Search FQXi

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

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

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

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

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Dr. Elliot McGucken: on 3/3/17 at 20:21pm UTC, wrote Greetings Friends! Would love to send you free review copies of my new...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:13am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 9:35am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Hoang Hai: on 9/26/12 at 22:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken I like your "I'll be happy to answer any and all...

Gary Simpson: on 9/15/12 at 12:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Eliot, A pretty good read for the most part but a little heavy on the...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/14/12 at 17:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Elliot, What do you think about Scale dimension and SPF symmetry of...

Chris Kennedy: on 9/4/12 at 15:29pm UTC, wrote Elliot, Excellent work. It's obvious that when studying: time, space and...

Joe Fisher: on 8/28/12 at 13:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Doctor McGucken, Thank you for your cordial reply to my post. My...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "(continued) 2. Physics has assumed that bottom-up causation IS top-down..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "1. Physics can’t tell you why the world ever moves, i.e. physics assumes..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Max? Why?" in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Agnew: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..." in Undecidability,...

Dr Narayan Bhadra: "All the Honourable Scientists are cordially requested to feedback that we..." in Undecidability,...

Georgina Woodward: "The mass of the lion entity is not divided between different areas of high..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Jim Snowdon: "Since evolving on our rapidly rotating planet, we have used its rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "a general universal clock of evolution irreversible correlated for me with..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM
September 20, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: MDT’s dx4/dt=ic Triumphs Over the Wrong Physical Assumption That Time Is a Dimension by Elliot McGucken [refresh]

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:09 GMT
Essay Abstract

The wrong physical assumption that time is a dimension has inspired numerous non-physical, purely-speculative concepts over the past century including frozen time, block universes, and time machines allowing time travel into the past, while failing to account for empirically-observed, physical realities such as free will, change, time’s arrows and asymmetries, the second law of thermodynamics, nonlocality, entanglement, the equivalence of mass and energy, the maximum velocity of c, and the dynamic flow of time itself. Moving Dimension Theory’s correct interpretation of time advances physics by providing a physical model and mechanism for time’s arrows and asymmetries, relativity, nonlocality, and entanglement, while finally addressing Godel’s refutation of time and Eddington’s Challenge, and accounting for our low-entropy past and the vacuum’s dark energy. Time is not the fourth dimension x4, but rather, time, measured by the ticking seconds on a watch, is an entity that emerges because x4 is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions as described by x4=ict from Einstein’s 1912 Manuscript on Relativity , which we write as dx4/dt=ic so as to emphasize the universe’s fundamental flux. While time thus inherits properties of the fourth dimension x4, time is not x4. MDT fully agrees with the Standard Model while offering a profound new interpretation of time founded upon the physical reality of a fourth expanding dimension which resolves the EPR and Twins paradoxes, providing a physical model for QM’s nonlocality and entanglement alongside the foundations of relativity which Einstein yet sought. MDT is a great, simple unifier in the spirit of Einstein who stated, “A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended is its area of applicability.”

Author Bio

At Princeton Univeristy, 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.” 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.

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 23:13 GMT
Greetings! Great to be back and see a lot of old faces and many new ones! I'll be happy to answer any and all questions regarding Moving Dimensions Theory, which has come a long ways and which is ideally suited to the current topic. :) For a better understanding of MDT and more reading, please view my blog:

http://herosjourneymythology.wordpress.com/

and my assorted earlier FQXI...

view entire post

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
One of the most common questions I get is, "Hey Dr. E, how did you come up with MDT?"

Well, although it wasn't until years later that I came up with MDT's dx4/dt=ic, I owe it all to my junior year at Princeton University, working with J.A. Wheeler, and soon-to-be Nobel Laureate Joseph Taylor, while taking quantum mechanics from P.J.E. Peebles.

A little bit of the story regarding how...

view entire post

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 23:23 GMT
^^^

Hello! The above link to Dr. E's MDT blog should be http://herosjourneyphysics.wordpress.com !

(though the existing link will get you there too.)

" Hero's Journey Physics & Moving Dimensions Theory

The fourth dimension is expanding at c relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic "

Enjoy! :)

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 01:27 GMT
My Princeton mentor and friend J.A. Wheeler was fond of saying, "No question, no answer."

Well, a major factor as to why physics has advanced so very little over the past thirty years is that physicists have stopped asking and answering foundational questions.

view entire post

Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear Elliot,

Some of the misconceptions of time as a dimension are contained in the quotes above the abstract in your paper. Newton's statement on time was philosophical. There is nothing wrong with Huygen's Principle, as it needed an event duration to describe a wave. Newton and Huygen were unaware of the existence of electromagnetic fields.

Eddington was correct in questioning the basis of Minkowski's world, who used time as a dimension to define space. How the mathematical community allowed Minkowski to define the base dimensions of a triangle, Minkowski's Triangle, using different dimensional descriptors for each, is beyond my comprehension.

Einstein made a correct statement, there being an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light] velocity.

A mathematical proof for Einstein's statement is contained in the IEEE paper cited in topic 1294. The papers title, "A methodology to define physical constants mathematical constants". Please note the signal velocity was extracted without needing to specify any size.

The relationships in the geometric algorithm results in the velocity of electromagnetic (EM) waves having the same numeric value as a well known EM emission. However, when the geometric structure is angularly translated to match the "unit of time", an event duration, created for SI units, the numeric value for the velocity of EM waves became different from the numeric value for frequency. My essay topic 1294, "House of Cards Built One Meter at a Time", is about the erroneous assumption that the meter is a valid scientific base "unit of measure." The Earth second doesn't fare well either.

The event duration, time, is a function of the presence of EM energy, or signal as Einstein called it.

report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 19:38 GMT
Dear Frank,

Yes! There is nothing wrong with Huygens' Principle! Indeed, MDT underlies Huygens' Principle!

I wrote:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/McGucken_What_i
s_Ultimately_8.pdf

"Entropy, Huygens’ Principle; the wave/particle, energy/mass, space/time, and E/B dualities; and time and all its arrows and asymmetries emerge from a common, foundational physical model."

MDT--the expansion of the fourth dimension, defines Huygens' Principle!

Please do not worry about your confusion regarding this, as it also perplexed Karl Popper as quoted in my current essay above: "Karl Popper writes, "As to the arrow of time, it is in my opinion a mistake to make the second law of thermodynamics responsible for its direction. Even a non-thermodynamic process, such as a propagation of a wave from a entre is in fact irreversible. . . all causes spread from centres, reminiscent of Huygens’ principle." xxvi FIG. 1 illustrates how MDT’s dx4/dt=ic provide a physical mechanism for both the second law of thermodynamics and Huygens’ Principle, as well as numerous other physical phenomena."

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/McGucken
_MDT_final_final4.pdf

Best,

Dr. E :)

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 04:40 GMT
Dr. E.

I had not followed the FQXi essay contests before I prepared an entry for this particular contest. I did look at a few of the winning essays in the last two contests to see the type of content that produced a winning presentation. My essay identifies a long held assumption and provide an essentially unchallengeable mathematical proof that overturns the assumption. Many of the essays have very good presentation techniques, but I have to stick with the writing style I am comfortable with.

The material in your essay entry for "What is ultimately possible in Physics?", contains a great many truths, which those in the scientific authority structure really do not like to be constantly reminded.

I particularly like Feynman's Cargo Cult statement, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool."

Then there is your Max Planck quote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up with it.11 -Planck"

I was aware of that quote and thought about it when I wrote my essay (topic 1294) in regards to Linus Pauling's refusal to acknowledge to Daniel Schechtman that quasi-crystals exist, but I felt it would have been disrespectful, Pauling was correct more often than not.

I like how you used dx4/dt=ic 12 times in your current essay, that being a core of the Moving Dimensions Theory. I should have used that equation exposure technique in my essay, but I displayed the core mathematical value just once, it being the mathematically derived numeric value for the speed of light, without scaling
$2{\pi}{\sqrt2}$

The equation is highlighted several times in the IEEE paper, thus it didn't occur to me to do the same in my essay that referenced the paper.

report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT
Thanks Frank!

Please see the attached letter from J.A. Wheeler! :)

Yes! I emphasize the *physical* meaning of dx4/dt=ic as it underlies and unifies QM, relativity, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, and relativity with a simple, *physical* model, and over the past ten years or so, not one physicist has stepped forth to refute its far-ranging, *physical* meaning.

Yes! ...

view entire post

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 21:22 GMT
In January 2008 I called John Wheeler in the nursing home(NJ) and heard his voice. April 13 of the same year he died.I am probably the only participant of this competition, which last time heard the voice of the real Guru.

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 12:42 GMT
Dear Elliot McGucken,

We have defined dimensions from quantities but we have not defined ‘dimensionality’ that describes the emergence of dimensions and their interdependency. Thus time emerges with dimensionality. In my opinion, three generations of dimensionality may be expressional.

First generation of dimensionality includes only the three spatial dimensions, whereas in second generation ‘time’ has included for motion. In third generation ‘time’ emerges from, 1-D eigen-rotational string into 3-D tetrahedral brane; as ‘time’ emerges within a system. Each generation has different applicability.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate
Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Jayakar,

But "time" is not a dimension. x4 is a dimension, but x4 is not time! dx4/dt=ic !

Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

In his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einstein never...

view entire post

Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Doctor McGueken.

Due to my lack of education, I was unable to understand a great deal of your obviously well written erudite essay. It is foolhardy of me I know, however, I do have to contest the assertion that “all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends it.” As I have pointed out in my essay Sequence Consequence, human reality constantly and consistently only takes place here and now. I think one real Universe can only be occurring eternally once in one real dimension. Whereas one can pretend to have taken accurate measurements of phenomena located in three or four abstract dimensions, the one real dimension the real Universe operates in cannot be measured. Do you not find it peculiar that every animal, bird and fish, especially those fish living deep down in the ocean where there appears to be no visible light, all have two eyes located on the front of their heads?

report post as inappropriate
Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Joe,

You are free to contest the assertion that “all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends it,” but those are Einstein's words, inspired by the sentiments of Galileo and Copernicus. And Feynman et al. agree! When it comes to science and knowledge, I think I will side with Galileo, Copernicus, Feynman, and Einstein, not only for who they were and their great...

view entire post

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 13:57 GMT
Dear Doctor McGucken,

I am sorry for misspelling your name in my first post. The only realization I have about the science of physics is that it seems to only be a religion that uses numbers, and it has nothing to do with reality. One real Universe can only be eternally occurring once inside one real dimension. Because he appears not to have known what reality was, Einstein was unable to think properly. He postulated that there were three spatial dimensions and then used postulated numbers to try to define how an abstract Universe might operate. Abstract parts of an abstract Universe can abstractly be described as possibly expanding within the abstract confines of three abstract dimensions. One real dimension could never have a starting point for that would indicate a cessation of the prior non-dimensional condition. An abstract finite dimension could have an abstract starting point. But then that would mean that a second abstract finite dimension would have to have a different starting point than the first abstract dimension had in order to distinguish it from the first starting point. Ditto for a third abstract finite dimension that also has to have a different starting point than the other two abstract dimensions already have. We enter George Orwell land where the number of real dimensions does not depend on reality. It depends on what the State proclaims the number of abstract dimensions there might be.

report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT
Good morning Joe!

There is some truth to your words, if you are talking about the recent String Theory and its cousins: "The only realization I have about the science of physics is that it seems to only be a religion that uses numbers, and it has nothing to do with reality." Yes--there have never been any observed strings, nor are there any suggestions as to how to see them. And even more...

view entire post

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Dr. E. I read with great interest your essay and just wondered why you did not yet receive yet the Nobel Prize. Your dissertation on the retina should have given already an idea that what we perceive is the base of our reality, our interpretations of these signals create for everyone a different awareness.

The key word here in my humble opinion is CONSIOUSNESS. Every "dimension" perceived even the Moving Ones are perceptions created by our consciousness. I understand that you are stronly involved in your own awareness, which is a fine thing, and that in your opinion you may have found THE theory that explains every problem, which is even better, but maybe you can spend a few of your moving moments to read "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" which is not as erudite as your essay but also poses a problem and gives an interpretation to what we both experience as time in our causal universe.

I liked your site, but I am not convinced.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate
Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 16:57 GMT
Hello Wilhelmus!

Yes! The conscious, psychological/causal "arrow of time" is perhaps the most prevalent for we human beings, who must always beat traffic to "be on time!"

MDT's dx4/dt=ic accounts for all the arrows of time, as I show in my paper from four years ago, which you'll enjoy:

Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Dr. Elliot...

view entire post

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

The reason I have not yet received a Nobel Prize is because "Big-Money Non-Physics" has too much to lose by allowing real physics back into the arena.

The Matrix of thousands of string theorists/multiversers, and tens-of-thousands of publishers, critics, media companies, science writers, magazines, and institutions have far too much to lose by allowing...

view entire post

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 15:03 GMT
Dr E. This was really an answer with fundaments, it is almost a new essay.. Thanks for that. It seems that your idea of causal time is almost the same as mine, it is always the "almost" that makes the difference. I don't know if you read my "perception", it is just a thought derived by the latest data of physics (no strings allowed here), and the most important issue is that our consciousness is together with its "non causal" part in Total Simultaneity, the origin of what we are perceiving as "reality" but in fact is memory of the past. The future of our consciousness seems in our causal universe the cause of this past, here I could also think of your MDT, the awareness is running behind a consciousness that is already in the future, in this view it is not time that moves in the future but consciousness, could be the same as what I thought about with a consciousnesss part that is eternal (non-causal) in TS.

Just have to continue thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Chris Kennedy wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:29 GMT
Elliot,

Excellent work. It's obvious that when studying: time, space and the behavior of light - there are a lot of questions left to be answered. Your essay provides a good account of what other top physicists have been wrestling with for over the past 100 years. It also proposes a possible solotion to these problems with MDT.

Although I propose a different solution, it honestly doesn't matter to me who is right. If MDT turned out to be correct - I would be just as thrilled knowing we are getting closer to finally figuring out what has eluded us for decades.

Good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
Dear Elliot,

What do you think about Scale dimension and SPF symmetry of physical laws at different levels of matter?

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear Eliot,

A pretty good read for the most part but a little heavy on the self-kudos.

For whatever it's worth, I'm in general agreement with the idea that there is an expansion at c. I am even willing to speculate that light is stationary as you propose. It is possibly to use the concept of expansion at c to develop a version of the wave equation that includes Special Relativity.

If you are curious, go to viXra.org and look for "The Wave Equation and Spherical Time". Equation 14.2 and Appendix E might be of interest to you. "The Wave Equation and Rotation" might also be of interest to you. The i used in your work can also be simply the i of the vector set (i, j, k).

I submitted one of those papers to this contest but that submission does not include appendices. Also, the viXra.org text includes a little extra material.

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson,

Houston, Tx

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken

I like your "I'll be happy to answer any and all questions regarding Moving Dimensions Theory" and essay of you.

What do you think about a final theory?

Have is it? It will be like?

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:35 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:13 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participants rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 20:21 GMT
Greetings Friends!

Would love to send you free review copies of my new books on Light Time Dimension Theory (LTD Theory):

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06X93RKSY/ref=ser
ie

s_rw_dp_sw

Email me at astrophysicsmath@gmail.com and I will send you a free review copy. Thanks & best!

Dr. Elliot McGucken

Would love to do a podcast for FQXI on how...

view entire post