<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>Damghan University Press</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Journal of Holography Applications in Physics</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2783-4778</Issn>
				<Volume>7</Volume>
				<Issue>1</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2026</Year>
					<Month>07</Month>
					<Day>13</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Is Time Reversal in de Sitter Space a Spontaneously Broken Gauge Symmetry?</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle></VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>1</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>14</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">2114</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22128/jhap.2026.3294.1203</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>EN</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Leonard </FirstName>
					<LastName>Susskind</LastName>
<Affiliation>LITP and Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4060, USA;
Google, Mountain View, CA, USA</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2026</Year>
					<Month>03</Month>
					<Day>19</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>I&#039;ll begin  with some well-deserved acknowledgements: I am grateful to Daniel Harlow for discussions of time-reversal holonomies. I have also benefited from a long ongoing correspondence with Edward Witten, but frankly in both cases I can&#039;t tell whether they agree with me or not. I have often been accused of imprecision, especially toward the later parts of a paper, where I expect that my readers have ``caught on.&quot; That does eventually happen-the readers catching on and I thank them-but I&#039;m now almost 86 and I can&#039;t wait. So I&#039;ve  tried to maintain a level of conceptual if not mathematical rigor throughout. Mathematical rigor(mortis) can sometimes be the enemy of conceptual clarity. I thank my friend Richard Feynman for  reminding me of that lesson. Finally I thank the chatbot who gave me the definition of scaffold in section 1.3. It was better than anything I was able to do. Symmetries of a  Holographic  theory; whether continuous or discrete, local or global,  are gauge symmetries of the bulk. This includes discrete space-time symmetries such as C and P.  But time-reversal is sufficiently different from other symmetries  that we may question the standard wisdom and ask whether symmetries involving T should be gauged in the bulk. Harlow and Numasawa [1] say yes; time-reversal is a gauge symmetry. Witten [2]  says no: time reversal is different and does not manifest as a gauge symmetry of the bulk. My view is-yes-but with a  twist: Time-reversal is indeed a gauge symmetry; but it is hidden by  spontaneous symmetry  breaking. In this paper I will review the case for spontaneous symmetry  breaking of time-reversal and explain the ``smoking gun&quot;-a closed curve and a holonomy  which flips forward-going clocks to backward going clocks, and vice versa.</Abstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Holography</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Gauge Symmetry</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Holonomy</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_2114_1cbe6952e862912830b9a6252da97c39.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
