If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**Trick or Truth: the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**0=v.i.**: *on* 7/4/10 at 6:58am UTC, wrote 1) In one dimension: dx1/dt = c This means that x1 expands with a...

**Anonymous**: *on* 5/17/10 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote Dr E You said ''Then, since Einstein and Minkoswki agree that the fourth...

**Dr. Elliot McGucken**: *on* 1/2/10 at 21:22pm UTC, wrote Please see attached paper! “More intellectual curiosity, versatility and...

**narsep**: *on* 9/6/09 at 16:46pm UTC, wrote Blumschein, I could not choose any certain textbook I had learned complex...

**Eckard Blumschein**: *on* 5/13/09 at 4:29am UTC, wrote Narsep, Can you please tell me from what textbook you learned the use of...

**narsep**: *on* 4/22/09 at 15:27pm UTC, wrote I was deeply pleased by seeing that some of my ideas have already seeded...

**Dr. E (The Real McCoy)**: *on* 2/25/09 at 14:35pm UTC, wrote Hello! Please find a pdf of the above document attached! The word...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "Paul, Smooth seas do not make good sailorsThe essay can be downloaded from..."
*in* Science Funding in an...

**Georgina Woodward**: "I emphasize ** materially**."
*in* What Happens Inside the...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Pentcho, there is a difference between a material future,(consisting of..."
*in* What Happens Inside the...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Tom , I realize now you specifically mentioned entanglement and..."
*in* Defining Existence

**Jason Wolfe**: "Hi Steve, Great to hear from you. You have been one of the long standing..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Paul Butler**: "Dear Eckard, I find it interesting that after all the of gains in science..."
*in* Science Funding in an...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi Jason, Hope you are well,Happy to see you again on FQXi? it is cool..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Jason Wolfe**: "While spirit universes have not been proven to exist (yet), they also have..."
*in* Readers' Choice: The Many...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Untangling Quantum Causation**

Figuring out if A causes B should help to write the rulebook for quantum physics.

**In Search of a Quantum Spacetime**

Finding the universe's wavefunction could be the key to understanding the emergence of reality.

**Collapsing Physics: Q&A with Catalina Oana Curceanu**

Tests of a rival to quantum theory, taking place in the belly of the Gran Sasso d'Italia mountain, could reveal how the fuzzy subatomic realm of possibilities comes into sharp macroscopic focus.

**Dropping Schrödinger's Cat Into a Black Hole**

Combining gravity with the process that transforms the fuzzy uncertainty of the quantum realm into the definite classical world we see around us could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.

**Does Quantum Weirdness Arise When Parallel Classical Worlds Repel?**

Quantum mechanics could derive from subtle interactions among unseen neighboring universes

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Figuring out if A causes B should help to write the rulebook for quantum physics.

Finding the universe's wavefunction could be the key to understanding the emergence of reality.

Tests of a rival to quantum theory, taking place in the belly of the Gran Sasso d'Italia mountain, could reveal how the fuzzy subatomic realm of possibilities comes into sharp macroscopic focus.

Combining gravity with the process that transforms the fuzzy uncertainty of the quantum realm into the definite classical world we see around us could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.

Quantum mechanics could derive from subtle interactions among unseen neighboring universes

FQXi FORUM

September 30, 2016

CATEGORY:
The Nature of Time Essay Contest
[back]

TOPIC: Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Elliot McGucken [refresh]

TOPIC: Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Elliot McGucken [refresh]

In his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einstein never stated that time is the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4 = ict. The fourth dimension is not time, but ict. Despite this, prominent physicists have oft equated time and the fourth dimension, leading to un-resolvable paradoxes and confusion regarding time’s physical nature, as physicists mistakenly projected properties of the three spatial dimensions onto a time dimension, resulting in curious concepts including frozen time and block universes in which the past and future are omni-present, thusly denying free will, while implying the possibility of time travel into the past, which visitors from the future have yet to verify. Beginning with the postulate that time is an emergent phenomenon resulting from a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, diverse phenomena from relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics are accounted for. Time dilation, the equivalence of mass and energy, nonlocality, wave-particle duality, and entropy are shown to arise from a common, deeper physical reality expressed with dx4/dt=ic. This postulate and equation, from which Einstein’s relativity is derived, presents a fundamental model accounting for the emergence of time, the constant velocity of light, the fact that the maximum velocity is c, and the fact that c is independent of the velocity of the source, as photons are but matter surfing a fourth expanding dimension. In general relativity, Einstein showed that the dimensions themselves could bend, curve, and move. The present theory extends this principle, postulating that the fourth dimension is moving independently of the three spatial dimensions, distributing locality and fathering time. This physical model underlies and accounts for time in quantum mechanics, relativity, and statistical mechanics, as well as entropy, the universe’s expansion, and time’s arrows.

“Dr. E” received a B.A. in physics from Princeton University and a Ph.D. in physics from UNC Chapel Hill, where his research on an artificial retina, which is now helping the blind see, appeared in Business Week and Popular Science and was awarded a Merrill Lynch Innovations Grant. While at Princeton, McGucken worked on projects concerning quantum mechanics and general relativity with the late John Wheeler, and the projects combined to form an appendix treating time as an emergent phenomenon in his dissertation. McGucken is writing a book for the Artistic Entrepreneurship & Technology (artsentrepreneurship.com) curriculum he created.

Dr. E:

Isn't this just a copy of work published elsewhere? My understanding is that the contest essays are to be original.

Isn't this just a copy of work published elsewhere? My understanding is that the contest essays are to be original.

Hello Excal,

The work has never been submitted to a formal peer-reviewed publication, and thus it has never been published in one. It hasn't even been posted on arxiv.org. But I hope to submit something soon! I'm looking forward to feedback on this forum, so as to further hone the theory.

I have shared variations of this work on the internet, and a very early version appeared in an appendix in my dissertation entitled "Multiple unit artificial retina chipset to aid the visually impaired and enhanced holed-emitter CMOS phototransistors."

However, this is the very first paper in which I lead with "Time as an Emergent Phenomenon."

The postulate that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions (dx4/dt=ic) has implications across many realms of physics, and thus various papers could be written, including:

Time as an Emergent Phenomenon (the current paper--feedback would be greatly appreciated!)

The Unique Source of Quantum Mechanics' Nonlocality and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Unifying the Dualities--the Physical Reality Underlying the Space/Time, Wave/Particle, and Energy/Mass Dualities

Time's Arrows Unified: Entropic, Radiative, Cosmological, Quantum, and Pscyhological

Deriving Einstein's Relativity From a more Fundamental Postulate of a Fourth Expanding Dimension

Moving Dimensions Theory: Extending GR with a Fourth Dimension Moving independently of the Three Spatial Dimensions

Simultaneity and Nonlocality in Time: Ageless Photons are Forever Entangled

Time's Assymetries and the Fourth Expanding Dimension

The Gravitational Redshift and Slowing of Time Explained With a New Invariant: dx4/dt=ic

Why Radiation is Quantized and Gravition is Not

Relativity Does Not Imply a Block Universe, as the Fourth Dimension is Not Time, but ict.

Moving Dimensions Theory: A Physical Reality Underlying Quantum Mechanics, Statistical Mechanis, and Relativity

dx4/dt=ic : Underlying Einstein's Two Postulates of Relativity

Well, those are some titles for potential papers.

I'll look forward to your feedback on the current paper!

Thanks,

Dr. E :)

The work has never been submitted to a formal peer-reviewed publication, and thus it has never been published in one. It hasn't even been posted on arxiv.org. But I hope to submit something soon! I'm looking forward to feedback on this forum, so as to further hone the theory.

I have shared variations of this work on the internet, and a very early version appeared in an appendix in my dissertation entitled "Multiple unit artificial retina chipset to aid the visually impaired and enhanced holed-emitter CMOS phototransistors."

However, this is the very first paper in which I lead with "Time as an Emergent Phenomenon."

The postulate that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions (dx4/dt=ic) has implications across many realms of physics, and thus various papers could be written, including:

Time as an Emergent Phenomenon (the current paper--feedback would be greatly appreciated!)

The Unique Source of Quantum Mechanics' Nonlocality and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Unifying the Dualities--the Physical Reality Underlying the Space/Time, Wave/Particle, and Energy/Mass Dualities

Time's Arrows Unified: Entropic, Radiative, Cosmological, Quantum, and Pscyhological

Deriving Einstein's Relativity From a more Fundamental Postulate of a Fourth Expanding Dimension

Moving Dimensions Theory: Extending GR with a Fourth Dimension Moving independently of the Three Spatial Dimensions

Simultaneity and Nonlocality in Time: Ageless Photons are Forever Entangled

Time's Assymetries and the Fourth Expanding Dimension

The Gravitational Redshift and Slowing of Time Explained With a New Invariant: dx4/dt=ic

Why Radiation is Quantized and Gravition is Not

Relativity Does Not Imply a Block Universe, as the Fourth Dimension is Not Time, but ict.

Moving Dimensions Theory: A Physical Reality Underlying Quantum Mechanics, Statistical Mechanis, and Relativity

dx4/dt=ic : Underlying Einstein's Two Postulates of Relativity

Well, those are some titles for potential papers.

I'll look forward to your feedback on the current paper!

Thanks,

Dr. E :)

p.s.

there are also new ideas/concepts in the current paper "Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Elliot McGucken" that have never been released anywhere else.

i'll look forward to your feedback! thanks!

dr. e :)

there are also new ideas/concepts in the current paper "Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Elliot McGucken" that have never been released anywhere else.

i'll look forward to your feedback! thanks!

dr. e :)

Thanks for that clarification. I started to read the paper, but having only recently discovered a similar paper on physicsmathforums.com, I thought I was reading the same one again.

Anyway, I will reread it soon. In the meantime, I do have some feedback for what it's worth. If the expansion of the fourth dimension is scalar, which it must be, then the radius of the spherical expansion is one unit of space in all directions, in one unit of time. Therefore, the radius of the sphere, r, is equal to ct = Äs/Ät * t = s = 1 (s = space), which makes ict = 2^1/2 = 1.414..., the radius, r’, an imaginary value corresponding to the coordinate pair, [x, y] = [1,1], if we slice the sphere for simplicity.

But if we write dx4/dt = ic, aren’t we writing di(s/t * t}/dt = is/t ? Then what is ‘i*s’ if not 1.414…? If it is 1.414… then ic is > c, correct?

Anyway, I will reread it soon. In the meantime, I do have some feedback for what it's worth. If the expansion of the fourth dimension is scalar, which it must be, then the radius of the spherical expansion is one unit of space in all directions, in one unit of time. Therefore, the radius of the sphere, r, is equal to ct = Äs/Ät * t = s = 1 (s = space), which makes ict = 2^1/2 = 1.414..., the radius, r’, an imaginary value corresponding to the coordinate pair, [x, y] = [1,1], if we slice the sphere for simplicity.

But if we write dx4/dt = ic, aren’t we writing di(s/t * t}/dt = is/t ? Then what is ‘i*s’ if not 1.414…? If it is 1.414… then ic is > c, correct?

Grrr, that umlauted A in the previous post was supposed to be the delta triangle.

Hello Excal--yes-I also posted the paper at physicsmathforums.com right after I submitted it here on 8/14/08. When did you read it first? I am trying to get as much feedback as possible, so I post it around. A great thing about the internet is it costs nothing extra to share an idea in different forums and get the word out. Indeed, I imagine scientific journals will evolve over time, so that ideas can propagate faster to a greater audience and with less expense.

Thanks for the feedback, but I'm not sure what you are saying.

dx4/dt = ic is what MDT states, which comes straight from Einstein's work.

x4 = fourth dimension

i = imaginary number

c = velocity of light

t = time

Suppose I told you x4 = ict and asked you to draw x4 at t=1, t=2, t=3 . . . etc.

Would you not draw x4 in different places for different t's?

Then, since Einstein and Minkoswki agree that the fourth dimension x4 = ict, does it not make sense that the fourth dimension moves over time?

Thanks.

Thanks for the feedback, but I'm not sure what you are saying.

dx4/dt = ic is what MDT states, which comes straight from Einstein's work.

x4 = fourth dimension

i = imaginary number

c = velocity of light

t = time

Suppose I told you x4 = ict and asked you to draw x4 at t=1, t=2, t=3 . . . etc.

Would you not draw x4 in different places for different t's?

Then, since Einstein and Minkoswki agree that the fourth dimension x4 = ict, does it not make sense that the fourth dimension moves over time?

Thanks.

Dr. E:

Clearly it does. However, what I’m saying is that, if, for velocity c = 1, we choose a unit of time (1 Planck time, 1 second, whatever) then that fixes a unit of space for the equation of motion, c = s/t = 1/1. Please see the attached diagram.

An expansion from the origin of the diagram, in all directions, at unit speed, ds/dt = 1/1 = c, will expand as the red sphere with...

view entire post

Clearly it does. However, what I’m saying is that, if, for velocity c = 1, we choose a unit of time (1 Planck time, 1 second, whatever) then that fixes a unit of space for the equation of motion, c = s/t = 1/1. Please see the attached diagram.

An expansion from the origin of the diagram, in all directions, at unit speed, ds/dt = 1/1 = c, will expand as the red sphere with...

view entire post

attachments: UnitComplexCircles.jpg

Hello Excal,

i think you may be making this a bit more complicated than it is . . . i hope the following might help!

real quick, before we get into it, could the expanding fourth dimension be the source of compactified kaluza-klein geometires? imagine points of x4 expanding in a spherically-symmetric...

view entire post

i think you may be making this a bit more complicated than it is . . . i hope the following might help!

real quick, before we get into it, could the expanding fourth dimension be the source of compactified kaluza-klein geometires? imagine points of x4 expanding in a spherically-symmetric...

view entire post

Dr. E:

You are welcome to the feedback for what it’s worth. I find that theoretical development is greatly dependent upon communication, and dialog versus monolog is an essential part of that communication, lest we end up convincing ourselves that our ideas are sound, but fail to convince others. So, I appreciate your patience.

My basic problem in trying to follow your thinking is...

view entire post

You are welcome to the feedback for what it’s worth. I find that theoretical development is greatly dependent upon communication, and dialog versus monolog is an essential part of that communication, lest we end up convincing ourselves that our ideas are sound, but fail to convince others. So, I appreciate your patience.

My basic problem in trying to follow your thinking is...

view entire post

Thanks Excal,

Yes it is difficult to picture the fourth dimension. Some people over at Michio Kaku's forums have been kind in helping out with figures, and I'm currently working on some too:

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1491&page=21

I quote Einstein a lot in the paper when it comes to the fourth dimension: "Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and...

view entire post

Yes it is difficult to picture the fourth dimension. Some people over at Michio Kaku's forums have been kind in helping out with figures, and I'm currently working on some too:

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1491&page=21

I quote Einstein a lot in the paper when it comes to the fourth dimension: "Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and...

view entire post

Dr E wrote (in the paper): "Consider the emission of a photon in free space."

When would this ever happen though? The only justification that immediately comes to mind (and I may be wrong, which is why I ask!) requires use of Feynman diagrams...but doesn't that kind of contradict what is being proposed?

(And why aren't we using our old friend the metric system in the paper?!)

Dr E writes:

"Consider the fascinating physical reality implied by Einstein's most famous equation—E=mc^2."

Uh wait this really is a special instance of the relationship $p_mu p^mu = (E/c)^2 - vec{p}cdotvec{p} = (mc)^2$ (if you will pardon my use of LaTeX) for relativistic systems.

This equation $E=mc^2$ is less general thus (speaking from a mathematician's perspective) *worse* because it is 0 for massless particles, but the dot product of the 4-momenta vector yields the condition $(E/c)^2 - vec{p}cdotvec{p} = 0$ for massless relativistic systems, which is sensible.

Just my concern as a mathematician and physicist...

"It is because the mass, which appears stationary in the lab, is yet propagating through space-time at the rate of c, as is every object, as the fourth dimension is expanding at c."

Uh wait don't you mean the world line of the body is "traveling" at $c$?

This argument doesn't really follow however since massless bodies also propagate at $c$ (consider photons!). So the cause is not mass...

The fact of the matter is that mass is seen as a sort of "potential energy"...the example I gave to a philosopher friend is the following: consider your wallet, you presumably have money in it. You can spend it willy nilly and buy whatever you want at the moment (this can be thought of analogous to kinetic energy); or you can invest it in a long period of time so it will last a great deal of time (this is analogous to potential energy -- you can change it to kinetic energy under certain conditions). Now (massive) particles have to invest a certain amount in a weird sort of potential which we call "mass", it is the cost of the particle even existing!

The third equation on page 7 is incorrect, it should read (in evil LaTeX):

$ int^{u}_{a}frac{dx^4}{du}dx^4 = ic(x^4(u)-x^4(a)) $

You are missing that value of $ic$...

If you instead had $dt/dx^4$ you may have something, but this is kind of mathematically fudgy what you are writing.

How do you deal with how well the notion of proper time works in relativity with your approach? It seems like this is overlooked completely...but I may be wrong.

When would this ever happen though? The only justification that immediately comes to mind (and I may be wrong, which is why I ask!) requires use of Feynman diagrams...but doesn't that kind of contradict what is being proposed?

(And why aren't we using our old friend the metric system in the paper?!)

Dr E writes:

"Consider the fascinating physical reality implied by Einstein's most famous equation—E=mc^2."

Uh wait this really is a special instance of the relationship $p_mu p^mu = (E/c)^2 - vec{p}cdotvec{p} = (mc)^2$ (if you will pardon my use of LaTeX) for relativistic systems.

This equation $E=mc^2$ is less general thus (speaking from a mathematician's perspective) *worse* because it is 0 for massless particles, but the dot product of the 4-momenta vector yields the condition $(E/c)^2 - vec{p}cdotvec{p} = 0$ for massless relativistic systems, which is sensible.

Just my concern as a mathematician and physicist...

"It is because the mass, which appears stationary in the lab, is yet propagating through space-time at the rate of c, as is every object, as the fourth dimension is expanding at c."

Uh wait don't you mean the world line of the body is "traveling" at $c$?

This argument doesn't really follow however since massless bodies also propagate at $c$ (consider photons!). So the cause is not mass...

The fact of the matter is that mass is seen as a sort of "potential energy"...the example I gave to a philosopher friend is the following: consider your wallet, you presumably have money in it. You can spend it willy nilly and buy whatever you want at the moment (this can be thought of analogous to kinetic energy); or you can invest it in a long period of time so it will last a great deal of time (this is analogous to potential energy -- you can change it to kinetic energy under certain conditions). Now (massive) particles have to invest a certain amount in a weird sort of potential which we call "mass", it is the cost of the particle even existing!

The third equation on page 7 is incorrect, it should read (in evil LaTeX):

$ int^{u}_{a}frac{dx^4}{du}dx^4 = ic(x^4(u)-x^4(a)) $

You are missing that value of $ic$...

If you instead had $dt/dx^4$ you may have something, but this is kind of mathematically fudgy what you are writing.

How do you deal with how well the notion of proper time works in relativity with your approach? It seems like this is overlooked completely...but I may be wrong.

Thanks for the comments Alex,

Yes--I used E=mc^2 as it is the more common form of the equation and we are also addressing a lay audience, but the results are the same! Mass is equivalent to energy because the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. The more formal approach is included in longer treatments of Moving Dimensions Theory, along with...

view entire post

Yes--I used E=mc^2 as it is the more common form of the equation and we are also addressing a lay audience, but the results are the same! Mass is equivalent to energy because the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. The more formal approach is included in longer treatments of Moving Dimensions Theory, along with...

view entire post

Hello again Alex--your comments brought to mind this discourse on a passage from Brian Greene's Elegant Universe.

MDT & Brian Greene’s Elegant Universe:

In An Elegant Universe, Brian Greene almost characterizes Moving Dimensions Theory’s deeper reality:

“Einstein found that precisely this idea—the sharing of motion between different dimensions—underlies all of the...

view entire post

MDT & Brian Greene’s Elegant Universe:

In An Elegant Universe, Brian Greene almost characterizes Moving Dimensions Theory’s deeper reality:

“Einstein found that precisely this idea—the sharing of motion between different dimensions—underlies all of the...

view entire post

Dr. E,

Expansion implies contraction. How might that extend your conceptual model? Put it in the context of a convection cycle, where energy radiates out, while structure contracts inward. Not only does this describe the basic relationship that defines our physical situation, but may describe the relative nature of time as well. Just as the present moves from one unit of time to the next, these units go from being in the future to being in the past. To the hands of the clock, the face moves counterclockwise. Yes, reality only moves into the future, but the events of which this reality consist go from being in the future to being in the past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, as we go from yesterday to tomorrow. So the expanding energy goes into the future, as the defined contracted, reductionist structure it manifests as, goes from future potential to past circumstance. The energy doesn't collapse, but the information created by it must, in order to be information. Order condenses out of the energy.To paraphrase, 'Bit from it.'

Expansion implies contraction. How might that extend your conceptual model? Put it in the context of a convection cycle, where energy radiates out, while structure contracts inward. Not only does this describe the basic relationship that defines our physical situation, but may describe the relative nature of time as well. Just as the present moves from one unit of time to the next, these units go from being in the future to being in the past. To the hands of the clock, the face moves counterclockwise. Yes, reality only moves into the future, but the events of which this reality consist go from being in the future to being in the past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, as we go from yesterday to tomorrow. So the expanding energy goes into the future, as the defined contracted, reductionist structure it manifests as, goes from future potential to past circumstance. The energy doesn't collapse, but the information created by it must, in order to be information. Order condenses out of the energy.To paraphrase, 'Bit from it.'

Thanks for your comments John,

Indeed energy does tend to radiate outwards, and MDT accounts for this with a *physical* model--as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, and as photons (energy) are but matter caught on the fourth expanding dimension, the photon appears as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront, as it surfs the expanding fourth dimension. All of nature rests upon this fundamental reality, and all of time's arrows and entropy derive from this simple premise, as does nonlocality, entanglement, and the agelessness of the photon.

I would highly recommend "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time" by Huw Price

Wikipedia writes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorbe

r_theory

"The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory is an interpretation of electrodynamics that starts from the idea that a solution to the electromagnetic field equations has to be symmetric with respect to time-inversion, as are the field equations themselves. The motivation for such choice is mainly due to the importance that time symmetry has in physics. Indeed, there is no apparent reason for which such symmetry should be broken, and therefore one time direction has no privilege to be more important than the other."

But, in our reality, time has a definitive arrow. We all know this, we all see this, we all experience this, time afeter time, and empirical evidence never stops supporting time's relentless arrows.

What has brought us all here is "why?"

There is nothing permanent except change – Heraclitus. But why?

Relativity implies a block, timeless universe. "And yet it moves," as Galileo said. "Eppur si muove"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!

And yet, we continue to ask questions--those questions which keep us up at night, searching for a *physical* reality and model that might answer them.

Why entropy? Why time's arrows? Why time's asymmetries? Why is c the maximum velocity and why is c independent of the source? Why the dualities? Why does physics present us with the mass-energy, space-time, and wave-particle dualities? Why entanglement, length-contraction, nonlocality, and time dilation? Why *time*? All of these phenomena can be traced to a simple principle--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c: dx4/dt = ic, from which Einstein's relativity is derived.

I remember when Wheeler came out with his "it from bit" publication--it was a small pamphlet with the picture of a sphere on the cover, covered in ones and zeroes--trying to find a cover photo/picture of it on google--if you find one, let me know! Thanks!

Indeed energy does tend to radiate outwards, and MDT accounts for this with a *physical* model--as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, and as photons (energy) are but matter caught on the fourth expanding dimension, the photon appears as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront, as it surfs the expanding fourth dimension. All of nature rests upon this fundamental reality, and all of time's arrows and entropy derive from this simple premise, as does nonlocality, entanglement, and the agelessness of the photon.

I would highly recommend "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time" by Huw Price

Wikipedia writes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorbe

r_theory

"The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory is an interpretation of electrodynamics that starts from the idea that a solution to the electromagnetic field equations has to be symmetric with respect to time-inversion, as are the field equations themselves. The motivation for such choice is mainly due to the importance that time symmetry has in physics. Indeed, there is no apparent reason for which such symmetry should be broken, and therefore one time direction has no privilege to be more important than the other."

But, in our reality, time has a definitive arrow. We all know this, we all see this, we all experience this, time afeter time, and empirical evidence never stops supporting time's relentless arrows.

What has brought us all here is "why?"

There is nothing permanent except change – Heraclitus. But why?

Relativity implies a block, timeless universe. "And yet it moves," as Galileo said. "Eppur si muove"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!

And yet, we continue to ask questions--those questions which keep us up at night, searching for a *physical* reality and model that might answer them.

Why entropy? Why time's arrows? Why time's asymmetries? Why is c the maximum velocity and why is c independent of the source? Why the dualities? Why does physics present us with the mass-energy, space-time, and wave-particle dualities? Why entanglement, length-contraction, nonlocality, and time dilation? Why *time*? All of these phenomena can be traced to a simple principle--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c: dx4/dt = ic, from which Einstein's relativity is derived.

I remember when Wheeler came out with his "it from bit" publication--it was a small pamphlet with the picture of a sphere on the cover, covered in ones and zeroes--trying to find a cover photo/picture of it on google--if you find one, let me know! Thanks!

Dr. E,

Relativistically speaking, from the perspective of this expanding dimension which is carrying light, or is light, it is the three spatial dimensions which are shrinking. If, as Einstein said, time doesn't exist for the photon, it would seem this wave is the constant, not the three spatial dimensions. In fact it was because his theories described gravity as shrinking space to a point that Einstein felt compelled to add the Cosmological Constant, a factor which he subsequently rejected, but has been resurrected to explain dark energy, which does appear to cause space to expand. So from Einstein's original perspective, it would seem time is contracting space to that gravitational absolute, yet we seem to have lost sight of that as we have tried to understand the expansion of space and energy. Could there be some larger relativistic equilibrium that hasn't been recognized? According to measurements by COBE and WMAP,the expansion of space is roughly balanced by the contraction of gravity, resulting in overall flat space.

Entropy refers to useable energy in a closed set, but what if the very concept of "set" is a subjective concept necessary to define "information?" So that energy is just traded around, collapsing into sets as particles and expanding back out as waves, which collapse back into particles when we try to measure the energy, ie. define the informational content.

Yes, time has an arrow, but it is moving against a relative context, which is therefore going the opposite direction, as events go from being in the future to being in the past. Reality exists as this quantum field, of which macroscopic reality is an emergent phenomena. That's why I think it's more logical to understand time as an emergent property of this field, like temperature, thus time is the flow of created events from future potential to past circumstance, as this field fluctuates. One of the rebuttals raised to this is that quantum mechanics isn't intuitive, so conventional logic doesn't apply. My response to that it is the description of time as a dimensional projection which moves from past events to future ones that is intuitive, as our individual, biological perception of time is of a linear narrative from beginning to end. The same logic used to describe time as a dimensional projection of space could also be used to argue that temperature is another parameter of volume, since their relationship to measuring energy is similar.

Volume and distances/dimensions are descriptions of the vacuum. Time and temperature are consequences of the fluctuation.

Relativistically speaking, from the perspective of this expanding dimension which is carrying light, or is light, it is the three spatial dimensions which are shrinking. If, as Einstein said, time doesn't exist for the photon, it would seem this wave is the constant, not the three spatial dimensions. In fact it was because his theories described gravity as shrinking space to a point that Einstein felt compelled to add the Cosmological Constant, a factor which he subsequently rejected, but has been resurrected to explain dark energy, which does appear to cause space to expand. So from Einstein's original perspective, it would seem time is contracting space to that gravitational absolute, yet we seem to have lost sight of that as we have tried to understand the expansion of space and energy. Could there be some larger relativistic equilibrium that hasn't been recognized? According to measurements by COBE and WMAP,the expansion of space is roughly balanced by the contraction of gravity, resulting in overall flat space.

Entropy refers to useable energy in a closed set, but what if the very concept of "set" is a subjective concept necessary to define "information?" So that energy is just traded around, collapsing into sets as particles and expanding back out as waves, which collapse back into particles when we try to measure the energy, ie. define the informational content.

Yes, time has an arrow, but it is moving against a relative context, which is therefore going the opposite direction, as events go from being in the future to being in the past. Reality exists as this quantum field, of which macroscopic reality is an emergent phenomena. That's why I think it's more logical to understand time as an emergent property of this field, like temperature, thus time is the flow of created events from future potential to past circumstance, as this field fluctuates. One of the rebuttals raised to this is that quantum mechanics isn't intuitive, so conventional logic doesn't apply. My response to that it is the description of time as a dimensional projection which moves from past events to future ones that is intuitive, as our individual, biological perception of time is of a linear narrative from beginning to end. The same logic used to describe time as a dimensional projection of space could also be used to argue that temperature is another parameter of volume, since their relationship to measuring energy is similar.

Volume and distances/dimensions are descriptions of the vacuum. Time and temperature are consequences of the fluctuation.

Dr E,

The one question on the MDT that I don't see any answer to yet is, “What is the fourth dimension?” If it's not time, then it has to be space, but there is not a fourth spatial dimension, orthogonal to the three observed spatial dimensions, that can be observed.

And even if there were an unknowable fourth dimension, it would have to be an unknowable dimension of space, since everything else is eliminated.

It seems to me that calling it an imaginary dimension is not very scientific. At least the imaginary number ‘i’ was a number, but how do you get an imaginary dimension? Every dimension has two directions, or no directions. There is no in between. A scalar, like time has no direction, while each spatial direction has two directions. The three spatial dimensions define the direction of any one of the radii of an expanding sphere, like two spatial dimensions define the direction of any one of the radii of an expanding circle. The radius is not an independent dimension, by any stretch of the imagination, as far as I can tell.

The one question on the MDT that I don't see any answer to yet is, “What is the fourth dimension?” If it's not time, then it has to be space, but there is not a fourth spatial dimension, orthogonal to the three observed spatial dimensions, that can be observed.

And even if there were an unknowable fourth dimension, it would have to be an unknowable dimension of space, since everything else is eliminated.

It seems to me that calling it an imaginary dimension is not very scientific. At least the imaginary number ‘i’ was a number, but how do you get an imaginary dimension? Every dimension has two directions, or no directions. There is no in between. A scalar, like time has no direction, while each spatial direction has two directions. The three spatial dimensions define the direction of any one of the radii of an expanding sphere, like two spatial dimensions define the direction of any one of the radii of an expanding circle. The radius is not an independent dimension, by any stretch of the imagination, as far as I can tell.

Hello Excal,

Thanks again for your insights/questions.

MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions. All that MDT states is that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. In his 1912 paper Einstein just states x4 = ict. MDT begins at a more...

view entire post

Thanks again for your insights/questions.

MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions. All that MDT states is that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. In his 1912 paper Einstein just states x4 = ict. MDT begins at a more...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dr,

In your reply to Excal above, you seem to be making the point that this fourth dimension is the quantum constant, so it is the three spatial dimensions which are shrinking/moving into the past. ?

That does seem to accord with the impression that the present is the constant and time is the procession of events which recede into the past as each one is replaced by the next, as each is created and consumed by this energetic constant.

report post as inappropriate

In your reply to Excal above, you seem to be making the point that this fourth dimension is the quantum constant, so it is the three spatial dimensions which are shrinking/moving into the past. ?

That does seem to accord with the impression that the present is the constant and time is the procession of events which recede into the past as each one is replaced by the next, as each is created and consumed by this energetic constant.

report post as inappropriate

Forgot to sign the above post...

Thanks for the comments John,

Yes--perhaps you can interpret it that way, but for the moment I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible, by stating that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic. Einstein's Relativity may be derived from this simple postulate and its equation, and too, it unfreezes time, it liberates us from the block...

view entire post

Yes--perhaps you can interpret it that way, but for the moment I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible, by stating that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic. Einstein's Relativity may be derived from this simple postulate and its equation, and too, it unfreezes time, it liberates us from the block...

view entire post

Dr. E,

I'm in clear agreement with your model, but it seems to me that you haven't fully considered the implications of it. We view this energy field as expanding, but if in fact it is the constant, which we both seem to agree, than it is our perspective, our intellectually reductionistic, three dimensional model that is shrinking. This seems to me that is what Einstein was pointing to, with light as the constant and gravity as shrinking space. I think there exists some equilibrium of these two sides, but the tendency is to view it from one direction or the other, so that from the perspective of structure, light is expanding, while from the perspective of light, structure is shrinking. There just doesn't exist a stable middle ground to view the full relationship, so since light is uniform, it is the constant. Complexity Theory is a good example, with bottom up process(chaos) as expanding energy, top down order as contracting structure and complexity as the intermediate state.

By quantum constant I'm suggesting a physical reality sans block time. It's not presentism because as a measure of motion, it would be meaningless to describe time as a point or instant, since that would mean the cessation of motion. Peter Lynds develops this particular observation in his essay, though in a different context. Basically it means the quantum state is reality and macroscopic structure, including time, is an emergent phenomena of the inherent instability which causes collapse and expansion.

I submitted my own essay to the contest, titled Explaining Time, that provides some basic detail, although I edited it to the most clear cut points, having learned not to leave too many loose ends when making an initial presentation.

I'm in clear agreement with your model, but it seems to me that you haven't fully considered the implications of it. We view this energy field as expanding, but if in fact it is the constant, which we both seem to agree, than it is our perspective, our intellectually reductionistic, three dimensional model that is shrinking. This seems to me that is what Einstein was pointing to, with light as the constant and gravity as shrinking space. I think there exists some equilibrium of these two sides, but the tendency is to view it from one direction or the other, so that from the perspective of structure, light is expanding, while from the perspective of light, structure is shrinking. There just doesn't exist a stable middle ground to view the full relationship, so since light is uniform, it is the constant. Complexity Theory is a good example, with bottom up process(chaos) as expanding energy, top down order as contracting structure and complexity as the intermediate state.

By quantum constant I'm suggesting a physical reality sans block time. It's not presentism because as a measure of motion, it would be meaningless to describe time as a point or instant, since that would mean the cessation of motion. Peter Lynds develops this particular observation in his essay, though in a different context. Basically it means the quantum state is reality and macroscopic structure, including time, is an emergent phenomena of the inherent instability which causes collapse and expansion.

I submitted my own essay to the contest, titled Explaining Time, that provides some basic detail, although I edited it to the most clear cut points, having learned not to leave too many loose ends when making an initial presentation.

Dr. E:

Thank you for taking the considerable time and effort to carefully explain your ideas that you have taken. I don’t want to burden you further, but we seem to be talking past each other. You wrote:

MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions.

A dimension cannot be a direction, since directions are a property of dimensions. In 3-space, three orthogonal dimensions are sufficient to define any direction in the space: N-S, E-W, U-D. Mathematically, these three dimensions are three numbers; N-S = 2^1, E-W = 2^1, and U-D = 2^1.

Any radius of the expanding sphere, expanding at the rate of c, reaches a unit value, from zero, in one unit of time. If we freeze the expansion at that point in time and analyze the unit sphere, or its cross-section, a unit circle, we see that, in terms of motion, the length of the sphere’s radius is given by the equation of motion:

L = c * t = 299,792,458 m/s * 1 sec = 299,792,458 meters

Certainly, the length of this radius, regardless of the angle from the origin, is constant, never changing. It’s a real radius of a real sphere. However, if we consider the values of the x, y, z coordinates of its corresponding point on the surface of the sphere, they cannot, of course, be equal to the value of the radius, they must be approximately .707 times the length of the radius, due to the geometry of the sphere in terms of the geometry of the cube (the rectangular coordinate system).

So, while the radius of the real sphere is L = ct, the coordinates of its corresponding point on the surface, in each of three, orthogonal directions, is .707L. But they each increased, from zero to .707L in 1 sec, so the speed of increase, or the speed in each orthogonal direction, in terms of a given coordinate, is .707c. But isn’t this an imaginary speed? Did anything really move at that speed? Of course not. The sphere actually expanded at c-speed. The fact that we can describe the position of the point on the surface of the sphere, corresponding to L, with three, orthogonal coordinates of length .707L, is not anything real, but only a consequence of the properties of right lines and circles.

Therefore, just as there is no actual expansion speed of .707c, there is no expansion speed of 2(.707c) = ict either. If there is no expansion speed = ict, then there is no expansion = ict/t = ic, and if it doesn’t exist, how can it have properties?

Thank you for taking the considerable time and effort to carefully explain your ideas that you have taken. I don’t want to burden you further, but we seem to be talking past each other. You wrote:

MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions.

A dimension cannot be a direction, since directions are a property of dimensions. In 3-space, three orthogonal dimensions are sufficient to define any direction in the space: N-S, E-W, U-D. Mathematically, these three dimensions are three numbers; N-S = 2^1, E-W = 2^1, and U-D = 2^1.

Any radius of the expanding sphere, expanding at the rate of c, reaches a unit value, from zero, in one unit of time. If we freeze the expansion at that point in time and analyze the unit sphere, or its cross-section, a unit circle, we see that, in terms of motion, the length of the sphere’s radius is given by the equation of motion:

L = c * t = 299,792,458 m/s * 1 sec = 299,792,458 meters

Certainly, the length of this radius, regardless of the angle from the origin, is constant, never changing. It’s a real radius of a real sphere. However, if we consider the values of the x, y, z coordinates of its corresponding point on the surface of the sphere, they cannot, of course, be equal to the value of the radius, they must be approximately .707 times the length of the radius, due to the geometry of the sphere in terms of the geometry of the cube (the rectangular coordinate system).

So, while the radius of the real sphere is L = ct, the coordinates of its corresponding point on the surface, in each of three, orthogonal directions, is .707L. But they each increased, from zero to .707L in 1 sec, so the speed of increase, or the speed in each orthogonal direction, in terms of a given coordinate, is .707c. But isn’t this an imaginary speed? Did anything really move at that speed? Of course not. The sphere actually expanded at c-speed. The fact that we can describe the position of the point on the surface of the sphere, corresponding to L, with three, orthogonal coordinates of length .707L, is not anything real, but only a consequence of the properties of right lines and circles.

Therefore, just as there is no actual expansion speed of .707c, there is no expansion speed of 2(.707c) = ict either. If there is no expansion speed = ict, then there is no expansion = ict/t = ic, and if it doesn’t exist, how can it have properties?

Hello Excal,

Thanks for the note. I'm enjoying this!

I wrote,

"MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions."

It would have been better worded with "The fourth dimension *represents* a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions."

Or perhaps...

view entire post

Thanks for the note. I'm enjoying this!

I wrote,

"MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions."

It would have been better worded with "The fourth dimension *represents* a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions."

Or perhaps...

view entire post

Hello Johnn,

You write, "By quantum constant I'm suggesting a physical reality sans block time."

Yes! I agree!

Change is woven into the fundamental fabric of the universe!

dx4/dt = ic acknowledges this fundamental change from where time, as measured on our watches, naturally emerges.

The invariant expansion of the fourth dimension, expressed with dx4/dt = ic, allows us to keep all of relativity, while also liberating us from a block universe and *physically* acocunting for the flow of time, time's arrows, entropy, and free will. And it also provides a *physical* model accounting for quantum mechanical phenomena such as entanglement, nonlocality, and the uncertainty principle, while showing a common *physical* source for all the dualitiess--space/time, enegery/mass, and wave/particle.

Change is woven into the fundamental fabric of the universe on a quantum level, from where relativity and time emerge!

You write, "By quantum constant I'm suggesting a physical reality sans block time."

Yes! I agree!

Change is woven into the fundamental fabric of the universe!

dx4/dt = ic acknowledges this fundamental change from where time, as measured on our watches, naturally emerges.

The invariant expansion of the fourth dimension, expressed with dx4/dt = ic, allows us to keep all of relativity, while also liberating us from a block universe and *physically* acocunting for the flow of time, time's arrows, entropy, and free will. And it also provides a *physical* model accounting for quantum mechanical phenomena such as entanglement, nonlocality, and the uncertainty principle, while showing a common *physical* source for all the dualitiess--space/time, enegery/mass, and wave/particle.

Change is woven into the fundamental fabric of the universe on a quantum level, from where relativity and time emerge!

I'm glad you are not annoyed Dr. E:

You wrote:

“As MDT agrees with Einstein and Minkowski's relativity, perhaps your argument is more with their formulation of relativity, and relativity in general, than with MDT.”

No, because in Einstein’s case, x4 = ict = iL/t * t = iL is an imaginary length that is the radius, r’, of an imaginary sphere, as he pointed out, but the coordinates of the point on the surface of the imaginary sphere are equal to the radius, r, of the real sphere (see the attachment again). Thus, x4, the coordinate point, is real, while ict, the radius, r’, is imaginary, so using the imaginary concept as Einstein used it, as a fourth coordinate in spacetime, is perfectly consistent, but using it the way you are using it, is not consistent.

That is to say, for the imaginary sphere, the speed of a given dimension of the expanding coordinate point, x, or y, or z, is equal to c, the length of which is L = ct =1, which is equal to the radius, r, of the real sphere.

Consequently, the coordinates of the imaginary sphere are real, but its radius, r’, is imaginary, while the radius, r, of the real sphere is real, but its coordinates are imaginary. If we disregard this fact, we invite confusion.

attachments: 1_UnitComplexCircles.jpg

You wrote:

“As MDT agrees with Einstein and Minkowski's relativity, perhaps your argument is more with their formulation of relativity, and relativity in general, than with MDT.”

No, because in Einstein’s case, x4 = ict = iL/t * t = iL is an imaginary length that is the radius, r’, of an imaginary sphere, as he pointed out, but the coordinates of the point on the surface of the imaginary sphere are equal to the radius, r, of the real sphere (see the attachment again). Thus, x4, the coordinate point, is real, while ict, the radius, r’, is imaginary, so using the imaginary concept as Einstein used it, as a fourth coordinate in spacetime, is perfectly consistent, but using it the way you are using it, is not consistent.

That is to say, for the imaginary sphere, the speed of a given dimension of the expanding coordinate point, x, or y, or z, is equal to c, the length of which is L = ct =1, which is equal to the radius, r, of the real sphere.

Consequently, the coordinates of the imaginary sphere are real, but its radius, r’, is imaginary, while the radius, r, of the real sphere is real, but its coordinates are imaginary. If we disregard this fact, we invite confusion.

attachments: 1_UnitComplexCircles.jpg

Hello Excal,

I am using x4 and ict exactly how Einstein and Minkowski used them.

MDT agrees entirely with Einstein's Relativity.

My paper quotes Einstein's 1912 Manuscipt, from where it also takes its direct inspiration and equations.

I highly recommend the book!

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Manuscript-Special-Theo

ry-Relativity/dp/0807615323/

report post as inappropriate

I am using x4 and ict exactly how Einstein and Minkowski used them.

MDT agrees entirely with Einstein's Relativity.

My paper quotes Einstein's 1912 Manuscipt, from where it also takes its direct inspiration and equations.

I highly recommend the book!

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Manuscript-Special-Theo

ry-Relativity/dp/0807615323/

report post as inappropriate

Best,

Dr. E :)

P.S. I'm used to forums that keep me logged on throughout the day. :)

Dr. E :)

P.S. I'm used to forums that keep me logged on throughout the day. :)

Excal,

I think the conversation is circling around the issue of cosmic expansion and how to explain it and how to describe it. While it's not advisable to stray too far from the standard model(singularity/inflation/dark energy) in polite company, I'm of the impression it is a cosmological constant, ie. a curvature or expansion of space opposite that of gravity. Since this would compound the redshift, then the further light travels the faster the source appears to recede, until it eventually appears to be receding at the speed of light, which creates a horizon line over which visible light can't travel, only black body radiation. The source is not actually receding, any more than gravitational lensing actually causes a star to move because its light shifts position. As gravity is described by matter falling together and radiation expands directly out of gravitational wells, at least those weaker than black holes, this opposing expansion is as much a consequence and cause of light radiation as gravity is of mass. So as particular light waves cross this medium, they are redshifted because they are stretched by the expansion, just as when they cross a gravitational field, they are curved. Think in terms of running up the down escalator, the floors are not moving apart, nor are the galaxies, because what expands between galaxies falls into them. Thus Omega=1 and gravity and expansion balance out. Between the valleys of gravity are hills of radiant expansion.

This would be a possible explanation for how Dr. E's fourth dimension is expanding, as a field effect, rather than radially, from a particular location.

Keep in mind that if space were actually expanding, then our most stable measure of it, the speed of light, would have to increase proportionally. Otherwise it's not expanding space, but an increasing distance in stable space, which would place us at the center of the universe, since other galaxies are redshifted directly away from us. If C did increase as space expanded, we wouldn't be able to detect the expansion, since the source would still appear at the same distance relative to our only measure, C.

I think the conversation is circling around the issue of cosmic expansion and how to explain it and how to describe it. While it's not advisable to stray too far from the standard model(singularity/inflation/dark energy) in polite company, I'm of the impression it is a cosmological constant, ie. a curvature or expansion of space opposite that of gravity. Since this would compound the redshift, then the further light travels the faster the source appears to recede, until it eventually appears to be receding at the speed of light, which creates a horizon line over which visible light can't travel, only black body radiation. The source is not actually receding, any more than gravitational lensing actually causes a star to move because its light shifts position. As gravity is described by matter falling together and radiation expands directly out of gravitational wells, at least those weaker than black holes, this opposing expansion is as much a consequence and cause of light radiation as gravity is of mass. So as particular light waves cross this medium, they are redshifted because they are stretched by the expansion, just as when they cross a gravitational field, they are curved. Think in terms of running up the down escalator, the floors are not moving apart, nor are the galaxies, because what expands between galaxies falls into them. Thus Omega=1 and gravity and expansion balance out. Between the valleys of gravity are hills of radiant expansion.

This would be a possible explanation for how Dr. E's fourth dimension is expanding, as a field effect, rather than radially, from a particular location.

Keep in mind that if space were actually expanding, then our most stable measure of it, the speed of light, would have to increase proportionally. Otherwise it's not expanding space, but an increasing distance in stable space, which would place us at the center of the universe, since other galaxies are redshifted directly away from us. If C did increase as space expanded, we wouldn't be able to detect the expansion, since the source would still appear at the same distance relative to our only measure, C.

Hello All!

One thing I hope to do is to set up a site which shares excerpts from notable physics papers and books which support Moving Dimensions Theory, or which ask questiosn or pose problems that are solved via MDT

Here is a passage from page 350 of John A. Wheeler's 1998 GEONS, BLACK HOLES, AND QUANTUM FOAM:

"Theory suggests also that black holes of incredibly small size,...

view entire post

One thing I hope to do is to set up a site which shares excerpts from notable physics papers and books which support Moving Dimensions Theory, or which ask questiosn or pose problems that are solved via MDT

Here is a passage from page 350 of John A. Wheeler's 1998 GEONS, BLACK HOLES, AND QUANTUM FOAM:

"Theory suggests also that black holes of incredibly small size,...

view entire post

Awesome essay, cannot wait to see the *final* version!

I feel like your theory might integrate nicely with the here-and-now (see essay)?

Perhaps, the here-and-now is physically defined as the surface of the 'expanding fourth dimension sphere' (i.e., photons) which is *coincident* to our *subjective moments*.

CKM

I feel like your theory might integrate nicely with the here-and-now (see essay)?

Perhaps, the here-and-now is physically defined as the surface of the 'expanding fourth dimension sphere' (i.e., photons) which is *coincident* to our *subjective moments*.

CKM

Thanks for the words Clinton.

Yes--I have enjoyed your paper and am currently re-reading it. I love your thesis, "Third, the importance of experimental empirical information for an objective world-view is stressed with examples." Yes! Too many have forgotten that physics ought be about *physical* reality.

I also enjoy the words in your appendix on page 9 of your paper, ". . ....

view entire post

Yes--I have enjoyed your paper and am currently re-reading it. I love your thesis, "Third, the importance of experimental empirical information for an objective world-view is stressed with examples." Yes! Too many have forgotten that physics ought be about *physical* reality.

I also enjoy the words in your appendix on page 9 of your paper, ". . ....

view entire post

Thank you Dr. E!

I have to admit, however, that time is not on my side--my fluid intelligence will begin to decline over the next 10 years--this past year I realized that *now* is my opportunity to make something of my life. Since I arrived at college I began a journey into the depths of science, my lifelong passion. When confronted with that question "what do you want to be?" I began to re-discover my joy for learning--and the *wonder* it can arouse. Curiosity was the energy that drove me this past year to do all the research that led to my essay.

Learning is an emotional activity. This is why its so hard to remember what the molecular mass of seaborgium is--who cares! We have books, videos, and the internet for that. Two Einstein quotes come to mind,

“It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.” - Albert Einstein

“Never memorize what you can look up in books.” - Albert Einstein

These statements are at odds with my current situation, college. I want to *give* something to *us*. I do not want to *get* good grades for *me*.

“It is high time the ideal of success should be replaced with the ideal of service... Only a life lived [in the here-and-now] for others [past, present, and future] is a life worthwhile.” - Albert Einstein

CKM

P.S.

"When a photon blackens a grain on a photographic plate, or when it warms the pavement, it does so independent of any observer. There is a *physical* reality independent of observers!"

I agree with this idea apart from the word independent. That word incurs an assumption (i.e., objective reality). But the word *coincident* does not.

I have to admit, however, that time is not on my side--my fluid intelligence will begin to decline over the next 10 years--this past year I realized that *now* is my opportunity to make something of my life. Since I arrived at college I began a journey into the depths of science, my lifelong passion. When confronted with that question "what do you want to be?" I began to re-discover my joy for learning--and the *wonder* it can arouse. Curiosity was the energy that drove me this past year to do all the research that led to my essay.

Learning is an emotional activity. This is why its so hard to remember what the molecular mass of seaborgium is--who cares! We have books, videos, and the internet for that. Two Einstein quotes come to mind,

“It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.” - Albert Einstein

“Never memorize what you can look up in books.” - Albert Einstein

These statements are at odds with my current situation, college. I want to *give* something to *us*. I do not want to *get* good grades for *me*.

“It is high time the ideal of success should be replaced with the ideal of service... Only a life lived [in the here-and-now] for others [past, present, and future] is a life worthwhile.” - Albert Einstein

CKM

P.S.

"When a photon blackens a grain on a photographic plate, or when it warms the pavement, it does so independent of any observer. There is a *physical* reality independent of observers!"

I agree with this idea apart from the word independent. That word incurs an assumption (i.e., objective reality). But the word *coincident* does not.

Thanks Clinton!

Great Einstein quotes! Hang in there & seek out professors who encourage creativity and independent thought--I was quite lucky to find John Wheeler and then a dissertation advisor who stated, "you can do anything, but you gotta do something," which led to the artificial retina project.

Yes--you would enjoy Joseph Campbell's writings...

view entire post

Great Einstein quotes! Hang in there & seek out professors who encourage creativity and independent thought--I was quite lucky to find John Wheeler and then a dissertation advisor who stated, "you can do anything, but you gotta do something," which led to the artificial retina project.

Yes--you would enjoy Joseph Campbell's writings...

view entire post

Dr. E,

I had another thought about your MDT.

In my paper Nature is *coincident* to our *subjective moments* through the here-and-now. If the here-and-now is physically defined as the photons impinging upon our sense modalities (i.e., the surface of the expanding fourth dimension), we can then infer that between the here-and-now and the cosmic background radiation (the limit of...

view entire post

I had another thought about your MDT.

In my paper Nature is *coincident* to our *subjective moments* through the here-and-now. If the here-and-now is physically defined as the photons impinging upon our sense modalities (i.e., the surface of the expanding fourth dimension), we can then infer that between the here-and-now and the cosmic background radiation (the limit of...

view entire post

Thanks for this CKM.

A great book you must get your hands on is: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-P

hysics/dp/0691083169

Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics) (Paperback)

by John Archibald Wheeler

This book was in my freshman dorm at Princeton--the only physics book in the little library/study room. And so I picked...

view entire post

A great book you must get your hands on is: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-P

hysics/dp/0691083169

Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics) (Paperback)

by John Archibald Wheeler

This book was in my freshman dorm at Princeton--the only physics book in the little library/study room. And so I picked...

view entire post

Dr. E,

Thank you for your comments, they are greatly appreciated.

I hold my position, however.

"Einstein stated, "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it," and I agree!"

By all means I implore you to think as you wish, but, that fact of the matter is by agreeing with that statement you are only voicing your opinion—a product of your *imagination*—not the invariant structure of reality.

Only the here-and-now or "present moment" can exist.

"Also, the universe is the way it is because we measure it, and our meausurements affect the actual laws might be giving us a bit too much credit. Also, how can we test it? What are the physical postulates and equations that this line of thinking leads to?"

We do not measure the universe. Nature preforms measurement in our sense modalities. All measurement can be traced back to this *real* measurement. And we do not need to test it—we need only to live it—reality is what it is.

“Nature uses only the longest threads [ageless photons] to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.” - Richard Feynman

———

I absolutely love the William Blake poem. (One of my favorites.) However, I think the eternity he speaks of is subjective. I have experienced this before.

———

"MDT longs for that heroic age of physics, whence simple postulates and equations strove to expose, discover, define, and express deeper aspects of our reality."

"We are very lucky to be living in an age in which we are still making discoveries... The age in which we live is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature, and that day will never come again. It is very exciting, it is marvelous, but this excitement will have to go."

- Richard Feynman, in *The Character of Physical Law*, 1965

CKM

Thank you for your comments, they are greatly appreciated.

I hold my position, however.

"Einstein stated, "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it," and I agree!"

By all means I implore you to think as you wish, but, that fact of the matter is by agreeing with that statement you are only voicing your opinion—a product of your *imagination*—not the invariant structure of reality.

Only the here-and-now or "present moment" can exist.

"Also, the universe is the way it is because we measure it, and our meausurements affect the actual laws might be giving us a bit too much credit. Also, how can we test it? What are the physical postulates and equations that this line of thinking leads to?"

We do not measure the universe. Nature preforms measurement in our sense modalities. All measurement can be traced back to this *real* measurement. And we do not need to test it—we need only to live it—reality is what it is.

“Nature uses only the longest threads [ageless photons] to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.” - Richard Feynman

———

I absolutely love the William Blake poem. (One of my favorites.) However, I think the eternity he speaks of is subjective. I have experienced this before.

———

"MDT longs for that heroic age of physics, whence simple postulates and equations strove to expose, discover, define, and express deeper aspects of our reality."

"We are very lucky to be living in an age in which we are still making discoveries... The age in which we live is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature, and that day will never come again. It is very exciting, it is marvelous, but this excitement will have to go."

- Richard Feynman, in *The Character of Physical Law*, 1965

CKM

Hello CKM,

I agree with what you write, "We do not measure the universe. Nature preforms measurement in our sense modalities. All measurement can be traced back to this *real* measurement. And we do not need to test it—we need only to live it—reality is what it is."

Yes--Feynman was fairly prophetic in predicting the era dominated by String Theory and LQG and other "ironic" forms...

view entire post

I agree with what you write, "We do not measure the universe. Nature preforms measurement in our sense modalities. All measurement can be traced back to this *real* measurement. And we do not need to test it—we need only to live it—reality is what it is."

Yes--Feynman was fairly prophetic in predicting the era dominated by String Theory and LQG and other "ironic" forms...

view entire post

Dr. E,

Assuming your theory is testable and vindicated, it seems to me that we have *the* 'fundamental *physical* invariant'--the *physical* definition of the here-and-now (i.e., photons)?

That being the case, what is left for *fundamental* physics...?

Perhaps it is time not for a "heroic age of physics" but for a 'heroic age of humanity'...

I do not think that science is "done". I think it is time for science to be brought to the people.

“Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers, you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age.” - Richard Feynman

———

I wrote a letter at the end this past summer, where I worked in a solid-state physics lab at UC Berkeley (attached).

In principle one could ignite awe with theoretical ‘parallel universes,’ but, I now realize that, *in practice*, it is our mission as scientists to unveil the shroud of ignorance that envelops the human condition—with *objective truth*.

This idea is echoed in the words left on Richard Feynman's board at his time of death.

“What I cannot create, I do not understand.” - Richard Feynman

We *create* our *physical* theories (e.g., space-time), whereas we *discover* the order of Nature through *real* experiments (e.g., the quantum of light or photon).

CKM

attachments: Final_Letter.pdf

Assuming your theory is testable and vindicated, it seems to me that we have *the* 'fundamental *physical* invariant'--the *physical* definition of the here-and-now (i.e., photons)?

That being the case, what is left for *fundamental* physics...?

Perhaps it is time not for a "heroic age of physics" but for a 'heroic age of humanity'...

I do not think that science is "done". I think it is time for science to be brought to the people.

“Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers, you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age.” - Richard Feynman

———

I wrote a letter at the end this past summer, where I worked in a solid-state physics lab at UC Berkeley (attached).

In principle one could ignite awe with theoretical ‘parallel universes,’ but, I now realize that, *in practice*, it is our mission as scientists to unveil the shroud of ignorance that envelops the human condition—with *objective truth*.

This idea is echoed in the words left on Richard Feynman's board at his time of death.

“What I cannot create, I do not understand.” - Richard Feynman

We *create* our *physical* theories (e.g., space-time), whereas we *discover* the order of Nature through *real* experiments (e.g., the quantum of light or photon).

CKM

attachments: Final_Letter.pdf

Hello CKM,

Love the closing paragraph of the eloquent letter you attached above!

"Many more days have passed and my hands have built quite a few devices. My experiences here have played no small role in my life, and will no doubt continue to shape how I conduct my own inquiries. “Philosophy begins with wonder,” as Socrates proclaimed. In principle one could ignite awe with...

view entire post

Love the closing paragraph of the eloquent letter you attached above!

"Many more days have passed and my hands have built quite a few devices. My experiences here have played no small role in my life, and will no doubt continue to shape how I conduct my own inquiries. “Philosophy begins with wonder,” as Socrates proclaimed. In principle one could ignite awe with...

view entire post

Dr. E,

Thank you!

I see your *knowledge* of MDT, and I like where this is going...

But what is the course of *action* you suggest?

CKM

Thank you!

I see your *knowledge* of MDT, and I like where this is going...

But what is the course of *action* you suggest?

CKM

Well, no man is an island, and physics has ever been advanced by cordial conversation in the context of rigorous honesty and a humble acknowledgement of empirical facts. Einstein and Bohr disagreed often, but yet they had a deep respect for one-another, and I highly recommend the perusal of their converstations! Where would be be without the disagreements between Einstein and Minkowski, between...

view entire post

view entire post

Dr. E,

Thank you for thanking me for the conversation, I have enjoyed it as well.

But I still cannot figure out what you think the outcome of our conversation is: you seem to agree with everything I say, and then repeat your comments about MDT...?

CKM

Thank you for thanking me for the conversation, I have enjoyed it as well.

But I still cannot figure out what you think the outcome of our conversation is: you seem to agree with everything I say, and then repeat your comments about MDT...?

CKM

Yes CKM--I agree with your general perspectives and view on the higher purposes of science.

I've been taking the opportunity to approach MDT from different angles, with slight variations on the theme, as that is the ultimate purpose of this specific forum.

Best,

Dr. E

I've been taking the opportunity to approach MDT from different angles, with slight variations on the theme, as that is the ultimate purpose of this specific forum.

Best,

Dr. E

Not to belabor the point, but doesn't the opposite also apply; From the perspective of the "fourth dimension," it is the three spatial dimensions which are shrinking?

Einstein said the photon is timeless and that gravity shrinks the measure of space. If energy is the "now," then there is no future and the events we perceive as time are constantly receding into the past, as each is replaced by the next, so that our three dimensional context shrinks relative to this energy.

On the other hand, he did feel compelled to add the cosmological constant, for balance, so maybe there is some counteracting curvature to this fourth dimension. It's my feeling that redshift is evidence of a cosmological constant, which is a property of space, not the source of it, as the singularity would be. So this outward curvature, expanding fourth dimension, would be the direction of the future.

Einstein said the photon is timeless and that gravity shrinks the measure of space. If energy is the "now," then there is no future and the events we perceive as time are constantly receding into the past, as each is replaced by the next, so that our three dimensional context shrinks relative to this energy.

On the other hand, he did feel compelled to add the cosmological constant, for balance, so maybe there is some counteracting curvature to this fourth dimension. It's my feeling that redshift is evidence of a cosmological constant, which is a property of space, not the source of it, as the singularity would be. So this outward curvature, expanding fourth dimension, would be the direction of the future.

A review of Elliot “Dr. E” McGucken’s “Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics”:

In this essay, McGucken claims that all of physics, including all of quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and a large part of cosmology, including universal expansion and the Big Bang, follow from one line that appears in a 1912 paper by Einstein: “x4 =...

view entire post

In this essay, McGucken claims that all of physics, including all of quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and a large part of cosmology, including universal expansion and the Big Bang, follow from one line that appears in a 1912 paper by Einstein: “x4 =...

view entire post

Hello Dr. F,

Thanks for the feedback. It seems you are arguing with yourself, as MDT agrees wholeheartedly with Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics.

Einstein stated "The Lord is subtle, but he is not malicious." Now you are being malicious, launching emotional ad-hominem attacks. Is that why you are refraining from using your real...

view entire post

Thanks for the feedback. It seems you are arguing with yourself, as MDT agrees wholeheartedly with Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics.

Einstein stated "The Lord is subtle, but he is not malicious." Now you are being malicious, launching emotional ad-hominem attacks. Is that why you are refraining from using your real...

view entire post

Dr. E,

Why don’t you focus on the questions asked in my review regarding your incompetence in math? What difference does it make what my real identity is? I told you who I am: I am your derivative, your first derivative with respect to time: “Dr. F”. (Why, do you think you have the exclusive right to differentiate anything and everything?) I have no “forum devoted to [my] novel...

view entire post

Why don’t you focus on the questions asked in my review regarding your incompetence in math? What difference does it make what my real identity is? I told you who I am: I am your derivative, your first derivative with respect to time: “Dr. F”. (Why, do you think you have the exclusive right to differentiate anything and everything?) I have no “forum devoted to [my] novel...

view entire post

(Continuing from my previous post)

...

like this: t΄ ARROW ict. AND WE DON’T DIFFERENTIATE TRANSFORMATIONS. Understooded?

But instead of realizing that t´, or x4, is the Lorenz-transformed temporal coordinate of a 4d-event, you proceed to differentiate both sides of this transformation with respect to time t. In essence, you take the derivative of time with respect to...

view entire post

...

like this: t΄ ARROW ict. AND WE DON’T DIFFERENTIATE TRANSFORMATIONS. Understooded?

But instead of realizing that t´, or x4, is the Lorenz-transformed temporal coordinate of a 4d-event, you proceed to differentiate both sides of this transformation with respect to time t. In essence, you take the derivative of time with respect to...

view entire post

Anonymous Coward,

If you had serious points to make, I imagine you would be able to do it without the snarky name-calling and childish attacks. Also, if you were proud of your name, you would use it. If you had faith in your words, you would put your name on them.

Your tone and tenor bring to mind atheme from Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics--physics has come to a standstill...

view entire post

If you had serious points to make, I imagine you would be able to do it without the snarky name-calling and childish attacks. Also, if you were proud of your name, you would use it. If you had faith in your words, you would put your name on them.

Your tone and tenor bring to mind atheme from Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics--physics has come to a standstill...

view entire post

You keep asking for my identity, Dr. E. But you failed to reply to the essence of the several counts, on the basis of which I charge that your essay violates high-school math. You only made a feeble attempt to answer *one* of those points, saying that, no, t´=ict is an equation, because “it has two sides and an equals sign”. This is another indicator of your detachment from even the most...

view entire post

view entire post

Drs. E and F,

Wouldn't "Entangled particles" make more sense as different points on a wave front?

First it would explain why the information they carry is identical and also why it isn't disrupted, as particles would likely be. Such as why the light of stars that has traveled for billions of years is still extremely focused. It seems that while this light is measured as quanta, it travels as a wave.

Wouldn't "Entangled particles" make more sense as different points on a wave front?

First it would explain why the information they carry is identical and also why it isn't disrupted, as particles would likely be. Such as why the light of stars that has traveled for billions of years is still extremely focused. It seems that while this light is measured as quanta, it travels as a wave.

Dear John Merryman,

Sorry, I have no idea. He (Dr. E) might have. I suspect that, even if he doesn’t, he’ll make up something. Actually, posts like yours, though based on legitimate and interesting questions, serve as “lifejackets” for people like Dr. E. You see, my prediction is that he’ll use the opportunity to get away from the need to reply to my main point, which is that his “equation” is not an equation but a transformation of coordinates. He’ll say, “Oh, how very interesting your question, Mr. Merryman, allow me to… [blah-blah-blah]”, and then offer you a bogus “explanation” based on a bogus differentiation, dx4/dt=ic. You do very well by asking, but... I believe you should direct your question to others, who I’m sure are more qualified to answer than me, and definitely more than Dr. E, who’s capable of differentiating even the plus sign in isolation.

So, Dr. E, if I may use the opportunity... :-) Would you please care to focus on my questions, summed up in my previous post? Thank you for your attention, and your ability to home in on the essential, leaving out the irrelevant.

Always your derivative,

Dr. F

Sorry, I have no idea. He (Dr. E) might have. I suspect that, even if he doesn’t, he’ll make up something. Actually, posts like yours, though based on legitimate and interesting questions, serve as “lifejackets” for people like Dr. E. You see, my prediction is that he’ll use the opportunity to get away from the need to reply to my main point, which is that his “equation” is not an equation but a transformation of coordinates. He’ll say, “Oh, how very interesting your question, Mr. Merryman, allow me to… [blah-blah-blah]”, and then offer you a bogus “explanation” based on a bogus differentiation, dx4/dt=ic. You do very well by asking, but... I believe you should direct your question to others, who I’m sure are more qualified to answer than me, and definitely more than Dr. E, who’s capable of differentiating even the plus sign in isolation.

So, Dr. E, if I may use the opportunity... :-) Would you please care to focus on my questions, summed up in my previous post? Thank you for your attention, and your ability to home in on the essential, leaving out the irrelevant.

Always your derivative,

Dr. F

Hello All,

Anonymous Coward,

The one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use...

view entire post

Anonymous Coward,

The one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use...

view entire post

Dear reader,

At this point I think it’s high time that I stop castigating poor Dr. E, feeling that he doesn’t really deserve any more whipping. He’s evidently unable to perceive his condition, to rationalize, and conclude that he’s grappling with issues that are light-years ahead of his theoretically reachable horizon. After all, what horizon can one expect from someone who...

view entire post

At this point I think it’s high time that I stop castigating poor Dr. E, feeling that he doesn’t really deserve any more whipping. He’s evidently unable to perceive his condition, to rationalize, and conclude that he’s grappling with issues that are light-years ahead of his theoretically reachable horizon. After all, what horizon can one expect from someone who...

view entire post

I'll be surprised if fqxi allows ad-hominem, libellious defamiation (which is illegal), and personal attacks to remain here, which the anonymous coward engages in instead of responding to the physics in the above post, so I will repeat the above post below, as I stand by my words. An anonymous coward who cannot put their own name on their childish slanders, vitriol, and false libel and defamation...

view entire post

view entire post

Hello John,

Thanks for your above comment,

"Wouldn't "Entangled particles" make more sense as different points on a wave front?

First it would explain why the information they carry is identical and also why it isn't disrupted, as particles would likely be. Such as why the light of stars that has traveled for billions of years is still extremely focused. It seems that while...

view entire post

Thanks for your above comment,

"Wouldn't "Entangled particles" make more sense as different points on a wave front?

First it would explain why the information they carry is identical and also why it isn't disrupted, as particles would likely be. Such as why the light of stars that has traveled for billions of years is still extremely focused. It seems that while...

view entire post

If you had serious points to make, I imagine you would be able to do it without the snarky name-calling and childish attacks. Also, if you were proud of your name, you would use it. If you had faith in your words, you would put your name on them.

Your tone and tenor bring to mind atheme from Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics--physics has come to a standstill...

view entire post

Anonymous Coward,

The one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use instead of logic and...

view entire post

The one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use instead of logic and...

view entire post

Hello all--this is Dr. E here. (fqxi can verify my ip address)

I did not make the above two posts.

The above two posts (supposedly) by Dr. E dated on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 22:54 GMT and on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 22:59 GMT were copied and pasted by someone other than me. FQXI could check the ip addresses to see who posted it. I would not be surprised if it is the anonymous coward who keeps engaging in childish, libellious defamations, and general snark, instead of contributing positively to the otherwise great atmosphere and discourses that are evolving here.

If fqxi sent me the offenders' ip address, I would be happy to contact their institution.

Thanks again to fqxi and all the participants for the great forum and opportunity to share ideas in an exalted manner.

Best,

Dr. E

(the real Dr. E, as can be verified by the ip address of this post)

I did not make the above two posts.

The above two posts (supposedly) by Dr. E dated on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 22:54 GMT and on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 22:59 GMT were copied and pasted by someone other than me. FQXI could check the ip addresses to see who posted it. I would not be surprised if it is the anonymous coward who keeps engaging in childish, libellious defamations, and general snark, instead of contributing positively to the otherwise great atmosphere and discourses that are evolving here.

If fqxi sent me the offenders' ip address, I would be happy to contact their institution.

Thanks again to fqxi and all the participants for the great forum and opportunity to share ideas in an exalted manner.

Best,

Dr. E

(the real Dr. E, as can be verified by the ip address of this post)

Hello all--this is again the real Dr. E speaking.

I would like to grab the opportunity to bring to everybody’s attention that the posts in this forum have exceeded in number all the posts of all the other forums combined! It seems we have quite a crowd following here, don’t you think so? We’re making quite a splash in the scientific community. People, finally, have started paying attention!

dx4/dt = ic

The one and only truth, that answers all questions in physics and the universe. I’ll never cease defending the truth, sticking by my guns against all anonymous dwarves, all snarky “physicists” who wish to imprison us in block universes, deprive us of our free will, crucify us, and make our voices hush. They will not succeed! The truth will shine above all, all of you pilgrims, who mock and ridicule the one and only truth: x4 = ict. I’ll say it, and I’ll keep saying it again and again, until you (the dwarves, not the gentle readers who follow this discussion) get it deep in your little minds: “E pur si muove!”

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

You can stand him up at the gates of hell, but he won't back down. Bruno, Socrates, Galileo, Dante, Einstein, Gamow, and Bohr--they all walked and spoke freely in plain sight, and stuck by their guns when the chips were down.

Did you know that Bohr loved Westerns? Perhaps we ought make a list of Bohr's and Gamow's favorite Westerns. Niels Bohr had a lot to say about the Cowboy Code, and therein we can find insights as to why your behavior ultimately loses both on the cultural and scientific levels:

From: http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-ni

els-bohr.html

Well, cheers to every gentle soul, celebrating more than 60 posts in this forum, the most popular forum in fqxi!

Best,

Dr. E

(I repeat, this is the real Dr. E -- fqxi can verify the ip address of this post)

I would like to grab the opportunity to bring to everybody’s attention that the posts in this forum have exceeded in number all the posts of all the other forums combined! It seems we have quite a crowd following here, don’t you think so? We’re making quite a splash in the scientific community. People, finally, have started paying attention!

dx4/dt = ic

The one and only truth, that answers all questions in physics and the universe. I’ll never cease defending the truth, sticking by my guns against all anonymous dwarves, all snarky “physicists” who wish to imprison us in block universes, deprive us of our free will, crucify us, and make our voices hush. They will not succeed! The truth will shine above all, all of you pilgrims, who mock and ridicule the one and only truth: x4 = ict. I’ll say it, and I’ll keep saying it again and again, until you (the dwarves, not the gentle readers who follow this discussion) get it deep in your little minds: “E pur si muove!”

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

You can stand him up at the gates of hell, but he won't back down. Bruno, Socrates, Galileo, Dante, Einstein, Gamow, and Bohr--they all walked and spoke freely in plain sight, and stuck by their guns when the chips were down.

Did you know that Bohr loved Westerns? Perhaps we ought make a list of Bohr's and Gamow's favorite Westerns. Niels Bohr had a lot to say about the Cowboy Code, and therein we can find insights as to why your behavior ultimately loses both on the cultural and scientific levels:

From: http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-ni

els-bohr.html

Well, cheers to every gentle soul, celebrating more than 60 posts in this forum, the most popular forum in fqxi!

Best,

Dr. E

(I repeat, this is the real Dr. E -- fqxi can verify the ip address of this post)

Hello all, once again. This is Dr. E here. (fqxi can verify my ip address)

I did not make the above two posts.

The above two posts (supposedly) by Dr. E dated on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 23:09 GMT and on Oct. 7, 2008 @ 07:36 GMT were posted by someone other than me. FQXI could check the ip addresses to see who posted it. I would not be surprised if it is the anonymous coward who keeps engaging in childish, libellious defamations, and general snark, instead of contributing positively to the otherwise great atmosphere and discourses that are evolving here.

If fqxi sent me the offenders' ip address, I would be happy to contact their institution.

Thanks again to fqxi and all the participants for the great forum and opportunity to share ideas in an exalted manner.

Best,

Dr. E

(the real Dr. E, as can be verified by the ip address of this post)

I did not make the above two posts.

The above two posts (supposedly) by Dr. E dated on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 23:09 GMT and on Oct. 7, 2008 @ 07:36 GMT were posted by someone other than me. FQXI could check the ip addresses to see who posted it. I would not be surprised if it is the anonymous coward who keeps engaging in childish, libellious defamations, and general snark, instead of contributing positively to the otherwise great atmosphere and discourses that are evolving here.

If fqxi sent me the offenders' ip address, I would be happy to contact their institution.

Thanks again to fqxi and all the participants for the great forum and opportunity to share ideas in an exalted manner.

Best,

Dr. E

(the real Dr. E, as can be verified by the ip address of this post)

This is the real Dr. E as can be verified by my ip address.

Two more posts were made by someone forging my identity--

The Oct. 7, 2008 @ 07:36 GMT and the Oct. 7, 2008 @ 10:50 GMT posts were made by someone forging the "Dr. E" identity. FQXI can easily tell the difference between the real and fake Dr. E's by looking at the IP addresses. That would be cool if someone could change...

view entire post

Two more posts were made by someone forging my identity--

The Oct. 7, 2008 @ 07:36 GMT and the Oct. 7, 2008 @ 10:50 GMT posts were made by someone forging the "Dr. E" identity. FQXI can easily tell the difference between the real and fake Dr. E's by looking at the IP addresses. That would be cool if someone could change...

view entire post

Dear Dr. E,

(Actually I don’t know which Dr. E I’m writing to now, the “real” or the “forger”, no matter how many “real” you put before “Dr E”. I’ve lost track of who’s saying what, but I’ll try to communicate anyway--with all of you.)

Dr. E, the real one, I don’t think you have some exclusive right in using the “Dr. E” as a signature. Am I right? Why, did you buy any rights of use, paid any money for using it? Anybody can sign as “Dr. E”, that’s not forbidden by any rules. At least, that’s my view. So, asking fqxi to change the “fake” one’s signature does not make sense. He/she has every right to sign as “Dr. E” as you have.

Take, for example, my signature. Who can guarantee that that’s my real name? (As a matter of fact it is, but I’m just trying to make a point here.) I could be another one of those who you call “anonymous cowards,” and so on.

And asking fqxi to remove the “fake” posts is not right either. The “forger” is using exactly your language, it seems, so if you make some points in your posts, so does he or she, since your posts are identical in meaning to his/hers. So if his/her posts should be removed on the basis of meaning, so should yours, on the same basis.

Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx/dt=ic, if I may ask?

Kind regards,

Kyle

(Actually I don’t know which Dr. E I’m writing to now, the “real” or the “forger”, no matter how many “real” you put before “Dr E”. I’ve lost track of who’s saying what, but I’ll try to communicate anyway--with all of you.)

Dr. E, the real one, I don’t think you have some exclusive right in using the “Dr. E” as a signature. Am I right? Why, did you buy any rights of use, paid any money for using it? Anybody can sign as “Dr. E”, that’s not forbidden by any rules. At least, that’s my view. So, asking fqxi to change the “fake” one’s signature does not make sense. He/she has every right to sign as “Dr. E” as you have.

Take, for example, my signature. Who can guarantee that that’s my real name? (As a matter of fact it is, but I’m just trying to make a point here.) I could be another one of those who you call “anonymous cowards,” and so on.

And asking fqxi to remove the “fake” posts is not right either. The “forger” is using exactly your language, it seems, so if you make some points in your posts, so does he or she, since your posts are identical in meaning to his/hers. So if his/her posts should be removed on the basis of meaning, so should yours, on the same basis.

Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx/dt=ic, if I may ask?

Kind regards,

Kyle

Thanks Kyle,

I agree a lot of the faking of "Dr. E" above is in good fun, but too, there's been some malice, libel, and defamation from the source. The forger has used my words, but too, they have also interjected their own--imagine if we all did that!

Sticking with our own names, as opposed to appropriating other folks', is more likely to further the quailty of the conversation and thus any ultimate insights into physics. If fqxi wants to remove the fake posts, cool. If not, relabeling the posts as coming from the "fake Dr. E" would seem to be more in line of what they're trying to accomplish in this community. Imagine going to faculty meetings/conferences where some people were wearing masks so that they looked like other people! Then you might hear a Lubos Motl singing the praises of LQG, which would cause confusion, and might stop the earth from turning and even the fourth dimension from expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions! Maybe this happens in the parralel universes people are always talking about, but I have never been to a conference in a parallel universe where scholars wear the masks of people whose ideas they disagree with, as I hear such universes disappear as soon as they are created, or something--they exist just long enough for theoretical physicists to get tenure, I suppose, but not for the experimentalists. :)

Well, I don't know for sure if it *is* you when I see someone using your name in this forum, but I do know it is *not* me when I see someone using *my* name--Dr. E. :) And I'm assuming its you, of course.

You write, "And asking fqxi to remove the “fake” posts is not right either. The “forger” is using exactly your language, it seems, so if you make some points in your posts, so does he or she, since your posts are identical in meaning to his/hers. So if his/her posts should be removed on the basis of meaning, so should yours, on the same basis."

Again, the forger is actually changing some words around. And finally, to make a long story short, would not life be easier if we just posted under our own names?

Thanks for the post--have to run! Will return to answer your final question, "Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx/dt=ic, if I may ask?" in which there's a typo--it's dx4/dt = ic.

Best,

Dr. E :) (The Real McCoy)

I agree a lot of the faking of "Dr. E" above is in good fun, but too, there's been some malice, libel, and defamation from the source. The forger has used my words, but too, they have also interjected their own--imagine if we all did that!

Sticking with our own names, as opposed to appropriating other folks', is more likely to further the quailty of the conversation and thus any ultimate insights into physics. If fqxi wants to remove the fake posts, cool. If not, relabeling the posts as coming from the "fake Dr. E" would seem to be more in line of what they're trying to accomplish in this community. Imagine going to faculty meetings/conferences where some people were wearing masks so that they looked like other people! Then you might hear a Lubos Motl singing the praises of LQG, which would cause confusion, and might stop the earth from turning and even the fourth dimension from expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions! Maybe this happens in the parralel universes people are always talking about, but I have never been to a conference in a parallel universe where scholars wear the masks of people whose ideas they disagree with, as I hear such universes disappear as soon as they are created, or something--they exist just long enough for theoretical physicists to get tenure, I suppose, but not for the experimentalists. :)

Well, I don't know for sure if it *is* you when I see someone using your name in this forum, but I do know it is *not* me when I see someone using *my* name--Dr. E. :) And I'm assuming its you, of course.

You write, "And asking fqxi to remove the “fake” posts is not right either. The “forger” is using exactly your language, it seems, so if you make some points in your posts, so does he or she, since your posts are identical in meaning to his/hers. So if his/her posts should be removed on the basis of meaning, so should yours, on the same basis."

Again, the forger is actually changing some words around. And finally, to make a long story short, would not life be easier if we just posted under our own names?

Thanks for the post--have to run! Will return to answer your final question, "Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx/dt=ic, if I may ask?" in which there's a typo--it's dx4/dt = ic.

Best,

Dr. E :) (The Real McCoy)

Hello Kyle,

I'm back to answer your question from ealrier--you wrote: "Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx4/dt=ic, if I may ask?"

Well, I guess it all goes back to asking "why?"

That deeper "why" about foundational questions, that needs a *physical* answer--an answer I finally found...

view entire post

I'm back to answer your question from ealrier--you wrote: "Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx4/dt=ic, if I may ask?"

Well, I guess it all goes back to asking "why?"

That deeper "why" about foundational questions, that needs a *physical* answer--an answer I finally found...

view entire post

Dear Dr. E,

You wrote: “And I'm assuming its you, of course.” Yes, it’s me, Kyle Gallahue, the physicist--thanks!

I take it as a given that the previous post (Oct 7, 19:00) is by you, the real one. There’s something in it that makes me think the forger wouldn’t write it. In any case, let’s leave forgers and fakers aside, and concentrate on physics, shall we? :-)

I asked how you came up with dx4/dt=ic in my previous post (sorry about the typo), and you answered partially, but not fully to my satisfaction. I thank you for the detailed description of how you felt as a freshman at Princeton, and about your questioning of the deepest roots of physics, but what I wanted to learn was how you came up with the idea that dx4/dt=ic. Just that. How did it occur to you? Did you first come across Einstein’s 1912 paper and thought “What if I differentiate x4=ict?” or did you first think that the 4th dimension must be expanding, therefore with some speed dv/dt, which might be the maximum known speed, c, and then came across Einstein’s x4=ict, and put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together? Or was it some third possibility that took place?

I would appreciate very much if, in answering the above question, you could confine your post simply to answering the above question. It is really not very nice to have to see again, and again, and yet again, tons of material that you have already written. If you feel you should make this material known, you could consider publishing it at your web site--you do have a web site, as I learned. Otherwise, I’m not sure people have the patience to scroll through amazing loads of text to fish out the new and non-repeating posts. Just friendly advice.

Thanks very much--I’ll be waiting for your reply.

Kyle

You wrote: “And I'm assuming its you, of course.” Yes, it’s me, Kyle Gallahue, the physicist--thanks!

I take it as a given that the previous post (Oct 7, 19:00) is by you, the real one. There’s something in it that makes me think the forger wouldn’t write it. In any case, let’s leave forgers and fakers aside, and concentrate on physics, shall we? :-)

I asked how you came up with dx4/dt=ic in my previous post (sorry about the typo), and you answered partially, but not fully to my satisfaction. I thank you for the detailed description of how you felt as a freshman at Princeton, and about your questioning of the deepest roots of physics, but what I wanted to learn was how you came up with the idea that dx4/dt=ic. Just that. How did it occur to you? Did you first come across Einstein’s 1912 paper and thought “What if I differentiate x4=ict?” or did you first think that the 4th dimension must be expanding, therefore with some speed dv/dt, which might be the maximum known speed, c, and then came across Einstein’s x4=ict, and put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together? Or was it some third possibility that took place?

I would appreciate very much if, in answering the above question, you could confine your post simply to answering the above question. It is really not very nice to have to see again, and again, and yet again, tons of material that you have already written. If you feel you should make this material known, you could consider publishing it at your web site--you do have a web site, as I learned. Otherwise, I’m not sure people have the patience to scroll through amazing loads of text to fish out the new and non-repeating posts. Just friendly advice.

Thanks very much--I’ll be waiting for your reply.

Kyle

Hello Kyle,

I just spent two hours revising my post from yesterday, as I felt I could better answer your question! It is far more detailed, but unfortunately it is also longer! Wish I could merely log in and edit the previous answer/post. I have taken your advice and posted it elsewhere, on a blog I set up today:

http://movingdimensionstheory.blogspot.com/

Let me focus on...

view entire post

I just spent two hours revising my post from yesterday, as I felt I could better answer your question! It is far more detailed, but unfortunately it is also longer! Wish I could merely log in and edit the previous answer/post. I have taken your advice and posted it elsewhere, on a blog I set up today:

http://movingdimensionstheory.blogspot.com/

Let me focus on...

view entire post

Dear Dr. E,

Well, looks like my initial hunch was right: first you came up with the idea that there is a fourth moving dimension, and then (relatively recently, as you wrote, in 2005) you came across Einstein’s 1912 paper. Thanks for your reply, although I’d really appreciate if your replies are not only shorter, but also to the point. What is the relevance to my question of a quotation that you include, which in fact you misquoted, repeating a phrase twice? (Check near Galileo’s “fatherhood.”) It only makes me tired, unwilling to keep the discussion going on, because I feel I waste my precious time. Sorry about telling you how things are perceived on this side of your blog, but I suppose you’d want to know how things really are, rather than how you’d wish they were. Don’t you agree?

If you agree on these discussion terms, then I’d propose to set aside Einstein’s (actually Lorenz’s) x4=ict, only for a short while, since you see it as a _conclusion_ of your basic premise, and concentrate on your basic premise: “The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the other three dimensions at a constant speed, the speed of light.” This, you express as: dx4/dt=ict. You’ve said the physical meaning of “i” is that the fourth is an “imaginary dimension,” whatever that means. Very well. Now, I’d be delighted to know, if you’d care to explain--but in as short and to-the-point way as possible, no quotations please if you don’t mind, but in your own words--any of the following four conclusions of the assumption dx4/dt=ict.

1. Why is light’s velocity a constant c?

or

2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?

or

3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?

or

4. Why does a photon, which travels at c, not age?

Please pick one--but only one--of the above four, and explain how it follows from “The fourth dimension is expanding…” etc. (dx4/dt=ic). I tried hard to find explanations in your essay, but couldn’t. Don’t direct me to another site, don’t quote even yourself, if you don’t mind, but explain in your own words, one and only one of the above. I want just one of them because, as you see, I like to focus on things. Not ten things at a time, but one thing at a time. That’s my modus operandi, and that’s how I’d like our discussion to proceed. I don’t care about math at this stage, just a verbal explanation would suffice.

Well, thanks again for your contributions to physics, Dr. E! :-)

Kyle

Well, looks like my initial hunch was right: first you came up with the idea that there is a fourth moving dimension, and then (relatively recently, as you wrote, in 2005) you came across Einstein’s 1912 paper. Thanks for your reply, although I’d really appreciate if your replies are not only shorter, but also to the point. What is the relevance to my question of a quotation that you include, which in fact you misquoted, repeating a phrase twice? (Check near Galileo’s “fatherhood.”) It only makes me tired, unwilling to keep the discussion going on, because I feel I waste my precious time. Sorry about telling you how things are perceived on this side of your blog, but I suppose you’d want to know how things really are, rather than how you’d wish they were. Don’t you agree?

If you agree on these discussion terms, then I’d propose to set aside Einstein’s (actually Lorenz’s) x4=ict, only for a short while, since you see it as a _conclusion_ of your basic premise, and concentrate on your basic premise: “The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the other three dimensions at a constant speed, the speed of light.” This, you express as: dx4/dt=ict. You’ve said the physical meaning of “i” is that the fourth is an “imaginary dimension,” whatever that means. Very well. Now, I’d be delighted to know, if you’d care to explain--but in as short and to-the-point way as possible, no quotations please if you don’t mind, but in your own words--any of the following four conclusions of the assumption dx4/dt=ict.

1. Why is light’s velocity a constant c?

or

2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?

or

3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?

or

4. Why does a photon, which travels at c, not age?

Please pick one--but only one--of the above four, and explain how it follows from “The fourth dimension is expanding…” etc. (dx4/dt=ic). I tried hard to find explanations in your essay, but couldn’t. Don’t direct me to another site, don’t quote even yourself, if you don’t mind, but explain in your own words, one and only one of the above. I want just one of them because, as you see, I like to focus on things. Not ten things at a time, but one thing at a time. That’s my modus operandi, and that’s how I’d like our discussion to proceed. I don’t care about math at this stage, just a verbal explanation would suffice.

Well, thanks again for your contributions to physics, Dr. E! :-)

Kyle

Thanks for the specific questions, Kyle--it is a great opportunity to better hone MDT and practice communicating its basic tenets.

Please forgive me for answering two of your questions--feel free to read the two different answers at your convenience. :)

2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?

No matter how fast an object is moving, when it emits a photon,...

view entire post

Please forgive me for answering two of your questions--feel free to read the two different answers at your convenience. :)

2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?

No matter how fast an object is moving, when it emits a photon,...

view entire post

Dr. E,

I have to agree with Kyle that you need to edit yourself more effectively and I say this as someone who is in basic agreement with your understanding of time as the relationship between light expanding relative to structure/mass/the three dimensions contracting, as opposed to a dimensional block time.

Look at it this way, rather then presenting your theory as an expanding wave to fill every possible function, think of it as the wave of potentials collapsing into the most concise possible exposition/structure. From the perspective of the structure, light expands, but from the perspective of the light, structure contracts and it's the structure of your argument you want to present.

I have to agree with Kyle that you need to edit yourself more effectively and I say this as someone who is in basic agreement with your understanding of time as the relationship between light expanding relative to structure/mass/the three dimensions contracting, as opposed to a dimensional block time.

Look at it this way, rather then presenting your theory as an expanding wave to fill every possible function, think of it as the wave of potentials collapsing into the most concise possible exposition/structure. From the perspective of the structure, light expands, but from the perspective of the light, structure contracts and it's the structure of your argument you want to present.

Dear Dr. E,

You don’t like to play by my rules, right? :-)

But, you know what? We must agree to the rules of the game. Otherwise, we can’t talk. And I take it that you encourage people to converse with you in this forum. :-)

Look, I have a colleague here whom I try to convince that there’s something interesting in what you’re saying. But I can’t show him the contents of this blog, because the moment I do he’ll run away on all four, reasoning there’s loads of irrelevant stuff here. And I wouldn’t blame him. People in our business want to be concise, focused, accurate, and to the point. We’re physicists, Dr. E, not lawyers!

Anyway, I read your explanation of “2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?”, and I have a further question as a result of your answer, which I’ll express in a moment. But first, I must tell you that I skipped your answer to “3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?”, feeling that again you’re giving me more than one thing at a time. I skipped it consciously, refusing to read it, and only got a glimpse of your last sentence, just above your signature: “I think you will be pleased that this post, while probably not short enough, is shorter!” Yes, shorter, but not short enough. No offense, but you really need to try harder.

So, here is the preamble to my question. You say “when [a flashlight] emits a photon, that photon is carried by the fourth expanding dimension.” And “the invariant expansion does not care about the flashlight’s velocity.” Ergo, the photon’s velocity is constant.

Question: What happens to the flashlight? Isn’t it also carried by the fourth expanding dimension?

I would really appreciate it if your answer is as short as “No, it’s not,” or “Yes, it is.”

Thanks in advance,

Kyle

You don’t like to play by my rules, right? :-)

But, you know what? We must agree to the rules of the game. Otherwise, we can’t talk. And I take it that you encourage people to converse with you in this forum. :-)

Look, I have a colleague here whom I try to convince that there’s something interesting in what you’re saying. But I can’t show him the contents of this blog, because the moment I do he’ll run away on all four, reasoning there’s loads of irrelevant stuff here. And I wouldn’t blame him. People in our business want to be concise, focused, accurate, and to the point. We’re physicists, Dr. E, not lawyers!

Anyway, I read your explanation of “2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?”, and I have a further question as a result of your answer, which I’ll express in a moment. But first, I must tell you that I skipped your answer to “3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?”, feeling that again you’re giving me more than one thing at a time. I skipped it consciously, refusing to read it, and only got a glimpse of your last sentence, just above your signature: “I think you will be pleased that this post, while probably not short enough, is shorter!” Yes, shorter, but not short enough. No offense, but you really need to try harder.

So, here is the preamble to my question. You say “when [a flashlight] emits a photon, that photon is carried by the fourth expanding dimension.” And “the invariant expansion does not care about the flashlight’s velocity.” Ergo, the photon’s velocity is constant.

Question: What happens to the flashlight? Isn’t it also carried by the fourth expanding dimension?

I would really appreciate it if your answer is as short as “No, it’s not,” or “Yes, it is.”

Thanks in advance,

Kyle

Thanks Kyle,

Feel free to have your colleauge contact me at drelliot@gmail.com -- I'll be happy to converse with them and even speak to them or anyone by phone too about MDT.

Also, the MDT paper is about ten pages--it is fairly concice. Has your colleague read it? What did they think?

Einstein stated that everything must be made as simple as possible, but not moreso, as...

view entire post

Feel free to have your colleauge contact me at drelliot@gmail.com -- I'll be happy to converse with them and even speak to them or anyone by phone too about MDT.

Also, the MDT paper is about ten pages--it is fairly concice. Has your colleague read it? What did they think?

Einstein stated that everything must be made as simple as possible, but not moreso, as...

view entire post

Dear Dr. E,

Thanks for your address, I’ll give it to my colleague as soon as I feel confident that I can convince him to consider your ideas.

From your response, I’ll quote the following (which would suffice, without the rest): “So yes, I would argue that ultimately a flashlight gains velocity by existence in the fourth expanding dimension.”

Let’s summarize what you’re saying (I’m trying to understand):

1. The speed of a photon is constant because “that photon is carried by the fourth expanding dimension”, which expands (according to dx4/dt=ic) at the speed of light, “so no matter how fast a flashlight is moving when it is turned on” the “expansion does not care about the flashlight’s velocity.”

2. “[U]ltimately a flashlight gains velocity by existence in the fourth expanding dimension.”

But if the flashlight also exists in the fourth dimension when it moves at speed v, together with the photon that moves at speed c, then how is it that the speed of the photon WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT (I’m not shouting, just that I have no better way of emphasizing a whole phrase) is not c - v?

See what I’m saying? The photon is carried by the 4th dimension, and has speed c relative to us, who don’t move relative to the flashlight. But the moving flashlight (at speed v relative to us) is also slightly into the 4th dimension. So, although the photon has speed c relative to us, shouldn’t it have speed c-v relative to the flashlight, since they are both in the 4th dimension (the photon fully, the flashlight slightly)? If not, why not? Am I missing something?

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

Kyle

Thanks for your address, I’ll give it to my colleague as soon as I feel confident that I can convince him to consider your ideas.

From your response, I’ll quote the following (which would suffice, without the rest): “So yes, I would argue that ultimately a flashlight gains velocity by existence in the fourth expanding dimension.”

Let’s summarize what you’re saying (I’m trying to understand):

1. The speed of a photon is constant because “that photon is carried by the fourth expanding dimension”, which expands (according to dx4/dt=ic) at the speed of light, “so no matter how fast a flashlight is moving when it is turned on” the “expansion does not care about the flashlight’s velocity.”

2. “[U]ltimately a flashlight gains velocity by existence in the fourth expanding dimension.”

But if the flashlight also exists in the fourth dimension when it moves at speed v, together with the photon that moves at speed c, then how is it that the speed of the photon WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT (I’m not shouting, just that I have no better way of emphasizing a whole phrase) is not c - v?

See what I’m saying? The photon is carried by the 4th dimension, and has speed c relative to us, who don’t move relative to the flashlight. But the moving flashlight (at speed v relative to us) is also slightly into the 4th dimension. So, although the photon has speed c relative to us, shouldn’t it have speed c-v relative to the flashlight, since they are both in the 4th dimension (the photon fully, the flashlight slightly)? If not, why not? Am I missing something?

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

Kyle

Oops, sorry, please delete the phrase "who don't move relative to the flashlight" from my paragraph above. Of course we move, at speed v.

Waiting for your response,

Kyle.

Waiting for your response,

Kyle.

Hello Kyle,

Thanks for the question--you write, "But if the flashlight also exists in the fourth dimension when it moves at speed v, together with the photon that moves at speed c, then how is it that the speed of the photon WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT (I’m not shouting, just that I have no better way of emphasizing a whole phrase) is not c - v?"

This is a basic relativity...

view entire post

Thanks for the question--you write, "But if the flashlight also exists in the fourth dimension when it moves at speed v, together with the photon that moves at speed c, then how is it that the speed of the photon WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT (I’m not shouting, just that I have no better way of emphasizing a whole phrase) is not c - v?"

This is a basic relativity...

view entire post

Dear Elliot (if you don’t mind),

Oh, but I thought your claim is that special relativity _follows_ from your assumption that there is a fourth dimension that expands at the speed of light (actually at a speed of ic). What you wrote in your last answer amounts to _assuming_ that relativity holds. I thought you were about to show why the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source, which is an _axiom_ in relativity, and leads to practically everything else in relativity. You wanted to prove it. So you can’t assume that which you want to prove, am I missing something?

That’s why I used Galilean kinematics, because I can’t assume the Einsteinian one, since the latter is what we want to derive.

Note please, I’ve read your essay, but didn’t see the derivation of special relativity anywhere. Can you help me to see how you derive it, please?

By the way, let’s agree on what exactly the fundamental claim that you make is, so we’re sure we discuss having the same assumptions in our minds, OK? When you say that the fourth dimension expands at a speed of ic, my understanding is that the other three dimensions of space do _not_ expand along as well, am I right? Expansion happens only along the 4th dimension, correct?

Thanks as always,

Kyle

PS: I feel no need to review elementary relativity concepts, I think my memory is pretty good on the subject. ;-)

Oh, but I thought your claim is that special relativity _follows_ from your assumption that there is a fourth dimension that expands at the speed of light (actually at a speed of ic). What you wrote in your last answer amounts to _assuming_ that relativity holds. I thought you were about to show why the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source, which is an _axiom_ in relativity, and leads to practically everything else in relativity. You wanted to prove it. So you can’t assume that which you want to prove, am I missing something?

That’s why I used Galilean kinematics, because I can’t assume the Einsteinian one, since the latter is what we want to derive.

Note please, I’ve read your essay, but didn’t see the derivation of special relativity anywhere. Can you help me to see how you derive it, please?

By the way, let’s agree on what exactly the fundamental claim that you make is, so we’re sure we discuss having the same assumptions in our minds, OK? When you say that the fourth dimension expands at a speed of ic, my understanding is that the other three dimensions of space do _not_ expand along as well, am I right? Expansion happens only along the 4th dimension, correct?

Thanks as always,

Kyle

PS: I feel no need to review elementary relativity concepts, I think my memory is pretty good on the subject. ;-)

“The main purpose of science is simplicity, and as we understand more things, everything is becoming simpler.”

--Edward Teller

Consider a 4D universe (x1, x2, x3, x4) in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity.

It really is this simple. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't...

view entire post

--Edward Teller

Consider a 4D universe (x1, x2, x3, x4) in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity.

It really is this simple. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't...

view entire post

Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek wrote an excellent book called the Road to Serfdom, in which he detailed how central-planning and bureaucracy lead not too the advancement of science, truth, and freedom; but to the very opposite. Two awesome chapeters, whose titles tell half the story, are "The End of Truth" and "Why The Worst Get on Top."

"What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose...

view entire post

"What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose...

view entire post

Dear Dr. E (the real one),

As you see, the anonymous coward did his hit-and-run thing again. Someone forged your identity, just like several posts back, copying excerpts from your earlier posts. I know you wouldn’t have done this, since we tacitly yet honestly and sincerely agreed that you wouldn’t be posting rants and quotations about Western cowboys and ancient heroes as replies to my posts.

To the anonymous coward:

Whoever you are, take note: you can’t fool me! I know it’s you, the forger, and this became obvious to me the moment you switched from physics to cowboys and cattle, Homer, King Leonaides, and Socrates. And you did it in too obvious a manner, anonymous coward. Dr. E would never be so inconsiderate to dump into our faces a full 11 pages of irrelevant junk. Taking advantage of Dr. E’s obvious temporary inattention to this discussion, you grabbed the chance to fool everybody again. But you can’t fool Dr. Kyle Gallahue, the physicist! Get out of our way, anonymous wretch!

To the real Dr. E (again):

I’ll be waiting until you come back, Elliot, and inform our readers that the above two posts aren’t yours, as I’m sure they aren’t. All the best to you, in case you are sick or something and couldn’t check your blog recently.

Kyle

As you see, the anonymous coward did his hit-and-run thing again. Someone forged your identity, just like several posts back, copying excerpts from your earlier posts. I know you wouldn’t have done this, since we tacitly yet honestly and sincerely agreed that you wouldn’t be posting rants and quotations about Western cowboys and ancient heroes as replies to my posts.

To the anonymous coward:

Whoever you are, take note: you can’t fool me! I know it’s you, the forger, and this became obvious to me the moment you switched from physics to cowboys and cattle, Homer, King Leonaides, and Socrates. And you did it in too obvious a manner, anonymous coward. Dr. E would never be so inconsiderate to dump into our faces a full 11 pages of irrelevant junk. Taking advantage of Dr. E’s obvious temporary inattention to this discussion, you grabbed the chance to fool everybody again. But you can’t fool Dr. Kyle Gallahue, the physicist! Get out of our way, anonymous wretch!

To the real Dr. E (again):

I’ll be waiting until you come back, Elliot, and inform our readers that the above two posts aren’t yours, as I’m sure they aren’t. All the best to you, in case you are sick or something and couldn’t check your blog recently.

Kyle

300 and Fistful of Dollars are actually two of my favorite movies! I'd give anything to watch Westerns with Bohr & Gamow! How cool would that be! Sometimes I actually wish that MDT wasn't right, and that we did, in fact, live in a block universe, so that I could travel back on Michio Kaku's/Paul Davies' time machine and watch a western or two with Bohr. And we'd invite Boltzman too. It's sad...

view entire post

view entire post

Ahem…

Given that there were no “disowning statements” by the real-real-real McCoy (a.k.a. Dr. E) regarding the previous posts for several days now, I have to admit only one possibility: that they were written by Dr. E himself. So I now turn to talking to him again.

Dear Elliot,

You seem to have misunderstood my tolerance limits. I was willing to give it a try and...

view entire post

Given that there were no “disowning statements” by the real-real-real McCoy (a.k.a. Dr. E) regarding the previous posts for several days now, I have to admit only one possibility: that they were written by Dr. E himself. So I now turn to talking to him again.

Dear Elliot,

You seem to have misunderstood my tolerance limits. I was willing to give it a try and...

view entire post

The late professor J.A. Wheeler--"the last notable figure from the heroic age of physics lingering among us — a man who could claim to be the student of Bohr, teacher of Feynman, and close colleague of Einstein"--was a very, very humble man, considering his massive accomplishments; and very kind to give me the time of day, with that eternal twinkle in his eye, which shines on, even though he has...

view entire post

view entire post

Speaking of sonnets, your sonnet reminded me of this one:

I saw you starting for another war,

The emblem of adventure and of youth,

So that men trembled, saying: "He forsooth

Has gone, has gone, and shall return no more."

And then out there, they told me you were dead,

Taken and killed; how was it that I knew,

Whatever else was true, that was not true?

And then I saw you pale upon your bed,

Scarcely two years ago, when you were sent

Back from the margin of the dim abyss;

For Death had sealed you with a warning kiss,

And let you go to meet a nobler fate:

To fight for hearth and home, O fortunate,

To die in battle with your regiment.

--- Maurice Baring (1874 - ? )

I saw you starting for another war,

The emblem of adventure and of youth,

So that men trembled, saying: "He forsooth

Has gone, has gone, and shall return no more."

And then out there, they told me you were dead,

Taken and killed; how was it that I knew,

Whatever else was true, that was not true?

And then I saw you pale upon your bed,

Scarcely two years ago, when you were sent

Back from the margin of the dim abyss;

For Death had sealed you with a warning kiss,

And let you go to meet a nobler fate:

To fight for hearth and home, O fortunate,

To die in battle with your regiment.

--- Maurice Baring (1874 - ? )

Dear Dr. McGucken,

slowly doing my best to read all the entries here. yours i found a very interesting expansion of Einstein's work. i'm still thinking about it. i see what's happening with the math, thanks for pointing that out. the interpretations of the significances are still rolling around in my head. no comments on that at the moment. i did have a concern about the observations on free will. if you go tying your free will to whatever scientific theory is currently in fassion, you've just thrown away what little of it you may have had to start with.

it's a jail break, man; i'm here to spring ya. ca'mon, let's get movin'. you can finish the equations later...

:-)

matt k.

slowly doing my best to read all the entries here. yours i found a very interesting expansion of Einstein's work. i'm still thinking about it. i see what's happening with the math, thanks for pointing that out. the interpretations of the significances are still rolling around in my head. no comments on that at the moment. i did have a concern about the observations on free will. if you go tying your free will to whatever scientific theory is currently in fassion, you've just thrown away what little of it you may have had to start with.

it's a jail break, man; i'm here to spring ya. ca'mon, let's get movin'. you can finish the equations later...

:-)

matt k.

Thanks the words Matt.

Yes--the typical view held by contemporary physicists is that of the block universe. In fact, up until now and MDT, I think pretty much everyone who has embraced Einstein's relativity has embraced the block universe, which pretty much denies free will. How strange that physicists, who strive and work for Truth each day, have renounced free will! Perhaps that is why...

view entire post

Yes--the typical view held by contemporary physicists is that of the block universe. In fact, up until now and MDT, I think pretty much everyone who has embraced Einstein's relativity has embraced the block universe, which pretty much denies free will. How strange that physicists, who strive and work for Truth each day, have renounced free will! Perhaps that is why...

view entire post

Hello again Dr. McGuckin,

re:

For the first time in the history of relativity, *change* has been *physically* woven into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, with dx4/dt = ic.

that's part of what i've been considering in the implications. yes. i saw that. was even thinking '∆ as an emergent phenomenon' might be...

bit i don't want to go being presumptuous here, i'm no mega-mind.

still thinking about it.

matt.

re:

For the first time in the history of relativity, *change* has been *physically* woven into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, with dx4/dt = ic.

that's part of what i've been considering in the implications. yes. i saw that. was even thinking '∆ as an emergent phenomenon' might be...

bit i don't want to go being presumptuous here, i'm no mega-mind.

still thinking about it.

matt.

Hello Matt!

Yes indeed, ∆ (change) is finally fundamentally woven into the fabric of spacetime with MDT!

And too, MDT explains why there is no need to quantize gravity, while also accounting for the Gravitational Redshift!

Please check out & enjoy the attached paper which has figures I could not include in the text here:

MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY EXAMINES THE GRAVITATIONAL

REDSHIFT, LIGHT CLOCKS, AND WHY GRAVITY IS NOT QUANTIZED:

ALL HAIL THE UNIVERSE’S FUNDAMENTAL INVARIANT: dx4/dt = ic

by Dr. Elliot McGucken

attachments: MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_MCGCUKEN.pdf

Yes indeed, ∆ (change) is finally fundamentally woven into the fabric of spacetime with MDT!

And too, MDT explains why there is no need to quantize gravity, while also accounting for the Gravitational Redshift!

Please check out & enjoy the attached paper which has figures I could not include in the text here:

MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY EXAMINES THE GRAVITATIONAL

REDSHIFT, LIGHT CLOCKS, AND WHY GRAVITY IS NOT QUANTIZED:

ALL HAIL THE UNIVERSE’S FUNDAMENTAL INVARIANT: dx4/dt = ic

by Dr. Elliot McGucken

attachments: MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_MCGCUKEN.pdf

Dear John Merryman,

John--above you have been saying something, and I think I finally see what you mean! I finally saw it when you wrote to Doug, in Doug's forum, "You propose something similar to Dr. E's theory of the expanding fourth dimension. As I pointed out to him, if, as he seems to suggest, this expanding wave is light, or represents light, than according to Einstein, light is the...

view entire post

John--above you have been saying something, and I think I finally see what you mean! I finally saw it when you wrote to Doug, in Doug's forum, "You propose something similar to Dr. E's theory of the expanding fourth dimension. As I pointed out to him, if, as he seems to suggest, this expanding wave is light, or represents light, than according to Einstein, light is the...

view entire post

attachments: 1_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Dr. E,

I'm lousy on specific references, as most of the reading I did was decades ago, but it is rather explicit in his need to add the cosmological constant to keep gravity from shrinking space to a point and the fact that his constant is the speed of light. So basically I see your theory as viewing it from the opposite perspective, that the three dimensional space is the constant and...

view entire post

I'm lousy on specific references, as most of the reading I did was decades ago, but it is rather explicit in his need to add the cosmological constant to keep gravity from shrinking space to a point and the fact that his constant is the speed of light. So basically I see your theory as viewing it from the opposite perspective, that the three dimensional space is the constant and...

view entire post

An interesting article on the Cosmological Constant;

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg

20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg

20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html

Hi Dr. E,

I apologize for taking so long to answer the comment you posted in my forum. My trouble with MDT is right at the beginning. Since the foundation doesn’t make sense to me, it becomes very tedious to wade through all the rest, because I can’t find the faith that it will be worth the effort. Can you understand that?

The trouble I encounter is in trying to understand what you mean by moving dimension. There are 5 dictionary definitions for dimension:

1. A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.

2. Extent or magnitude; scope. Often used in the plural: a problem of alarming dimensions.

3. Aspect; element: "He's a good newsman, and he has that extra dimension" William S. Paley.

4. Mathematics

a. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.

b. The range of such a coordinate.

5. Physics A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

The first and the last two are the applicable ones here, I believe, but maybe you have another one that would help more. Taking the first definition, your reference to moving spatial extent, seems appropriate, but, then, since velocity has dimensions of length divided by time, not height and width too, if that is the definition to use, you are referring to scalar motion, as I do, which doesn’t seem to be the case.

In Einstein’s work, the most appropriate definition is probably 4a, but his work doesn’t contradict any of the others either. In your case, you seem to want to use the word dimension as if, instead of a property of something, used as an adjective, it has an existence in it’s own right, used as a noun. If, as Einstein said, x4 = ict is a replacement for time, then the problem is solved, and we can move on from there, but I don’t think this is what you mean, because ict/t = ic = is/t would be even harder to explain, as a dimension of something.

As something that exists and can move, dimension would have to occupy a position in space and time, and a change in that spacetime location would constitute its motion. However, if it’s not something that changes location, then the other possibility is that it grows relative to its unchanging spacetime location, which sort of brings us back to the meaning of changing dimension.

See what I mean? If I can’t get my head around what the concept of a moving dimension is, I can’t entertain how it could be the solution to solving physics challenges. So, if you can help me understand that, I should be able to move to the next step.

I apologize for taking so long to answer the comment you posted in my forum. My trouble with MDT is right at the beginning. Since the foundation doesn’t make sense to me, it becomes very tedious to wade through all the rest, because I can’t find the faith that it will be worth the effort. Can you understand that?

The trouble I encounter is in trying to understand what you mean by moving dimension. There are 5 dictionary definitions for dimension:

1. A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.

2. Extent or magnitude; scope. Often used in the plural: a problem of alarming dimensions.

3. Aspect; element: "He's a good newsman, and he has that extra dimension" William S. Paley.

4. Mathematics

a. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.

b. The range of such a coordinate.

5. Physics A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

The first and the last two are the applicable ones here, I believe, but maybe you have another one that would help more. Taking the first definition, your reference to moving spatial extent, seems appropriate, but, then, since velocity has dimensions of length divided by time, not height and width too, if that is the definition to use, you are referring to scalar motion, as I do, which doesn’t seem to be the case.

In Einstein’s work, the most appropriate definition is probably 4a, but his work doesn’t contradict any of the others either. In your case, you seem to want to use the word dimension as if, instead of a property of something, used as an adjective, it has an existence in it’s own right, used as a noun. If, as Einstein said, x4 = ict is a replacement for time, then the problem is solved, and we can move on from there, but I don’t think this is what you mean, because ict/t = ic = is/t would be even harder to explain, as a dimension of something.

As something that exists and can move, dimension would have to occupy a position in space and time, and a change in that spacetime location would constitute its motion. However, if it’s not something that changes location, then the other possibility is that it grows relative to its unchanging spacetime location, which sort of brings us back to the meaning of changing dimension.

See what I mean? If I can’t get my head around what the concept of a moving dimension is, I can’t entertain how it could be the solution to solving physics challenges. So, if you can help me understand that, I should be able to move to the next step.

Thanks Doug & Happy Hallowween,

Tonight I will be dressing up as a cowboy physicist in honor of Bohr and Gamow--please find the photo attached--if you look closely, you can see the dx4/dt=ic onmy shirt. Halloween is a great time of the year where we get to pretend that we live in a parallel universe where tenure for hyping parallel universes/multiverses doesn't exist, but where, instead,...

view entire post

Tonight I will be dressing up as a cowboy physicist in honor of Bohr and Gamow--please find the photo attached--if you look closely, you can see the dx4/dt=ic onmy shirt. Halloween is a great time of the year where we get to pretend that we live in a parallel universe where tenure for hyping parallel universes/multiverses doesn't exist, but where, instead,...

view entire post

attachments: comicon_433.87454.jpg, 774pxEclipsetestofrelativity.jpg

Dr. E,

Thanks for the response, recommendations and pictures. I hope you had a happy Halloween.

There seems to be a miscommunication on this point of the moving dimension. Einstein clearly identifies x4 with the time dimension. Time changes in every reference frame in such a way that the constant c is invariable in each. However, in your theory you have five dimensions, three of space, one of time and one of something else called the “moving dimension.”

What I don’t understand is what this fifth dimension is, and as I pointed out last time, dimension is an adjective, a property of something else, not a thing in itself. Your response does not address this question. Referring me to Einstein is not helpful, since his theory is four-dimensional, not five-dimensional. So, when I read Einstein, his reference to the fourth dimension, as a means to make Minkowski spacetime Euclidean space-like, makes sense, but it is no help whatsoever in understanding your mysterious fifth dimension.

I can understand the expansion of time relative to the three spatial dimensions, or (dx1, dx2, dx3)/dx4, which then leads to the set of spacetime points, any one of which may be specified by x1, x2, x3, x4, subsequently. But, truly, I am confused with the attempt to attach any significance to the equation x4/dx4, which is what x4/dt amounts to, and the confusion doesn’t come from what Einstein invented, but from what you have invented.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and understand your frustration, but I cannot yet explain your concept of the fifth dimension.

Peace,

Doug

Thanks for the response, recommendations and pictures. I hope you had a happy Halloween.

There seems to be a miscommunication on this point of the moving dimension. Einstein clearly identifies x4 with the time dimension. Time changes in every reference frame in such a way that the constant c is invariable in each. However, in your theory you have five dimensions, three of space, one of time and one of something else called the “moving dimension.”

What I don’t understand is what this fifth dimension is, and as I pointed out last time, dimension is an adjective, a property of something else, not a thing in itself. Your response does not address this question. Referring me to Einstein is not helpful, since his theory is four-dimensional, not five-dimensional. So, when I read Einstein, his reference to the fourth dimension, as a means to make Minkowski spacetime Euclidean space-like, makes sense, but it is no help whatsoever in understanding your mysterious fifth dimension.

I can understand the expansion of time relative to the three spatial dimensions, or (dx1, dx2, dx3)/dx4, which then leads to the set of spacetime points, any one of which may be specified by x1, x2, x3, x4, subsequently. But, truly, I am confused with the attempt to attach any significance to the equation x4/dx4, which is what x4/dt amounts to, and the confusion doesn’t come from what Einstein invented, but from what you have invented.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and understand your frustration, but I cannot yet explain your concept of the fifth dimension.

Peace,

Doug

Thanks for the comment Doug,

Doug, Have you read Einstein's 1912 Paper? You say, "So, when I read Einstein, his reference to the fourth dimension, as a means to make Minkowski spacetime Euclidean space-like, makes sense. . . " Can you please cite Einstein's exact words that you read? Thanks!

No--Moving Dimensions Theory does not suppose five dimensions. No, no, no. Only four. ...

view entire post

Doug, Have you read Einstein's 1912 Paper? You say, "So, when I read Einstein, his reference to the fourth dimension, as a means to make Minkowski spacetime Euclidean space-like, makes sense. . . " Can you please cite Einstein's exact words that you read? Thanks!

No--Moving Dimensions Theory does not suppose five dimensions. No, no, no. Only four. ...

view entire post

Dr E,

You wrote:

“Doug, Have you read Einstein's 1912 Paper? You say, "So, when I read Einstein, his reference to the fourth dimension, as a means to make Minkowski spacetime Euclidean space-like, makes sense. . . " Can you please cite Einstein's exact words that you read? Thanks!

Would love to see the exact words cited! Thanks! For unless I miss my guess, it seems you are...

view entire post

You wrote:

“Doug, Have you read Einstein's 1912 Paper? You say, "So, when I read Einstein, his reference to the fourth dimension, as a means to make Minkowski spacetime Euclidean space-like, makes sense. . . " Can you please cite Einstein's exact words that you read? Thanks!

Would love to see the exact words cited! Thanks! For unless I miss my guess, it seems you are...

view entire post

Gosh, this editor sucks.

I should have just provided a link to the appendix:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/a2.html

Also, I meant "the square root of -1" not "the square root of i," in the above text.

Sure wish FQXI would provide a preview capability for this forum editor.

I should have just provided a link to the appendix:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/a2.html

Also, I meant "the square root of -1" not "the square root of i," in the above text.

Sure wish FQXI would provide a preview capability for this forum editor.

Hello Doug,

I think I have found a source of your confusion--above you write,

"The three spatial dimensions are a means for identifying any location in a volume of space. As such, these orthogonal references serve as independent specifications, the minimum required to specify a location in space. To say they move is nonsensical."

But what happens when a gravitational mass...

view entire post

I think I have found a source of your confusion--above you write,

"The three spatial dimensions are a means for identifying any location in a volume of space. As such, these orthogonal references serve as independent specifications, the minimum required to specify a location in space. To say they move is nonsensical."

But what happens when a gravitational mass...

view entire post

P.S. Surely it is now obvious, that after accepting the reality of Einstein's General Relativity, nobody can deny that dimensions can bend and move.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Doug,

All that really exists is an unstable field of energy. Vortices form in it and coalesce this energy, until they become unstable and break down, radiating the energy back out. In this relationship of gravitational collapse and radiant expansion, areas of relative stability arise where the potential for collapse and the potential for expansion settle into some degree of stability. We exist in that middle ground. so the notion of a seemingly static three dimensional coordinate system is an ideal that has its uses, but isn't the fundamental basis of reality.

Dr. E,

Sometimes your radiating energy overwhelms your contracting reductionist logic. Not that it's a bad thing, but it does singe the argument a little.

Your personality type rebelling against the constraints of the scientific status quo might explain why you view time/energy as the expanding fourth dimension from a stable three dimensional space. Remember the reality we think we know doesn't exist, as the energy recording it is a record of events already in the past by the time we perceive them, whether it's light from the computer you are looking at, or the light of a galaxy millions of lightyears away. So this three dimensional reality which we think of as static space is information of events which no longer exist, ie. have collapsed and the only constant is this field of energy manifesting various intensities and densities. That's why it's also logical to say the fourth dimension of this energy field is the constant and the three dimensions of space which collapse.

Then, since all is relative, it's a matter of perspective and they both are true. Expanding energy goes past to future, as the structure of events it records go from future to past.

All that really exists is an unstable field of energy. Vortices form in it and coalesce this energy, until they become unstable and break down, radiating the energy back out. In this relationship of gravitational collapse and radiant expansion, areas of relative stability arise where the potential for collapse and the potential for expansion settle into some degree of stability. We exist in that middle ground. so the notion of a seemingly static three dimensional coordinate system is an ideal that has its uses, but isn't the fundamental basis of reality.

Dr. E,

Sometimes your radiating energy overwhelms your contracting reductionist logic. Not that it's a bad thing, but it does singe the argument a little.

Your personality type rebelling against the constraints of the scientific status quo might explain why you view time/energy as the expanding fourth dimension from a stable three dimensional space. Remember the reality we think we know doesn't exist, as the energy recording it is a record of events already in the past by the time we perceive them, whether it's light from the computer you are looking at, or the light of a galaxy millions of lightyears away. So this three dimensional reality which we think of as static space is information of events which no longer exist, ie. have collapsed and the only constant is this field of energy manifesting various intensities and densities. That's why it's also logical to say the fourth dimension of this energy field is the constant and the three dimensions of space which collapse.

Then, since all is relative, it's a matter of perspective and they both are true. Expanding energy goes past to future, as the structure of events it records go from future to past.

Thanks John!

"Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God"--Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin

Yes--sometimes it might seem like I am rebelling, but only because I am riding with the Greats against the prevailing postmodern winds, as while Moving Dimensions Theory has no need for string theory nor any other quantum gravity empires, even those based on well-intentioned groupthink, MDT agrees with:

Relativity

Quantum Mechanics

Statistical Mechanics

Galileo

Newton

Einstein

Bohr

Gamow

Wheeler

Minkowski

Boltz

man

Teller

Feynman

Quantum Entanglement

Quantum Nonlocality

Entropy

Quantum Time

Thermodynamic Time

Radiative Time

Psychological Time

All of time's arrows and assymetries across all realms.

It is interesting that Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a primary law not deduced from anything else.

Well, I guess I was dumb enough to even ask, "why relativity?"

And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. Change is fundamentally embedded in space-time. And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we had a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement. MDT accounts for the the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing it as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a *physical* basis for E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

On page 37 of "Einstein's Mistakes, The Failings of Human Genius," by Hans Ochanian, we read,

"Einstein acknowledged his debt to Newton and to Maxwell, but he was not fully aware of the extent of Galileo's fatherhood. In an introduction he wrote for Galileo's celebrated Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he faults Galileo for failing to produce a general mathematical proof. Galileo regarded relativity as an empirical, observational fact, that is, a law of nature, and Einstein's own formulation of the Principle of Relativity three hundred years later imitated Galileo's in treating this principle as a law of nature and not as a mathematical deduction from anything else."

Well, MDT provides a more fundamental law--a hitherto unsung universal invariant--with an equation: dx4/dt = ic, from which relativity is derived in my paper. And an added benefit are all the other *physical* entities dx4/dt=ic accounts for with a *physical* model, from Huygens' principle to entropy to quantum entanglement and nonlocality to time and all her arrows and assymetries.

"Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God"--Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin

"Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God"--Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin

Yes--sometimes it might seem like I am rebelling, but only because I am riding with the Greats against the prevailing postmodern winds, as while Moving Dimensions Theory has no need for string theory nor any other quantum gravity empires, even those based on well-intentioned groupthink, MDT agrees with:

Relativity

Quantum Mechanics

Statistical Mechanics

Galileo

Newton

Einstein

Bohr

Gamow

Wheeler

Minkowski

Boltz

man

Teller

Feynman

Quantum Entanglement

Quantum Nonlocality

Entropy

Quantum Time

Thermodynamic Time

Radiative Time

Psychological Time

All of time's arrows and assymetries across all realms.

It is interesting that Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a primary law not deduced from anything else.

Well, I guess I was dumb enough to even ask, "why relativity?"

And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. Change is fundamentally embedded in space-time. And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we had a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement. MDT accounts for the the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing it as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a *physical* basis for E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

On page 37 of "Einstein's Mistakes, The Failings of Human Genius," by Hans Ochanian, we read,

"Einstein acknowledged his debt to Newton and to Maxwell, but he was not fully aware of the extent of Galileo's fatherhood. In an introduction he wrote for Galileo's celebrated Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he faults Galileo for failing to produce a general mathematical proof. Galileo regarded relativity as an empirical, observational fact, that is, a law of nature, and Einstein's own formulation of the Principle of Relativity three hundred years later imitated Galileo's in treating this principle as a law of nature and not as a mathematical deduction from anything else."

Well, MDT provides a more fundamental law--a hitherto unsung universal invariant--with an equation: dx4/dt = ic, from which relativity is derived in my paper. And an added benefit are all the other *physical* entities dx4/dt=ic accounts for with a *physical* model, from Huygens' principle to entropy to quantum entanglement and nonlocality to time and all her arrows and assymetries.

"Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God"--Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin

Dr E.

Please don’t recommend any more publications for to me to read. You asked for the ‘exact quote’ and the referenced publication that justified the issue I raised formerly, but then you completely ignored them, when supplied as requested.

So, now, without any response to Einstein’s own words in relation to x4, as quoted by me, you focus on another aspect of the argument,...

view entire post

Please don’t recommend any more publications for to me to read. You asked for the ‘exact quote’ and the referenced publication that justified the issue I raised formerly, but then you completely ignored them, when supplied as requested.

So, now, without any response to Einstein’s own words in relation to x4, as quoted by me, you focus on another aspect of the argument,...

view entire post

"According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, mass and energy warp spacetime. The undulations then affect the trajectories of passing objects, producing the effects we call gravity. In Einstein's theory, spacetime is a stretchy, dynamical entity." --http://focus.aps.org/story/v14/st13

Spacetime is a dynamical entity in Einstein's theory. Ergo, dimensions move.

Hello...

view entire post

Spacetime is a dynamical entity in Einstein's theory. Ergo, dimensions move.

Hello...

view entire post

Dr. E and Doug,

You are both right in respect to real vs. projected dimensions. We only describe dimensions as curved relative to their potential. The light of a distant star is curved and bent passing through space affected by gravity fields, as well as by a potential cosmological constant. We say it is "curved" relative to that idealized flat space. When the distant star appears to move in the heavens, as the sun passes in front of it, that doesn't mean that star actually moved, only that the light traveling from it was bent in its passage. So presumably a straight line could be still drawn between the observer and the actual star, but the path of the light is curved away from that straight line. Thus we are in a position to say that "gravity curves space." If there was no idealized straight line, it would be meaningless to say that space is "curved."

You are both right in respect to real vs. projected dimensions. We only describe dimensions as curved relative to their potential. The light of a distant star is curved and bent passing through space affected by gravity fields, as well as by a potential cosmological constant. We say it is "curved" relative to that idealized flat space. When the distant star appears to move in the heavens, as the sun passes in front of it, that doesn't mean that star actually moved, only that the light traveling from it was bent in its passage. So presumably a straight line could be still drawn between the observer and the actual star, but the path of the light is curved away from that straight line. Thus we are in a position to say that "gravity curves space." If there was no idealized straight line, it would be meaningless to say that space is "curved."

Thanks John,

You practically took the words right out of my mouth, so-to-speak. Now, when we are talking about the dimension of time, real or imaginary, there is no bending, since there is no idealized straight line to compare it to. In fact, the one dimension of time is a scalar dimension, which means that it has no direction (2^0) in space.

Thus, to say that it is a moving dimension makes no sense, because it’s not the dimension of time that is “moving,” but time itself. That is to say, time is increasing, not its dimension. As a dimension of spacetime, x4 = ict, represents this increasing time, as a radius of an ever increasing sphere, and it happens that ct is the length of this radius, coinciding with the time t at unity.

When Einstein added the imaginary square root of -1 to ct, it enabled him to use it in the Pythagorean theorem-based equation of an “Euclidean” space-like version of Minkowski spacetime, because, when the term is squared, the requisite minus sign appears.

But when Elliot uses it, he takes it out of this context of Einstein’s attempt to help out, and makes it something he will not identify, but calls it “a moving dimension,” not a moving dimension of space, not a moving dimension of time, but just a moving dimension. He then makes this unidentified mathematical object (UMO), which as everyone can see is in reality Einstein’s imaginary time variable, change with the real time variable, coming up with “ic,” as a new elixir of physics.

But, even if time is regarded as a one-dimensional vector, not a zero-dimensional scalar, if i squared rotates a vector by 180 degrees, then i can only rotate it by 90 degrees. So, what is c rotated by ninety degrees?

With all due respect, it makes no sense to me.

You practically took the words right out of my mouth, so-to-speak. Now, when we are talking about the dimension of time, real or imaginary, there is no bending, since there is no idealized straight line to compare it to. In fact, the one dimension of time is a scalar dimension, which means that it has no direction (2^0) in space.

Thus, to say that it is a moving dimension makes no sense, because it’s not the dimension of time that is “moving,” but time itself. That is to say, time is increasing, not its dimension. As a dimension of spacetime, x4 = ict, represents this increasing time, as a radius of an ever increasing sphere, and it happens that ct is the length of this radius, coinciding with the time t at unity.

When Einstein added the imaginary square root of -1 to ct, it enabled him to use it in the Pythagorean theorem-based equation of an “Euclidean” space-like version of Minkowski spacetime, because, when the term is squared, the requisite minus sign appears.

But when Elliot uses it, he takes it out of this context of Einstein’s attempt to help out, and makes it something he will not identify, but calls it “a moving dimension,” not a moving dimension of space, not a moving dimension of time, but just a moving dimension. He then makes this unidentified mathematical object (UMO), which as everyone can see is in reality Einstein’s imaginary time variable, change with the real time variable, coming up with “ic,” as a new elixir of physics.

But, even if time is regarded as a one-dimensional vector, not a zero-dimensional scalar, if i squared rotates a vector by 180 degrees, then i can only rotate it by 90 degrees. So, what is c rotated by ninety degrees?

With all due respect, it makes no sense to me.

Hello Doug,

First of all please stop ignoring General Relativity which is built upon dimensions that can bend, warp, and move. Just out of curiosity, do you have a degree in physics? Have you ever studied differential geometry? Even if you haven't, you must some day come to terms with the fact that differential geometry desribes how space-time--how dimensions themselves--can bend and...

view entire post

First of all please stop ignoring General Relativity which is built upon dimensions that can bend, warp, and move. Just out of curiosity, do you have a degree in physics? Have you ever studied differential geometry? Even if you haven't, you must some day come to terms with the fact that differential geometry desribes how space-time--how dimensions themselves--can bend and...

view entire post

Dr. E,

As you are critical of established theory when it seems to have been projected beyond logical support, I hope you won't mind me applying some critical logic to the premise of dynamic dimensionality. It is my conclusion that physical reality and the dimensions we use to reference it, define space, rather than create it.

Big Bang cosmology is based on the assumption that space...

view entire post

As you are critical of established theory when it seems to have been projected beyond logical support, I hope you won't mind me applying some critical logic to the premise of dynamic dimensionality. It is my conclusion that physical reality and the dimensions we use to reference it, define space, rather than create it.

Big Bang cosmology is based on the assumption that space...

view entire post

P.S.

Doug,

What is moving is the energy that is radiating outward and the structure/mass that is collapsing. The energy is constantly radiating from old structure to be eventually included in new structure. Much like the hand of the clock is constantly leaving old units of time and starting to measure new ones, thus going from past to future, as these units go from being in the future to being in the past. So from the perspective of structure, it is energy expanding out, going past to future, while from the perspective of the energy, it is structure that is receding into the past.

Since we exist in that state of relative stability where structure and energy maintain some equilibrium, much structure is carried into the future, as it maintains its energy content, or is replacing it at least as fast as it loses it. When structure loses energy faster then it is replaced, it fades away and recedes into the past. It dies.

Doug,

What is moving is the energy that is radiating outward and the structure/mass that is collapsing. The energy is constantly radiating from old structure to be eventually included in new structure. Much like the hand of the clock is constantly leaving old units of time and starting to measure new ones, thus going from past to future, as these units go from being in the future to being in the past. So from the perspective of structure, it is energy expanding out, going past to future, while from the perspective of the energy, it is structure that is receding into the past.

Since we exist in that state of relative stability where structure and energy maintain some equilibrium, much structure is carried into the future, as it maintains its energy content, or is replacing it at least as fast as it loses it. When structure loses energy faster then it is replaced, it fades away and recedes into the past. It dies.

Thanks for the comments John,

You write, "How to explain entanglement and non-locality; As I've said before, it makes more sense to describe light propagating as a wave and only when it contacts some method of measurement does it coalesce as a quanta. So when two measurements are taken simultaneously and the quanta of light exhibit identical properties, you are essentially measuring the...

view entire post

You write, "How to explain entanglement and non-locality; As I've said before, it makes more sense to describe light propagating as a wave and only when it contacts some method of measurement does it coalesce as a quanta. So when two measurements are taken simultaneously and the quanta of light exhibit identical properties, you are essentially measuring the...

view entire post

Hello Doug,

Thanks so much for your Nov. 2, 2008 @ 00:08 GMT post in which you quote from Einstein's THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY.

It was great to see, as not only do modern physicists so often neglect foundational questions, but they also neglect foundational papers and works, while embracing and exalting multiverses, mysticism, m-theory, womholes, tiny little vibrating strings which are safe from experimental tests, and time machines which nobody ever seems to have the time to build.

I hope that you have had a chance to read Einstein's work and realize that General Relativity treats dimensions as *physical* entities with dynamical properties.

"CHAPTER XXXII: THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of matter as being something that is known." --Einstein's Meaning of Relativity

Particularly, I hope you get to read chapter XXVII: THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM

Also read CHAPTER XXVII, "In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity. The motion of clocks is also influenced by gravitational fields, and in such a way that a physical definition of time which is made with the aid of clocks has by no means the same degree of plausibility in as in the special tehory of relativity."

Well Doug, I hope that you no longer deny the fact that as matter moves through space, it bends and twists the dimensions--and thus the dimensions can and do move.

Einstein himself states, in the Meaning of Relativity: "CHAPTER XXXII: THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of matter as being something that is known." --Einstein

One of the fun things that MDT is doing is going on back to the foundational papers and showing how MDT agrees with all of them--with Einstein, Dirac, Newton, Teller, Galileo, Bohr, Schrodenger, Feynman--while so many modern physicists do not agree with the Greats, nor *physical* reality; as physical reality has a tendency to get in the way of fiat empires and postmodern groupthink tryannies.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Thanks so much for your Nov. 2, 2008 @ 00:08 GMT post in which you quote from Einstein's THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY.

It was great to see, as not only do modern physicists so often neglect foundational questions, but they also neglect foundational papers and works, while embracing and exalting multiverses, mysticism, m-theory, womholes, tiny little vibrating strings which are safe from experimental tests, and time machines which nobody ever seems to have the time to build.

I hope that you have had a chance to read Einstein's work and realize that General Relativity treats dimensions as *physical* entities with dynamical properties.

"CHAPTER XXXII: THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of matter as being something that is known." --Einstein's Meaning of Relativity

Particularly, I hope you get to read chapter XXVII: THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM

Also read CHAPTER XXVII, "In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity. The motion of clocks is also influenced by gravitational fields, and in such a way that a physical definition of time which is made with the aid of clocks has by no means the same degree of plausibility in as in the special tehory of relativity."

Well Doug, I hope that you no longer deny the fact that as matter moves through space, it bends and twists the dimensions--and thus the dimensions can and do move.

Einstein himself states, in the Meaning of Relativity: "CHAPTER XXXII: THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of matter as being something that is known." --Einstein

One of the fun things that MDT is doing is going on back to the foundational papers and showing how MDT agrees with all of them--with Einstein, Dirac, Newton, Teller, Galileo, Bohr, Schrodenger, Feynman--while so many modern physicists do not agree with the Greats, nor *physical* reality; as physical reality has a tendency to get in the way of fiat empires and postmodern groupthink tryannies.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dr. E,

I do get the sense your expanding wave is based on the Big Bang model. If that's so, I can understand you're not going to give much credence to my rejection of it, but that's the nature of the game. I certainly didn't set out to argue with it and fortunately I'm not trying to make a living at this, as I realize questioning it is tantamount to automatic rejection. If someone would...

view entire post

I do get the sense your expanding wave is based on the Big Bang model. If that's so, I can understand you're not going to give much credence to my rejection of it, but that's the nature of the game. I certainly didn't set out to argue with it and fortunately I'm not trying to make a living at this, as I realize questioning it is tantamount to automatic rejection. If someone would...

view entire post

"I am not myself apt to be alarmed at innovations recommended by reason. That dread belongs to those whose interests orprejudices shrink from the advance of truth and science." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1814.

Hello John,

You write, "I do get the sense your expanding wave is based on the Big Bang model. If that's so, I can understand you're not going to give much credence...

view entire post

Hello John,

You write, "I do get the sense your expanding wave is based on the Big Bang model. If that's so, I can understand you're not going to give much credence...

view entire post

We have a new president here in the US!

And is it not time for a new physics?

Imagine if presidents were elected for thirty years, instead of just four! Imagine if all curiosity and questioning of the establishment was squelched and opposed!

Imagine if simple, foundational questions were banned, along with simple, foundational papers of the Past Masters, along with new, simple theories with simple postulates and simple maths--theories which unified physical phenomenon across all realms by recognizing a new universal invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Science is a democratic endeavor! Imagine if progress in America were frozen for thirty years, and that mavericks were not allowed to change and improve society with new ideas, with courage and honor, with truth and fresh energy! Imagine if elections were canceled for thirty years, and empirical evidence was thrown out the window, along with dissenting voices! Imagine if even the proposition of new ideas was banned by hired mercenaries and postdocs! Then I imagine progress would be frozen in that realm too.

One of the great things about the internet is that it shines a light in dark places, and no longer can ideas be ignored and supressed by anonymous referees. And too, the internet immortalizes all these words and dialogues, as never before. And so it is that we are all now joined forever in MDT's liberation from frozen time and the block universe, as well as frozen progress in theoretical physics. For while the past is no longer real, these words shall always endure, and by our newly-granted free will, we ought choose them wisely.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

And is it not time for a new physics?

Imagine if presidents were elected for thirty years, instead of just four! Imagine if all curiosity and questioning of the establishment was squelched and opposed!

Imagine if simple, foundational questions were banned, along with simple, foundational papers of the Past Masters, along with new, simple theories with simple postulates and simple maths--theories which unified physical phenomenon across all realms by recognizing a new universal invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Science is a democratic endeavor! Imagine if progress in America were frozen for thirty years, and that mavericks were not allowed to change and improve society with new ideas, with courage and honor, with truth and fresh energy! Imagine if elections were canceled for thirty years, and empirical evidence was thrown out the window, along with dissenting voices! Imagine if even the proposition of new ideas was banned by hired mercenaries and postdocs! Then I imagine progress would be frozen in that realm too.

One of the great things about the internet is that it shines a light in dark places, and no longer can ideas be ignored and supressed by anonymous referees. And too, the internet immortalizes all these words and dialogues, as never before. And so it is that we are all now joined forever in MDT's liberation from frozen time and the block universe, as well as frozen progress in theoretical physics. For while the past is no longer real, these words shall always endure, and by our newly-granted free will, we ought choose them wisely.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dr. E.

I thought you might be joking, that's why I phrased it as a caveat. That said, "the expanding fourth dimension" does sound like an effort to rationalize a singularity based universe. The operative term is "relative to the three spatial dimensions." Which means they are contracting relative to this fourth dimension, so that neither effect is preponderant.

I thought you might be joking, that's why I phrased it as a caveat. That said, "the expanding fourth dimension" does sound like an effort to rationalize a singularity based universe. The operative term is "relative to the three spatial dimensions." Which means they are contracting relative to this fourth dimension, so that neither effect is preponderant.

Can MDT also provide a *physical* interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Canonical Communitation relation in quantum mechanics?

From "Hidden Unity in Nature's Laws" by John Clayton Taylor,...

view entire post

From "Hidden Unity in Nature's Laws" by John Clayton Taylor,...

view entire post

attachments: max_bornes_gravestone.jpg, Zentralfriedhof_Vienna__Boltzmann.jpg

Dr. E,

I would really appreciate it, if you wouldn’t post, or copy, your defenses of MDT in my forum. The forum for discussing MDT is here, not in other forums.

As for your insistence that dimensions move, it still seems non-sensical to me, in spite of your attempts to leverage the concepts of geodesics in your argument. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

I would really appreciate it, if you wouldn’t post, or copy, your defenses of MDT in my forum. The forum for discussing MDT is here, not in other forums.

As for your insistence that dimensions move, it still seems non-sensical to me, in spite of your attempts to leverage the concepts of geodesics in your argument. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Hello Doug,

I wasn't posting a defense of MDT in your forum.

I was posting a defense of Einstein and General Relativity. I posted it there because I never heard back from you here.

It puzzles the will that your essay has garnered so many votes, when you don't even accept the foundations of Einsetin's General Relativity--one of the towering monuments of physics, which pervades...

view entire post

I wasn't posting a defense of MDT in your forum.

I was posting a defense of Einstein and General Relativity. I posted it there because I never heard back from you here.

It puzzles the will that your essay has garnered so many votes, when you don't even accept the foundations of Einsetin's General Relativity--one of the towering monuments of physics, which pervades...

view entire post

According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of matter as being something that is known." --Einstein

Dr. E,

Does that mean idealized flat space isn't a valid concept? Would that mean a perfect circle is equally invalid? So does that mean such ideas as pi are not valid? It seems the whole of mathematics is impossible without the platonic ideal.

Dr. E,

Does that mean idealized flat space isn't a valid concept? Would that mean a perfect circle is equally invalid? So does that mean such ideas as pi are not valid? It seems the whole of mathematics is impossible without the platonic ideal.

Dr. E,

Please don’t put your words into my mouth. I didn’t say that I “don't even accept the foundations of Einsetin's (sic) General Relativity,” you said that.

I’m just trying to make the point that it’s not the dimensions of spacetime that “bend and move,” as you say, because that concept fits into the category of “not even wrong,” given the English language.

The warping, bending and moving of locations in spacetime are a result of the effects of acceleration, and the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. It does not posit the warping and bending and moving of dimensions, which, like direction, are only properties used to describe magnitudes.

In English, we can say that we bend, warp, and move, or in general, that we change, the “dimensions” of some physical object, but what we really mean is that we change the magnitudes of the units of length, width and height, which define the shape of the object. We don’t warp, bend or move the three dimensions, x, y, z, which are established relative to some origin on the object and used to define the spatial extent of x, y and z magnitudes, defining the shape of the object.

In general relativity, Einstein uses Mach’s principle, as he called it, defining mass in its interaction with other masses, leading to the conclusion that there is no privileged reference system. I completely concur with this conclusion: There is no privileged reference system that would enable us to measure the change of the locations of isolated objects. The only meaning of the measure of distance is the difference between locations that is occupied, or that is occupiable to some degree of probability, by some physical object.

However, this concept has nothing to do whatsoever with a claim that we can define a change of the “location” of dimensions. Dimensions don’t have locations. They are an abstraction that enables us to give a name to the independent spaces, or degrees of freedom, in a physical system. To speak of their “motion” is not even wrong. It’s intellectual confusion, in my opinion.

Please don’t put your words into my mouth. I didn’t say that I “don't even accept the foundations of Einsetin's (sic) General Relativity,” you said that.

I’m just trying to make the point that it’s not the dimensions of spacetime that “bend and move,” as you say, because that concept fits into the category of “not even wrong,” given the English language.

The warping, bending and moving of locations in spacetime are a result of the effects of acceleration, and the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. It does not posit the warping and bending and moving of dimensions, which, like direction, are only properties used to describe magnitudes.

In English, we can say that we bend, warp, and move, or in general, that we change, the “dimensions” of some physical object, but what we really mean is that we change the magnitudes of the units of length, width and height, which define the shape of the object. We don’t warp, bend or move the three dimensions, x, y, z, which are established relative to some origin on the object and used to define the spatial extent of x, y and z magnitudes, defining the shape of the object.

In general relativity, Einstein uses Mach’s principle, as he called it, defining mass in its interaction with other masses, leading to the conclusion that there is no privileged reference system. I completely concur with this conclusion: There is no privileged reference system that would enable us to measure the change of the locations of isolated objects. The only meaning of the measure of distance is the difference between locations that is occupied, or that is occupiable to some degree of probability, by some physical object.

However, this concept has nothing to do whatsoever with a claim that we can define a change of the “location” of dimensions. Dimensions don’t have locations. They are an abstraction that enables us to give a name to the independent spaces, or degrees of freedom, in a physical system. To speak of their “motion” is not even wrong. It’s intellectual confusion, in my opinion.

Doug--you are ignoring Einstein: Einstein's General Relativity is founded upon a physical reality in which the *physical* dimensions can bend, warp, and move.

Einstein wrote, "According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter."

You are refusing to watch, listen, think, read, and understand;...

view entire post

Einstein wrote, "According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter."

You are refusing to watch, listen, think, read, and understand;...

view entire post

Dr. E,

To me, it seems as if you listen only to yourself, repeating to yourself what you want to be true. Try listening to what I am saying, please.

I don’t have any problem with Einstein’s theory, because I understand it, as far as the geometric concepts of warping, bending and moving the fabric of spacetime go (Shall I repeat that? I think I will.)

I don’t have any problem with Einstein’s theory, because I understand it, as far as the geometric concepts of warping, bending and moving the fabric of spacetime go.

What I have a problem with is your use of Einstein’s concepts to justify your confused notion that the DIMENSIONS of spacetime are warped, bent and moved. Notice that, no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to find Einstein saying that the DIMENSIONS of spacetime are warped, bent or moved.

Now, I’ve tried to articulate WHY this difference between your concepts and Einstein’s concepts arise, but apparently you are not interested in discussing those arguments, but continue to repeat yourself over and over again, insisting that there is no difference between Einstein’s concept of dynamic spacetime, and your concept of dynamic dimensions.

Ok, if that’s what you prefer to do, so be it, but please lay off me. Quit trying to make a case for my rejection of Einstein, based on my rejection of MDT. They are not the same, in spite of all your valiant efforts to make it so.

To me, it seems as if you listen only to yourself, repeating to yourself what you want to be true. Try listening to what I am saying, please.

I don’t have any problem with Einstein’s theory, because I understand it, as far as the geometric concepts of warping, bending and moving the fabric of spacetime go (Shall I repeat that? I think I will.)

I don’t have any problem with Einstein’s theory, because I understand it, as far as the geometric concepts of warping, bending and moving the fabric of spacetime go.

What I have a problem with is your use of Einstein’s concepts to justify your confused notion that the DIMENSIONS of spacetime are warped, bent and moved. Notice that, no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to find Einstein saying that the DIMENSIONS of spacetime are warped, bent or moved.

Now, I’ve tried to articulate WHY this difference between your concepts and Einstein’s concepts arise, but apparently you are not interested in discussing those arguments, but continue to repeat yourself over and over again, insisting that there is no difference between Einstein’s concept of dynamic spacetime, and your concept of dynamic dimensions.

Ok, if that’s what you prefer to do, so be it, but please lay off me. Quit trying to make a case for my rejection of Einstein, based on my rejection of MDT. They are not the same, in spite of all your valiant efforts to make it so.

Doug,

I think Dr. E is right in the extent to which modern physics is based on the assumption that the essential dimensions of space are defined by the motion of matter and energy. That is why they can argue space(and time) are created at the singularity and expand from there. I think that foundational logic is flawed and is the cause of much confusion in physics today, but the edifice isn't going to crumble anytime soon. Remember that epicycles lasted for fifteen hundred years. Suffice to say, you are just going to get a knot on your head if you beat it against that wall.

I think Dr. E is right in the extent to which modern physics is based on the assumption that the essential dimensions of space are defined by the motion of matter and energy. That is why they can argue space(and time) are created at the singularity and expand from there. I think that foundational logic is flawed and is the cause of much confusion in physics today, but the edifice isn't going to crumble anytime soon. Remember that epicycles lasted for fifteen hundred years. Suffice to say, you are just going to get a knot on your head if you beat it against that wall.

Correction; Make that "the essential dimensions of space are created by the motion of matter and energy."

John, yes they go from 0D (a point) to 3D (a sphere), but that's not the issue. What is the issue is that Elliot uses dimensions in the same way one would for bounded objects; that is, one can speak of changing the dimensions of an object, i.e. alter its shape, but in that case its understood that it's the magnitude of the dimensions that are changed, i.e. so much of x, so much of y, so much of z, according to taste. But in an unbounded spacetime continuum, how do you specify a change in the dimensions?

You can't and that's the whole point. Especially, when the motion you specify isn’t really motion at all, but a quantity of imaginary time per quantity of real time!

Geesh!

You can't and that's the whole point. Especially, when the motion you specify isn’t really motion at all, but a quantity of imaginary time per quantity of real time!

Geesh!

Doug,

"The fourth dimension is the time variable, whether real or imaginary. It increases, or progresses, but not in relation to itself. In expands (moves) in relation to the three space variables, "

If space expands, than wouldn't the speed of light increase proportionally?

Say two points are x lightyears apart and the universe doubled in size, would they be 2x lightyears apart, or, since C is our most stable measure of space, would they still be x lightyears apart, since the measure expands along with the space measured? If they are 2x lightyears apart, that's an increasing amount of stable space, not expanding space. If they are still x lightyears apart, how can we really say space is expanding, all things being relative.

The idea of expanding space is based on the redshift of distant galaxies, but the theory built around that has required some drastic patches, such as Inflation Theory. According to tests by COBE and WMAP, the expansion and the collapse of gravity are equal, as close as can be measured, resulting in flat space as we observe it, so the "expansion" of space is balanced by the contraction of gravity. It seems far more likely to be some process of energetic expansion and gravitational collapse cycling around an equilibrium of flat space.

"The fourth dimension is the time variable, whether real or imaginary. It increases, or progresses, but not in relation to itself. In expands (moves) in relation to the three space variables, "

If space expands, than wouldn't the speed of light increase proportionally?

Say two points are x lightyears apart and the universe doubled in size, would they be 2x lightyears apart, or, since C is our most stable measure of space, would they still be x lightyears apart, since the measure expands along with the space measured? If they are 2x lightyears apart, that's an increasing amount of stable space, not expanding space. If they are still x lightyears apart, how can we really say space is expanding, all things being relative.

The idea of expanding space is based on the redshift of distant galaxies, but the theory built around that has required some drastic patches, such as Inflation Theory. According to tests by COBE and WMAP, the expansion and the collapse of gravity are equal, as close as can be measured, resulting in flat space as we observe it, so the "expansion" of space is balanced by the contraction of gravity. It seems far more likely to be some process of energetic expansion and gravitational collapse cycling around an equilibrium of flat space.

Doug,

This is getting ridiculous. You write, "But in an unbounded spacetime continuum, how do you specify a change in the dimensions?" With differential geometry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_geometry

h

ttp://www.etsu.edu/math/gardner/5310/notes.htm

Doug--you are arguing with Einstein, General Relativity, all the experimental tests supporting general...

view entire post

This is getting ridiculous. You write, "But in an unbounded spacetime continuum, how do you specify a change in the dimensions?" With differential geometry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_geometry

h

ttp://www.etsu.edu/math/gardner/5310/notes.htm

Doug--you are arguing with Einstein, General Relativity, all the experimental tests supporting general...

view entire post

Correction; The quote I meant to paste on that last post was;

"yes they go from 0D (a point) to 3D (a sphere), but that's not the issue."

"yes they go from 0D (a point) to 3D (a sphere), but that's not the issue."

Dr. E,

Energy and mass move. Dimensions are imaginary.

Energy and mass move. Dimensions are imaginary.

No John,

Dimensions are real, physical entities with a *physical* realtity! Read any book on spacetime physics and general relativity, and you will see this to be true! Einstein's GR gives spacetime a *physical* reality!

"CHAPTER XXXII: THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of...

view entire post

Dimensions are real, physical entities with a *physical* realtity! Read any book on spacetime physics and general relativity, and you will see this to be true! Einstein's GR gives spacetime a *physical* reality!

"CHAPTER XXXII: THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of...

view entire post

Dr. E,

"Imaginary" wasn't the word I was looking for. Dimensions are information.

"Imaginary" wasn't the word I was looking for. Dimensions are information.

Sapcetime is a real, physical entity which can bend, twist, and contort, and hence dimensions are real entities with *physical* properties.

Here's some cool feedback on MDT!

http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2008/11/t

enth-dimension-polls-archive-23.html

":One of my most popularly viewed blog entries in the last couple of months here has been "Moving Dimensions and Synchromysticism", in which I talk about the mind-bending work of Jake Kotze, and the mind-bending Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) of Dr. Elliott McGucken, the brief summation of which I will quote again here:

The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at the speed of light. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of "c" relative to the three spatial dimensions.

This idea is easily related to my way of visualizing the dimension, I believe, and gives us an intuitive way to understand the quandary of why the speed of light doesn't change, no matter what direction in space you travel, and no matter whether you're traveling forward or back in time. Bravo, Elliot McGucken!" --http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2008/11/ten

th-dimension-polls-archive-23.html

And at:

"about time's arrow, one paper by McGucken points out that the fourth dimension in relativity is not time. it actually reads: x4=ict. that's different. we don't seem to actually have a word for what "ict" is. it imparts movement. expansion. it appears that time in this emerges naturally from this expansion. apparently so does light. it's lovely. myself, i have to try to picture this stuff happen, visualize the actual process. it occurs relative to the three primary dimensional vectors of space. it's a bit of an ethereal image for me, still thinking about it, but it seems this could also accommodate a directional tendency."

--http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/10

And check out http://physicsmathforums.com

Here's some cool feedback on MDT!

http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2008/11/t

enth-dimension-polls-archive-23.html

":One of my most popularly viewed blog entries in the last couple of months here has been "Moving Dimensions and Synchromysticism", in which I talk about the mind-bending work of Jake Kotze, and the mind-bending Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) of Dr. Elliott McGucken, the brief summation of which I will quote again here:

The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at the speed of light. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of "c" relative to the three spatial dimensions.

This idea is easily related to my way of visualizing the dimension, I believe, and gives us an intuitive way to understand the quandary of why the speed of light doesn't change, no matter what direction in space you travel, and no matter whether you're traveling forward or back in time. Bravo, Elliot McGucken!" --http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2008/11/ten

th-dimension-polls-archive-23.html

And at:

"about time's arrow, one paper by McGucken points out that the fourth dimension in relativity is not time. it actually reads: x4=ict. that's different. we don't seem to actually have a word for what "ict" is. it imparts movement. expansion. it appears that time in this emerges naturally from this expansion. apparently so does light. it's lovely. myself, i have to try to picture this stuff happen, visualize the actual process. it occurs relative to the three primary dimensional vectors of space. it's a bit of an ethereal image for me, still thinking about it, but it seems this could also accommodate a directional tendency."

--http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/10

And check out http://physicsmathforums.com

Dr. E,

I really do try addressing your points, to the best of my ability, but it does seem at times that you are in your own echo chamber.

Our individual lives are like bubbles. Some times we paint pretty pictures on the walls, cause they are more comfortable then what's outside. Sometimes we just try keeping them patched together as long as possible, yet we are just food for the beast. Sometimes it's a world of chaos and muck and all we know is what gets stuck to our outside. Sometimes we really do live in beautiful places and all we really want to do is keep that bubble clear as possible, so we can see the world. If you are one of those people, you're riding the wave.

Dimensions are information. Energy goes past to future. Information goes future to past, like the face of the clock going counterclockwise. Receding into the past.

I really do try addressing your points, to the best of my ability, but it does seem at times that you are in your own echo chamber.

Our individual lives are like bubbles. Some times we paint pretty pictures on the walls, cause they are more comfortable then what's outside. Sometimes we just try keeping them patched together as long as possible, yet we are just food for the beast. Sometimes it's a world of chaos and muck and all we know is what gets stuck to our outside. Sometimes we really do live in beautiful places and all we really want to do is keep that bubble clear as possible, so we can see the world. If you are one of those people, you're riding the wave.

Dimensions are information. Energy goes past to future. Information goes future to past, like the face of the clock going counterclockwise. Receding into the past.

Thanks John, :)

When you think about it, it's actually all the string theorists and quantum gravitationists and wormholers and multiversers who are living in an imaginary bubble, funded by hundreds of millions, tenure, and titles--all for naught.

Such is the human condition--bubbles need groupthink, so the more, the merrier.

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

"For a totalitarian regime, the ideal citizen isn’t a chest-thumping Nazi, but rather the man for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (meaning the reality of the experience) and the distinction between true and false (meaning the standard way of thinking) doesn’t exist any more."

- Hannah Arendt

"The minority is sometimes right; the majority always wrong."--George Bernard Shaw

The more people who believe in a theory that has no experimental evidence, the more likely it is to be wrong.

"“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

--Galileo Galilei

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

When you think about it, it's actually all the string theorists and quantum gravitationists and wormholers and multiversers who are living in an imaginary bubble, funded by hundreds of millions, tenure, and titles--all for naught.

Such is the human condition--bubbles need groupthink, so the more, the merrier.

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

"For a totalitarian regime, the ideal citizen isn’t a chest-thumping Nazi, but rather the man for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (meaning the reality of the experience) and the distinction between true and false (meaning the standard way of thinking) doesn’t exist any more."

- Hannah Arendt

"The minority is sometimes right; the majority always wrong."--George Bernard Shaw

The more people who believe in a theory that has no experimental evidence, the more likely it is to be wrong.

"“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

--Galileo Galilei

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dr. E,

That's nature. When Darwin was developing the theory of evolution, the competing theory was Catastrophism. What is referred to by Stephen Jay Gould as Punctuated Equilibrium. That rather then change happening as a steady and continuous process, it tend to happen in bursts, where the system tends toward equilibrium and occasionally stagnation, until a disruptive event or tipping point comes along that totally disrupts the system and new patterns and structures emerge from the chaos, then settle into their own rhythm and the process starts over again. In a way, they are both true, as change, like everything else, can be both analog and digital. That said, it's no surprise the establishment should prefer the evolution model over the revolution model.

That's nature. When Darwin was developing the theory of evolution, the competing theory was Catastrophism. What is referred to by Stephen Jay Gould as Punctuated Equilibrium. That rather then change happening as a steady and continuous process, it tend to happen in bursts, where the system tends toward equilibrium and occasionally stagnation, until a disruptive event or tipping point comes along that totally disrupts the system and new patterns and structures emerge from the chaos, then settle into their own rhythm and the process starts over again. In a way, they are both true, as change, like everything else, can be both analog and digital. That said, it's no surprise the establishment should prefer the evolution model over the revolution model.

Yes John,

"That said, it's no surprise the establishment should prefer the evolution model over the revolution model."

The establishment "prefers" the evolution model, but they're always seeking funding for the "revolution" model, while laying claims to its fruits, after doing away with the rugged, individualist spirit by which it is born.

The establishments corrupts...

view entire post

"That said, it's no surprise the establishment should prefer the evolution model over the revolution model."

The establishment "prefers" the evolution model, but they're always seeking funding for the "revolution" model, while laying claims to its fruits, after doing away with the rugged, individualist spirit by which it is born.

The establishments corrupts...

view entire post

Moving Dimensions Theory is the most-discussed and viewed theory in Dr. Michio Kaku's Forums:

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=28

MDT is also way up there in his String Theory Forum:

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=40

Rock on!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=28

MDT is also way up there in his String Theory Forum:

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=40

Rock on!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dr. E, I have nothing but respect for someone who has gained a lifetime's worth of knowledge and wisdom. I am sorry for the recent loss of Dr. Wheeler. Please excuse my young naivete but I have some questions:

Why did you not prove your essay thesis with a derivation?

Why do you never mention the derivation of the speed of light using the electric and magnetic constants?

In your derivation of X4 = ict why do you multiply by dx infinitesimals and ignore a dx^2 on the L.H.S. rather than writing it as dX4 = icdt and integrating?

Why do you only write X4 = ict then list phenomena and explain them with only the phrase, "which results because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions"?

If any arbitrary vector in some vector space is a linear combination of basis vectors then how does a changing 4th dimension effect the vector space?

I thought relativity was a change in bases?

Why do you assume a continuous theory when quantum mechanics is discrete?

How did you derive a continuous theory of everything without the mathematics of Cantor?

How do you explain the temporal and spatial derivatives of the Schrodinger equation? I thought it was the requirement that psi(x,t) = Aexp[i(kx - wt)] | E = hbar w | P = hbar k must yield the classical energy equation E = p^2/2m.

Why do you even mention the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation but never mention the Dirac equation?

Why do you mention that light has a probability of being found in some large circle? I thought QED showed these probabilities cancel each other out.

Why do you never mention pure states, eigenvalues or entropy when discussing entanglement?

If a part of the universe is expanding at c how do you explain non-locality? I thought this would just create event horizons.

Why do you mention the absolute rate of c changing as a cause for an accelerating and decelerating universe? I thought the speed of light was a constant.

If everything I have spent precious time and money learning is wrong, then should I drop physics and go to law school? I'd be sad, the laws of man are not as cool as the laws of nature.

Why did you not prove your essay thesis with a derivation?

Why do you never mention the derivation of the speed of light using the electric and magnetic constants?

In your derivation of X4 = ict why do you multiply by dx infinitesimals and ignore a dx^2 on the L.H.S. rather than writing it as dX4 = icdt and integrating?

Why do you only write X4 = ict then list phenomena and explain them with only the phrase, "which results because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions"?

If any arbitrary vector in some vector space is a linear combination of basis vectors then how does a changing 4th dimension effect the vector space?

I thought relativity was a change in bases?

Why do you assume a continuous theory when quantum mechanics is discrete?

How did you derive a continuous theory of everything without the mathematics of Cantor?

How do you explain the temporal and spatial derivatives of the Schrodinger equation? I thought it was the requirement that psi(x,t) = Aexp[i(kx - wt)] | E = hbar w | P = hbar k must yield the classical energy equation E = p^2/2m.

Why do you even mention the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation but never mention the Dirac equation?

Why do you mention that light has a probability of being found in some large circle? I thought QED showed these probabilities cancel each other out.

Why do you never mention pure states, eigenvalues or entropy when discussing entanglement?

If a part of the universe is expanding at c how do you explain non-locality? I thought this would just create event horizons.

Why do you mention the absolute rate of c changing as a cause for an accelerating and decelerating universe? I thought the speed of light was a constant.

If everything I have spent precious time and money learning is wrong, then should I drop physics and go to law school? I'd be sad, the laws of man are not as cool as the laws of nature.

Brian, were it not for MDT's *physical* model, how would you explain time and all its arrows and assyemtries across all realms, entropy, quantum mechanics' nonlocality and entanglement, all of Einstein's relativity, and the universal appearance of Huygens' Principle across all realms? How would you account for the gravitational slowing of clocks and light, as well as the gravitational redshift? ...

view entire post

view entire post

Your response hints of paranoia:

"Is this John Baez, by any chance, or one of his well-funded grad students with some free time? you give the myths/hoaxes of quantum gravity--which are funded by hundreds of millions of dollars to create chiny youtube videos that attract legions of young, daring fanboys and mercenaries. Perhaps you are working for them?"

I have been won over through their million dollar campaign for the minds of darling fanboys. My mission is to bury your ideas or steal them to make myself famous. Come on Elliot drink the punch, we just want to eat your brains.

If you must rant let it out in your forum.

Best,

B^2

P.S. I am only a superposition of the anti-theory elders ;)

"Is this John Baez, by any chance, or one of his well-funded grad students with some free time? you give the myths/hoaxes of quantum gravity--which are funded by hundreds of millions of dollars to create chiny youtube videos that attract legions of young, daring fanboys and mercenaries. Perhaps you are working for them?"

I have been won over through their million dollar campaign for the minds of darling fanboys. My mission is to bury your ideas or steal them to make myself famous. Come on Elliot drink the punch, we just want to eat your brains.

If you must rant let it out in your forum.

Best,

B^2

P.S. I am only a superposition of the anti-theory elders ;)

Thanks Brian,

Well, it is funny times that we live in in this realm of physics, in which the young are taught to approach physics, by their snarky antitheory elders, from the exact opposite direction that Einstein approached it,

Albert Einstein, "The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or...

view entire post

Well, it is funny times that we live in in this realm of physics, in which the young are taught to approach physics, by their snarky antitheory elders, from the exact opposite direction that Einstein approached it,

Albert Einstein, "The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or...

view entire post

Progress on the MDT front!

I realize that proposing a new physical invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to three spatial dimensions at c: dx4/dt=ic--is no small endeavor, but what's really funny is that in this era of antitheory regimes, an added beast to battle, in addition to the commonly slow acceptance from the establishment, is the novel beast of today's anti-theory...

view entire post

I realize that proposing a new physical invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to three spatial dimensions at c: dx4/dt=ic--is no small endeavor, but what's really funny is that in this era of antitheory regimes, an added beast to battle, in addition to the commonly slow acceptance from the establishment, is the novel beast of today's anti-theory...

view entire post

Hello all,

FQXi currently has no way of verifying which of the comments posted are by the author. In future contests, we will make sure to have a method by which we can clearly see when the essay author is making a comment. Given that we cannot accurately determine who has posted the comments above, we have let them some of them stand.

In the meantime, we ask that you keep in mind the Community Forum terms of use (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/intro) and avoid language that is vulgar, offensive, inflammatory, or extremely lengthy. We have removed some comments that are excessively so -- not in any attempt to censor vigorous debate, but to protect forum readers from excessive irritation while maintaining a productive atmosphere.

Best,

K Rajanna

report post as inappropriate

FQXi currently has no way of verifying which of the comments posted are by the author. In future contests, we will make sure to have a method by which we can clearly see when the essay author is making a comment. Given that we cannot accurately determine who has posted the comments above, we have let them some of them stand.

In the meantime, we ask that you keep in mind the Community Forum terms of use (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/intro) and avoid language that is vulgar, offensive, inflammatory, or extremely lengthy. We have removed some comments that are excessively so -- not in any attempt to censor vigorous debate, but to protect forum readers from excessive irritation while maintaining a productive atmosphere.

Best,

K Rajanna

report post as inappropriate

Thanks K Rajanna,

Yes--a detractor was appropriating my identity, posting things I did not post, and also copying things I posted and reposting them under "Dr. E," while throwing in some libel, ad hominem attacks, and defamation for good measure. In a way, the posts and methodologies proved how the poster was out of ammuntion, as are so many in today's anti-theory regimes, which I oft...

view entire post

Yes--a detractor was appropriating my identity, posting things I did not post, and also copying things I posted and reposting them under "Dr. E," while throwing in some libel, ad hominem attacks, and defamation for good measure. In a way, the posts and methodologies proved how the poster was out of ammuntion, as are so many in today's anti-theory regimes, which I oft...

view entire post

P.S. that is Einstein's quote: "Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever." --Albert Einstein

This is also posted in Doug's forum, but not everyone makes it over there, so I am posting it here too:

Thanks Doug,

You write, "What string theory did, though, was find a way to use the concept of vibration (i.e. motion) to overcome the problem with the particle concept. As Einstein said, it would be enough to understand the electron. The electron as a point particle is enigmatic, while the electron, as a vibrating string is not so much, at least in as much as the infinities are concerned."

Yes--I'll give you that--string theory at least tried to weave motion into the fundamental fabric of our universe, but where String Theory failed, MDT succeeded, by weaving change and motion into the fundamental fabric of spacetime: dx4/dt=ic.

The fourth dimension expands at the rate c, as a spherically-symmetric wavefront with a wavelength of Planck's length, alleviating us of the problems of point particles, and determining the following:

1. The value of Planck's constant.

2. The velocity of light.

3. The wave/particle nature of all matter/energy.

4. The maximum/minimum/only velocity of the universe.

5. The quantum nature of all matter/energy (comes from the wave-like expansion of the fourth dimension)

6. Nonlocality/entanglement--the fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time

7. Time and all its arrows and assymetries

8. Entropy

9. Huygens' Principle

10. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (comes form the fact that the fourth dimension itself has a wavelike character with a wavelength of the Planck Length, thusly limiting all measurements to an accuracy on the order of the Planck Length).

11. All of relativity is readily derived from MDT, as MDT provides the deeper, fundamental motivation for replacing x4 with ict in a 4D universe.

To keep this message short, attached please find figures which also show how MDT accounts for the gravitational redshift and slowing of light and time, while illustrating the fundamental universal invariant--the constant, wavelike expansion of the fourth dimension--that sets the velocity of light as well as the value of Planck's constant.

What's not to love about MDT's massive unification based on a simple/novel *physical* model and maverick concept which weaves change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, while liberating us from frozen time and the block universe, granting us free will?

attachments: 4_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Thanks Doug,

You write, "What string theory did, though, was find a way to use the concept of vibration (i.e. motion) to overcome the problem with the particle concept. As Einstein said, it would be enough to understand the electron. The electron as a point particle is enigmatic, while the electron, as a vibrating string is not so much, at least in as much as the infinities are concerned."

Yes--I'll give you that--string theory at least tried to weave motion into the fundamental fabric of our universe, but where String Theory failed, MDT succeeded, by weaving change and motion into the fundamental fabric of spacetime: dx4/dt=ic.

The fourth dimension expands at the rate c, as a spherically-symmetric wavefront with a wavelength of Planck's length, alleviating us of the problems of point particles, and determining the following:

1. The value of Planck's constant.

2. The velocity of light.

3. The wave/particle nature of all matter/energy.

4. The maximum/minimum/only velocity of the universe.

5. The quantum nature of all matter/energy (comes from the wave-like expansion of the fourth dimension)

6. Nonlocality/entanglement--the fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time

7. Time and all its arrows and assymetries

8. Entropy

9. Huygens' Principle

10. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (comes form the fact that the fourth dimension itself has a wavelike character with a wavelength of the Planck Length, thusly limiting all measurements to an accuracy on the order of the Planck Length).

11. All of relativity is readily derived from MDT, as MDT provides the deeper, fundamental motivation for replacing x4 with ict in a 4D universe.

To keep this message short, attached please find figures which also show how MDT accounts for the gravitational redshift and slowing of light and time, while illustrating the fundamental universal invariant--the constant, wavelike expansion of the fourth dimension--that sets the velocity of light as well as the value of Planck's constant.

What's not to love about MDT's massive unification based on a simple/novel *physical* model and maverick concept which weaves change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, while liberating us from frozen time and the block universe, granting us free will?

attachments: 4_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

great paper dr. e.

i like the focus on a novel physical mechanism, the fourth expanding dimension, which gives rise to a broad range of phenomena in our physical reality, spanning all fields.

a simple postulate and equation with broad, far-reaching consequences.

heroic, indeed!

i like the focus on a novel physical mechanism, the fourth expanding dimension, which gives rise to a broad range of phenomena in our physical reality, spanning all fields.

a simple postulate and equation with broad, far-reaching consequences.

heroic, indeed!

thanks physics nick!

this competition has been great fun, like everyone meeting up at a great big showdown/poker game.

We've got our gamblers and bluffers, our highwaymen and mercaneries, our kid cowboys and hired guns, our veteran gunslingers and well-funded outlaws stacking the decks in the back rooms, and those of us strangers in town with no chips to our name, and our only...

view entire post

this competition has been great fun, like everyone meeting up at a great big showdown/poker game.

We've got our gamblers and bluffers, our highwaymen and mercaneries, our kid cowboys and hired guns, our veteran gunslingers and well-funded outlaws stacking the decks in the back rooms, and those of us strangers in town with no chips to our name, and our only...

view entire post

In order to develop a theoretical framework capable to account the Nature of Time, one can only start with a-temporal principles, wording and reasoning. In particular, one recognizes that the following concepts and words make direct or implicit use of the concept of time itself, so they must be avoided:

-propagation

-expansion

-time dimension, time arrow or direction

-before, after

-consecutive

-propagator

-evolution, Hamiltonian evolution

-motion

-period, periodicity, frequency

-Planck time

-speed of light, speed

-reversibility, irreversibility

-to increase/to decrease

-change

Any derivation of time which makes use of at least one of those concepts or definitions, cannot consistently explore the Nature of Time.

"Traveling back.." contains for sure a very interesting idea, but in my view the whole paper is affected by the critical use of the temporal concept of expansion and evolution, particularly attributed to the fourth dimension. It is not clear in terms of what such expansion is occurring, and consequently with respect to what, time is also expanding (it goes linearly with x4).

-propagation

-expansion

-time dimension, time arrow or direction

-before, after

-consecutive

-propagator

-evolution, Hamiltonian evolution

-motion

-period, periodicity, frequency

-Planck time

-speed of light, speed

-reversibility, irreversibility

-to increase/to decrease

-change

Any derivation of time which makes use of at least one of those concepts or definitions, cannot consistently explore the Nature of Time.

"Traveling back.." contains for sure a very interesting idea, but in my view the whole paper is affected by the critical use of the temporal concept of expansion and evolution, particularly attributed to the fourth dimension. It is not clear in terms of what such expansion is occurring, and consequently with respect to what, time is also expanding (it goes linearly with x4).

Thanks E Prati,

Your problem is actually with the tautological definition of time that Einstein noted--a seeming paradoxical, circular definition which MDT resolves by postulating that dx4/dt = ic is a fundamamental invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, and t, or dt, is an emergent parameter that we measure on our watches and clocks, as timeless, ageless photons surf the fourth expanding dimension, giving rise to the oscillating change in our clock's cicuitry, which we tune to mark the propagation of time in seconds.

Please see MDT in the context of simple, tautological light clocks in the attached figure.

Our definititions of time are based on measurement, which is based on the propagatin of energy, which propagates at c, which is defined in units of m/s (distance/time)! So it is that the time measured on our quartz crystal watches and on our computers, which depends on the emission and propagation of photons, which propogate at c, which is measure in m/s or distance/time, is tautologically defined!

The great thing about MDT is that it also accounts for this tautology, with a deeper fundamental invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding at c--which sets the velocity of light to c, the maximum and minimum and only velocity through spacetime to c, while also weaving into the fabric of spacetime the fundamental rate of change--c. MDT postulates that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c.

“My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light] velocity.” –Einstein

So it is that time rests upon the velocity of light, which of course is defined by units of m/s or distance/time, and this tautological definition and paradox is nothing new.

MDT takes the paradox head on and blows the tautological fog away, exposing a new fundamental universal invariant which weaves change into the fabric of spacetime for the first time in all of history, liberating us from frozen time and the block universe, while providing a physical mechanism for entropy and quantum entanglement and nonlocality--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c: dx4/dt=ic.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

attachments: 5_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Your problem is actually with the tautological definition of time that Einstein noted--a seeming paradoxical, circular definition which MDT resolves by postulating that dx4/dt = ic is a fundamamental invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, and t, or dt, is an emergent parameter that we measure on our watches and clocks, as timeless, ageless photons surf the fourth expanding dimension, giving rise to the oscillating change in our clock's cicuitry, which we tune to mark the propagation of time in seconds.

Please see MDT in the context of simple, tautological light clocks in the attached figure.

Our definititions of time are based on measurement, which is based on the propagatin of energy, which propagates at c, which is defined in units of m/s (distance/time)! So it is that the time measured on our quartz crystal watches and on our computers, which depends on the emission and propagation of photons, which propogate at c, which is measure in m/s or distance/time, is tautologically defined!

The great thing about MDT is that it also accounts for this tautology, with a deeper fundamental invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding at c--which sets the velocity of light to c, the maximum and minimum and only velocity through spacetime to c, while also weaving into the fabric of spacetime the fundamental rate of change--c. MDT postulates that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c.

“My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light] velocity.” –Einstein

So it is that time rests upon the velocity of light, which of course is defined by units of m/s or distance/time, and this tautological definition and paradox is nothing new.

MDT takes the paradox head on and blows the tautological fog away, exposing a new fundamental universal invariant which weaves change into the fabric of spacetime for the first time in all of history, liberating us from frozen time and the block universe, while providing a physical mechanism for entropy and quantum entanglement and nonlocality--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c: dx4/dt=ic.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

attachments: 5_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

The fundamental fact about the Greek was that he had to use his mind. The ancient priests had said, “Thus far and no farther. We set the limits of thought.” The Greek said, “All things are to be examined and called into question. There are no limits set on thought.” –Edith Hamilton

Dr. E,

I posted a reply on my thread.

CJ

I posted a reply on my thread.

CJ

Dear Dr. Elliot, my first post on your essay. Let me start by saying that i personally could not digest yours and Dr. Merryman long posts on others essays. The same is the situation on your own essay too, while i could not have the privilege of your comments. You have a tremendous wealth of information both in Physics as well as the big personalities involved.But the points lie in brevity, relevance and clarity in expositions. Let me come to your essay and your view that Mathematical relations 'live' for ever! It is not correct if these are based on improper precepts and concepts after due analysis of observed data. Let me take your x^4=ict relation. What will happen to t if c is not a constant. Data exists that measured the value of c coming from a distant 12 billion years away object. It was found to be higher than the normally accepted value. In my essay, i have ventured to postulate what will be the situation for creation closure to 13 billion years back. The value of c can be far greater. Thus, the Physics of that time can not be discussed on the basis of 'c' constancy. Also, if there are multiple universes, one can not accept that fastest transmitting agent there will have the same value as in our universe. How will you then justify this mathematical relation.?

Thanks Chris! I posted a reply to your reply in your forum.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/308

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/308

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Thanks Narenda!

You write, "Let me take your x^4=ict relation."

It is actually written x4=ict, and it is not my relation but rather it is Einstein's and Minkowski's. All that I am doing is noting what it really signifies--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, or dx4/dt=ic. Ergo all of relativity, quantum nonlocality and...

view entire post

You write, "Let me take your x^4=ict relation."

It is actually written x4=ict, and it is not my relation but rather it is Einstein's and Minkowski's. All that I am doing is noting what it really signifies--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, or dx4/dt=ic. Ergo all of relativity, quantum nonlocality and...

view entire post

Just found this quote from Plato:

"I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning."

It is hanging in the Boston Museum of Science, and it seems to agree with Albert Einstein, Galileo, and Max Born:

http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2008/04/12/plato-mathema

tician-quote/

"I personally like to regard a probability wave as a real thing, certainly as...

view entire post

"I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning."

It is hanging in the Boston Museum of Science, and it seems to agree with Albert Einstein, Galileo, and Max Born:

http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2008/04/12/plato-mathema

tician-quote/

"I personally like to regard a probability wave as a real thing, certainly as...

view entire post

Appreciated Dr. E.

Is it correct to say the following?

If dx4/dt=ic and E=mc^2 then dx4/dt = i(E/m)^(1/2)

And that this would be the proportion of space-time expanded due to the amount of Energy-mass implied? What other interpretation could be possible to give it?

Also, I would like a criticism about my essay "Time Traveling by Simuverses", at least the physics related point “1-Nature of time in the architecture of the universe”. If it is deserved, and if possible.

Thanks in advance.

Venerando.

Is it correct to say the following?

If dx4/dt=ic and E=mc^2 then dx4/dt = i(E/m)^(1/2)

And that this would be the proportion of space-time expanded due to the amount of Energy-mass implied? What other interpretation could be possible to give it?

Also, I would like a criticism about my essay "Time Traveling by Simuverses", at least the physics related point “1-Nature of time in the architecture of the universe”. If it is deserved, and if possible.

Thanks in advance.

Venerando.

Thanks Venerando,

I enjoyed your paper, but I am yet convinced that the block universe is a human construct--an artefact from glossing over the fact that Einstein never said the time is the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4=ict, implying MDT's central postulate of a fourth expanding dimension.

As Moving Dimensions Theory unfreezes time and liberates us from the block universe, it doesn't really support time travel into the past. However, it grants us free will while also providing a *physical* model underlying entropy, quantum nonlocality and entanglement, and all of relativity, as well as Huygens' Principle and the velocity of c, and time and all its arrows across all realms.

Not bad for one simple postulate and equation: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c: dx4/dt=ic.

The attached figures/paper show how Moving Dimensions Theory also accounts for the gravitational slowing of light and time, while setting constants such as c (velocity of light) and h (Planck's constant).

Enjoy!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy) :)

attachments: 9_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

I enjoyed your paper, but I am yet convinced that the block universe is a human construct--an artefact from glossing over the fact that Einstein never said the time is the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4=ict, implying MDT's central postulate of a fourth expanding dimension.

As Moving Dimensions Theory unfreezes time and liberates us from the block universe, it doesn't really support time travel into the past. However, it grants us free will while also providing a *physical* model underlying entropy, quantum nonlocality and entanglement, and all of relativity, as well as Huygens' Principle and the velocity of c, and time and all its arrows across all realms.

Not bad for one simple postulate and equation: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c: dx4/dt=ic.

The attached figures/paper show how Moving Dimensions Theory also accounts for the gravitational slowing of light and time, while setting constants such as c (velocity of light) and h (Planck's constant).

Enjoy!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy) :)

attachments: 9_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Dr. E,

On p 4 you write,

“Although having traveled 186,000 miles through space, the photon will not have aged one iota, for time stops at the speed of light. It will not have moved one iota in the fourth dimension.”

Choosing the direction between source and detector as the dimension labeled by x1 means ds^2 = dx4^2 + dx1^2 and, as you rightly observe, ds^2 = 0 for a photon, i.e., proper time lapse = 0 along a null path. Since dx1 is not zero, how can dx4 be zero?

Thanks,

Mark

P.S. Sorry if you already answered this above, I didn't read all the posts.

On p 4 you write,

“Although having traveled 186,000 miles through space, the photon will not have aged one iota, for time stops at the speed of light. It will not have moved one iota in the fourth dimension.”

Choosing the direction between source and detector as the dimension labeled by x1 means ds^2 = dx4^2 + dx1^2 and, as you rightly observe, ds^2 = 0 for a photon, i.e., proper time lapse = 0 along a null path. Since dx1 is not zero, how can dx4 be zero?

Thanks,

Mark

P.S. Sorry if you already answered this above, I didn't read all the posts.

Thanks for the question, Mark,

I am not sure how well the math will copy in this form, so please see the attached PDF document for an answer to your question above.

Note that in the above, Einstein never says that time is the fourth dimension. Rather he states that x4 = u = ict. Let us write the following:

Where s is the invariant interval. Then

If we take the distance in space as:

Then

We know that a photon does not age. When a photon has traveled a distance ƒ´r, then ƒ´s = ƒ´r, or

And ƒ´x4 = 0.

In other words, the photon has not moved at all in the fourth dimension. Anything that travels the speed of light remains stationary in the fourth dimension, as ƒ´s = ƒ´r. Ergo, the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. An object can travel the velocity of light through space in the x direction, the y direction, or z direction; or some combination thereof, but the only way it can ever travel the velocity of light in the x4 dimension is to remain completely still in the three spatial dimensions. It is possible to remain at rest relative to the expanding time dimension, but it is difficult to measure this, due to the principle of relativity which rests upon a tautological relationship between the measurement of time and velocity of light. This principle of relativity arises form a deeper universal invariant¡Xthe fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity of c, or dx4/dt=ic, providing a physical model for time and all its arrows and asymmetries across all realms, nonlocality, entanglement, entropy, dark energy, Huygens¡¦ pervasive principle, and Heisenberg¡¦s Uncertainty Principle, while setting both c¡Xthe velocity of light, and h¡XPlanck¡¦s constant, as the fundamental wavelength of x4¡¦s expansion is the Planck length.

An inertial frame is a frame that is defined by an object keeping its velocity components through space and time constant. An object which accelerates in the three spatial dimensions slows down in the expanding fourth dimension. And vice versa.

I am not sure how well the math will copy above, so please see the attached document for an answer to your question above.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

attachments: Photons_Remain_Stationary_in_the_Fourth_Expanding_Dimension1.pdf

I am not sure how well the math will copy in this form, so please see the attached PDF document for an answer to your question above.

Note that in the above, Einstein never says that time is the fourth dimension. Rather he states that x4 = u = ict. Let us write the following:

Where s is the invariant interval. Then

If we take the distance in space as:

Then

We know that a photon does not age. When a photon has traveled a distance ƒ´r, then ƒ´s = ƒ´r, or

And ƒ´x4 = 0.

In other words, the photon has not moved at all in the fourth dimension. Anything that travels the speed of light remains stationary in the fourth dimension, as ƒ´s = ƒ´r. Ergo, the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. An object can travel the velocity of light through space in the x direction, the y direction, or z direction; or some combination thereof, but the only way it can ever travel the velocity of light in the x4 dimension is to remain completely still in the three spatial dimensions. It is possible to remain at rest relative to the expanding time dimension, but it is difficult to measure this, due to the principle of relativity which rests upon a tautological relationship between the measurement of time and velocity of light. This principle of relativity arises form a deeper universal invariant¡Xthe fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity of c, or dx4/dt=ic, providing a physical model for time and all its arrows and asymmetries across all realms, nonlocality, entanglement, entropy, dark energy, Huygens¡¦ pervasive principle, and Heisenberg¡¦s Uncertainty Principle, while setting both c¡Xthe velocity of light, and h¡XPlanck¡¦s constant, as the fundamental wavelength of x4¡¦s expansion is the Planck length.

An inertial frame is a frame that is defined by an object keeping its velocity components through space and time constant. An object which accelerates in the three spatial dimensions slows down in the expanding fourth dimension. And vice versa.

I am not sure how well the math will copy above, so please see the attached document for an answer to your question above.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

attachments: Photons_Remain_Stationary_in_the_Fourth_Expanding_Dimension1.pdf

Dr. E,

Thanks for the link. I have posted another reply on my thread.

CJ

Thanks for the link. I have posted another reply on my thread.

CJ

Dr. E,

I've ck'd your appended file and find that your calculations are not consistent with relativity. I don't know what theory you're using, but it's not relativity. Let me explain.

You're consistent with relativity in that ds^2 is the invariant interval, but you're inconsistent when you conclude dr^2 = ds^2 for a photon. The relativistically correct expression follows from ds^2 = 0 for a photon, i.e., photons follow null worldlines. The relationship between r and x4 for a photon is therefore dr^2 = -dx4^2. That gives dr^2 = -(i)^2*c^2*dt^2, i.e., dr/dt = +/-c (duh). So, according to special relativity, the photon's worldline has a component in x4, contrary to your assertion.

Are you trying to introduce a new theory, distinct from relativity?

Thanks,

Mark

I've ck'd your appended file and find that your calculations are not consistent with relativity. I don't know what theory you're using, but it's not relativity. Let me explain.

You're consistent with relativity in that ds^2 is the invariant interval, but you're inconsistent when you conclude dr^2 = ds^2 for a photon. The relativistically correct expression follows from ds^2 = 0 for a photon, i.e., photons follow null worldlines. The relationship between r and x4 for a photon is therefore dr^2 = -dx4^2. That gives dr^2 = -(i)^2*c^2*dt^2, i.e., dr/dt = +/-c (duh). So, according to special relativity, the photon's worldline has a component in x4, contrary to your assertion.

Are you trying to introduce a new theory, distinct from relativity?

Thanks,

Mark

Thanks Mark,

MDT agrees 100% with all of relativity. In fact, relativity is derived from MDT in my paper. The postulate that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c is a necessary and sufficient condition for the derivation of all of relativity.

You have to agree with the fact that a timeless, ageless photon does not move through time, but...

view entire post

MDT agrees 100% with all of relativity. In fact, relativity is derived from MDT in my paper. The postulate that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c is a necessary and sufficient condition for the derivation of all of relativity.

You have to agree with the fact that a timeless, ageless photon does not move through time, but...

view entire post

Dr. E,

“You have to agree with the fact that a timeless, ageless photon does not move through time, but only through space.”

I disagree, as I stated before, ds^2 = 0 for a photon, that is invariant meaning dr^2 = -dx4^2 in all frames for photons. So, dr and dx4 can vary from frame to frame, but the only frame in which dx4 = 0 is in the frame that dr = 0, and that frame is of no interest to us (it’s the photon’s ‘rest’ frame). You’re confusing coordinate time (contained in x4) with proper time (what the object’s clock moving along the worldline reads). Proper time equals coordinate time for observers at rest spatially. Otherwise, they are not equal.

Your derivation of the magnitude of u = c (which follows from the fact that proper time is the parameterization along time-like curves) is based on ds^2 = -c^2*d(tau)^2. You include a step where you divide by d(tau)^2, therefore that calculation is not relevant for photons since d(tau)^2 for photons is zero. In fact, the magnitude of u along the photon’s null path is zero.

Hope this helps,

Mark

“You have to agree with the fact that a timeless, ageless photon does not move through time, but only through space.”

I disagree, as I stated before, ds^2 = 0 for a photon, that is invariant meaning dr^2 = -dx4^2 in all frames for photons. So, dr and dx4 can vary from frame to frame, but the only frame in which dx4 = 0 is in the frame that dr = 0, and that frame is of no interest to us (it’s the photon’s ‘rest’ frame). You’re confusing coordinate time (contained in x4) with proper time (what the object’s clock moving along the worldline reads). Proper time equals coordinate time for observers at rest spatially. Otherwise, they are not equal.

Your derivation of the magnitude of u = c (which follows from the fact that proper time is the parameterization along time-like curves) is based on ds^2 = -c^2*d(tau)^2. You include a step where you divide by d(tau)^2, therefore that calculation is not relevant for photons since d(tau)^2 for photons is zero. In fact, the magnitude of u along the photon’s null path is zero.

Hope this helps,

Mark

In 50 words, or less, please explain how your 4th dimension is motivated? Thanks...

Thanks Mark,

I yet stand by my contention: "You have to agree with the fact that a timeless, ageless photon has no velocity component through the fourth dimension, but only through space."

Sure, as a light propagates our watches tick, but both teh velcoity of light and our ticking watches are powered by a fourth expanding dimension.

Here is a proof that photons remain...

view entire post

I yet stand by my contention: "You have to agree with the fact that a timeless, ageless photon has no velocity component through the fourth dimension, but only through space."

Sure, as a light propagates our watches tick, but both teh velcoity of light and our ticking watches are powered by a fourth expanding dimension.

Here is a proof that photons remain...

view entire post

Dr. E,

I'll try one more time to explain why you're not doing SR.

“Relativity tells us that it stays in the same place in the fourth dimension. Again--the proof:

a) the only velocity through our 4D space-time for all objects is c

b) if a photon, which is always measured to travel at c through the three spatial dimensions by all observers, had any velocity component in the fourth dimension, then its velocity would be greater than c through 4D space-time

c) ergo a photon can have no velocity component in the fourth dimension

d) ergo a photon's velocity through the fourth dimension is 0”

a) is only true for time-like worldlines, photons follow null worldlines.

b) confuses four-velocity with three-velocity. A photon’s 4-velocity has magnitude zero, its three-velocity is c, therefore it must have a component in x4. Just look at M2, the photon's path is at 45 deg!

c) & d) only apply in the rest frame of the photon, not in general. ds^2 = 0 for a photon is what you must satisfy, not necessarily dx4 = 0 (good thing, that's an impossible frame for us to occupy!).

It’s as if you’re trying to map the time-like realm of M4 into E4 such that the null cone becomes three space and you’ve gotten rid of the space-like realm of M4. Is that right? If so, you’re not doing SR, but it might be interesting.

Mark

I'll try one more time to explain why you're not doing SR.

“Relativity tells us that it stays in the same place in the fourth dimension. Again--the proof:

a) the only velocity through our 4D space-time for all objects is c

b) if a photon, which is always measured to travel at c through the three spatial dimensions by all observers, had any velocity component in the fourth dimension, then its velocity would be greater than c through 4D space-time

c) ergo a photon can have no velocity component in the fourth dimension

d) ergo a photon's velocity through the fourth dimension is 0”

a) is only true for time-like worldlines, photons follow null worldlines.

b) confuses four-velocity with three-velocity. A photon’s 4-velocity has magnitude zero, its three-velocity is c, therefore it must have a component in x4. Just look at M2, the photon's path is at 45 deg!

c) & d) only apply in the rest frame of the photon, not in general. ds^2 = 0 for a photon is what you must satisfy, not necessarily dx4 = 0 (good thing, that's an impossible frame for us to occupy!).

It’s as if you’re trying to map the time-like realm of M4 into E4 such that the null cone becomes three space and you’ve gotten rid of the space-like realm of M4. Is that right? If so, you’re not doing SR, but it might be interesting.

Mark

Thanks Mark!

It's fun waking up to see an informed rebuttle.

Please read Brian Greene who refers to Einstein on page 50 of an Elegeant Universe, "Here's the leap: Einstein proclaimed that all objects in the universe are always traveling through spacertime at one fixed speed--that of light." Egro all objects travel at c through spacetime at the speed of light, including light, for if...

view entire post

It's fun waking up to see an informed rebuttle.

Please read Brian Greene who refers to Einstein on page 50 of an Elegeant Universe, "Here's the leap: Einstein proclaimed that all objects in the universe are always traveling through spacertime at one fixed speed--that of light." Egro all objects travel at c through spacetime at the speed of light, including light, for if...

view entire post

Hello Myke,

You write, "In 50 words, or less, please explain how your 4th dimension is motivated? Thanks... "

Well, in its simplest case, MDT is motivated by the photon, as was quantum mechanics and relativity.

Throughout all this, the photon has been my best friend, providing clues as to the nature of the fourth expanding dimension via both its behavior in quantum mechanics...

view entire post

You write, "In 50 words, or less, please explain how your 4th dimension is motivated? Thanks... "

Well, in its simplest case, MDT is motivated by the photon, as was quantum mechanics and relativity.

Throughout all this, the photon has been my best friend, providing clues as to the nature of the fourth expanding dimension via both its behavior in quantum mechanics...

view entire post

Dear E,

I finally got your response. Sorry, the universe expansion rate of acceleration/decelleration is determining the effect of dark energy component , as per ccosmology. The non-constancy in the value has not been contemplated here by anyone. In fact that is the reason given for adjusting the relative values of dark matter, dark energy and the visible matter. May i therefore take it that istill await an explanation for the non-constancy of 'c' on t in realtion x4=ict and also what may happen in the relation E=mc^2, in so far as E is concerned!

I finally got your response. Sorry, the universe expansion rate of acceleration/decelleration is determining the effect of dark energy component , as per ccosmology. The non-constancy in the value has not been contemplated here by anyone. In fact that is the reason given for adjusting the relative values of dark matter, dark energy and the visible matter. May i therefore take it that istill await an explanation for the non-constancy of 'c' on t in realtion x4=ict and also what may happen in the relation E=mc^2, in so far as E is concerned!

Thanks Narendra,

The possible variation of c over time is a highly speculative realm of contemplation.

All that I am saying is that MDT could provide a mechanism for c varying over time, via dx4/dt=ic. If the expansion of the fourth dimension changed relative to the three spatial dimensions, then c would change. So it is that if the fourth dimension was expanding faster in the earlier universe, c would have been faster in the earlier universe. Also, if the rate of expansion of the fourth dimension is changing, the universe could be seen as undergoing an accelerated expansion. The fourth expanding dimension is what carries all energy, and as all measurements are made by the propagation of energy, any change in the rate of the expansion of the fourth dimension has vast implications for how we measure the universe's expansion.

E=mc^2 would yet be the same, even if c were to vary.

However, we have no concrete, absolute evidence that c is, or ever was, anything but c.

Here's a cool page:

http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~gmarts/timefact.htm

Best

,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

The possible variation of c over time is a highly speculative realm of contemplation.

All that I am saying is that MDT could provide a mechanism for c varying over time, via dx4/dt=ic. If the expansion of the fourth dimension changed relative to the three spatial dimensions, then c would change. So it is that if the fourth dimension was expanding faster in the earlier universe, c would have been faster in the earlier universe. Also, if the rate of expansion of the fourth dimension is changing, the universe could be seen as undergoing an accelerated expansion. The fourth expanding dimension is what carries all energy, and as all measurements are made by the propagation of energy, any change in the rate of the expansion of the fourth dimension has vast implications for how we measure the universe's expansion.

E=mc^2 would yet be the same, even if c were to vary.

However, we have no concrete, absolute evidence that c is, or ever was, anything but c.

Here's a cool page:

http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~gmarts/timefact.htm

Best

,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dr. E,

“The book has been read by literally millions, and vetted by countless experts. Is there something in the passage that seems wrong to you?”

You’re making an erroneous inference from this passage. Does it say that *photons* move through spacetime at c? No. Why? Because they don’t! Their 4-velocity is of zero length, that’s what ds^2 = 0 entails, but that doesn’t imply you can’t have a 4-velocity along a null geodesic. Otherwise, how would you use the geodesic equation via covariant derivatives, i.e., del sub v on v = 0? Here v is the 4-velocity tgt to the geodesic in question so if v “doesn’t exist,” you can’t set up the corresponding geodesic equations. But, you certainly CAN set up geodesic equations for photons as illustrated, for example, in section V of the attached Am J Phys article. So, yes, you can talk about the 4-velocity of a photon, even though it’s a null vct. You simply can’t parameterize it via proper time, b/c proper time is zero along that path. As you can see in section V of the attached Am J Phys paper, a parameter p is used in the geodesic equations and only when restricting the curves to be time-like is p replaced with tau, proper time. To study null geodesics, you simply keep the parameter p and use ds^2 = 0. No problem, as illustrated in the paper where the photon sphere of the Schwarzschild metric is obtained.

Also, keep in mind that the passage you sent leaves out a very important fact about M4, i.e., that the space and time parts of the 4-velocity for time-like objects vary from frame to frame (they don’t for the photon, a null object, b/c everyone agrees the photon moves through space at c). The magnitude of v is the same in all frames, but its components differ. So, I see your clocks running slow and your meter sticks are short, but you say the same thing about my clocks and my meter sticks. Who’s right? We both are. This follows from the relativity of simultaneity. I’ll attach a short explanation of RoS that I’ve adapted from Mermin.

Alg these lines, you’re conflating an object’s spatial speed with its spacetime speed. An object’s spatial speed varies from frame to frame (except the photon’s which everyone agrees is c), but its spacetime speed is the same in all frames (c for time-like paths, zero for the photon). So, in summary, the spatial speeds of time-like objects vary from frame to frame, while their spacetime speed is c in all frames. The spatial speed of a photon is the same in all frames, c, and its spacetime speed is zero in all frames. Therefore, the photon’s 4-velocity certainly MUST have a projection along x4, contrary to your assertion.

I can’t be any more explicit. I’ve shown you the math, if you want to refute what I’m saying, you’ll need to show me your math instead of quotes from popularized material.

Mark

attachments: Black_Hole_Mirror_AJP_93.pdf, SR_Example_Phy200.pdf

“The book has been read by literally millions, and vetted by countless experts. Is there something in the passage that seems wrong to you?”

You’re making an erroneous inference from this passage. Does it say that *photons* move through spacetime at c? No. Why? Because they don’t! Their 4-velocity is of zero length, that’s what ds^2 = 0 entails, but that doesn’t imply you can’t have a 4-velocity along a null geodesic. Otherwise, how would you use the geodesic equation via covariant derivatives, i.e., del sub v on v = 0? Here v is the 4-velocity tgt to the geodesic in question so if v “doesn’t exist,” you can’t set up the corresponding geodesic equations. But, you certainly CAN set up geodesic equations for photons as illustrated, for example, in section V of the attached Am J Phys article. So, yes, you can talk about the 4-velocity of a photon, even though it’s a null vct. You simply can’t parameterize it via proper time, b/c proper time is zero along that path. As you can see in section V of the attached Am J Phys paper, a parameter p is used in the geodesic equations and only when restricting the curves to be time-like is p replaced with tau, proper time. To study null geodesics, you simply keep the parameter p and use ds^2 = 0. No problem, as illustrated in the paper where the photon sphere of the Schwarzschild metric is obtained.

Also, keep in mind that the passage you sent leaves out a very important fact about M4, i.e., that the space and time parts of the 4-velocity for time-like objects vary from frame to frame (they don’t for the photon, a null object, b/c everyone agrees the photon moves through space at c). The magnitude of v is the same in all frames, but its components differ. So, I see your clocks running slow and your meter sticks are short, but you say the same thing about my clocks and my meter sticks. Who’s right? We both are. This follows from the relativity of simultaneity. I’ll attach a short explanation of RoS that I’ve adapted from Mermin.

Alg these lines, you’re conflating an object’s spatial speed with its spacetime speed. An object’s spatial speed varies from frame to frame (except the photon’s which everyone agrees is c), but its spacetime speed is the same in all frames (c for time-like paths, zero for the photon). So, in summary, the spatial speeds of time-like objects vary from frame to frame, while their spacetime speed is c in all frames. The spatial speed of a photon is the same in all frames, c, and its spacetime speed is zero in all frames. Therefore, the photon’s 4-velocity certainly MUST have a projection along x4, contrary to your assertion.

I can’t be any more explicit. I’ve shown you the math, if you want to refute what I’m saying, you’ll need to show me your math instead of quotes from popularized material.

Mark

attachments: Black_Hole_Mirror_AJP_93.pdf, SR_Example_Phy200.pdf

Thanks Mark,

I yet maintain that photons cannot violate relativity, and that ultimately, they must travel c through space-time, as does every object.

You write, "You’re making an erroneous inference from this passage. Does it say that *photons* move through spacetime at c? No. Why? Because they don’t! Their 4-velocity is of zero length."

You write that the photon has a...

view entire post

I yet maintain that photons cannot violate relativity, and that ultimately, they must travel c through space-time, as does every object.

You write, "You’re making an erroneous inference from this passage. Does it say that *photons* move through spacetime at c? No. Why? Because they don’t! Their 4-velocity is of zero length."

You write that the photon has a...

view entire post

Dear E,

The cosmological picture i have about acceleration/deceleration of the universe shows that initial rate was of lesser acceleration and the later rate shows a higher rate. Does it conform to your explanation about what the higher value of 'c' initially will mean? Moreover, the value of 'c' varied only within first 2 billion years of the universe. It had a sort of exponential fall in value since the birth of the universe! Please see essay for more elaboration of this point.

All my best wishes for the success of your essay in this competition!

The cosmological picture i have about acceleration/deceleration of the universe shows that initial rate was of lesser acceleration and the later rate shows a higher rate. Does it conform to your explanation about what the higher value of 'c' initially will mean? Moreover, the value of 'c' varied only within first 2 billion years of the universe. It had a sort of exponential fall in value since the birth of the universe! Please see essay for more elaboration of this point.

All my best wishes for the success of your essay in this competition!

Dr. E,

"You write that the photon has a 4-velocity of zero length, thusly disagreeing with the following sources, who state that the 4-velocity of the photon is *undefined*. How do you reconcile this? If I were you, I'd be wary of basing my argument on that which is undefined."

This is simply semantics. You can't define dx/d(tau) for a photon because d(tau) = 0. You CAN define a tgt vct fld alg the null path, and THAT is what I'm calling its 4-velocity and that vct is null. Is my terminology unique? No, see for example, Hestenes' essay, Eq. 6, where he writes "the 4-velocity of a lightlike path is null."

"What is this magnitude of the photon's 4-velocity that is projected along x4?"

As I wrote earlier, ds^2 = dx4^2 + dr^2 = 0, so dx4^2 = -dr^2. The light cone is at 45 deg, if the photon's path had no x4 component, it would be a horizontal line.

If you were presenting a novel approach to SR, you could easily show me how your approach and the calculations I've shown you are self-consistent. You haven't, even worse you're trying to deny what I'm saying (without any technical support to your claims, btw). Therefore, I don't believe you know anything about relativity other than what you've erroneously inferred from popularized accounts which means that MDT is unsupported.

Did you read section V of my Am J Phys paper on null geodesics in the Schwarzschild soln? Did you understand it? If not, I'm willing to help. I love GR, I earned my PhD in GR, I'm teaching it next semester. I will gladly help you understand the formalism. You're not going to learn it by reading popularized accounts, however. You have to get into the formalism proper and solve some problems.

As your first problem, I suggest you find the proper time lapsed from x = 0, t = 0 to x = 0, t = pi along each of the following three curves:

x = 0, x = sin(t), x = t (from t = 0 to t = pi/2) x = pi - t (from t = pi/2 to t = pi).

The answers are: pi, 2 and 0, which illustrates nicely how proper time decreases as one goes from a totally time-like path to a null path.

Mark

"You write that the photon has a 4-velocity of zero length, thusly disagreeing with the following sources, who state that the 4-velocity of the photon is *undefined*. How do you reconcile this? If I were you, I'd be wary of basing my argument on that which is undefined."

This is simply semantics. You can't define dx/d(tau) for a photon because d(tau) = 0. You CAN define a tgt vct fld alg the null path, and THAT is what I'm calling its 4-velocity and that vct is null. Is my terminology unique? No, see for example, Hestenes' essay, Eq. 6, where he writes "the 4-velocity of a lightlike path is null."

"What is this magnitude of the photon's 4-velocity that is projected along x4?"

As I wrote earlier, ds^2 = dx4^2 + dr^2 = 0, so dx4^2 = -dr^2. The light cone is at 45 deg, if the photon's path had no x4 component, it would be a horizontal line.

If you were presenting a novel approach to SR, you could easily show me how your approach and the calculations I've shown you are self-consistent. You haven't, even worse you're trying to deny what I'm saying (without any technical support to your claims, btw). Therefore, I don't believe you know anything about relativity other than what you've erroneously inferred from popularized accounts which means that MDT is unsupported.

Did you read section V of my Am J Phys paper on null geodesics in the Schwarzschild soln? Did you understand it? If not, I'm willing to help. I love GR, I earned my PhD in GR, I'm teaching it next semester. I will gladly help you understand the formalism. You're not going to learn it by reading popularized accounts, however. You have to get into the formalism proper and solve some problems.

As your first problem, I suggest you find the proper time lapsed from x = 0, t = 0 to x = 0, t = pi along each of the following three curves:

x = 0, x = sin(t), x = t (from t = 0 to t = pi/2) x = pi - t (from t = pi/2 to t = pi).

The answers are: pi, 2 and 0, which illustrates nicely how proper time decreases as one goes from a totally time-like path to a null path.

Mark

Hello Mark,

I yet submit that photon is timeless and ageless, and that its velocity through spacetime is c.

I challenge you to find one other physicist who believes otherwise.

Thanks for the homework assignment!

My assignment for you is to unite relativity, entropy, time and all its arrows and assymetries, quantum entanglement and nonlocality, in a simple,physical model...

view entire post

I yet submit that photon is timeless and ageless, and that its velocity through spacetime is c.

I challenge you to find one other physicist who believes otherwise.

Thanks for the homework assignment!

My assignment for you is to unite relativity, entropy, time and all its arrows and assymetries, quantum entanglement and nonlocality, in a simple,physical model...

view entire post

"It seems a preposterous conclusion that quantum mechanics, which works so very well, must be thrown out and reformulated for something which MDT shows there is no need for--the block universe."

Absolutely!

I must say that I've learned a lot reading the arguments above. thank you very much, guys!

Absolutely!

I must say that I've learned a lot reading the arguments above. thank you very much, guys!

Thanks Bogdan!

Glad you're enjoying it, as I am too! I stand more convinced of Moving Dimensions Theory now, than before the contest began.

Dialogue is an amazing force when it comes to solidifying one's philosophies, so I thank FQXI and all the participants in this forum!

If anything, physics needs more dialogue--dialogue in an honest, cordial, rugged context that holds...

view entire post

Glad you're enjoying it, as I am too! I stand more convinced of Moving Dimensions Theory now, than before the contest began.

Dialogue is an amazing force when it comes to solidifying one's philosophies, so I thank FQXI and all the participants in this forum!

If anything, physics needs more dialogue--dialogue in an honest, cordial, rugged context that holds...

view entire post

attachments: 13_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Greetings!

I keep coming across awesome quotes and passages while working on by book: "HERO'S JOURNEY PHYSICS & MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY: FROM COPERNICUS, TO BRUNO, TO GALILEO, TO NEWTON, TO EINSTEIN--AND YET IT MOVES! Unifying relativity, quantum mechanics, entropy, and time's arrows and assymetries with a new universal invariant: dx4/dt=ic."

Here are some great quotes which would...

view entire post

I keep coming across awesome quotes and passages while working on by book: "HERO'S JOURNEY PHYSICS & MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY: FROM COPERNICUS, TO BRUNO, TO GALILEO, TO NEWTON, TO EINSTEIN--AND YET IT MOVES! Unifying relativity, quantum mechanics, entropy, and time's arrows and assymetries with a new universal invariant: dx4/dt=ic."

Here are some great quotes which would...

view entire post

Dear desperate Elliot McGucken,

I would like to express my gratitude for pointing me to how seemingly careless Einstein in 1912 introduced ic. Albert Einstein's father was an EE, and Minkowski reported that Einstein, who was already not good at school, was also the one who always skipped Minkowski's lessons on mathematics.

I do not suspect Einstein being wrong when he introduced ic. However, when he really did not demand to correctly return from complex frequency domain into the real domain of time, then he gave rise to a speculative physics where the physicists did not understand what they were doing.

At least he gave an overly reprehensible example, the more he was already famous for genial ideas. Einstein did not agree with Ritz in 1909 who correctly argued that future events cannot influence the past. Most likely, Einstein did not take into account that any effect can only be attributed to a process that has already happened at the moment of consideration. Anticipated effects belong to anticipated elapsed time. There is no way out from this unilateral restriction for the time involved in any physical process.

So far I was merely shocked how careless Heisenberg and Schroedinger used complex calculus.

See http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369.

I would appreciate you replying there if necessary because otherwise I might overlook your reply.

Maybe, you will deserve my vote despite of your somewhat bewildering attitude and whether or not I agree with the rest of your essay.

Let's be realists

Eckard Blumschein

I would like to express my gratitude for pointing me to how seemingly careless Einstein in 1912 introduced ic. Albert Einstein's father was an EE, and Minkowski reported that Einstein, who was already not good at school, was also the one who always skipped Minkowski's lessons on mathematics.

I do not suspect Einstein being wrong when he introduced ic. However, when he really did not demand to correctly return from complex frequency domain into the real domain of time, then he gave rise to a speculative physics where the physicists did not understand what they were doing.

At least he gave an overly reprehensible example, the more he was already famous for genial ideas. Einstein did not agree with Ritz in 1909 who correctly argued that future events cannot influence the past. Most likely, Einstein did not take into account that any effect can only be attributed to a process that has already happened at the moment of consideration. Anticipated effects belong to anticipated elapsed time. There is no way out from this unilateral restriction for the time involved in any physical process.

So far I was merely shocked how careless Heisenberg and Schroedinger used complex calculus.

See http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369.

I would appreciate you replying there if necessary because otherwise I might overlook your reply.

Maybe, you will deserve my vote despite of your somewhat bewildering attitude and whether or not I agree with the rest of your essay.

Let's be realists

Eckard Blumschein

Dr.E,

Sir. your ideas are simple and elegant. You have influenced my thinking profoundly.

Jim Stanfield

Sir. your ideas are simple and elegant. You have influenced my thinking profoundly.

Jim Stanfield

Dear Elliot Mc Gucken,

I commented on Jim Stanfield with respect to your essay at 369.

Please clarify.

Eckard Blumschein

I commented on Jim Stanfield with respect to your essay at 369.

Please clarify.

Eckard Blumschein

Hello Eckard,

Thanks for your insights/questions.

You write, "I do not suspect Einstein being wrong when he introduced ic. However, when he really did not demand to correctly return from complex frequency domain into the real domain of time, then he gave rise to a speculative physics where the physicists did not understand what they were doing."

Imaginary numbers represent...

view entire post

Thanks for your insights/questions.

You write, "I do not suspect Einstein being wrong when he introduced ic. However, when he really did not demand to correctly return from complex frequency domain into the real domain of time, then he gave rise to a speculative physics where the physicists did not understand what they were doing."

Imaginary numbers represent...

view entire post

Thanks for the comment Jim!

I'll be posting the TOC of my book here soon: "HERO'S JOURNEY PHYSICS & MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY: FROM HERACLITIS, TO PLATO, TO ARISTOTLE, TO COPERNICUS, TO BRUNO, TO KEPLER, TO GALILEO, TO NEWTON, TO EINSTEIN--AND YET IT MOVES! Unifying relativity, quantum mechanics, entropy, and time's arrows and assymetries with a new universal invariant: dx4/dt=ic."

Would be happy to send you, or anyone, a copy when it's done!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

I'll be posting the TOC of my book here soon: "HERO'S JOURNEY PHYSICS & MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY: FROM HERACLITIS, TO PLATO, TO ARISTOTLE, TO COPERNICUS, TO BRUNO, TO KEPLER, TO GALILEO, TO NEWTON, TO EINSTEIN--AND YET IT MOVES! Unifying relativity, quantum mechanics, entropy, and time's arrows and assymetries with a new universal invariant: dx4/dt=ic."

Would be happy to send you, or anyone, a copy when it's done!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Hello Elliot,

Why do you consider me stupid? You did not get my point. I do not question the possibility to use Gauss's complex plane of orthogonal to each other real and imaginary components of a complex quantity. The point is: How does a measurable function f(x) of a quantity x from the actual world, for instance a function of distance or elapsed time, relate to a representation in this plane?

Notice: Radius as well as elapsed time, temperature, virtually any physical quantity is real and unilateral restricted (0

Why do you consider me stupid? You did not get my point. I do not question the possibility to use Gauss's complex plane of orthogonal to each other real and imaginary components of a complex quantity. The point is: How does a measurable function f(x) of a quantity x from the actual world, for instance a function of distance or elapsed time, relate to a representation in this plane?

Notice: Radius as well as elapsed time, temperature, virtually any physical quantity is real and unilateral restricted (0

Hello Eckard,

Here is a great passage from Max Born's book on rleativity, which you will enjoy:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Afeff9XNwgoC&printsec

=frontcover&dq=Einstein%27s+Theory+of+Relativity&ei=i7ZCSbaI

KoqakQT5tenUDg#PPA306,M1

Born writes, "It is true that in the domain of ordinary number one cannot extract the square root of the negative quantity -c^2t^2; hence u has no elementary menaing. But mathematicians have long been accustomed to overcoming such diificulties. The imaginary quanity "i" has been firmly established in mathematics since the time of Gauss. We cannot here enter into the question of how the doctrines of imaginary numbers can be rigorously established. These numbers are essentially no more "imaginary" than a fraction such as 2/3., for numbers with which we number things or count properly comprise only the natural intergesrs 1,2,3,4. . . The number 2 is not dividsible by 3, so that 2/3 is an operation that can be carried out just as little as (-1)^(1/2). Fractions such as 2/3 signify an extension of the natural concept of numbers; however, they have become familiar through education and custom, and excite no feeling of strangeness. The introduction of imgainary numbers is a similar extension: all formulae that contain imaginary numbers have just as definite a meaning as those formed from ordinary "real" numbers, and the inferences drawn from them are just as convincing."

--p. 306, Einstein's Relativity, Max Born

So it is that both time and the fourth dimension are very, very real. Time is a parameter, often measured on our watches, which emerges because the fourth dimesnion is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, or dx4/dt=ic.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Here is a great passage from Max Born's book on rleativity, which you will enjoy:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Afeff9XNwgoC&printsec

=frontcover&dq=Einstein%27s+Theory+of+Relativity&ei=i7ZCSbaI

KoqakQT5tenUDg#PPA306,M1

Born writes, "It is true that in the domain of ordinary number one cannot extract the square root of the negative quantity -c^2t^2; hence u has no elementary menaing. But mathematicians have long been accustomed to overcoming such diificulties. The imaginary quanity "i" has been firmly established in mathematics since the time of Gauss. We cannot here enter into the question of how the doctrines of imaginary numbers can be rigorously established. These numbers are essentially no more "imaginary" than a fraction such as 2/3., for numbers with which we number things or count properly comprise only the natural intergesrs 1,2,3,4. . . The number 2 is not dividsible by 3, so that 2/3 is an operation that can be carried out just as little as (-1)^(1/2). Fractions such as 2/3 signify an extension of the natural concept of numbers; however, they have become familiar through education and custom, and excite no feeling of strangeness. The introduction of imgainary numbers is a similar extension: all formulae that contain imaginary numbers have just as definite a meaning as those formed from ordinary "real" numbers, and the inferences drawn from them are just as convincing."

--p. 306, Einstein's Relativity, Max Born

So it is that both time and the fourth dimension are very, very real. Time is a parameter, often measured on our watches, which emerges because the fourth dimesnion is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, or dx4/dt=ic.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Hello Elliot,

Thank you for the quotation. I see it one more evidence for missing awareness of several details among those who introduced quantum mechanics. Born is quite right in that imaginary and complex numbers are an extension of "ordinary" non-complex numbers.

I am avoiding the word real numbers in this case because irrational and real numbers are usually understood in a somewhat different meaning as an extension of rational numbers.

Yesterday I explained why you are missing my point. Unfortunately, my message was truncated. Moreover in your thread, the line end seems to be set wrong. Therefore I will repeat to explain at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369

what details you are and Born was not aware of.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Be not mislead by Born's "comple

Thank you for the quotation. I see it one more evidence for missing awareness of several details among those who introduced quantum mechanics. Born is quite right in that imaginary and complex numbers are an extension of "ordinary" non-complex numbers.

I am avoiding the word real numbers in this case because irrational and real numbers are usually understood in a somewhat different meaning as an extension of rational numbers.

Yesterday I explained why you are missing my point. Unfortunately, my message was truncated. Moreover in your thread, the line end seems to be set wrong. Therefore I will repeat to explain at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369

what details you are and Born was not aware of.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Be not mislead by Born's "comple

Hello All!

Two new sites & an upcoming book!

http://movingdimensionstheory.blogspot.com

http://moving

dimensionstheory.com (coming soon!)

Just wanted thank FQXI & all the participants for the wonderful conversations and dialogues!

Below is the Table of Contents for my upcoming book:

"HERO'S JOURNEY PHYSICS & MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY: FROM HERACLITIS, TO...

view entire post

Two new sites & an upcoming book!

http://movingdimensionstheory.blogspot.com

http://moving

dimensionstheory.com (coming soon!)

Just wanted thank FQXI & all the participants for the wonderful conversations and dialogues!

Below is the Table of Contents for my upcoming book:

"HERO'S JOURNEY PHYSICS & MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY: FROM HERACLITIS, TO...

view entire post

Hello Mark,

Here is another passage pertaining to the fact that photons remain stationary in the fourth dimension:

From page 148 of Dr. Brian Greene's THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS:

"Special relativity declares a similar law for all motion: the combined speed of any object's motion trhough space and its motion through time is always precisely equal to the speed of light. . . . Morover, the maximum speed through space is reached when all light-speed motion through time is fully diverted into light-speed motion through space--one way of understanding why it is impossible to go through space at a greater than light speed. Light, which always travels at light speed through space, is special in that it always achieves such total diversion. And just as traveling due east leaves no motion for traveling north, moving at light speed through space leaves no motion for traveling through time! Time stops when traveling at the speed of light through space. A watch worn by a particle of light would not tick at all. Light realizes the dream of Ponce de Leon and the cosmetics industry: it doesn't age." --From page 148 of Dr. Brian Greene's THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS

Ergo, a photon experiences no motion through the foruth dimension. Ergo, a photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension. And as quantum mechanics describes a photon as an expanding spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront, the fourth dimension must be expanding as a sphecially-symmetric wavefront! The expansion of the fourth dimension at c underlies photon's invariant velocity of c, as well as the photon's nonlocality! And too, MDT accounts for the fact that a photon remains stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, while also provding a physical framework for time and all its arrows, all of relativity, quantum nonlocality and entanglement, and entropy!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Here is another passage pertaining to the fact that photons remain stationary in the fourth dimension:

From page 148 of Dr. Brian Greene's THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS:

"Special relativity declares a similar law for all motion: the combined speed of any object's motion trhough space and its motion through time is always precisely equal to the speed of light. . . . Morover, the maximum speed through space is reached when all light-speed motion through time is fully diverted into light-speed motion through space--one way of understanding why it is impossible to go through space at a greater than light speed. Light, which always travels at light speed through space, is special in that it always achieves such total diversion. And just as traveling due east leaves no motion for traveling north, moving at light speed through space leaves no motion for traveling through time! Time stops when traveling at the speed of light through space. A watch worn by a particle of light would not tick at all. Light realizes the dream of Ponce de Leon and the cosmetics industry: it doesn't age." --From page 148 of Dr. Brian Greene's THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS

Ergo, a photon experiences no motion through the foruth dimension. Ergo, a photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension. And as quantum mechanics describes a photon as an expanding spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront, the fourth dimension must be expanding as a sphecially-symmetric wavefront! The expansion of the fourth dimension at c underlies photon's invariant velocity of c, as well as the photon's nonlocality! And too, MDT accounts for the fact that a photon remains stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, while also provding a physical framework for time and all its arrows, all of relativity, quantum nonlocality and entanglement, and entropy!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

RE: MDT & HUYGENS' PRINCIPLE

Hello Mark,

Hope all is well!

"Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory." --Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics

MDT's idea: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, or dx4/dt=ic.

It is...

view entire post

Hello Mark,

Hope all is well!

"Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory." --Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics

MDT's idea: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, or dx4/dt=ic.

It is...

view entire post

Dear Elliot

Yes, X4 = ict

where simbol t indicates duration of material change runing into atemporal space

X4 is an imaginary coordinate that alow us seeing material change into model of time as past-present-future.

Material change run into space that is atemporal.

yours amri

attachments: 2_Phenomenology_of_Time_and_Quantum_Gravity.pdf

Yes, X4 = ict

where simbol t indicates duration of material change runing into atemporal space

X4 is an imaginary coordinate that alow us seeing material change into model of time as past-present-future.

Material change run into space that is atemporal.

yours amri

attachments: 2_Phenomenology_of_Time_and_Quantum_Gravity.pdf

RE: A dialogue with Lee Smolin's THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS.

Also, please find attached a picture of me & note the dx4/dt=ic on the far left-hand side. As Bohr and Gamow loved Westerns, and as they regularly watched them with their grad students, I figured we ought bring that spirit back--I am devoting an entire section of my upcoming book "HERO'S JOURNEY PHYSICS" to this. The...

view entire post

Also, please find attached a picture of me & note the dx4/dt=ic on the far left-hand side. As Bohr and Gamow loved Westerns, and as they regularly watched them with their grad students, I figured we ought bring that spirit back--I am devoting an entire section of my upcoming book "HERO'S JOURNEY PHYSICS" to this. The...

view entire post

attachments: mcgucken_self_portrait.jpg, elliot_mcguckens_dissertation.jpg

Re: MDT & Wheeler's Quantum Foam

As we wind on down the road, and as these comments will soon be frozen for all of eternity; let me say a couple more things about Dark Energy and Quantum Foam in the context of MDT:

It was the late J.A. wheeler who first conceived of "quantum foam."

Wikipedia states:

"Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in...

view entire post

As we wind on down the road, and as these comments will soon be frozen for all of eternity; let me say a couple more things about Dark Energy and Quantum Foam in the context of MDT:

It was the late J.A. wheeler who first conceived of "quantum foam."

Wikipedia states:

"Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in...

view entire post

attachments: 16_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Hello Elliot,

Please find attached the first part of a more detailed reply to your point of view concerning the relationship between imaginary quantities and reality. I did not yet post the truncated and anyway perhaps rather hasty earlier reply at M286.

Le Rouge agrees with me that symmetries are redundant. He is putting in question several parts of modern physics. Do you share his view?

Best,

Eckard

attachments: 3_Microsoft_Word__How_do_negative_and_imaginary.pdf

Please find attached the first part of a more detailed reply to your point of view concerning the relationship between imaginary quantities and reality. I did not yet post the truncated and anyway perhaps rather hasty earlier reply at M286.

Le Rouge agrees with me that symmetries are redundant. He is putting in question several parts of modern physics. Do you share his view?

Best,

Eckard

attachments: 3_Microsoft_Word__How_do_negative_and_imaginary.pdf

Hello Eckard!

Yes--I looked over the paper! Thanks.

I yet maintain that "i" represents very *real* entities--most usually a *physical* perpendicularity of some form.

Consider the e

Yes--I looked over the paper! Thanks.

I yet maintain that "i" represents very *real* entities--most usually a *physical* perpendicularity of some form.

Consider the e