Physics in the Real Universe: Time and Spacetime

The Block Universe idea, representing spacetime as a fixed whole, suggests the flow of time is an illusion: the entire universe just is, with no special meaning attached to the present time. This view is however based on time-reversible microphysical laws and does not represent macro-physical behaviour and the development of emergent complex systems, including life, which do indeed exist in the real universe. When these are taken into account, the unchanging block universe view of spacetime is best replaced by an evolving block universe which extends as time evolves, with the potential of the future continually becoming the certainty of the past. However this time evolution is not related to any preferred surfaces in spacetime; rather it is associated with the evolution of proper time along families of world linesComment: 28 pages, including 9 Figures. Major revision in response to referee comment

Hamiltonian Time Evolution for General Relativity

Hamiltonian time evolution in terms of an explicit parameter time is derived for general relativity, even when the constraints are not satisfied, from the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner-Teitelboim-Ashtekar action in which the slicing density $\alpha(x,t)$ is freely specified while the lapse $N=\alpha g^{1/2}$ is not. The constraint ``algebra'' becomes a well-posed evolution system for the constraints; this system is the twice-contracted Bianchi identity when $R_{ij}=0$. The Hamiltonian constraint is an initial value constraint which determines $g^{1/2}$ and hence $N$, given $\alpha$.Comment: 4 pages, revtex, to appear in Phys. Rev. Let

Flavour-Oscillation Clocks and the Geometricity of General Relativity

I look at the 'flavour-oscillation clocks' proposed by D.V. Ahluwalia, and two arguments of his suggesting that such clocks might behave in a way that threatens the geometricity of general relativity (GR). The first argument states that the behaviour of these clocks in the vicinity of a rotating gravitational source implies a non-geometric element of gravity. I argue that the phenomenon is best seen as an instance of violation of the 'clock hypothesis', and therefore does not threaten the geometrical nature of gravitation. Ahluwalia's second argument, for the 'incompleteness' of general relativity, involves the idea that flavour-oscillation clocks can detect constant gravitational potentials. I argue that the purported 'incompleteness-establishing' result is in fact one that applies to all clocks. It is entirely derivable from GR, does not result in the observability of the potential, and is not at odds with any of GR's foundations

Discrete quantum spectrum of black holes

The quantum genesis of Hawking radiation is a long-standing puzzle in black hole physics. Semi-classically one can argue that the spectrum of radiation emitted by a black hole look very much sparse unlike what is expected from a thermal object. It was demonstrated through a simple quantum model that a quantum black hole will retain a discrete profile, at least in the weak energy regime. However, it was suggested that this discreteness might be an artifact of the simplicity of eigen-spectrum of the model considered. Different quantum theories can, in principle, give rise to different complicated spectra and make the radiation from black hole dense enough in transition lines, to make them look continuous in profile. We show that such a hope from a geometry-quantized black hole is not realized as long as large enough black holes are dubbed with a classical mass area relation in any gravity theory ranging from GR, Lanczos-Lovelock to f(R) gravity. We show that the smallest frequency of emission from black hole in any quantum description, is bounded from below, to be of the order of its inverse mass. That leaves the emission with only two possibilities. It can either be non-thermal, or it can be thermal only with the temperature being much larger than 1/M.Comment: Matches the published versio

A Remark About the "Geodesic Principle" in General Relativity

It is often claimed that the geodesic principle can be recovered as a theorem in general relativity. Indeed, it is claimed that it is a consequence of Einstein's equation (or of the conservation principle that is, itself, a consequence of that equation). These claims are certainly correct, but it may be worth drawing attention to one small qualification. Though the geodesic principle can be recovered as theorem in general relativity, it is not a consequence of Einstein's equation (or the conservation principle) alone. Other assumptions are needed to drive the theorems in question. One needs to put more in if one is to get the geodesic principle out. My goal in this short note is to make this claim precise (i.e., that other assumptions are needed)