How can two time theories be compactified to 3+1 without any Kaluza-Klein remnants

Question

I have recently been looking into the two-time theories and the implied concepts.

For me this seems slightly hard to grasp.

How can I see the basic concept in this theory in a fundamental way based on its implied interaction with normal 3+1 dimension?

I am interested specifically in how gauge symmetries that effectively reduce 2T-physics in 4+2 dimensions to 1T-physics in 3+1 dimensions without any Kaluza-Klein remnants.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Argus

Comments

@Argus, yeah to make a real answer would take me some time I guess, so you might be faster than I. The title of the question seems a little bit strange to me, this is probably what mislead Qmechanic to say it is a duplicat ... Should it not rather how can theories with two time dimensions be compactified such that our 3+1 spacetime emerges, or something along thes lines? This is just a thought ...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

---

Aren't two-time theories inconsistent? Certainly, I would think you would run into a lot of problems if the two time evolution generators don't commute. I think you're going to run into a lot of problems with the compactified theory if you don't already understand the non-compactified theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jerry Schirmer

---

@Jerry No, theories with two time dimensions can be ok if these are only infinitesimal, such as applied in Cumrun Vafa's F-theory for example. If they were macroscopic there would of course be large problems.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

---

@jerry next time, use the comments area for stuff which doesn't answer the question.. :)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Manishearth

---

Dear @Nemo: not that it matters now, but for the record: the question(v2) was a duplicate. OP later included his main question(v3). See the edit history.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic

---

Here is another reference.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

---

"slightly hard to grasp." My friend, if you have understood one time dimension, you are already a king among physicists.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:24 (UCT), posted by SE-user kηives

Answer 1

In this blog post, a paper that derives by dimensional reduction well known super Yang-Mills (SYM) theories, such as N=1 SYM in 9+1 dimensions and N=4 SYM in 3+1 dimensions among other things using a SYM theory in 10+2 dimensions as a common more fundamental underlying theory.

As can be seen from looking at figure 1 of that paper

As stated below equation (3.1), if applying the method of deriving shadows of two time physics to obtain lower dimensional theories, Kaluza-Klein are avoided.