold on, I don't know about black holes, but we can do some... I think baby universes are equivalent to... they enter baby universes, but comes out at both ends. I don't think it says that... No, but if you wait long enough, there's no... But your argument is, even if you give up the laws of quantum mechanics in all situations, the laws of quantum mechanics are little. Yeah, I mean, my first paper just consists of what's the effect of the virtual epitome of wormhole. Right, but I don't... I believe there are lots of processes that are not themselves in the epitome of wormhole.

32:30 Well, I don't understand what the difference is between a baby universe and a virtual platform. Well, maybe there is none, but then if there is none, you could be able to discuss it with others on a whole class. Right, right. Well, let me not use the word virtual, but I will. So you start with a box that has 25 baryons in it. And there's patterns of production of those baryons. And after a while, these baryons are peaked into daily universes, and you have protons left in the box. So if you wait for a while, you're highly likely to have only four times in the box. That's right, exactly. So now if you start off in a state that's not an eigenstate of the A's, do you expect that those four times will all be co-mixed? Just one quick recommendation. Any state that's not an eigenstate of the A's, they're literally just co-mixing out of an eigenstate of the A's. We might have lost that out with the state question I just gave you today. Now we know in the state question I just gave you today, the effectiveness process you were talking about, which is the Ethereum underviolet parameter that we want, where we get something like psi context, positive, psi, psi, and then we get something like that. The value depends on the data. With the distribution of work in a field with no variable number of concentrations, you always have no variable number of variables in the class. Everything happens according to the previous conventional quantum field theory. So if you look carefully then at that, it goes for a different way than if an AI is used. So let's say you sampled that box. And you look at this, so then it would look like coherent production of photons. And now if you, if you compare it on, for example, It depends on what you call me. Are you going to idealize me as a boy, for example, or are you Raphael the Grover, my instructor?

35:00 It's easier to think of Raphael the Grover. Okay. Whereas the Raphael aerobics, we start out with an initial statement, all the variants are in the bottom and it's filling up the early times. The day the universe came to sun, I was supposed to produce a different alpha-hydrogen state. And this whole thing is prodded with Raphael aerobics. That's it. Then we let it run. The variants decay from two people here to an alpha-hydrogen state. So there's a certain probability that each RR is in a pure state. And then if you watch each RR make measurements, he'll stay in that pure state. And now if he moves over to another box, he will... So he will never see, he will see zero loss of proof, any particular RR will see zero loss of proof. That's right, and you can be granted an away function, an RR, which is very un-detailed, a different way, but each box he says they're all the same. Okay, so that's what I thought, that's what I thought my understanding was. So now let me ask one more question. I think that if you take a whole bunch of variants and send them into each other, it seems to me very plausible that what happens is that they collapse and if this is your universe, they just come in and they collapse. They formed some baby universe over there that looks initially like a black hole, which is not a word I'm supposed to say, but it looks initially like that, and then it evaporates, and then after it evaporates, and then you have some baby universe that is off here after the evaporation.

37:30 I don't believe that there's any fundamental distinction between baby universes that branch off like this and collapsing and collapsing variants that are sent in, eliminated towards each other. And then, it seems to me that there's... But I don't understand, but now if you could say, well, okay, I'm going to measure the photons coming up on short time scales, and then I can't use your effective action, but if I wait a long time, I ought still to be able to use your effective action. The effective action is that you could say, this looks like the kind of process that would be described by this effective action. Two variants come in, a bunch of two photons come out, because the two variants... The black hole, the black hole is often radiated and disappeared. You end up with what looks like a very unnumbered biology process. But if it is describable by this formula, by this wormhole, because then you do the same physics, something about the time. And maybe it's not very interesting because it's about black holes. And maybe it's because of intelligence. They have to touch the ground. But I'm very uncertain. But if not so, then know it doesn't mean any loss of convenience, despite the apparent fact that it does, because I can do the calculation the other way, and use what you accurately described, which is from R.I.S. Okay, and the final thing, when you get to effective action, you do it in the computation I'm familiar with, one does that by summing over all attachment points in the wormhole. It's because these attachment points... All of these are over the entirety that one ends up with this Now, that doesn't mean the problem is only when you put the wormhole in, but you characterize the entire universe. You characterize the area down below the wormhole, this factor K-I will involve psi. Right, so you have that in front of it. But if you use that to get to the effective action... I think that what that means is that you're assuming an initial state where the state of the gravitational field is invariant under all your attachment points, and so that when you attach it, they all have the same weight in that path anyway.

40:00 And it's that that would, for example, in flat space, enforce direction variance. So if the gravitational field of the initial state varies from point to point, you don't get that signal by initial state. The initial state is just a 10-day universe and then whatever you've got, you can have any number you want. Okay, so you want to have an effective help, I mean, you're bound to from here to a later hyperspace up here. And you're going to do that by putting in all possible attachments of various universes. Yes, that would be correct. Now, when you attach sort of various universes, I gravitationally, I don't know why, matter actually, with this. This is a course on the theory of mathematics. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. I think that there are four elements. Now, that doesn't mean that the problem is only in putting the wormhole in, it has to be personal. I remember going down the wormhole, this factory PI was involved. Right, so you have that in front of you, but if you use that to get the effective action... I think that what that means is that you're assuming an initial state where the state of the gravitational field is invariant under all your attachment points, and so that when you attach it, they all have the same weight in that path, and it's that that would, for example, in flat space, enforce the rational variance.

42:30 So if the gravitational field of the initial state varies from point to point, you don't get that... What do you mean by initial state? The initial state consists of n golden universes and whatever you found in one of the manifolds you have. Okay, so you want to have an effective Hamiltonian unit to bounce me from here to a layer of hydrogen surface up here. And we're going to do that by putting in all possible attachments of David's universe, and we'll see what happens when the time is changed and we can talk about this. Now, when we attach those David's universes, I gravitationalize them, even though I don't matter at all.