Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  How can two time theories be compactified to 3+1 without any Kaluza-Klein remnants

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
1523 views

I have recently been looking into the two-time theories and the implied concepts.

For me this seems slightly hard to grasp.

How can I see the basic concept in this theory in a fundamental way based on its implied interaction with normal 3+1 dimension?

I am interested specifically in how gauge symmetries that effectively reduce 2T-physics in 4+2 dimensions to 1T-physics in 3+1 dimensions without any Kaluza-Klein remnants.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Argus
asked Dec 9, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Argus (40 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10
Most voted comments show all comments
@Argus, yeah to make a real answer would take me some time I guess, so you might be faster than I. The title of the question seems a little bit strange to me, this is probably what mislead Qmechanic to say it is a duplicat ... Should it not rather how can theories with two time dimensions be compactified such that our 3+1 spacetime emerges, or something along thes lines? This is just a thought ...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
Aren't two-time theories inconsistent? Certainly, I would think you would run into a lot of problems if the two time evolution generators don't commute. I think you're going to run into a lot of problems with the compactified theory if you don't already understand the non-compactified theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jerry Schirmer
@Jerry No, theories with two time dimensions can be ok if these are only infinitesimal, such as applied in Cumrun Vafa's F-theory for example. If they were macroscopic there would of course be large problems.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
@jerry next time, use the comments area for stuff which doesn't answer the question.. :)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Manishearth
Dear @Nemo: not that it matters now, but for the record: the question(v2) was a duplicate. OP later included his main question(v3). See the edit history.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
Most recent comments show all comments
Here is another reference.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
"slightly hard to grasp." My friend, if you have understood one time dimension, you are already a king among physicists.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user kηives

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

In this blog post, a paper that derives by dimensional reduction well known super Yang-Mills (SYM) theories, such as N=1 SYM in 9+1 dimensions and N=4 SYM in 3+1 dimensions among other things using a SYM theory in 10+2 dimensions as a common more fundamental underlying theory.

As can be seen from looking at figure 1 of that paper

enter image description here

As stated below equation (3.1), if applying the method of deriving shadows of two time physics to obtain lower dimensional theories, Kaluza-Klein are avoided.

answered Jun 29, 2013 by Dilaton (6,240 points) [ revision history ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$w
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...