The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 18 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Survey of two-time physics
Open accessAbstract
Two-time physics (2T) is a general reformulation of one-time physics (1T) that displays previously unnoticed hidden symmetries in 1T dynamical systems and establishes previously unknown duality-type relations among them. This may play a role in displaying the symmetries and constructing the dynamics of little understood systems, such as M-theory. 2T-physics describes various 1T dynamical systems as different d -dimensional `holographic' views of the same 2T system in d + 2 dimensions. The `holography' is due to gauge symmetries that tend to reduce the number of effective dimensions. Different 1T evolutions (i.e. different Hamiltonians) emerge from the same 2T-theory when gauge fixing is done with different embeddings of d dimensions inside d + 2 dimensions. Thus, in the 2T setting, the distinguished 1T which we call `time' is a gauge-dependent concept. The 2T-action also has a global SO ( d ,2) symmetry in flat spacetime, or a more general d + 2 symmetry in curved spacetime, under which all dimensions are on an equal footing. This symmetry is observable in many 1T-systems, but it remained unknown until discovered in the 2T formalism. The symmetry takes various nonlinear (hidden) forms in the 1T-systems, and it is realized in the same irreducible unitary representation (the same Casimir eigenvalues) in their quantum Hilbert spaces. 2T-physics has mainly been developed in the context of particles, including spin and supersymmetry, but some advances have also been made with strings and p -branes, and insights for M-theory have already emerged. In the case of particles, there exists a general worldline formulation with background fields, as well as a field theory formulation, both described in terms of fields that depend on d + 2 coordinates. All 1T particle interactions with Yang-Mills, gravitational and other fields are included in the d + 2 reformulation. In particular, the standard model of particle physics can be regarded as a gauge-fixed form of a 2T-theory in 4 + 2 dimensions. These facts already provide evidence for a new type of higher-dimensional unification.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Two-time physics is a general reformulation of one-time physics based on a local Sp(2,R) gauge symmetry in d+2 dimensions with exactly two timelike dimensions, yielding holographic unification and duality-type relations among 1T systems. The survey reviews its particle, field-theory, supersymmetry, string/brane, and M-theory applications.
Key findings
- The local Sp(2,R) gauge symmetry requires two timelike dimensions: for spinless particles the constraints \(X^2=P^2=X\cdot P=0\) have non-trivial solutions only for signature \((d,2)\), and the gauge symmetry removes all ghosts, establishing unitarity and causality.
- A single 2T action unifies many 1T systems as different gauge-fixed “holographic” views, including the massless relativistic particle, massive non-relativistic particle, massive relativistic particle, particle on AdS\(_d\), H-atom, and harmonic oscillator; the 1T time and Hamiltonian are gauge-dependent.
- The global SO(d,2) symmetry is present in every 1T gauge, often nonlinearly realized, and quantum systems from the same 2T action share the same SO(d,2) Casimir eigenvalues; all known particle interactions with Yang-Mills, gravitational, and other fields can be included, and the standard model can be regarded as a gauge-fixed 2T theory in 4+2 dimensions.
- Supersymmetric and M-theory applications include a toy M-model based on OSp(1|64) in 13 dimensions with signature (11,2), yielding 128 bosons and 128 fermions (11D supergravity states) with 2- and 5-brane charges, and an AdS\(_5\times S^5\) Kaluza-Klein tower from SU(2,2|4) with 16 fermions and 128 bosons/128 fermions.
Methods
- Theoretical survey/lecture notes; no empirical sample or statistical analysis is reported.
- Develops worldline and field-theory formulations using local Sp(2,R), OSp(n|2), supergroup, and p-brane conformal gauge symmetries; analyzes actions, constraints, gauge fixing, background fields, and supersymmetry.
- Reviews and synthesizes results from the cited literature, including examples such as the superparticle in d=3,4,6, AdS\(_5\times S^5\), and the toy M-model.
Limitations
- The paper states that the 2T field theory formulation is incomplete: kinematic equations are imposed as additional field equations and do not follow from the field theory Lagrangian; a more natural phase-space/local Sp(2,R) field theory remains a challenge.
- The paper states that the 2T formalism for strings and p-branes is incomplete; tensionful branes seemed difficult to find, and more work is needed.
- The paper states that quantum operator ordering may be difficult for generic gauges, and it is not known whether some gauges have unresolvable ordering or fundamental anomalies; also evident from the text, this is a survey/lecture-note review with many results cited to other papers or listed as in preparation, and no experimental tests are presented.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
46 No basis given · 43 Own interpretation · 5 Sources not found · 4 Partly supported · 3 Not checked yet · 2 Supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It was noted that this structure provides a model-independent signal for 12 dimensions in Mtheory with (10, 2) signature [13], since the 32 supercharges may be viewed as a Weyl spinor in 12 dimensions and the 528 bosonic charges may be viewed as a 2-form plus a self-dual 6-form in 12 dimensions,”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [13] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (pp. 15–16) describes an OSp(1/32) algebra relevant to M-theory in an SO(10,2) basis, with a 32-component spinor and two-form and six-form generators. It does not describe the 11-dimensional extended superalgebra as a model-independent signal for 12 dimensions, or state the count of 528 bosonic charges. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The simplest action with an Sp(2, R) gauge symmetry is [1] L = Ẋ1 • X 2 -1 2 A ij X i • X j (3 )”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 3. Unification of 1T-systems, 'holography'
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] source
In §2, “Gauging duality” (pp. 2–3), Eq. (4) gives the Sp(2,R)-invariant action. Its second form is the claimed Lagrangian integrated over τ, with the dot product written using ηMN; the paper says a total derivative was dropped in rewriting the first term. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Using this procedure, it was shown in [11] that the Schrödinger equation and other equations that correspond to the first quantized field equations for the systems in figure 1 follow from (13).”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 6. 2T field theory, unified 1T field theories
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [11] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 2) describes non-relativistic particles among the systems obtained by gauge fixing, and Basic Formalism (p. 5) says their equations of motion reduce to the expected equations. Our copy does not specifically say that this procedure yields the Schrödinger equation or other first-quantized field equations from equation (13). (LLM, conf=0.78)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For a p-brane X M τ, σ 1 , . . ., σ p the natural candidate for a local symmetry that replaces Sp(2, R) is the conformal group on the worldvolume SO(p+1, 2).This was pointed out in [1].”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 9. Strings and branes
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [1] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In §5 (Outlook), the paper proposes extending its worldline theory, viewed as conformal gravity, to p-brane worldsheets or worldvolumes. It does not identify SO(p+1,2) as the local symmetry that would replace Sp(2,R); elsewhere, it describes SO(d,2) as a global symmetry of the particle theory (§2, p. 3). (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The equation of motion of the gauge potential leads to the constraints, hence the target spacetime must have signature (d, 2) as an outcome of the Sp(2, R) gauge symmetry.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 3. Unification of 1T-systems, 'holography'
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These constraints have non-trivial solutions only if the target spacetime has two timelike dimensions.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 2. 2T follows from gauge symmetry
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the signature has three timelike directions, then there are too many ghosts that cannot be removed by the Sp(2, R) gauge symmetry.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 2. 2T follows from gauge symmetry
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all other cases of gauge (super)symmetries mentioned above-or their generalizations to strings and branes-their content is as follows: there is just enough gauge symmetry to remove one timelike and one spacelike directions from all SO(d, 2) vectors and also remove half of the SO(d, 2) spinor components to arrive at SO(d -1, 1) spinors.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 2. 2T follows from gauge symmetry
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When all the gauge fixing is done, in the 1T gauge that corresponds to the massless particle of figure 1, the action (15) reduces to the following form in d-dimensional superspace (x µ , θ a α ) with N supersymmetries a = 1, 2, . . .N”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 7.1. Superparticle in d = 3, 4, 6
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the mass of the field as given by the Casimir of SO(4, 2) is now fully determined by the Casimir of SO(6).”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 7.2. AdS 5 × S 5 supersymmetric Kaluza-Klein tower
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There are several other observations that support two timelike dimensions.These include the brane scan [15], N = 2 superstrings [16], F-theory [17], U-theory [18], the hints for a 12D super-Yang-Mills or supergravity theory [19], the AdS-CFT correspondence [20], etc.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [15] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citation [19] is attached specifically to the hints for a 12D super-Yang–Mills or supergravity theory, not to the entire list. Section 3 (p. 5) describes a 12D, two-time interpretation of the M-algebra, but it does not identify that interpretation as a 12D super-Yang–Mills or supergravity theory. (LLM, conf=0.79)
- Not matchedcites [16] Bars I, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [17] Bars I, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The interaction has the same form as (14) in the gauge that corresponds to the relativistic massless particle in figure 1, but can be more involved in other gauges (for examples see [11]).”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 6. 2T field theory, unified 1T field theories
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [11] source
The citation is attached to the request for examples in other gauges. Section 4 (pp. 8–9) gives an alternative gauge in which the null p-brane propagates in a curved AdS × S background, rather than the flat-background gauge discussed in Section 3. That supports the cited paper as an example of a more involved gauge-dependent form; the citing paper’s equation (14) is not being attributed to it. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“One finds that the equations in (11) together with X 2 = 0 are the kinematical equations for the Yang-Mills and gravitational fields, while the dynamical equations, including interactions, follow from a Lagrangian as given in [11].”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 6. 2T field theory, unified 1T field theories
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [11] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2 (p. 4) discusses constraints for a spinless-particle model and says extensions to curved spacetime and background gauge fields will be discussed elsewhere. Searches for kinematical Yang–Mills and gravitational field equations, and for interacting dynamical equations derived from a Lagrangian, found no passage in our copy establishing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If it has one timelike direction, then X M and P M can only be lightlike vectors that are parallel, so there is no angular momentum, which is also trivial.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 2. 2T follows from gauge symmetry
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The symmetry takes various nonlinear (hidden) forms in the 1T-systems, and it is realized in the same irreducible unitary representation (the same Casimir eigenvalues) in their quantum Hilbert spaces.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In particular, out of the three gauge parameters in Sp(2, R), one is related to the familiar τ -reparametrizations, while the other two have signatures such that they can remove one spacelike and one timelike dimension 3 .”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 2. 2T follows from gauge symmetry
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two-time physics is verified in everyday physics that has already been understood.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, only for the case with two timelike 2 After much work was done in 2T-physics, including background fields and field theory, I became aware of some results that were obtained independently by other authors [21][22][23][24].The bulk of this literature originates with Dirac's formulation in 1936 of a six-dimensional field theory formalism whose goal was to understand the conformal SO(4, 2) symm”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 2. 2T follows from gauge symmetry
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the target spacetime signature in these dot products is Euclidean the only solution is X M = P M = 0, and the theory is trivial.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 2. 2T follows from gauge symmetry
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The traceless tensor with l indices has the SO(6) Casimir eigenvalue l(l + 4).”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 7.2. AdS 5 × S 5 supersymmetric Kaluza-Klein tower
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two times and all other consequences (unification of 1T-systems, etc) follow directly from the gauge symmetry.In particular, two times (no less and no more!) is an outcome of the gauge symmetry, it is not put in by hand.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of particles, there exists a general worldline formulation with background fields, as well as a field theory formulation, both described in terms of fields that depend on d + 2 coordinates.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two-time physics introduced a new symplectic gauge symmetry which indeed removes all ghosts, establishes unitarity and causality, and plays a role analogous to dualityfoot_0 .”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 1. Introduction
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dynamical systems obtained in this way belong to a class defined by a given 2T-action.Changing the 2T-action (e.g.changing background fields, etc) changes the class.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 3. Unification of 1T-systems, 'holography'
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This symmetry is observable in many 1T-systems, but it remained unknown until discovered in the 2T formalism.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the same Sp(2, R) appears as an automorphism symmetry in the quantum relations [X M i , X N j ] = i ij η MN .This global symmetry is present in every quantum relation of generalized coordinates and in every first term of the action for any dynamical system.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 1. Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Historically, in previous failed attempts for more timelike dimensions, some formidable obstacles to overcome included causality and unitarity, the latter being due to ghosts (negative norm states) created by extra timelike dimensions.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two-time physics (2T) is a general reformulation of one-time physics (1T) that displays previously unnoticed hidden symmetries in 1T dynamical systems and establishes previously unknown duality-type relations among them.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 2T-action also has a global SO(d, 2) symmetry in flat spacetime, or a more general d + 2 symmetry in curved spacetime, under which all dimensions are on an equal footing.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The formalism of 2T-physics teaches us that one extra spacelike and one extra timelike dimensions do exist, but not in the naive sense.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the insights brought by 2T-physics into 1T-physics, it is reasonable to expect that 'M-theory' has sufficient hidden symmetries that amount to as much as a non-Abelian OSp(1|64).”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the 2T unification of 1T-systems can be examined in either the worldline or field theory forms, the worldline approach provides a better understanding of the underlying gauge symmetries at this stage, while the field theory formulation provides an approach for interactions among fields.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 6. 2T field theory, unified 1T field theories
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It appears as a four-dimensional holographic image of a 2T-theory in 4 + 2 dimensions.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In any case, anomalies of global symmetries (as opposed to local symmetries) would not invalidate the 2T-theory; they would simply be a property of the theory similar to anomalies in global symmetries encountered in field theory (e.g. the Adler-Bardeen anomaly, conformal anomaly).”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2T-physics teaches us that spacetime can be more than what we used to think of before.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 2T formulation of this system must then yield (10, 2) super-Yang-Mills including the dynamical equations, not only the kinematic ones.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, we know that backgrounds for the 10D superparticle must obey the super-Yang-Mills equations to preserve the kappa supersymmetry.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 2T language is the only explanation of the symmetries and the relations among the 1T dynamical systems in the same family.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The known physics of the standard model has a 2T field theory description.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the gauge symmetry is unknown at this time, its presence would eliminate ghosts, on the one hand, and provide 1T 'holographic' pictures of the 13D theory in lower dimensions, on the other hand.”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 8. M-theory and 2T
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The 2T 'M-theory' has a gauge symmetry analogous to Sp(2,R) (or its generalizations).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may be significant that the S, T, U dualities in M-theory or the Seiberg-Witten dualities in super-Yang-Mills theory are also (discrete) gauge symmetries of a symplectic nature that mix canonically conjugate quantities (such as electric-magnetic p-brane charges, or windings in space and Kaluza-Klein momenta, etc).”
§ Survey of two-time physics > 10. Outlook
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The bosonic subgroup of G_L contains at least SO(d-k,2) × SO(k) for some k=0,...,d-2.
“We require that the bosonic subgroup of G L contain at least SO(d -k, 2) × SO(k) for some k = 0, . . ., d -2.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The 2T 'M-theory' has a gauge symmetry analogous to Sp(2,R) (or its generalizations).
“The 2T 'M-theory' must also have a gauge symmetry analogous to Sp(2, R) (or its generalizations discussed in the previous sections).Although the gauge symmetry is unknown at this time, its presence would eliminate ghosts, on the one hand, and provide 1T 'holographic' pictures of the 13D theory in lower dimensions, on the other hand.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Survey of two-time physics > 6. 2T field theory, unified 1T field theories
“The equations in (13) at g = 0 are identical to those derived by Dirac in 1936 with a rather different approach [21]”
§ Survey of two-time physics > References
“27. Dirac P A M 1936 Ann. Math. 37 429”
Citations
Cites
The large $N$ limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity
Maldacena, J. (1998) · Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics · doi:10.4310/atmp.1998.v2.n2.a1 · Cited by 14,524
The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity
Maldacena, J. M. (1997) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9711200 · Cited by 6,821
The Large-N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity
Maldacena, J. (1999) · International Journal of Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1023/a:1026654312961 · Cited by 6,704
Vafa, C. (1996) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/0550-3213(96)00172-1 · Cited by 1,330
Finite-component field representations of the conformal group
Mack, G., & Salam, A. (1969) · Annals of Physics · doi:10.1016/0003-4916(69)90278-4 · Cited by 663
Wave Equations in Conformal Space
Dirac, P. A. M. (1936) · Annals of Mathematics · doi:10.2307/1968455 · Cited by 558
Ooguri, H., & Vafa, C. (1991) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90270-8 · Cited by 344
Günaydin, M., & Marcus, N. (1985) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/2/2/001 · Cited by 337
Higher-spin gauge interactions for massive matter fields in 3D AdS space-time
Prokushkin, S., & Vasiliev, M. A. (1999) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(98)00839-6 · Cited by 335
SELF-DUALITY AND N=2 STRING MAGIC
Ooguri, H., & Vafa, C. (1990) · Modern Physics Letters A · doi:10.1142/s021773239000158x · Cited by 231
Ooguri, H., & Vafa, C. (1991) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90042-v · Cited by 201
Unitary representations of non-compact supergroups
Itzhak Bars, A., & G�naydin, M. (1983) · Communications in Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1007/bf01206048 · Cited by 200
Supermembranes and the signature of spacetime
Blencowe, M. P., & Duff, M. J. (1988) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90155-1 · Cited by 132
Gauge Properties of the Minkowski Space
Kastrup, H. A. (1966) · Physical Review · doi:10.1103/physrev.150.1183 · Cited by 132
Strongly coupled gravity and duality
HULL, C. M. (2000) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(00)00323-0 · Cited by 128
Gauged duality, conformal symmetry, and spacetime with two times
Bars, I., Deliduman, C., & Andreev, O. (1998) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.066004 · Cited by 121
4D doubleton conformal theories, CPT and IIB strings on AdS5 × S5
Günaydin, M., Minić, D., & Zagermann, M. (1998) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(98)00543-4 · Cited by 105
Itzhak Bars, A. (1997) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.55.2373 · Cited by 101
Singletons, doubletons and M-theory
Günaydin, M., & Minić, D. (1998) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(98)00225-9 · Cited by 97
Novel supermultiplets of SU (2, 2|4) and the AdS5/CFT4 duality
Günaydin, M., Minis, D., & Zagermann, M. (1999) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(99)00007-3 · Cited by 84
Itzhak Bars, A., & Kounnas, C. (1997) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(97)00452-8 · Cited by 81
Supersymmetry, p -brane duality, and hidden spacetime dimensions
Itzhak Bars, A. (1996) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.54.5203 · Cited by 80
CONFORMAL INVARIANCE OF EXTENDED SPINNING PARTICLE MECHANICS
Siegel, W. (1988) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x88001132 · Cited by 79
Lifting M-theory to two-time physics
Bars, I., Deliduman, C., & Minic, D. (1999) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(99)00582-1 · Cited by 76
String and particle with two times
Itzhak Bars, A., & Kounnas, C. (1997) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.56.3664 · Cited by 72
Supersymmetric Yang-Mills equations in 10+2 dimensions
Nishino, H., & Sezgin, E. (1996) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(96)01181-1 · Cited by 68
Manifestly conformally covariant description of spinning and charged particles
Marnelius, R. (1979) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.20.2091 · Cited by 64
Supersymmetric two-time physics
Bars, I., Deliduman, C., & Minic, D. (1999) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.125004 · Cited by 63
Self-citationConformal symmetry and duality between free particle, H atom, and harmonic oscillator
Itzhak Bars, A. (1998) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.066006 · Cited by 60
Solitons in a chiral quark model with non-local interactions
Golli, B., Broniówski, W., & Georges Ripka, C. (1998) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00942-3 · Cited by 56
Spectrum (super-) symmetries of particles in a Coulomb potential
Eric D’hoker, A., & Vinet, L. (1985) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90311-6 · Cited by 52
Hidden symmetries, AdSD×Sn, and the lifting of one-time physics to two-time physics
Itzhak Bars, A. (1999) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.045019 · Cited by 50
Self-citationItzhak Bars, A. (1997) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(97)00550-9 · Cited by 46
Itzhak Bars, A., & Cemsinan Deliduman, B. (1998) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.106004 · Cited by 39
Super Yang-Mills in (11,3) dimensions
Sezgin, E. (1997) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(97)00516-9 · Cited by 30
Superparticles, p-form coordinates and the BPS condition
Rudychev, I., & Sezgin, E. (1998) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00144-0 · Cited by 29
Manifestly conformally covariant field equations and a geometrical understanding of mass
Marnelius, R., & Nilsson, B. E. W. (1980) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.22.830 · Cited by 29
Strings, branes and two-time physics
Bars, I., Deliduman, C., & Minic, D. (1999) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(99)01127-2 · Cited by 29
Superstrings with new supersymmetry in (9,2) and (10,2) dimensions
Itzhak Bars, A., & Cemsinan Deliduman, B. (1997) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.56.6579 · Cited by 27
Higher Spin N=8 Supergravity in AdS_4Preprint
Sezgin, E., & Sundell, P. (1999) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9903020 · Cited by 21
Duality and hidden dimensionsPreprint
Itzhak Bars, A. (1996) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9604200 · Cited by 21
Quantum superspace representation of superconformal algebras
Schwarz, J. H. (1981) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90373-4 · Cited by 17
Algebraic Structure of S-TheoryPreprint
Itzhak Bars, A. (1996) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9608061 · Cited by 8
Nishino (1997) · International Journal of Hematology · doi:10.1016/s0925-5710(97)00581-1 · Cited by 5
p-Brane DemocracyPreprint
Townsend, P. K. (1995) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9507048 · Cited by 1
2T physics formulation of superconformal dynamics relating to twistors and supertwistors
Bars, I. (2000) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)00591-8
Self-citationHidden Symmetries, AdS_D x S^n, and the lifting of one-time-physics to two-time-physics
Bars, I. (1998) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9810025
Self-citationBars, I., & Deliduman, C. (1998) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9806085
Self-citationStrings, Branes and Two-Time Physics
Bars, I., Deliduman, C., & Minic, D. (1999) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9906223
Self-citationSupersymmetric Two-Time Physics
Bars, I., Deliduman, C., & Minic, D. (1998) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9812161
Self-citationLifting M-theory to Two-Time Physics
Bars, I., Deliduman, C., & Minic, D. (1999) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9904063
Self-citationTwo-Time Physics with gravitational and gauge field backgrounds
Bars, I. (2000) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/0002140
Self-citationTwo-Time Physics in Field Theory
Bars, I. (2000) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/0003100
Self-citationConformal Field Theory in Conformal Space
Preitschopf, C. R., & Vasiliev, M. A. (1998) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9812113
Superstrings with new supersymmetry in (9,2) and (10,2) dimensions
Bars, I., & Deliduman, C. (1997) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9707215
Self-citationGauge principles for multi-superparticles
Bars, I., & Deliduman, C. (1997) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9710066
Self-citationAdS Superalgebras with Brane Charges
Ferrara, S., & Porrati, M. (1999) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9903241
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1016/s0370-2693(97)00516-9 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xavier Bekaert, A., & Grigoriev, M. A. (2013) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.08.015 · Cited by 121
Negative branes, supergroups and the signature of spacetime
Dijkgraaf, R., Heidenreich, B., Jefferson, P., & Vafa, C. (2018) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep02(2018)050 · Cited by 92
Brane partons and singleton strings
Engquist, J., & Sundell, P. (2006) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.06.040 · Cited by 80
Standard model of particles and forces in the framework of two-time physics
Itzhak Bars, A. (2006) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.085019 · Cited by 77
Conformal symmetry of relativistic and nonrelativistic systems and AdS/CFT correspondence
Leiva, C., & Plyushchay, M. S. (2003) · Annals of Physics · doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(03)00118-0 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Bars, I.
- Venue
- Classical and Quantum Gravity
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2001-08-02
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 3113-3130
- ISSN
- 0264-9381 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6382
- OpenAlex
- W2127329743
- Semantic Scholar
- 4405149d1033538da01d03816c8957bfc83e0252
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Classical and Quantum Gravity (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Energy (FG0384ER40168)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Relativity and Gravitational Theory
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
- Keywords
- two-time physics, hidden symmetries, duality, holography, gauge invariance, gauge fixing, M-theory, supersymmetry, spin, p-branes, background field, Standard Model, higher-dimensional unification, effective dimension
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-31, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-31 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
