A BIT ABOUT T-DUALITY

By: Dr. Paul Karl Hoiland

T-duality means that shrinking the circle to zero in one theory corresponds to expanding
the circle in the other theory. Type IIA and Type IIB superstring theories are T-dual. This
means that if you take the non-chiral Type IIA superstring theory, and compactify one
dimension on a circle of radius R, and let R go to zero, it turns into the Type IIB theory in
ten dimensions.

Instead of thinking of them as two theories that are related, you could instead think of
them as only one theory. What we call two theories are just two points on a continuous
spectrum. The radius R is actually the vacuum value of a scalar field, which arises as an
internal component of the 10d metric tensor. But, under a VSL approach, as the Plank
Mass increases while R decreases one actually has the scalar decreasing towards zero.
What is transpiring is the Membrane Tension is increasing towards infinity as the forces
begin to unify and eventually cease at the membrane.

In the 1970's and even early 80’s, many people were working on point particle theories of
supergravity, totally independent of string theory, this author included. In these theories,
making supersymmetry a local symmetry naturally led to a spin-2 particle that could be
identified with the graviton. However, these theories were non-renormalizable, as were
all pre-string attempts to quantize gravity. String Theory tends to naturally generate the
graviton in a renormalizable fashion, even if it does so generally giving an infinite set of
possible vacuum solutions.

The problem is those of us in the field of Physics hate infinities no matter where they
come from. When I first encountered the issue of how VSL cosmology increases the
Plank mass towards infinity my first thoughts where we have a problem here. But then I
thought back about its effect on the scalar, which Higg’s Theory in the Standard Model
has always stated had to be zero at the start. I also began to notice how this would effect
the membrane(not individual String) tension. Then it made sense. Under all String
Models the separation between the compacted or even large and hidden regions is
considered one of total separation with the one exception of gravity. It’s much like a
boundary between two different universes and or vacuum states. Then it made sense
why the Membrane tension would approach infinity.

How often in early popular science books when the Author’s were discussing subjects
like escape velocity does one find the statement that to escape the universe one would
need something on the order of twice the mass of the universe times c^2? Basically,
what they are saying is you’d need the energy of two universes to get the job done. Since
in the real world our limit of the lightcone prevents us from seeing an end to the universe
we live in we often consider it infinite. Translating this back into those older statements
we’d need infinite energy to escape off of this brane. The reason goes back to the
membrane or zero point’s tension.
However, having said this I want you to now consider the action of Lw’s Angst upon that
membrane tension and actually look at what it is doing to that tension.

Under the model he employed there must be a brane energy density of

p~Ο(100)M35/L
where M5 is the Plank Constant defined in that model by
K25=M35, thus the model’s scenario is only valid when L>>100/M5, a condition meet well
before the zero point under a VSL model where the Plank Mass must vary. Such a
condition would occur within the scales where C first begins to vary, not at the zero point.

But the action of his employed Angst is interesting when one looks at how it modifies the
membrane from a zero energy/field state to one having both energy and fields. At this
point you have the odd action of the zero point enlarging. A bit back at one point when
this new group started I did a short discussion in a post here on the entropy of a zero
point. The results where very much like one spin state on a Blackhole. So in essence, if,
and yes, I qualify this with an if, VSL cosmology eventually is proven out then the angst
he employs would be a great tool to enlarge a micro-blackhole state which one could then
possibly stabilize into a wormhole along some on those lines we now see articles on in
Lanl. It’s also possible to tailor that Angst so that the blackhole becomes itself time
reversed. One positive time state hole enlarged and surface joined to a negative time
state enlarged hole might also be just the ticket along GR model lines to construct an
actual warp field in keeping with the original Alcubierre model if the overlap was such
that the craft remains in a zero G field state.

If we were to also consider this then in essence a Blackhole is an enlarged zero point with
the specific type of Blackhole that results being determined by what forces actually are
established within such a structure, ie Charge or uncharged, spinning or not spinning, etc.
In the membrane’s case there is no charge, spin, or mass. As such, outside of tension it
does not self gravitate. Referring to the PV model, it’s the generated virtual particles that
create the effect of inertia, while gravity itself relates back to mass generated via the
Higg’s process itself stemming from broken symmetry and the effect of a scalar
becoming non-zero. In effect, his Angst causes the membrane to vibrate in similar
fashion to the string states from M-Theory which in turn generates mass, possibly charge
etc under the VSL model, not the one he employed.

I would suggest that when such a test is conducted see if a large, for the area involved
gravity field is generated. If it is then I would offer such as an experimental evidence of
VSL cosmology and support of at least a folded brane version of M-Theory. That was
the main reason I mentioned to LW, while offering him praise for his Fellowship here and
article publication, that the next few years of testing will be interesting to say the least. I
have no doubt one version of M-Theory based cosmology will win out in the end. It’s
which version only time will tell. Not all models employed are the same as Lee Smolin
in a recent book he Authored pointed out so well. In fact, we currently have several
models going at once, the folded brane with or without VSL being just one.
Personally, I favor the folded brane model with VSL. But even without VSL I’d still
favor that model because along with a Horizon solution along similar lines it also solves a
few other problems along the way and fits nicely with the more formal QM model
advocated by John A. Wheeler’s approach to QM mixed with the transactional
interpretation and its advanced and a retarded waves, which I utilize myself, that keeps
both Bell and Bohm’s best ideas blended into one. But there again Lee Smolin also
pointed out aptly that we have several different QM models going also.