Mordred

yes and no, thermodynamics and freeze-out is also involved when discussing GUT. Thermal equilibrium is involved in GUT. You are right there is more involved than just thermo equilibrium in regards to the coupling constants. however lets use the GUTreview.pdf as a reference. look at the temperature, Energy(Gev) vs time graph. on page 6. The time component is determined by the expansion history of the universe, Essentially as the volume increases (expansion), energy-density (Gev) decreases, as well as the temperature. Just as I described above. You will notice on page 6 they also use the terms freeze out. So from that you can easily see that GUT does include thermal equilibrium within its calculations. Here is one sample statement on the same page. "After spontaneous symmetry breaking, The Guage bosons freeze out" , However how you define thermal equilibrium depends on the particles being examined. You can describe a system at thermal equilibrium at any stage, and exclude any particles not in thermal equilibrium. when symmetry breaking occurs is when the temperature drops enough to allow coherence or freeze-out, in simpler words stability. In other words you cannot exclude the thermodynamic state in regards to the coupling constants in GUT it would be like trying to describe pressure without temperature and volume. as an example In regards to coupling constant "IN QFT the coupling constants are only effective at a certain energy, they are energy or equivalently distance dependent through virtual corrections" the section continues on the corrections specific to various models till you hit this line "the strong coupling constant decreases with higher energy, while the electromagnetic coupling constant increases with energy, so that at some point they are equal" this is equal to saying the strong coupling constant and electromagnetic coupling constant are in thermal equilibrium. section 3.3.2 page 32. later on in the same paragraph "and if the process goes through a state of non equilibrium" PS (Its too bad I could never find any one article that has a complete picture on GUT. They usually leave out the thermodynamic calculations. at least the GUTreview sort of covers that in the Cosmology section at least as far as the temperature vs expansion corelations using the equations of state), Its not bad for approximations, however doing the same with Gibbs law or the Boltzmann statistics (Bose_Einstein and Fermi_Dirac statistics) is more accurate.

No, you seem to misunderstand what kinetic energy is. In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy in other words you need the motion of particles or an object. Energy also requires particles In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed. The joule is the SI unit of energy, based on the amount transferred to an object by the mechanical work of moving it 1 metre against a force of 1 newton. In other words energy is not a standalone entity

there is the possibility of dark matter being sterile neutrinos however. See these two recent papers http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301

In thermal equilibrium all particle species have the same temperature, particle species in thermal equilibrium are described by its temperature only see the physics of the Early universe article chapter 4 as far as the indistinquishable, its a term I borrowed from David Griffiths Elementary to particle physics textbook. A lot of the various GUT (older articles use this descriptive. Keep in mind GUT articles are typically older, its incredibly difficult to find recent coverage of specifically GUT. So quite frankly its questionable if its even supported currently. Weinberg's first three minutes have the particles essentially vanish, at each step. I also included the caveat that the reaction rates of the reaction rates and stability. Some articles describe it as below.... "Early Universe is a soup of particles and anti-particle that under go frequent interactions with each other .Consider a single particle species (for example,electrons,or neutrinos,or protons...),and let the rate of the main reaction that keeps the species in thermal equilibrium with other species and the radiation field" see attachment EarlyU. the particle physics and Inflationary Cosmology by Linde posted above has this statement "The basic idea underlying unified theories of the weak, strong, and electromagnetic interactions is that prior to symmetry breaking, all vecto rmesons (which mediate these interactions) are massless, and there are no fundamental differences among the interactions" the Indistinquishable in David Griffiths book has a further caveat. "Nevertheless, it is an exciting idea, for it means that the observed difference in strength among the three interactions is an “accident” resulting from the fact that we are obliged to work at low energies, where the unity of the forces is obscured. If we could just get in close enough to see the “true” strong, electric, and weak charges, without any of the screening effects of vacuum polarization, we would find that they are all equal." page 77 In the particle physics by Uwe Gen Weise posted above The fact that the early Universe was in thermodynamical equilibrium leads to a tremendous simplification compared to the present epoch, because the equilibrium state is characterized completely by the temperature. further on a particle that has frozen out of equilibrium would have a different temperature and not be in thermal equilibrium. Particle Physics of the Intergalactic Mediums states that any temperature variations of different particles is negligable when in thermal equilibrium. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3358 now here is Wiki's caveat note the distinct ? "A Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is a model in particle physics in which at high energy, the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model which define the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, are merged into one single interaction characterized by one larger gauge symmetry and thus one unified coupling constant. If Grand Unification is realized in nature, there is the possibility of a grand unification epoch in the early universe in which the fundamental forces are not yet distinct." take your pick which way you would prefer to describe it, some articles have the particles disappear, some say the particles stay but are the same temperature and any anistrophy is negligible . Which is essentially the same thing as indistinguishable when you think about it. Mosat GUT articles simply state the forces are unified however they are usually questionable articles when they don't clarify what they mean by Unified so I didn't include them. Keep in mind at sufficiently high temperatures all particle species are relativsistic and its total energy is dominated by its kinetic energy so its rest mass is essentially meaningless. As such their momentum is all the same at c (so momentum and frequency is the same), Their energy is all the same at T, so all you have left is spin. Or in thermal dynamics its spin is its entropy, which contributes to the temperature. (see Uwe gen weisse article above). A particle is determined by its energy, momentum and spin so what do you have left? http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html Oh found another way of describing it lol http://www-ekp.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/~deboer/html/Forschung/review3.pdf link may or may not work seems to be intermittant so I included the attachment GUTreview3.pdf " the well known forces, strong and electroweak are assumed to be equally strong." later on "At high energy, all forces are equally strong" took me a bit to dig this article out of my archives, had to locate it, its one of the better ones dealing specifically with GUT what I described above is how to model the tthermodynamics. The last article covers what that means in terms of symmetry breaking and guage theories some other articles related. These two include SU(10) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf EarlyU.pdf GUTreview3.pdf

yes the simple way to look at it is at extreme temperatures, as volume increases pressure and temperature drops. So at dense volume and high density you have high temperatures. The energy-density has an equation of state to relate to its pressure. For cosmology applications use the radiation EoS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 When temperatures are that high you simply cannot distinquish one particle from another, and like I stated any reactions that do occur are unstable. As the universe cools particles drop out of thermal equilibrium. Reactions of that particle species become stable

I'd like to add some details to understand GUT. First off we need to define how a force is mediated. This is done through the related bosons. -Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field. -W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force. -Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force. -Higgs boson mediates mass for guage bosons and W and Z bosons(not all particles) graviton mediates gravity???? essentially what this means is the transfer the force from one particle to another. This is important. Now we need to consider the ideal gas laws in thermodynamics or specifically thermal equilibrium. Particle reactions in thermal equilibrium are essentially unstable, its a factor of temperature, density and volume, which are all related by the equation [latex]PV=nRT[/latex] The relation forms used with bosons however is Bose-Einstein statistics or distribution now to explain this is further detail. Bosons become indistinquishable from one another where N is the number of particles and V is the volume and nq is the quantum concentration, for which the interparticle distance is equal to the thermal de Broglie wavelength [latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex] the number of particles of the Bose_Eintein statistics is [latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex] for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics [latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex] the De-Broglie wavelength is [latex]\frac{V}{N\Lambda^3} \le 1 \[/latex] You can google each for better information I posted those relations to show how the ideal gas laws are done in regards to fermions and bosons. as opposed to the first formula. Now when the particle species except gravity are in thermal equilbrium the types of bosons become indistinquishable from one another, hence the forces are indistinqishable as well. They would all have the same temperature and wavelength. Also any reactions that do occur such as as I said are unstable any reaction will quickly have the reverse reaction. In regards to the forces this also apply to the fundamental interactions. You can see the chart and wiki coverage here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction in terms of cosmology these two articles best cover this http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde (this one is older may be a bit out of date) for up to date use the one below. chapter 4 covers how to use the Bose_Einstein/Fermi_Dirac distibutions (however does not explain GUT, specifically, starts at lower temperatures) http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis edit: forgot to mention quarks in the quark-gluon plasma is Bose-Einstein statistics for quarks, for gluons its Fermi-Dirac distributions. Higgs would AFIAK though not positive the Bose-Eintein statistics

lol

lol true enough well said, I recall when I was 13 with a friend, I asked " If everything must have a beginning, what is the utlimate beginning of the universe?" After two weeks of debate we came up with "nothing +nothing= something" quite the mad answer lol

thanks cool vid's definitely a eye opener

Throughout our knowledge of history mankind has persevered against one fundamental need. The need to explain, to define and categorize all events we observe. To a scientist which society has funded, supported, ridiculed and scorned, this basic desire is all the greater. Out of all the species on this planet we stand unique in this drive, though we cannot state that we are the most intelligent of beings residing upon our planet. We also cannot name any other species with the same basic desire to push the umbrella of our understanding beyond survival, enjoyment and security of such. However despite this the average scientist faces numerous obstacles. These obstacles include, our current understanding, our ability to observe, our ability to disprove, our ability of convincing others of what we feel is right, our ability of moving beyond time true and tested understandings, and our imagination of new possibilities either through prejudice or limitations already described. Our very nature of being demands this ability to explain every interaction. We as the scientist is responsible to provide those explanations, despite limitations, as such we have much to consider. How many ways can "A influence B " to determine that, we can supposition a possibility or we can observe an influence. In the latter case the problem of observation is already accounted for, in the former we need to find a means of proof beyond faith. Even if we cannot supposition an interaction due to our limitations, we also cannot preclude the possibility of an unknown. Even in the case of our ability to observe an interaction, we are fraught with the limitations described above. Given all this its safe to say every scientist is MAD in his own way, after all why do we desire to struggle beyond these countless limitations? The one answer I can think of though others are also possible, is our unfulfilled curiosity. Out of all the species on our planet, humanity shares this emotion more so than any other. Scientists exhibit a greater desire and willingness to struggle against limitations of that curiosity than many. So in that sense we are all mad

Thank you I never understood how those images worked, ie the curls aspect.

Neither time nor space is being created... the geometric volume of space simply increases. One of the most common mistakes is to try and define space with some fabric like property. Space itself has no energy or fabric. It is a geometric volume that is simply filled with the energy-mass from the rest of the universe. That being said the superluminal velocity measurements of expansion is a consequence of the separation distance and the Hubble flow. Hubble's law. The greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity. [latex]V_{recessive}=H_Od[/latex] the subscript o meaning the hubble parameter today, which is constant only in time..meaning at a particular time Its not a constant as per se a consequence of Hubble's law is that when recessive velocity becomes greater than the speed of light, this region is described as the Hubble radius or sphere. However the recessive velocity is not an inertial velocity hence as mentioned, as only the volume is increasing and expansion is not a consequence of inertia, GR and SR do not apply. This recent article written by a physicist friend of mine, covers this in excellent and well written detail. With very little math involved as his target audience is the general public http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell this is another good article http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies We This is incorrect we can see farther than the Hubble sphere, Much farther. We can measure recessive velocities at z=1080 at around 3c. See the first article I posted to see why. correct

No one knows for sure how inflation works, in most cases its not due to a thermodymanic phase transition.(possible exception Higg's inflation with its non minimal coupling to gravity during the electro-weak epoch. Most models its similar to Allen Guth's false vacuum model The original false vacuum had one major problem. Once inflation starts it had no mechanism to stop. Google "runaway inflation" Slow roll provided the hill mechanism you described. However that still didn't completely stop inflation which is where chaotic eternal inflation comes in and (bubble universes). False vacuum as I believe you understand is higher energy potential vacuum region (false vacuum,) and a (true vacuum region, minimal vacuum) where quantum tunneling occurs, and energy is transported from the higher potential region to the lower potential region. The difference between the single scalar models and multi scalar models is primarily on how they stop inflation once its starts or how it controls runaway inflation. There was also a slew of models at roughly the same time so 95% of them never got announced. Keep in mind I certainly didn't study every model lol.

This model fits observations the least. Here is several reasons as to why. Universe according to observations in homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred location and direction. (essentially uniform in distribution) Now lets look at the properties of black holes. They can spin or be static. They can only grow in size with the material near them or within their gravitational influence. As such their feeding rates are inconsistent. Now lets use Poplowskii's spin and torsion model http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140218-black-hole-blast-explains-big-bang/ "The compacting process halts, according to Dr. Poplawski, because black holes spin. They spin extremely rapidly, possibly close to the speed of light. And this spin endows the compacted seed with a huge amount of torsion. It's not just small and heavy; it's also twisted and compressed, like one of those jokey spring-loaded snakes in a can. Which can suddenly unspring, with a bang. Make that a Big Bang—or what Dr. Poplawski prefers to call "the big bounce."" http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.6127 rather than post all his articles and the various metrics he's tried to make his model work you can look through them. http://arxiv.org/a/poplawski_n_1 He has several key problems that he struggles to address. Acoording to his model the the universe has a spin and torsion. problem 1) a rotating universe cannot be isotropic and homogeneous. It will always have a preferred location and direction. Regardless of how slow it is rotating. problem 2) a rotating black hole would impart that rotation upon our universe. problem 3) Poplowskii's model does not have the cosmological constant, expansion is due to the rotation. problem 4) where does inflation fit in. problem 5) A black hole does not have consistent feeding rates. Where is the variations in energy density distributions in our universe. If a BH supply starts gobbling a star the energy it takes in increases (more material) Why do we see no evidence of this,? we should see regions of higher energy density expanding outward form the preferred location. problem 6)Black holes gradually lose angular momentum due to Hawkings radiation in the accretion disk. For technical details see this article. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. also the article covers how a BH gains spin due to the laws of conservation of momentum. Coincidentally Poplowskii's models sets the torsion and spin rate as a consistent value problem 7) The Einstein Rosen bridge his model uses and is only predicted by the EFE. has never been observed its questionable if it exists. I was going to add that his model doesn't explain early large scale structure formation but I can't locate the technical paper.

both correct and valid points, I don't waste time studying multiverse theories myself. I have enough on my plate understanding this universe lol. There is numerous papers though that question whether two causal disconnected regions of this universe. Our observable portion of the universe is essentially the bounds of our causal connected region (described as lightcone of our worldline). Its been theorized, last paper I read though says no, but other papers says yes. This isn't the same as a multiverse though. We should discuss this question in another thread and keep this one on topic to the arrow of time.

trust me I wish I could give you a proper definition of time as well as how time works. I would be famous lol. I'll have to read 'Tau Zero' sometime. Right now I've been studying N-body codes for gravity and trying to learn ADS/CFT. Penroses "Roads to reality" has been helpful in that. never bothered learning stringy things before so its all new to me I nearly laughed my head off when he described electromagnetic wave functions as the zigzag model

I disagree Understanding how to "properly" define time is not science fiction. The scientific possibility of a multiverse is also not science fiction. We simply have to accept the fact that just because we can not gain any form of measurement of a multiverse does not preclude the possibility of its existence. Any multiverse model due to this fact is conjectural.

yeah I forgot to correct that, its explained in the last link I posted. Numerous scientists, have tried to show time as an entropy change, entropy representing change. However you can have numerous forms of change that does not entail a change of entropy. A change in an electromagnetic wave, isn't an entropy change for example. A change of location ie one person walking isn't an entropy change. One definition of time I always liked is "time is a rate of change anywhere in the universe, regardless of what the change is." The beauty of that is it includes every form of possible change. However does time depend on the universe? How does time work for a multiverse then? Does that mean there is no time between one universe and another ie the formation of a new universe in say a cyclic or bounce multiverse model. In order to form a new universe time must exist, otherwise there would be no change. So does time depend on changes within our universe only, in the multi-verse models? The simple answer is we don't know.... this is one of my favourite papers on time in regards to multiverse models "Time before Time" http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0408/0408111.pdf

are you asking for the cause of time? time has no cause,,at least not one based on entropy. Entropy does not determine time.

actually variables and constants use up more memory, in compilers, your better off using a pointer to a stack table. for memory savings. Also common calculations can be done faster with a stack table. you can use your exponentation value as the pointer for the stack or look up table. There are numerous tricks. I own an N-body textbook just for gravity interactions, its over 1200 pages long. I'm still lost on the first chapter lol but its a recent purchase. Quantum computers aren't around yet though were getting closer. http://www.amazon.com/Gravitational-N-Body-Simulations-Algorithms-Mathematical/dp/0521121531 by the way this simulation which is the most realistic virtual universe to date is this one. Look at the requirements, should give you some idea of the complexity http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10 http://www.illustris-project.org/ paper on it http://arxiv.org/ftp...5/1405.1418.pdf the simulation took 16 million CPU hours were needed to evolve the simulation from the starting redshift z = 127 to z = 0, using 8,192 cores and an equal number of MPI-ranks. An additional 3 million CPU hours were spent on carrying out the on-the-fly galaxy identification with the SUBFIND algorithm. 16,028,568,000 hydrodynamic cells Illustris employs a sophisticated computer program to recreate the evolution of the universe in high fidelity. It includes both normal matter and dark matter using 12 billion 3-D "pixels," or resolution elements. The actual calculations took 3 months of "run time," using a total of 8,000 CPUs running in parallel. If they had used an average desktop computer, the calculations would have taken more than 2,000 years to complete. now here's is the kicker it only tested a region of a few Mpc, and tested the WMAP and planck data parameters set in terms of the LCDM model.....

not sure what you mean by actual cause, the term arrow of time is simply a descriptive of entropy change to measure time. pretty much an analogy. Time itself is not controlled by entropy. Time also doesn't control entropy. The two are unrelated. The arrow of time is simply a model of time like a clock or measuring a second via beta reactions. Change in entropy follows the ideal gas laws in cosmology in the same principles as a gas in a tank. Time being a measure of rate of change of events. its value as a vector only means it has a forward or backward mathematical relation. In the real universe outside of mathematics time can only flow one direction forwards. No process can reverse time. Or another similar usage the use of the Hubble flow aka scale factor in cosmological time. In this case we use the expansion history as our clock. However that does not mean that if the universe is contracting time is running backwards.. Sounds to me that your under a misunderstanding of a multimedia misconception. I recommend you study what entropy really is.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy a key note is that entropy is a function of state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_of_state now I particularly want you to read this article, as it describes how a decrease in entropy is performed and its relations http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/textbook/Chap_6.pdf now after you read how to decrease the entropy in a tank, does it make sense to say time flowed backward in that tank? while time flows normally outside of it?? Now apply that same scenario to your contracting universe.

the thermodynamic arrow has been used in numerous arguments and models, its a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Its been around as long as the concept of entropy has. Just about every famous physicist has contemplated its consequences to just about every model that describes cosmology or any other thermodymamic process. Some physicist have even written entire books just on the arrow of time. In and of itself however isn't a model. Sholman tried to portray a universe inside a black hole using this consequence. Though hes certainly not the only one. Numerous articles discusses its consequence in dealing with black holes. Sean Caroll uses it in terms of a multiverse hypothesis (cyclic universes). The list is endless. One of the mysteries in cosmology has always been explaining why the universe started at a low entropy beginning. Every cosmology model must have a low entropy beginning to match up with observational data. A couple of details to keep in mind, any thermodynamic system must start out at a lower entropy, lower being a relative value. Entropy either has to stay constant or increase, it can never decrease (hence arrow of time ) Here is one article describing it http://edge.org/response-detail/25538 here is one that uses inflation to explain it http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1087 here is one using Branes http://cds.cern.ch/record/539984/files/0202104.pdf here is a decent paper discussing it http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4744/1/gravent_archive.pdf

your welcome and by the way welcome to the forum

yes many of the inflationary models do, particularly after the development of the slow roll inflationary model. Coincidentally the slow roll approximation, is still one of the better fits AFAIK. Its used as a benchmark model to compare the other models in the Encyclopaedia Inflationaris. you need to be careful here, there is two contributions to a particles energy, there is an contribution arising from the particles mass and an energy contribution arising from its momentum. Hence you cannot rely on a particles rest mass in terms of your statement. You must consider both the particles rest mass and momentum, in terms of its total energy. for the total energy of a particle is see equation 7.2 which is derived by a full relativistic treatment. http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jel/ASTM108lecture7.pdf here is how the total energy is derived http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html for a relativistic particle its rest mass is meaningless, as its mass is dominated by its kinetic energy, hence for a photon its rest mass is treated as zero now consider this in terms of the 4 bosons and GUT theories. Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field. W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force. Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force. Higg's boson imparts mass graviton? for simplicity we will use this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang planck epoch the forces except gravity as its said to separate at this time and all particles are in thermal equilibrium, Higg's drops out here as well to impart mass for gravity to work. possibly....The Higg's inflation models times it with the gravity phase transition. (depends on which theory) GUT epoch the strong force separates, so Gluons drop out of equilibrium electroweak epoch you need the electromagnetic mediator, so photons have dropped out of equilibrium, at the end of the electroweak epoch the weak force separates so you have your w and z bosons. keep in mind there is a lot of steps missed and inflation reheating can cause certain particle species previously dropped out of equilibrium to go back into thermal equilibrium. I've yet to come across an up to date break down in terms of GUT that includes the effects of inflation lol

Any good model needs to be able to make predictions, if it can't then its useless as a model. One thing to keep in mind when studying different models. Oft times a different model is merely a different mathematical way of describing the same process. Both models can be correct and make the same predictions. They simply have different metrics to describe the same thing. Though sometimes conflicts do occur. For example you can describe the universe according to the FLRW metric, Einstein field equations or LQC. For the majority of cosmology those three work equally in all situations. The FLRW metric and Einstien field equations are in 100% agreement with each other, however LQC handles the singularity problem differently (bounce). Otherwise they essentially describe the remainder of the universe in the same manner. However then you also have models that try to define an influence differently, good example would be replacing dark matter with modifying Newtons gravity. MOND. Or replacing dark energy with spin and torsion, Poplowskiis, universe inside a black hole, These types of models inherently run into conflicts with LCDM. However other than replacing one or two influences they use the same metrics. Ie FLRW and Einstein field equations. Now take this a step further. say you wish to represent the FLRW metric specifically on a computer and use it to simulate the universe? If you tried to run the formulas directly to a computer you will quickly run into problems on a particle to particle basis. The types of calculations would bog down the processing power and th simulations would take forever to run. To deal with that mathematicians and programmers developed whats called N-body simulations. N-body simulations take a metric and finds another mathematical metric that is easier on the processing done via a computer. I'll use a simple example. A computer is primarily a binary machine. so if I wish to do the calculation 4*2. I have three options. I can directly multiply, I can add 4 two time, or I can do a bit shift right in binary. the bit shift is a faster process. Now N-body is more complex than this. However the codes finds ways to say describe gravity interactions not by the regular GR formulas, but mathematical formulas with the same relations, but done with processing power in mind. Here is a pdf showing some of the N-body code for gravity. note also the use of Matrices and tree codes, this is essentially a visualization of memory stack operations. http://www.cs.hut.fi/~ctl/NBody.pdf Now how does this apply to the quantum information theory? Well simply put if you can relate the metrics used in cosmology or more specifically in the quantum information theory, QM directly to Boolean algebra, You've just found another way to directly define the universe and quantum processes in terms of Binary directly. So in many ways its similar to N-body simulations except for QM applications. Hope this helps. Oh time in a metric system can often be defined differently, the universe doesn't care how we define it. If it allows the mathematics to work and still fit observation data, then its simply a mathematical methodology. Unless it offers a different understanding to observational data