Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:02:12PM -0400, danny mayes wrote:
Well, as described in the FOR think of the multiverse as a block, made 
up of different stacks of pictures that comprise individual universes as 
they move through time.  Now try to adjust that to what is really going 
on:  space time is expanding out from the Big Bang.  If you could remove 
yourself from the multiverse and watch it, time would be expanding at an 
increasing area, just as the spatial dimensions are.  The reason 
information storage capacity would equal the surface area of a given 
object is that any object or area is actually existing in all these 
overlapping timelines, or virtually identically universes.  Therefore, 
if you assume the "time-area" is expanding at a proportional rate to the 
spatial volume, you would need to divide a cube 10^300 Planck units on a 
side  by  10^100 to  take out the information that is moving into  the 

This is very sloppy - if "time-area" were proportional to volume, then
the divisor would be 10^300. Perhaps you meant proportional to length,
but then I do not see why this should be.

>>> You are correct.  This is very sloppy.  First, I made a typo in referring to the cube as 10^300 on a side when I intended to say 10^300 in volume.  Also, the time area would be proportional to the other spatial dimensions (a side) of the cube, not the volume.  My apologies.  Again, the "time area" should equal a side if it is considered equivalent to a spatial dimension.

volume or area of time, since we lose this information as we are stuck 
on a solitary time line and losing the multiverse information to 
decoherence.  This is simply another way of saying we lose the 
information to the other universes, I'm just explaining why it would be 
the amount it is through the mental imagery of time expanding to fill a 
space  equivalent to the spatial dimensions.


But decoherence increases information, not loses it.
>>> It increases the information we have in this universe, by removing the interference of all the information from all the alternative outcomes.  We gain the information of one possible outcome.  From the multiverse view, there is no gain or loss of information, but from our perspective we gain one bit of information and the rest ends up in the alternative outcomes.

Taking a bird's eye view, and watching the cube moving through the 
multiverse, all the overlapping universes the cube comprises, the cube 
could store 10^300 bits of information- equal to it's volume.  However, 
if you  measure the information in any individual universe, you have to 
divide the cube over all the overlapping universes it comprises, or an 
"area" of time equal to the the area of one of it's sides (again 
assuming the expansion of time is proportional to the expansion of the 
spatial dimensions.)  This leaves information storage capacity equal to 
the surface area of the object . 

I am basically taking the block view of the multiverse seriously, and 
dividing the information storage capacity by the area of all the stacks 
of pictures the cube exists on, because we can only measure the 
information on the one stack that is our universe.  The area of the 
different stacks can be thought of as an area of time, and would equal 
one of the spatial areas that comprise the cube if time expansion is 
proportional to spatial expansion.

This makes sense to me, but then again I am an attorney....

Danny Mayes

The only thing that makes sense to me is that maximal decoherence
occurs by arranging observers around the 4/3\pi solid angle of the
volume in question. Thus the maximum decoherence rate is proportional to the
surface area of the volume. Also, we know that linear spatial dimensions are
increasing linearly in flat space-time, so combining the two implies
that maximal decoherence will occur quadratically as a function of

Does this give us the holographic principle? Hmm..

Also, what happens if space-time is not so flat - say spatial expansion
starts to accelerate like its doing now?

>>> With regards to your last, time area expansion would accelerate with with spatial acceleration. This means the number of stacks/outcomes become more numerous. With spatial collapse the time-area would decrease (stacks/outcomes decrease). (??)

Reply via email to