A Discussion of "Two-Time Physics" (I. Bars) and its potential cosmological implications

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anzerskiy
  • Start date Start date
Anzerskiy
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Discussing a peer-reviewed paper that explains particle physics anomalies using Itzhak Bars's "Two-Time Physics" (2T-physics). Within this theory with an extra time-like dimension, we explore a hypothetical possibility: could the universe's accelerated expansion (Dark Energy) be a geometric effect of a "mismatch" between our standard time and a second, hidden time dimension, rather than a fundamental force? The goal is to understand the theoretical viability and potential observational tests of
Hello everyone,

I am seeking to better understand the conceptual foundations and potential consequences of "Two-Time Physics" (2T-physics), as developed by Itzhak Bars and others.

My interest was sparked by a recent paper that attempts to explain anomalous results in particle physics (apparent superluminal propagation of virtual photons) within the framework of 2T-physics:

  • Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02696
  • Key quote from the abstract: *"...the problem... can be solved naturally within the framework of 'Two-Time Physics' developed by I. Bars. 2T-physics is the theory with local symplectic gauge symmetry in phase-space and the space-time geometry of signature (d,2) with one extra time-like and one extra space-like dimensions."*
This connection between an extra time-like dimension and observable physics is fascinating.

My questions for discussion are conceptual and cosmological:

  1. From a theoretical perspective: How does the formalism of 2T-physics "project" down to our observable (3+1) spacetime, and what new degrees of freedom or constraints does it introduce? Could the presence of an extra time dimension manifest not as new particles, but as a background temporal field that influences the dynamics of our 4D universe?
  2. Regarding Dark Energy: In the context of cosmology, could the accelerated expansion of the universe be reinterpreted within a 2T-physics framework? Specifically, is it conceivable that what we perceive as Dark Energy is a geometrical effect arising from a "mismatch" or differential evolution between our standard 4D time and the second, hidden time dimension? (For instance, a constant "flow" of the second time relative to the first).
  3. Observational Tests: What would be the most promising observational or experimental signatures, either in cosmology or high-energy physics, that could test or constrain such a cosmological application of 2T-physics?
I am not proposing a new model, but rather trying to understand the existing theoretical possibilities within the 2T-physics framework and their potential relevance to one of the biggest open questions in cosmology.

Thank you for any insights and references you can provide.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
@Anzerskiy you marked this thread as "B" level, but this is definitely not a "B" level topic. It's an "A" level topic (i.e., graduate level); it's not even clear to me that a useful discussion at the "I" level (undergraduate) is possible. (Note that that's going to be true of pretty much any topic that is discussed in this subforum.)

I have re-marked the thread as "A" level. Please be advised that it might be difficult for you to follow a discussion at that level if you don't have the requisite background. But the reference you picked requires that level of discussion.
 
Jacobson’s work (1995) [1] demonstrated that Einstein’s equations can be derived from thermodynamic principles, suggesting gravity might emerge from the thermodynamic behavior of spacetime, tied to the entropy of horizons. Other researchers, such as Bekenstein [2] and Verlinde [3], have explored similar ideas, linking gravity to entropy and holographic principles. I’m interested in discussing how these thermodynamic approaches might apply to quantum gravity, particularly at the Planck...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
62
Views
10K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K