@19:00 you don't need "knots with quantum properties". Non-trivial spacetime topology is _already quantum._ The superpositions arise always when there is entanglement. The measurement of the first part of the composite system in '0' there yielding an entangled pair state only means there were two ways to break the ER-bridge topology. So yes knots. But no to needing quantum knots. It'd be redundant. Knots in spacetime (if real) are already quantum, you do not need to requantize such regions of spacetime.
Can you elaborate on no single time for universe please, relativity time depends on vector and time is subject to observer or something else? I am been conceptually stuck on a plankian matrix type space something around a mobius knot meaning would make discrete non linear time relative to volume of the voids. I don't know if this is an existing theory, I feel it is penrosian but my maths certainly not caught up. Thanks
That remark @25:00 refers to special relativity (Minkowski spacetime). It is nothing but the usual observation that relatively moving observers will not agree upon simultaneity, unless they describe a Lorentz boost to the others reference frame to "see things from the other's point of view," so-to-speak. This is nothing like what you are describing at the Planck scale with knots or Mobius loops in spacetime. If you want space itself to loop around on itself in a knot then you are asking for closed timelike curves, hence violation of causality. That cannot describe macroscopic physics, so would indeed have to be confined somehow to the Planck scale. This is not a theory, it is a general philosophical concept of spacetime foam, which is not established physics. But you can find papers on the arXiv discussing spacetime foam as if it were physics, arxiv.org/search/?query=spacetime+foam&searchtype=title&source=header but it is not physics. (It could become credible physics in the future, but who knows?)
@19:00 you don't need "knots with quantum properties". Non-trivial spacetime topology is _already quantum._ The superpositions arise always when there is entanglement. The measurement of the first part of the composite system in '0' there yielding an entangled pair state only means there were two ways to break the ER-bridge topology. So yes knots. But no to needing quantum knots. It'd be redundant. Knots in spacetime (if real) are already quantum, you do not need to requantize such regions of spacetime.
Interesante fenomenología.
Can you elaborate on no single time for universe please, relativity time depends on vector and time is subject to observer or something else? I am been conceptually stuck on a plankian matrix type space something around a mobius knot meaning would make discrete non linear time relative to volume of the voids. I don't know if this is an existing theory, I feel it is penrosian but my maths certainly not caught up. Thanks
That remark @25:00 refers to special relativity (Minkowski spacetime). It is nothing but the usual observation that relatively moving observers will not agree upon simultaneity, unless they describe a Lorentz boost to the others reference frame to "see things from the other's point of view," so-to-speak. This is nothing like what you are describing at the Planck scale with knots or Mobius loops in spacetime.
If you want space itself to loop around on itself in a knot then you are asking for closed timelike curves, hence violation of causality. That cannot describe macroscopic physics, so would indeed have to be confined somehow to the Planck scale. This is not a theory, it is a general philosophical concept of spacetime foam, which is not established physics. But you can find papers on the arXiv discussing spacetime foam as if it were physics,
arxiv.org/search/?query=spacetime+foam&searchtype=title&source=header
but it is not physics. (It could become credible physics in the future, but who knows?)