Quoted By:
Sometimes I get excited and don't proof read at all.
In 2011, I said the positive-definiteness theorem for the 0-component of the universe's 4-momentum means that conservation of 4-momentum must require that two different universes left the big bang in different directions through time. There's a theorem, the ADM theorem, and it says that the 0-component of the momentum of the whole universe is a positive number in the convention where binding energy is negative. So, in the sense that the universe has vanishing in 3-momentum due to all left/down/forward momentum being exactly offset by right/up/backward momentum, meaning that the big bang conserved 3-momentum, a universe moving the other direction through time is required for the big bang to respect conservation of 4-momentum. My idea isn't radical. Others' ideas that the big bang doesn't conserve momentum are radical. My idea is that the big bang is normal, not special, and I built a whole model with negative time in it so that a big bang could conserve 4-momentum. (Actually, I question the existence of the big bang at all but positing such an event motivates my argument for negative time.) In 2012, a quantum optics guy, Rubino, said, "If there's negative time then there ought to be negative frequency since frequency is inverse time." He did a Fourier analysis and didn't throw away the negative frequency modes as they usually do in quantum optics, and then he looked for them in his experiment. He found them.
That should read much better :)
