Search FQXi


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.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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.
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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

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/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:07am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 9:13am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Hoang Hai: on 9/28/12 at 2:25am UTC, wrote Dear Jerome Cantor Very interesting!wish you success. Kind Regards ! ...

Jerome Cantor: on 9/18/12 at 19:06pm UTC, wrote Thank you for your interest in my work. The model that I describe is based...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/18/12 at 5:36am UTC, wrote Dear Jerome, This is an interesting idea. A couple of questions/remarks. ...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/14/12 at 12:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Jerome, In accordance with the theory of Infinite Hierarchical...

Jerome Cantor: on 9/2/12 at 23:12pm UTC, wrote I don't see the relationship between wave functions and motion to which you...

Anton Vrba: on 9/2/12 at 21:35pm UTC, wrote Hi  Prof.  Jerome I read your essay with interest; I too spent much time...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 21, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: What Makes Matter Move? by Jerome Cantor [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jerome Cantor wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 17:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

The fundamental nature of motion remains a central issue in physics, as evidenced by the theoretical dichotomy between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Resolution of this discrepancy may require new approaches to understanding of the mechanics of motion. To this end, we propose a new model of motion that incorporates the properties of a random resistor network. The self-similar nature of such networks is particularly useful in extrapolating force interactions to different levels of scale. By modeling time as a fluid and space as a lattice composed of conducting bonds at the level of the Planck length, a simple equation for mass, time, and motion is derived that provides a novel mechanism for the displacement of matter.

Author Bio

Jerome Cantor is a professor at St John's University and co-founder of CoTherix, a biotech company recently acquired by Actelion Pharmaceuticals.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



ABRAHAM wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 02:21 GMT
Prof. Cantor,

A good essay on the source of quantum source of the force of Motion, you are right to base QM on an electromagnetic footing as it can easily explain its properties and provide a foundation for the more detailed analysis of all physical phenomena.

But I would like to take the idea you present here just a little bit further through the use of Equilateral EM energy quanta...

view entire post


attachments: Figure_03.04__Charged_mass_geometry_800x600.jpg, 1_Figure_61.03__Time_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jerome Cantor replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 08:28 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay and taking the time to formulate a thoughtful response.

Jerry Cantor

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:15 GMT
Dear Professor Cantor.

I enjoyed reading your essay. With the exception of your concept of 'time flow' and probabilistic resistance at the scale of the 'pores' I like your ideas of using the analogy of electricity coursing through as your electrophoretic motion. Similar ideas have been sadly neglected in the past - Fresnel's 'matter permeable to ether' and Hertz' electric ether have never been fully developed, no thanks to Einstein's banishing the ether by his constant speed of light.

Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves fqxi essay also about motion. Do read it and my detailed comments and attached illustrations there on his page.

With all best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 14:49 GMT
Jerome

What a wonderful novel view. I couldn't help wondering if it was tongue-in-cheek when it came to the colinder universe with time seeping out of the pores, then I compared it to current physics and realised how eminently sensible your is! Is that because everything is relative? Full also marks for originality and free thinking.

My essay is also about time and motion, if more mechanistic - but falsifiable. I hope you'll read it. I can relate to your incompressible time if from a different angle; the 'elasticity' we observe in Doppler shifts is only 'apparent' as wavelengths vary when entering a new medium co-moving with the old over a non compressible time span. The wave-function is then conserved on transformation. (formulae in end notes).

Mine is free thinking in a different way and kinetically, and I hope also fun. please do read and comment.

Many thanks and best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


THOMAS GARCIA wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 23:14 GMT
From: Thomas Garcia,"On The Nature of Time"

Dear Professor Cantor,

I was pleased to read your essay about motion and time because my contest entry is about the time and motion relationship, based on Special Relativity’s solution to the “time dilation” paradox. I invite you to read it and if possible, give me your comments on it, pro or con.

As a layperson, I was unable...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jerome Cantor replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 00:15 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay. My main argument is that time is a fluid, and, as such, can flow at varying rates, dependent on matter and velocity, as summed up in the following equation:

MT - MT' = Mv

This is the key equation of my thesis, because it relates time, matter, and velocity. It is consistent with relativity theory, in that timeflow and velocity are interchangeable. Furthermore, the above equation implies the equivalence of acceleration and gravity, because momentum in both the inertial and gravitational frames is dependent on the same process - change in the potential of matter. Thus, my model is consistent with both SR and GR in terms of the effects of motion on time. However, my model posits that time, rather than space, is curved.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 10:58 GMT
Dear Jerome Cantor,

In string dynamics, the environmental force acting on a matter of tetrahedral-brane in a locality is causal for its internal dynamics. Thus in a Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter model of universe, the frame of reference for dynamics also includes three dimensional volume of tetrahedral-brane that has an inherent clock in it, in that, time dilation is expressional only within the brane itself. In this scenario, as gravity is the tensor product of an eigen-rotational string, this reference frame also specifies gravitational reference for a collective gravitational effect. Thus universe has an inherent dynamics by the collective actions of its constituents; in that any equilibrium state of the universe is not expressional as this model describes a segmental universe with homeomorphism.

Disjunction and conjunction of strings that is expressional along the motion of macroscopic objects needs to be included in the Tribology, in that, number of such actions is proportional to friction.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 15:29 GMT
Jerome:

Physics focus on "motion" without considering "growth" bothers me. Light has motion. Growth of mass requires time. Cojoined as sphere and tetrahedral activities seems to imply coupled actions.

Perhaps you may consider point of my essay (vote high!, thanks) developed in End notes:

(1) Light "energy" seeks surface area of mass that mediates charge motions while

(2) Gravity is a content of mass phenomena that seeks time to exist by growth.

To Seek Unknown Shores

   http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

And onward, ever onward,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jerome Cantor replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
One tenet of my thesis is that time can flow at varying rates. Initially, without mass to impede flow, fluid flux could be many orders of magnitude higher, so mass accumulation could be virtually instantaneous, consistent with rapid expansion of the universe. I am not sure if this addresses your concerns.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 21:14 GMT
Dear Jerome

If you keep on drilling deeper and deeper into the root cause of motion or any change from status quo, the ultimate answer you will converge on would be “SPONTANEITY” or degree of freedom (free will) in the universe. Nothing inanimate can move until an animated or conscious entity moves it. A car will sit stationary until a conscious driver drives it at its own free will.

Based on arguments and results presented in my paper - -“ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”, it is shown that the observed universe behavior can be predicted on the basis of spontaneous motion without any external cause.

My paper provides a new fundamental understanding of the Cosmological Constant and relativistic universe expansion based on spontaneous motion. The current paradoxes and inconsistencies are shown to be artifacts of the missing (hidden) physics of the well-known phenomenon of spontaneous decay. A new Gravity Nullification Model for Universe Expansion (GNMUE) is proposed that integrates the missing physics of the spontaneous mass-energy conversion into a simplified form of general relativity. The model predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies and other data. The model provides answers to key fundamental questions and resolves paradoxes among general relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. It also bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories via revealing relativistic understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics. The impact of the new understanding on widely-accepted fundamental assumptions is discussed and a new wholesome perspective on reality is provided.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John A. Macken wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
Jerome,

I have also examined the concept that everything in the universe (all particles, fields and forces) are made of the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. My model of spacetime is very different from yours, therefore the concepts diverge rather quickly. My spacetime model is a union of the quantum mechanical model of spacetime on the micro scale and general relativity model on the macro scale. The reason for writing is that this has been developed to the point that it not only yields a spacetime based model of particles and forces but there are also predictions. One of these predictions (the subject of my essay) takes a step towards the unification of forces. This model predicts a previously unknown mathematical relationship between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force between two electrically charged particles. For a fundamental set of conditions, the equations for the gravitational force only differ from the electrostatic force by a square term.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


THOMAS GARCIA wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 11:23 GMT
From Thomas Garcia 08/30/12

Jerome Cantor replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT: "One tenet of my thesis is that time can flow at varying rates. Initially, without mass to impede flow, fluid flux could be many orders of magnitude higher, so mass accumulation could be virtually instantaneous, consistent with rapid expansion of the universe. I am not sure if this addresses your concerns."

Previously, you answered a question I had by saying your paper adheres to the principles of relativity, but your response above seems to conflict with SR's inferred premise that time is a property of matter. Thus, "...without mass to impede flow...." time cannot pass, initially or at any time thereafter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jerome Cantor replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 15:33 GMT
Time is slowed by the presence of matter, an extreme example being a black hole, where time ceases to flow. However, matter is not an essential component of time. If it were, then time would not flow in a vacuum. In SR, changes in the movement of time are dependent on velocity. In GR, where gravity and inertial motion are made equivalent, mass can affect the movement of time, but only in so far as mass exerts gravitational force. In neither SR nor GR is time an inherent property of matter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 17:37 GMT
From: Thomas Garcia

Sir, I really aprreciate your responses to my queries, as they help me to better understand your meaning. You contend that time is slowed in the presence of matter, and that time does not exist in a Black Hole. Yet SR clearly indicates that time slows for an object when it increases its speed, but time for that same object passes faster when the object's speed drops. Its time rate cannot depend on just being near matter because that does not explain what causes time to speed up.

I cannot agree time does not pass in a BH, either, because if time is a property of matter, there is plenty of that within al BHs.

You state also that matter is not an essential part of time, because time flows in a vacuum. I do not agree time flows in vacuum, and as a property of matter, it is time which is an essential part of matter. Time accrues only to observable objects inversly proportional to each object's speed.

Again, I disagree changes in time rates depend on velocity. Time rates depend on the speed of individual objects, but not on their direction of travel. Please read my essay where I contend objects moving at the same speed however far apart they may be, will have the same time rate.

In GR, it is not mass that affects time rates directly; gravitation affects an object's speed, and that in turn affects that object's time rate.

I agree neither SR or GR state that time is a property of matter. I wonder why not, as it is a rather obvious conclusion which I drew from the so-called Twin Paradox thought experiment.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:06 GMT
Jerome,

I agree the issue of time is not effectively addressed in current theory, but I think there is a very simple explanation. By treating time as a measure from one event to the next in the series, it only serves to re-enforce the sequence as foundational, rather than the dynamic cause of the sequence. The reality is what is present, not the events, which are ephemeral, so it is not the present which moves from past to future, but the changing configuration of what exists, that turns future possibility into current circumstance and then residual past. For example, the earth doesn't travel some narrative fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

This makes time an effect of action, rate of change. Just as temperature is an effect of action, level of activity. Time dilation is due to the fact that different contexts have different effects on the levels of activity, resulting in different rates of change. Specifically, gravity and velocity will slow the atomic activity of mass, because the combined internal quantum activity and external action cannot exceed C, so a clock in such a frame will run slower. A clock in a faster frame doesn't travel into the future faster, in fact, it actually moves into the past faster, because it ages more quickly.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 21:35 GMT
Hi  Prof.  Jerome

I read your essay with interest; I too spent much time thinking what is motion and especially what is momentum.

My conclusion were somewhat different. Once  I realised that there is only one mathematical equation that describes motion, and that is the wave equation, I realised that everything breaks down to waves and Maxwell's equations.

Can you describe your idea in terms of Maxwell and wave equations?

Regards

Anton @  (  /topic/1458  )

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jerome Cantor replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 23:12 GMT
I don't see the relationship between wave functions and motion to which you refer. Please explain.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 12:13 GMT
Dear Jerome,

In accordance with the theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter which is a subject of my essay, the meaning of the Planck length was found. It is close to radius of particles (praons) which relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. It is supposed that in neutron as much praons as neutrons in the neutron star. So it is wonderful to hear about a lattice with the size of Planck length.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear Jerome,

This is an interesting idea. A couple of questions/remarks.

1. What is the relationship between time and causality in your model?

2. On a related note, I wonder if you have read about Sorkin's causal sets program; I believe he uses a version of percolation in his "sequential growth dynamics." However, your ideas seem significantly different than his; in particular, you have an additional time dimension.

3. I wonder if you might also get an explanation for the observed value of the cosmological constant out of this approach.

4. Have you thought about applying the theory of random graph dynamics to your model? In particular, you might have "phase transitions" in your "random resistor network" at critical values of the probability p, and this could have important physical consequences.

Thanks for the interesting read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jerome Cantor wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 19:06 GMT
Thank you for your interest in my work. The model that I describe is based on fluid dynamics, which is mathematically identical to a random resistor network. Causality results from the a very simple mechanism, i.e. flow and resistance to flow (in the form of matter). The interaction of matter and timeflow results in a mass potential, and variance in that potential induces changes in momentum (i.e. causality). I am not sure how Sorkin's model can be adapted to mine, but the two share the concept of infinite scalability and a lower limit related to the Planck length, where spacetime becomes discontinuous. At some critical p-value in my model, a phase transition results in the formation of matter, which may be explosive akin to the "Big Bang." Such a phenomenon is discussed in the literature in relation to the use of percolation theory to explain disease epidemics, population dynamics, etc. With regard to the cosmological constant, the expansion of the universe in my model is a consequence of timeflow differentials between different geographical points in the universe. As timeflow slows with the accumulation of matter (decrease in p-value), there is an associated increase in velocity between these points, which has an expansionary effect.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 02:25 GMT
Dear Jerome Cantor

Very interesting!wish you success.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:13 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:07 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
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.