If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

**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

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

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

**Sreenath B N**: *on* 3/11/11 at 6:30am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. McGucken, I found your essay innovative and interesting.Your way...

**Constantinos Ragazas**: *on* 3/11/11 at 4:05am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. McGucken, In “A World Without Quanta” I mathematically derive...

**Dr. Elliot McGucken**: *on* 2/16/11 at 7:48am UTC, wrote The above should read: "Consider taking the square root of -1. An i pops...

**Dr. Elliot McGucken**: *on* 2/16/11 at 3:28am UTC, wrote Dear Anonymous, Yes I have that book and I know that box! GR acknowledges...

**Anonymous**: *on* 2/16/11 at 0:32am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. E, Are you aware that the book Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and...

**Dr. Elliot McGucken**: *on* 2/15/11 at 18:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Constantin, I agree with you that, "Time is not a geometrical...

**Constantin Leshan**: *on* 2/15/11 at 17:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken, You wrote:The only way to stay stationary in the...

**Eckard Blumschein**: *on* 2/14/11 at 23:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken, Having arrived myself at the question why ict...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Thomas Ray**: "Georgina, if you've never heard of Shakira, perhaps you can consider the..."
*in* Ripping Apart Einstein

**Steve Agnew**: "The rabbit you pulled was dodging the black hole with an AGN, which of..."
*in* Why Quantum?

**Peter Jackson**: "Steve, Suggesting AGN's are rabbits from hats to astronomers is like..."
*in* Why Quantum?

**Akinbo Ojo**: "Witty exchanges!"
*in* Ripping Apart Einstein

**Domenico Oricchio**: "I am thinking that if there was a Big Bang, then there was many Big Bangs..."
*in* Hanny's Voorwerp, and...

**Steve Agnew**: "I get a kick out of these sorts of discoveries...dark matter is a patch for..."
*in* The Quasar Cluster that...

**Peter Jackson**: "John, That's as predicted by the 'kinetic decoupling' model in the..."
*in* The Quasar Cluster that...

**Thomas Ray**: ""'science is a wholly rationalist enterprise.' But human affairs are not." ..."
*in* “Utopia or Dystopia”

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Heart of Darkness**

An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

**Why Quantum?**

Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

**Reality's NeverEnding Story**

A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

**The Quantum Dictionary**

Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

** Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?**

Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

FQXi FORUM

July 23, 2014

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Is Reality Digital or Analog?
[back]

TOPIC: On the Emergence of QM, Relativity, Entropy, Time, iħ, and ic... by Elliot McGucken [refresh]

TOPIC: On the Emergence of QM, Relativity, Entropy, Time, iħ, and ic... by Elliot McGucken [refresh]

The photon is used to physically probe and trace the discrete, digital, dynamic nature of x4 as the quantum nature of physical measurement is examined, while the foundational papers of Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, et al. are exalted, lead by Einstein’s statement that physics “starts from experience and ends in it.” In its simplest case, a photon oscillates while propagating at c as a probabilistic wave-front expanding through the three spatial dimensions in a spherically-symmetric manner, as demonstrated by the classic double-slit experiment, leading to the natural conclusion that x4, in which the photon remains stationary according to relativity, must thusly be oscillating and propagating at c as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront. Relativity informs us that all of a photon’s motion is through the three spatial dimensions, thusly dictating that the timeless, ageless photon remains stationary in the fourth dimension x4. As electromagnetic radiation (the photon) is quantized, while there is no evidence for quantum gravity, we may conclude that x4 is quantized and digital in nature, while the three spatial dimensions are continuous and analog in nature. qp-pq=iħ (Born & Heisenberg) and x4=ict or dx4/dt=ic (Einstein & Minkowski) are fundamental relationships of QM and relativity. Both equations have differentials on the left and an i on the right, as Bohr noted, suggesting that a foundational change is occurring in a “perpendicular” manner, implying a fourth moving dimension. qp-pq = iħ reflects the discrete increment and quantum action—ħ —that emerges from the dynamic, discretely parceled space-time geometry born by the discrete wavelength of x4’s expansion; while dx4/dt=ic, from which relativity and its postulates derive, sets the velocity of the expansion of x4 to c. A physical model encompassing both Einstein’s “elementary foundations” of relativity and Schrodinger’s “characteristic trait” of QM—entanglement—is presented.

In high school, theoretical physicist Dr. Elliot McGucken received the Bausch & Lomb Science Award, the William Tenney Scholar-Athlete Award, and the Judith Resnik Memorial Scholarship which helped him attend Princeton University. Dr. E’s Ph.D. research titled "Multiple unit artificial retina chipset to aid the visually impaired and enhanced holed-emitter CMOS phototransistors" received several Fight for Sight and NSF grants, as well as a Merrill Lynch Innovations award. The late J.A. Wheeler wrote, “More intellectual curiosity, versatility and yen for physics than Elliot McGucken's I have never seen in any senior or graduate student.”

Dear Dr. E.

Congratulations on having the essay with longest title submitted so far :)

Seriously, I have read and enjoyed your essay regarding your MDT of which I am somewhat familiar from "The Nature of Time" essay contest and I have a few questions.

First, is the expansion of the fourth dimension fundamental or is it secondary to the expansion of the universe? While I agree that your MDT is intriguing, it seems to me that local space and time must evolve with an expanding universe (see my essay and Dr. Cristian Corda's essay as we have reach many of the same conclusions)

Second, I commend you on your relevant use of quotes by the masters of the subject, but Peter Jackson has used some quite good ones by both Einstein and Minkowski in his essay which are:

Albert Einstein considered that there was not just one 'space' but that all mass is 'spatially extended' saying; "Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning." [11] Indeed, when considering SR, Minkowski first introduced the concept of discrete spaces in 1909 "Then from here on, we would no longer have space in the world, but endlessly many spaces;" Einstein embraced this for his field based General Relativity (GR), but, it appears never evaluated it in terms of SR. Considering unified fields he said in 1952; "The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other."

I interpret these quotes to mean that cosmological spacetime is the superposition of all of the local spacetimes. Is this how you would interpret them, and if so doesn't your MDT have to be modified for cosmology?

Thanks in advance for your reply,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations on having the essay with longest title submitted so far :)

Seriously, I have read and enjoyed your essay regarding your MDT of which I am somewhat familiar from "The Nature of Time" essay contest and I have a few questions.

First, is the expansion of the fourth dimension fundamental or is it secondary to the expansion of the universe? While I agree that your MDT is intriguing, it seems to me that local space and time must evolve with an expanding universe (see my essay and Dr. Cristian Corda's essay as we have reach many of the same conclusions)

Second, I commend you on your relevant use of quotes by the masters of the subject, but Peter Jackson has used some quite good ones by both Einstein and Minkowski in his essay which are:

Albert Einstein considered that there was not just one 'space' but that all mass is 'spatially extended' saying; "Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning." [11] Indeed, when considering SR, Minkowski first introduced the concept of discrete spaces in 1909 "Then from here on, we would no longer have space in the world, but endlessly many spaces;" Einstein embraced this for his field based General Relativity (GR), but, it appears never evaluated it in terms of SR. Considering unified fields he said in 1952; "The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other."

I interpret these quotes to mean that cosmological spacetime is the superposition of all of the local spacetimes. Is this how you would interpret them, and if so doesn't your MDT have to be modified for cosmology?

Thanks in advance for your reply,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Dan,

Is there any evidence for local space and time evolving as the universe expands?

Yes--dx4/dt=ic is the *fundamental* expansion of the universe, as well as the universe's fundamental invariant, setting both c and ħ. While we are not quite sure if space itself is expanding, we can be 100% sure that x4 is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. Do you...

view entire post

Is there any evidence for local space and time evolving as the universe expands?

Yes--dx4/dt=ic is the *fundamental* expansion of the universe, as well as the universe's fundamental invariant, setting both c and ħ. While we are not quite sure if space itself is expanding, we can be 100% sure that x4 is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. Do you...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. E

I enjoyed reading your paper, getting the feel of what you are saying, but not quite convinced of the necessity of invoking yet another 'entity' x4 (you say it is not a dimension and not (t). It feels right that you have conjoined the basic equations of relativity and quantum mechanics. However I could not but feel (that word again!) that even a more basic theoretical deconstruction / reconstruction (I am using the words as antonyms, not in the usual sense) is possible in order to unite the quantum and relativistic worlds. I have explained my own unproven intuitions about such a process at length in my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which my present fqxi paper is based.

I wish I had your competence and combination of disciplined eduction and contact with such inspiring teachers, but I tried my best to explain a model that has yet to face the full blast of critical evaluation by experts such as yourself. You will probably dislike my reverse-engineering the concepts of flexible space-time and probability and finding them superfluous. I tried to "start all over" from Planck and Lorentz armed with the gift of hindsight of a century's worth of hard-won results in physics.

Wishing you all the best and kind regards. Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading your paper, getting the feel of what you are saying, but not quite convinced of the necessity of invoking yet another 'entity' x4 (you say it is not a dimension and not (t). It feels right that you have conjoined the basic equations of relativity and quantum mechanics. However I could not but feel (that word again!) that even a more basic theoretical deconstruction / reconstruction (I am using the words as antonyms, not in the usual sense) is possible in order to unite the quantum and relativistic worlds. I have explained my own unproven intuitions about such a process at length in my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which my present fqxi paper is based.

I wish I had your competence and combination of disciplined eduction and contact with such inspiring teachers, but I tried my best to explain a model that has yet to face the full blast of critical evaluation by experts such as yourself. You will probably dislike my reverse-engineering the concepts of flexible space-time and probability and finding them superfluous. I tried to "start all over" from Planck and Lorentz armed with the gift of hindsight of a century's worth of hard-won results in physics.

Wishing you all the best and kind regards. Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you very much for your words!

No, no, no, no! I am not introducing "a new entity" x4!

x4 is very present in Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on Relativity (which I suggest everyone read), where Einstein/Minkowski write x4=ict. MDT agrees entirely with the mathematics of Einstein's relativity, while also weaving change into the foundational fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity.

I am merely taking x4=ict to its natural conclusion: dx4/dt=ic--which provides the fundamental foundations for relativity that Einstein yet sought, while also providing the foundations for Schrodinger's entanglement, as well as entropy, the quantum, Huygens' Principle and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and time and all its arrows and asymmetries. :)

Please check out my earlier papers:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511

http://w

ww.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

Please also see the attached paper, which presents the above two in a longer form with some extra information.

And please feel free to ask any and all questions!

Thanks & Best,

Dr. Elliot McGucken

attachments: j.a.wheeler_recommendation_for_dr._elliot_mcgucken.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Thank you very much for your words!

No, no, no, no! I am not introducing "a new entity" x4!

x4 is very present in Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on Relativity (which I suggest everyone read), where Einstein/Minkowski write x4=ict. MDT agrees entirely with the mathematics of Einstein's relativity, while also weaving change into the foundational fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity.

I am merely taking x4=ict to its natural conclusion: dx4/dt=ic--which provides the fundamental foundations for relativity that Einstein yet sought, while also providing the foundations for Schrodinger's entanglement, as well as entropy, the quantum, Huygens' Principle and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and time and all its arrows and asymmetries. :)

Please check out my earlier papers:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511

http://w

ww.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

Please also see the attached paper, which presents the above two in a longer form with some extra information.

And please feel free to ask any and all questions!

Thanks & Best,

Dr. Elliot McGucken

attachments: j.a.wheeler_recommendation_for_dr._elliot_mcgucken.jpg

report post as inappropriate

(oops! the fqxi site just said there was an error in uploading my longer paper, so I have removed the graphics and am trying again!)

Please also see the attached paper, which presents the above two papers in a longer form with some extra information.

And please feel free to ask any and all questions!

Thanks & Best,

Dr. Elliot McGucken

attachments: 1_j.a.wheeler_recommendation_for_dr._elliot_mcgucken.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Please also see the attached paper, which presents the above two papers in a longer form with some extra information.

And please feel free to ask any and all questions!

Thanks & Best,

Dr. Elliot McGucken

attachments: 1_j.a.wheeler_recommendation_for_dr._elliot_mcgucken.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Well, it gave me another error, so I uploaded it to Google Documents:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&ch

rome=true&srcid=0B_8RHWGbDHkRYzY1MDU1MTMtNTIzMi00MzJiLTgwMDM

tNTUyZDhlYzRhZDhi&hl=en&authkey=CO7ysLYI

You can read it there!

If that doesn't work, let me know!

And you can read this too:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511

http://www.

fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

Have fun!

Dr. Elliot McGucken

report post as inappropriate

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&ch

rome=true&srcid=0B_8RHWGbDHkRYzY1MDU1MTMtNTIzMi00MzJiLTgwMDM

tNTUyZDhlYzRhZDhi&hl=en&authkey=CO7ysLYI

You can read it there!

If that doesn't work, let me know!

And you can read this too:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511

http://www.

fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

Have fun!

Dr. Elliot McGucken

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr.Elliot McGucken,

The x4's expansion theory is not consistent and cannot explain quantum phenomena. For example, you say that ''x4 must thus be propagating at c'', whereas in EPR paradox measurements performed on spatially separated parts of a quantum system can apparently have an instantaneous influence on one another. Thus, since x4 must be propagating at c, it cannot explain non-local phenomena.

Since ''a photon remains stationary in x4'', but massive particles are NOT stationary in x4, then, according to your theory, photons must behave differently than massive particles, i.e. the strength of quantum behavior of photons must be greater than for massive particles, that is NOT confirmed by experiment. Also, the strength of quantum behavior would depend on the concentration of photons in space - that is NOT confirmed by experiment and everyday life.

You write - ''discrete nature of all energy and measurement, whose discreteness arises from the discrete geometry created via x4's expansion''. Please explain how can x4's expansion of photons influence the spacetime geometry.

You write - ''Space is continuous (analog)'' Space cannot be analog; the existence of distance fluctuation between bodies is a proof that space is discrete. The experimental detection of spacetime foam will be another proof that space is digital.

You write - ''Gravity is Continuous (Analog)'' - gravity cannot be analog; there are fast fluctuations of geometry at small scales which can be explained by Quantum effects of Gravitation only, because gravitation only is responsible for spacetime geometry.

Sincerely,

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

The x4's expansion theory is not consistent and cannot explain quantum phenomena. For example, you say that ''x4 must thus be propagating at c'', whereas in EPR paradox measurements performed on spatially separated parts of a quantum system can apparently have an instantaneous influence on one another. Thus, since x4 must be propagating at c, it cannot explain non-local phenomena.

Since ''a photon remains stationary in x4'', but massive particles are NOT stationary in x4, then, according to your theory, photons must behave differently than massive particles, i.e. the strength of quantum behavior of photons must be greater than for massive particles, that is NOT confirmed by experiment. Also, the strength of quantum behavior would depend on the concentration of photons in space - that is NOT confirmed by experiment and everyday life.

You write - ''discrete nature of all energy and measurement, whose discreteness arises from the discrete geometry created via x4's expansion''. Please explain how can x4's expansion of photons influence the spacetime geometry.

You write - ''Space is continuous (analog)'' Space cannot be analog; the existence of distance fluctuation between bodies is a proof that space is discrete. The experimental detection of spacetime foam will be another proof that space is digital.

You write - ''Gravity is Continuous (Analog)'' - gravity cannot be analog; there are fast fluctuations of geometry at small scales which can be explained by Quantum effects of Gravitation only, because gravitation only is responsible for spacetime geometry.

Sincerely,

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Contantin,

dx4/dt=ic is the source of nonlocality and entanglement.

dx4/dt=ic smears locality into nonlocality at the rate of c.

please see the final figure in this paper on page #9:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/McGucken_Wha

t_is_Ultimately_8.pdf

i have also attached it below for your conveniece.

note that entangled particles must begin by being in contact with one-another, and also, their entanglement never grows by more than c. this is because dx4/dt=ic is the foundational physics underlying entanglement--the expansion of the fourth dimension is the mechanism that gives rise to nonlocality, as well as relativity, the quantum, entropy, and time and all its arrows and asymmetries.

photons do behave differently than massive particles--they move at the velocity c and they do not age, unlike massive particles.

x4's expands in units of the planck length. this physical wavelength carves planck-length waves/partitions/corpuscles in spacetime.

while space and gravity are continuous (as nobody has ever seen a graviton nor an atom of space), measurements of space and distance may exhibit quantum properties, as measurement relies on the propagation of photons and photons are quantized, as they are mass surfing the fourth dimension which is quantized via the discrete, invariant length lp--the wavelength of its epxansion.

thanks for your feedback & questions! i hope my answers help!

best,

dr. e :)

attachments: McGucken_What_is_Ultimately_8.pdf

report post as inappropriate

dx4/dt=ic is the source of nonlocality and entanglement.

dx4/dt=ic smears locality into nonlocality at the rate of c.

please see the final figure in this paper on page #9:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/McGucken_Wha

t_is_Ultimately_8.pdf

i have also attached it below for your conveniece.

note that entangled particles must begin by being in contact with one-another, and also, their entanglement never grows by more than c. this is because dx4/dt=ic is the foundational physics underlying entanglement--the expansion of the fourth dimension is the mechanism that gives rise to nonlocality, as well as relativity, the quantum, entropy, and time and all its arrows and asymmetries.

photons do behave differently than massive particles--they move at the velocity c and they do not age, unlike massive particles.

x4's expands in units of the planck length. this physical wavelength carves planck-length waves/partitions/corpuscles in spacetime.

while space and gravity are continuous (as nobody has ever seen a graviton nor an atom of space), measurements of space and distance may exhibit quantum properties, as measurement relies on the propagation of photons and photons are quantized, as they are mass surfing the fourth dimension which is quantized via the discrete, invariant length lp--the wavelength of its epxansion.

thanks for your feedback & questions! i hope my answers help!

best,

dr. e :)

attachments: McGucken_What_is_Ultimately_8.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr.Elliot McGucken,

It is not correct. My question was - since photons move at the velocity c, then photons remains stationary in x4, but massive particles are Not stationary in x4. Consequently the behavior of photons must be different than of massive particles in the sense of QUANTUM BEHAVIOR. And your answer is not logic - because photons move at the velocity c, therefore photons do behave differently than massive particles --they move at the velocity c and they do not age, unlike massive particles. It is not the answer.

''dx4/dt=ic is the source of nonlocality and entanglement''. These words proves nothing, you must show in detail how entanglement and nonlocality works. And how photons can curve the spacetime ''discrete geometry created via x4's expansion''.

Sincerely

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

It is not correct. My question was - since photons move at the velocity c, then photons remains stationary in x4, but massive particles are Not stationary in x4. Consequently the behavior of photons must be different than of massive particles in the sense of QUANTUM BEHAVIOR. And your answer is not logic - because photons move at the velocity c, therefore photons do behave differently than massive particles --they move at the velocity c and they do not age, unlike massive particles. It is not the answer.

''dx4/dt=ic is the source of nonlocality and entanglement''. These words proves nothing, you must show in detail how entanglement and nonlocality works. And how photons can curve the spacetime ''discrete geometry created via x4's expansion''.

Sincerely

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantin,

Massive particles have energy--they are abuzz with photons. Mass and energy are the same thing as E=mc^2. Ergo it is reasonable to expect that photons and mass behave in similar manners. But too, unlike mass, photons are timeless and they travel at the velocity c.

dx4/dt=ic is the source of nonlocality and entanglement--these words prove everything regardidng the source of nonlocality and entanglement. nonlocality derives from the nonlocality of the fourth dimension, which is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions. this expansion distributes locality into nonlocality, as evidenced by the double-slit experiment in figure 1 of my above new paper, as well as in figure 1 on page 9 of my previous paper:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511

you do agree with the proof that x4 is expanding at c?

Simple, logical proofs of MDT:

MDT PROOF#1: Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension. Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c. Ergo, the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, in a spherically-symmetric manner. The expansion of the fourth dimension is the source of nonlocality, entanglement, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made without change. For the first time in the history of relativity, change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.

MDT PROOF#2: Einstein (1912 Man. on Rel.) and Minkowski wrote x4=ict. Ergo dx4/dt=ic.

MDT PROOF#3: The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

MDT twitter proof (limited to 140 characters): SR: photon is stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding @ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic –from http://twitter.com/45surf

report post as inappropriate

Massive particles have energy--they are abuzz with photons. Mass and energy are the same thing as E=mc^2. Ergo it is reasonable to expect that photons and mass behave in similar manners. But too, unlike mass, photons are timeless and they travel at the velocity c.

dx4/dt=ic is the source of nonlocality and entanglement--these words prove everything regardidng the source of nonlocality and entanglement. nonlocality derives from the nonlocality of the fourth dimension, which is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions. this expansion distributes locality into nonlocality, as evidenced by the double-slit experiment in figure 1 of my above new paper, as well as in figure 1 on page 9 of my previous paper:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511

you do agree with the proof that x4 is expanding at c?

Simple, logical proofs of MDT:

MDT PROOF#1: Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension. Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c. Ergo, the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, in a spherically-symmetric manner. The expansion of the fourth dimension is the source of nonlocality, entanglement, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made without change. For the first time in the history of relativity, change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.

MDT PROOF#2: Einstein (1912 Man. on Rel.) and Minkowski wrote x4=ict. Ergo dx4/dt=ic.

MDT PROOF#3: The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

MDT twitter proof (limited to 140 characters): SR: photon is stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding @ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic –from http://twitter.com/45surf

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

Having arrived myself at the question why ict and ih might be imaginary, I would like to support you as follows:

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Having arrived myself at the question why ict and ih might be imaginary, I would like to support you as follows:

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

You wrote:The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions.

You cannot MOVE at c through the time (fourth dimension), because it is not space, but it is TIME. Time is not a geometrical dimension like the three spatial dimensions, therefore the notion of SPEED does not have sense for TIME. Therefore your proposition "to move at c through the fourth dimension' is senseless.

If you want to see how nonlocality and entanglement works, please see my page

Regards

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

You wrote:The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions.

You cannot MOVE at c through the time (fourth dimension), because it is not space, but it is TIME. Time is not a geometrical dimension like the three spatial dimensions, therefore the notion of SPEED does not have sense for TIME. Therefore your proposition "to move at c through the fourth dimension' is senseless.

If you want to see how nonlocality and entanglement works, please see my page

Regards

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantin,

I agree with you that, "Time is not a geometrical dimension like the three spatial dimensions."

TIME is not the fourth dimension!

Time, as measured on our clocks and watches is an emergent scalar. I say as much in my paper!

Please see page 8!

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/McGucken_Dr._Elli

ot_McGucke_7.pdf

Time travel would be possible were time x4, but time, as measured on our watches, is not a dimension, but rather it is an emergent scalar that arises from the fact x4 is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in a quantized manner. Schrodinger wrote, ―The world extended in space and time is but our representation, and Wheeler echoed this with, ―The four-dimensional space-time manifold is only a fabrication, only a theory.

Yes! The t axis, when drawn on a space-time diagram, is a purely mathematical construct, but the past and future do not exist, even though one may measure someone’s past in the present or the future as distant photons take time to propagate. Never does Einstein say that tis x4, but rather he writes x4=ict, and t and ict are very different entities. As t increments, so must x4. As clocks are based on physical change, and as change requires the propagation of energy, physical change and clocks thus rest upon the motion of x4, upon which energy and photons propagate. So it is that time inherited properties and characteristics of x4 in the equations of relativity, but time, as a scalar quantity measured on our clocks, ought not be confused with the actual fourth dimension, which is a physical entity expanding at c relative to the three spatial dimensions as a spherically-symmetric wave-front with a wavelength of lp.

5. MDT Rescues Godel, Einstein, and Time

P. Yourgrau writes: "Godel was quick to point out that if we can revisit the past, it never really ―passed. But a time that fails to pass is no time at all. Einstein saw at once that if Godel was right, he had not merely domesticated time: he had killed it. . . . But now something amazing took place: nothing. . . A conspiracy of silence descended on the Einstein-Godel friendship and its scientific consequences. Indeed, the great Godel is oft not cited in contemporary treatises on time, as sure as physics’ Founding Fathers are forgotten in treatises on reality, but dx4/dt=ic saves the day by showing that both Godel and Einstein are right. Godel showed how Einstein’s interpretation of relativity froze time, and MDT’s dx4/dt=ic unfreezes time, weaving change into the fundamental fabric of space-time for the first time in the history of relativity, while also providing the fundamental foundation for all of relativity which Einstein yet sought, as well as entropy and entanglement.

report post as inappropriate

I agree with you that, "Time is not a geometrical dimension like the three spatial dimensions."

TIME is not the fourth dimension!

Time, as measured on our clocks and watches is an emergent scalar. I say as much in my paper!

Please see page 8!

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/McGucken_Dr._Elli

ot_McGucke_7.pdf

Time travel would be possible were time x4, but time, as measured on our watches, is not a dimension, but rather it is an emergent scalar that arises from the fact x4 is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in a quantized manner. Schrodinger wrote, ―The world extended in space and time is but our representation, and Wheeler echoed this with, ―The four-dimensional space-time manifold is only a fabrication, only a theory.

Yes! The t axis, when drawn on a space-time diagram, is a purely mathematical construct, but the past and future do not exist, even though one may measure someone’s past in the present or the future as distant photons take time to propagate. Never does Einstein say that tis x4, but rather he writes x4=ict, and t and ict are very different entities. As t increments, so must x4. As clocks are based on physical change, and as change requires the propagation of energy, physical change and clocks thus rest upon the motion of x4, upon which energy and photons propagate. So it is that time inherited properties and characteristics of x4 in the equations of relativity, but time, as a scalar quantity measured on our clocks, ought not be confused with the actual fourth dimension, which is a physical entity expanding at c relative to the three spatial dimensions as a spherically-symmetric wave-front with a wavelength of lp.

5. MDT Rescues Godel, Einstein, and Time

P. Yourgrau writes: "Godel was quick to point out that if we can revisit the past, it never really ―passed. But a time that fails to pass is no time at all. Einstein saw at once that if Godel was right, he had not merely domesticated time: he had killed it. . . . But now something amazing took place: nothing. . . A conspiracy of silence descended on the Einstein-Godel friendship and its scientific consequences. Indeed, the great Godel is oft not cited in contemporary treatises on time, as sure as physics’ Founding Fathers are forgotten in treatises on reality, but dx4/dt=ic saves the day by showing that both Godel and Einstein are right. Godel showed how Einstein’s interpretation of relativity froze time, and MDT’s dx4/dt=ic unfreezes time, weaving change into the fundamental fabric of space-time for the first time in the history of relativity, while also providing the fundamental foundation for all of relativity which Einstein yet sought, as well as entropy and entanglement.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. E,

Are you aware that the book Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler has on pg. 51 a Box 2.1 entitled Farewell to "ict" in which I quote:

"... with x4=ict, no one has discovered a way to make an imaginary coordinate work in the general curved spacetime manifold. If "x4=ict" cannot be used there, it will not be used here."

Have you discovered a way to make an imaginary coordinate work in the general curved spacetime manifold or do you deny that general curved spacetime manifolds are important to General Relativity?

report post as inappropriate

Are you aware that the book Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler has on pg. 51 a Box 2.1 entitled Farewell to "ict" in which I quote:

"... with x4=ict, no one has discovered a way to make an imaginary coordinate work in the general curved spacetime manifold. If "x4=ict" cannot be used there, it will not be used here."

Have you discovered a way to make an imaginary coordinate work in the general curved spacetime manifold or do you deny that general curved spacetime manifolds are important to General Relativity?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Anonymous,

Yes I have that book and I know that box!

GR acknowledges the orthogonality of the fourth dimension, so there is no need for the i.

Consider taking the square root of 1. An i pops out, representing an orthogonality! If we were to plot this, it would be one unit up the y axis on a 2D x-y graph.

However, we can begin with a 2D x-y graph and make a mark...

view entire post

Yes I have that book and I know that box!

GR acknowledges the orthogonality of the fourth dimension, so there is no need for the i.

Consider taking the square root of 1. An i pops out, representing an orthogonality! If we were to plot this, it would be one unit up the y axis on a 2D x-y graph.

However, we can begin with a 2D x-y graph and make a mark...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

The above should read:

"Consider taking the square root of -1. An i pops out, representing an orthogonality!"

:)

report post as inappropriate

"Consider taking the square root of -1. An i pops out, representing an orthogonality!"

:)

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. McGucken,

In “A World Without Quanta” I mathematically derive Planck's Law without using energy quanta or statistics. This derivation shows that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement. I argue that this fact alone explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theory. Please review this significant result and comment if you could.

All the best,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

In “A World Without Quanta” I mathematically derive Planck's Law without using energy quanta or statistics. This derivation shows that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement. I argue that this fact alone explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theory. Please review this significant result and comment if you could.

All the best,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. McGucken,

I found your essay innovative and interesting.Your way of reconciling digital with analog is quite different from mine's. So please, go thro' my article and see how the reconciliation is done there.

Regards and good luck

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

I found your essay innovative and interesting.Your way of reconciling digital with analog is quite different from mine's. So please, go thro' my article and see how the reconciliation is done there.

Regards and good luck

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate