Hello Hrvoje,

Thanks for the great paper which I very much enjoyed reading. I basically agree with your conclusion, where you write:

"The physical measure of time, represented by a numerical parameter t and referred to as pime, is not the same thing as time itself. While time is a subjectively experienced flow, pime, as a numerical parameter, does not have a flow. Instead, pime...

view entire post

Hello Hrvoje,

Thanks for the great paper which I very much enjoyed reading. I basically agree with your conclusion, where you write:

"The physical measure of time, represented by a numerical parameter t and referred to as pime, is not the same thing as time itself. While time is a subjectively experienced flow, pime, as a numerical parameter, does not have a flow. Instead, pime simply is, just like space, which corresponds to the block-pime picture of the universe. The origin of time is not well understood in physical terms, but the separation of the intuitive concept of time from the physical concept of pime avoids discrepancies between intuition and formal knowledge in physics."

But you also say that free will is "only an illusion."

My paper, which I think you will enjoy, shows that both your "pime" and time both naturally emerge from a simple postulate: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions that is represented by a simple equation dx4/dt=ic. This simple postulate unfreezes time and grants us free will while also accounting for entropy, time's arrows, action-at-a-distance, entanglement, and quantum mechanics' nonlocality and inherent probability. The paper, which presents a novel physical model underlying various phenomena in QM, SR, GR, and Stat Mech, can be seen here: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238 (Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Elliot McGucken )

In your paper, you write, "However, the situation in relativistic physics is entirely different. There, time enters equations in a manner completely identical to that of space (up to an opposite sign in the metric tensor)."

Well, then time doesn't really enter equations "in a manner completely identical to that of space."

If one looks at Einstein's 1912 paper, one can see that he did not equate time and the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4 = ict. So one would have to conclude that as t progressed, x4 must progress. And, naturally,

dx4/dt = ic

Now some might say that this is a tautological definition of time, but then so are most definitions of time, which rely on the propagation of energy or light, whose velocity is measured relative to time, which fundamentally rests upon the propagation of energy. So it is that I propose dx4/dt = ic as a more fundamental invariance than c, the constant velocity of light. The velocity of light is both measured to be constant for all inertial observers, and it is independent of the velocity of the source, *because* dx4/dt = ic. All of relativity is derived from this simple postulate that a fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, as is the invariance of c.

An added benefit of this theory is a *physical* model for QM's nonlocality and entanglement, entropy, and Huygens' principle which underlies so many natural phenonema. And too it liberates us from the block universe and grants us the free will that quantum mechanics' has always suggested.

Both your "pime" and your "time" in your paper may be accounted for with this theory. The block universe is an artifact of certain interpretations of relativity, as physicists glossed over the fact that x4 or "ict" is very different from the three spatial dimensions, x1, x2, x3. But Einstein and Minkowski had it right there in Einstein's 1912 manuscript: x4 = ict. Ergo, if time moves, so must x4. My paper discusses this in far more detail.

Yes--this block time paradox/problem was swept under the rug on many levels, as well as the EPR paradox, and it is great that fqxi allows a forum to discuss such curious phenomena of our physical reality. MDT provides a physical model liberating us from Godel's block universe while also accounting for the "spooky" action at a distance in the EPR Paradox.

You would enjoy: A World Without Time, by Palle Yourgrau

"For Godel, if there is time travel, there isn't time. The goal of the great logician was not to make room in physics for one's favorite episode of Star Trek, but rather to demonstrate that if one follows the logic of relativity further even than its father was willing to venture, the results will not just illuminate but eliminate the

reality of time." -A World Without Time, Palle Yourgrau

MDT posits that time travel into the past is not possible, as the past does not physically exist--an observation in line with all empirical observations. MDT chooses Godel, Einstein, and Minkowski over Star Trek.

Well, thanks again for the paper!

view post as summary

Hello Hrvoje--thanks for the response,

c is the velocity of light, which is constant in all frames.

x4 is the fourth dimension in Einstein's and Minkowski's spacetime (x1, x2, x3, x4).

i is the imaginary number.

And t is time.

You write "it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."

dx4/dt =...

view entire post

Hello Hrvoje--thanks for the response,

c is the velocity of light, which is constant in all frames.

x4 is the fourth dimension in Einstein's and Minkowski's spacetime (x1, x2, x3, x4).

i is the imaginary number.

And t is time.

You write "it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."

dx4/dt = ic is the source of relativistic covariance, as well as relativistic mechanics, entanglement, entropy, and time's arrows in all realms. All of relativity, and thus its implicit covariance, is derived from dx4/dt = ic in my paper, which also postulates that time and quantum mechanics' nonlocality are fathered by a fourth expanding dimension:

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

One of the novel features of Moving Dimensions Theory is that it postulates that the fourth dimension is moving, or expanding, independent of the three spatial dimensions.

The Lorentz Tranformation, relativistic covariance, and all of relativity, can be derived from a simple postulate and its equation: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic.

In his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einsetein supposes a four dimensional universe (x1, x2, x3, x4), and then, at one point, he states x4 = ict. He doesn't quite provide a deeper motivation for this, other than the fact that it works! MDT provides a deeper, more fundamental motivation. Einstein's 1912 treatment of relativity is based upon Minkowski's 4D model for spacetime (which he originally saw as unnecessary/unwieldy mathematics), and Moving Dimensions Theory agrees entirely with Einstein's relativity, the Lorentz Transformation, Minkowski's treatment, and relativistic covariance. All that MDT notes is that if one writes x4 = ict, then as t progresses, so must x4 progress. MDT presents a new invariance, from which the two postualtes of relativity emerge--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimenions: dx4/dt = ic.

From this one gets all of relativity, as well as a *physical* model for quantum mechanics' nonlocality and its probabilistic nature, as a fourth expanding dimension distributes locality. And too, MDT provides a *physical* model for entropy, time's arrows and assymetries, and time itself, while liberating us from a block universe, unfreezing time, and granting us free will. We lose the prospect of time travel into the distant past, but this is no big deal, as backwards time travel does not appear to be a part of our reality, nor of sensible philosophies, but only a part of Star Trek, which will still be fun to watch.

dx4/dt=ic acknowledges that change and movement are fundamentally woven into the fabric of spacetime. The fourth dimension is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions--it is expanding at the rate of c. This sets the invariance of c for all inertial observers while also making the velocity of light independent of the source, and explaining the nonlocal, wave-like character of light observed in the double-slit experiment, as well as entangled photons in the EPR Paradox, for photons are ageless as they remain in the same place in the fourth expanding dimension, which distributes locality in its expansion. A photon's agelesseness is a nonlocality in time, which arises because of the nonlocal expansion of the fourth dimension.

I quote from Einstein's 1912 manuscript in my paper:

"If we compare this with the considerations leading to the general Lorentz transformation, then we see that the transformation equations holding between x, y, z, u =

ict and x’, y’, z’, u’ = ict’ of two justified space-time reference systems satisfy the same conditions and are constructed in the same way as in the just considered three dimensional case. The only difference is that we now have four coordinates instead of three. We can formulate this in the following way: All of the “justified” time-space reference systems to which the four-dimensional manifold of events is referred are orthogonal coordinate systems to which the four-dimensional manifold of events is

referred are orthogonal coordinate systems with four axes that can be transformed into each other by mere rotation. One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u is

always purely imaginary. (Bold italics added)"

I then go on to state, "Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and ict are very different entities. Einstein states, “One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u (which Einstein sometimes writes as x4) is always purely imaginary.” It is imaginary because the expansion of the fourth dimension is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions in every direction, just as the radii of an expanding sphere are perpendicular to its surface at every point."

When we contemplate the propagation of a photon, which is fundamentally represented by a spherically-symmetric wavefront expanding at the rate of c, we are contemplating the fourth expanding dimension, as an ageless, timeless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension. The only way to remain stationary in the fourth dimension is to travel at the rate of c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions. This is perhaps the simplest proof of MDT, and it is supported by clues from all realms of physics, including quantum mechanics (nonlocality, entanglement, qm's probabilistic nature), relativity (all of relativity is derived from MDT in my paper), and statistical mechanics (MDT provides a *physical* model for entropy).

I hope this helps answer your question!

You state, "it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."

The Lorentz Transformation and all of relativity emerge from my equation dx4/dt = ic. On page 6 of my paper I write, "Let us derive the Lorentz Transformations and Einstein’s relativity, including time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of mass and energy from our simple postulate that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions and its representative equation: dx4/dt = ic"

MDT is a type of physical theory that we have not seen for a while. It has a simple postulate, an equation, and it predicts relativity, while also offering a model that states something fundamentally new about our universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. And as physics ought, the theory presents a *physical* model underlying diverse fields and thus offering a unification via a logical postulate and mathematical equation. All the dualities--space/time, mass/energy, and wave/particle--are shown to arise from a common principle, along with time's arrows, entropy, entanglement, and relativity.

Moving Dimensions Theory—-which regards time as an emergent phenomenon—-respects the wisdom of Einstein’s words regarding the higher purpose of physical theories: “Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial.”

"Logical simplicity." "Naturalness." "Empirical facts." MDT strongly salutes all of these.

MDT's postulate "the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions," suggests a new physical reality in a manner analagous to Coperinicus, Bruno, and Galileo stating, "the earth moves around the sun." Even though motivated by Einstein's "Logical simplicity," "Naturalness," and "Empirical facts," Bruno was burned at the stake and Galileo was placed under house arrest, after being forced to recant and refute his statements that the earth moves around the sun before the "officials" of the Inquisition. But legend has it that as he walked away from the officials, he stated, "But yet it moves." "E pur si muove!"

Thank goodness we live in more civil times! One could almost imagine being forced to stand before a tenure committee today and read a sworn statement, "The fourth dimension does not move," which would be tantamount to stating "we do not have free will, we live in a block universe, and we should not have a physical model that unites entanglement, entropy, QM's probabilistic nature, relativity, and times arrows and assymetries, while unifying all the dualities, and we should continue to ignore Godel's and Einstein's problems with relativity's treatement of time and quantum mechanics' nonlocality, represented in Godel's universe and the EPR paradox, rather than resoling them with a simple equation. We must continue arguing with and refuting the photon."

But I imagine, as the professor walked away from the contemporary tenure committe, after reading the refutation, they might say, "and yet it--the fourth dimension--moves."

Thanks again for your comment, and I hope that I have answered your question!

Best & talk soon,

Dr. E

view post as summary

Thanks Hrvoje,

I thought I did answer your question which you summarized with, "In other words, it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."

MDT presents a physical reality that underlies quantum mechanics and relativity and thus relativity's covariance. That is how to interpret it.

Einstein's Relativity is...

view entire post

Thanks Hrvoje,

I thought I did answer your question which you summarized with, "In other words, it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."

MDT presents a physical reality that underlies quantum mechanics and relativity and thus relativity's covariance. That is how to interpret it.

Einstein's Relativity is derived from Moving Dimensiosn Theory's simple postulate and equation in my paper: dx4/dt = ic --the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. The theory also unfreezes time, grants us free will, liberates us from the block universe, while providing a *physical* model for entropy, nonlocality, quantum mechanics' probalistic nature and entanglement, time's assymetries and arrows in all realms, and the impossibilty of time travel into the distant past. Not bad for one equation! And as it liberates us from a block universe and grants us free will, we ought use this newfound freedom to celebrate! The first round is on me. :)

x4 is an actual coordinate. x4 is moving! The actual coordinate x4 is moving, whihc gives rise to relativity and the Lorentz Transformatyion.

"How can coordinates move?" Some physicists ask, to which I reply, "Remember Einstein's General Relativity--it was built upon coordinates which bend, warp, and move! So MDT is not entirely new! Just a little bit new! Just enough new to liberate us from block time and provide a common physical framework for diverse phenomena in entropy, quantum mechanics, and relativity. All that MDT does is postulate that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimenions: dx4/dt = ic."

Now you ask a new question, "How t transforms under Lorentz transformations?"

Moving Dimensions Theory agrees with Einstein's 1912 manuscript. I would highly recommend it!

So the question to you is, "How does t in Einstein's 1912 Manuscript transform under Lorentz transformations?"

a) As a scalar

b) As a componeent of a vector

c) Neither a) nor b)

d) You don't know

I'm somewhat puzzled by the purpose of your quiz, but time "transforms" under Lorentz Transformations as it transforms under Lorentz Transformations.

You can read more here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/vec4
.html

(good treatment of Lorentz Tranformation of Four-vectors)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transforma
tion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_scalar

http://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four
-vector

The section you will want to particulary look at in Einstein's 1912 Manusrcipt on Relativity is "The Lorentz Transfromation as a Rotational Transformation in Four Dimensional Space." It can be found on Manuscript page 43 and 44, which I also quote from in my paper.

Basically, The Lorentz Transformation and Einstein's Relativity are derived from an underlying principle in my paper--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c: dx4/dt = ic.

Thanks for the responce,

Best,

Dr. E

view post as summary

Thanks for the response Hrvoje,

How does "modern terminology" differ from "terminology of 1912?" I believe that Minkowski's spacetime is still Minkowski's spacetime, Einstein's relativity is yet Einstein's relativity, and the Lorentz Transformation yet transforms as Lorentz supposed it should. Even Newton's Calculus, from the 1600's, yet works.

Please take a look...

view entire post

Thanks for the response Hrvoje,

How does "modern terminology" differ from "terminology of 1912?" I believe that Minkowski's spacetime is still Minkowski's spacetime, Einstein's relativity is yet Einstein's relativity, and the Lorentz Transformation yet transforms as Lorentz supposed it should. Even Newton's Calculus, from the 1600's, yet works.

Please take a look at:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/energy/special.p
hp

"Each page of the 1912 Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity reveals an exacting mind at work. Mathematical equations have been altered, words have been crossed out and entire paragraphs have been rewritten.

When Einstein was asked to write these chapters, he decided to do more than simply summarize relativity. Instead, he derived from first principles the basic tenets of his influential theory about light, time and energy. In the process, he refined his ideas even further. For example, he adopted a novel four-dimensional mathematical system in this manuscript to explain portions of Special Relativity. Physicists refer to this four-dimensional system as "space-time"—the union of three-dimensional space with the fourth dimension of time." --from http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/energy/special.php

I
s this not then a paper worth reading? I highly recommend Einstein's 1912 paper, along with original papers on quantum mechanics found in Wheeler's QUANTUM THEORY & MEASUREMENT. This could be the start of a renaissance--a rebirth of the classical, heroic spirit that has ever fostered advancement in physics.

"If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control." --Martin Luther King Jr.

Is not the Lorentz Transformation in Einstein's 1912 paper the very same Lorentz Transformation of today? I believe it is. If you believe otherwise, please do share with us how today's Lorentz Transformation differs from 1912's Lorentz Transformation. In addition to Einstein not comprehending relativity, did Lorentz also not grasp the Lorentz Tranformation?

Perhaps you could elaborate on how postmodern physicists "understand relativity much better than Einstein did."

But if you have not read the 1912 Manuscript, how can you be sure that postmodern physicists "understand relativity much better than Einstein did?" Maybe they are just telling you this for book deals and tenure--alas--we all must make a living in this rough and tumble world.

The suggestion that postmodern physicists "understand relativity much better than Einstein did" comes as a bit of a surprise to me.

For instance, what specifically do postmodern physicists understand better than Einstein did about relativity?

I was unaware that anything had been refuted in Einstein's 1912 paper. I'm pretty sure that Einstein's Relativity has been shown to be true in experimental test, after test, after test. Is there some test where it has failed?

Is there some erroneous use of "terminology" in his 1912 Manuscript that leads us down a wrong road? How has "modern terminology" shown us the right way?

Furthermore, I am fairly certain that Einstein's 1912 treatment is the fundamental foundation of modern relativity. Are you saying there are cracks in it? Is there another manuscript or text that is better or more fundamental to special relativity than Einstein's 1912 Manuscript?

Einstein published his first papers on relativity in 1905--his "Annus Mirabilis." His 1912 Manuscript is an improvement upon even those early papers.

I understand that Einstein was not perfect and that even he made mistakes--you would enjoy this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings
-Genius/dp/0393062937

But yet, he is the singular Founding Father of relativity in its general form. Even his mistakes were so often right--that is the amazing thing about the above book.

When I first encountered a formal treatement of relativity in PJ Peebles' E&M class at Princeton my freshman year, I do not recall Professor Peebles stating that we now understand relativity "much better than Einstein." Instead, we spent the first few classes going over Einstein's notation--the very terminology developed by Einstein. Are you saying that Einstein's terminology no longer applies? Should we notify Professor Peebles and the Princteon Physics department? Whose terminology and relativity should they be teaching?

Then, when I encountered General Relativity in Misner/Thorne/Wheeler's GRAVITATION, again, I saw Einstein's terminology; and again, I saw Minkowski's spacetime! Are you saying that this book no longer applies either? I never recall Wheeler stating that he understood relativity better than Einstein. He was a very, very humble man; and very kind to give me the time of day, with that eternal twinkle in his eye, which shines on, even though he has departed this world. I do remember Wheeler clenching his fist one day and looking out the window of his Jadwin Hall office, and stating that "today's world lacks the noble," and then turning and smiling and saying, "and it's your generation's job to bring it back." I was just a twenty-year-old junior, nodding silently and anxiously in agreement, and those words have stayed with me and meant more and more over the years, as they seem to explain so much about postmodern life--our disregard for the classical eternities, and our arrogance that has lead to the current financial crisis, the breakdown of the family, and the resounding lack of progress in physics, other than the progress that has been made by deconstructing the classics, which tends to work better in realms that do not require empirical evidence.

I also remember standing in PJ Peebles' office that year, when I had him for quantum mechanics, and asking him, "when a photon is emitted from a light bulb, do we really not know where it's headed? Is it really just a probabilistic wave expanding at the rate of c?" "Yes," he said. And that stuck with me, because this is what quantum mechanics telles us. And relativity tells us that the ageless photon stays in the exact same place in the fourth expanding dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. dx4/dt = ic. It was many years later that I wrote that equation down, but somehow I sensed it that year, walking between Peebles' and Wheelers' offices.

Legend has it that Einstein eventually came up with relativity because he so often contemplated what it would be like to catch up with light--a pursuit which began in his childhood. I often wonder, had Einstein known that light actually propagates as a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront at the rate of c--had he actually known quantum mechanics--would he have seen that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt=ic?

Well Hrvoje, I am somewhat puzzled at this point regarding what your aim is. I am not sure we can make "further progress" if you insist that Einstein's terminology no longer applies to relativity, as it is the very terminology that I believe defines relativity.

Please provide specific examples supporting your contentions and elaborating on how

1) postmodern "physicists understand relativity much better than Einstein did," in his 1912 Manuscript (other than Star Trek, time travel, hyperspace, and wormholes and other entities that have never been seen beyond the silver screen)

and

2) how "modern terminology" differs from "1912 terminology"

I then may be able to answer your questions, once I comprehend the context you are oeprating in.

Thanks again for your time and responses!

One of byproducts of Moving Dimensions Theory has been another hypothesis--by losing touch with the foundational papers, physicists have lost touch with the foundational questions, and without those questions, all is for naught. Too many exist in a postmodern realm detached from reality, where all one must do is subscribe to the "idea" that we understand physics far better than its actual founders--it's very giants--and that loop quantum gravity and string theory are thus naturally superior to Einstein's relativity, which "Einstein did not understand." Such a system tends to favor the political over the philosophical, as we are told that mathematical eternities--such as those in Einstein's beautiful 1912 Manuscript on Relativity--are no longer true. And as funding and politics blossom, physics grinds to a halt, detached from its very fount--Truth and the rugged individual who holds Truth higher than even their own career, as did Einstein. He wrote his 1905 papers, which revolutionized physics, not as a professor, but as a patent clerk. Even Newton stated that he stood upon the shoulders of giants to see further, but today it seems too many try to stand there to cut their heads off. And the price paid is a great one, for ultimately one cannot deconstruct nor politicize Truth, and, as Galileo said after redacting his theory that the earth moves before teh Inquisition, "and yet, it moves."

A great essay to read is Feynman's Cargo Cult Science:

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision. "--R.P. Feynman, http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

Best,

Dr. E

view post as summary

Thanks Hrvoje,

I am fully aware that General Relativity was not yet discovered in 1912.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity states, "General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916."

Einstein's 1912 Manuscript concerns itself with Special Relativity.

On manuscript page 46...

view entire post

Thanks Hrvoje,

I am fully aware that General Relativity was not yet discovered in 1912.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity states, "General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916."

Einstein's 1912 Manuscript concerns itself with Special Relativity.

On manuscript page 46 Einstein introduces four vectors and on page 47 he introduces tensors. He then uses "Einstein's Tensor Notation" all the way through page 70. This is twenty-four pages of Einstein's tensor notation--more than 1/3 of Einstein's 1912 Manuscript.

Earlier you wrote, "I insist on this question, because I want to discuss your paper in modern terminology, not in terminology of 1912."

How does "modern terminology" differ from "terminology of 1912?" I believe that Minkowski's spacetime is still Minkowski's spacetime, Einstein's relativity is yet Einstein's relativity, tensors are yet tensors, four vectors are yet four vectors, and the Lorentz Transformation yet transforms as Lorentz supposed it should. Even Newton's Calculus, from the 1600's, yet works.

So please do tell me how does "modern terminology" differ from "terminology of 1912?"

I feel you are trying to argue against my paper and Moving Dimensions Theory by trying to put down a paper penned by Einstein. I imagine Einstein would be forgiving, as you have not read his 1912 Manuscript and are apparently not familiar with it.

Einstein's tensor notation was *inspired* by Minkowski's spacetime. On page 46 of his manscipt, write before he introduces four vectors and his tensor notation, he writes, "Minkowski has the very fruitful idea of reshaping the equations of the theory of relativity, which include, with his choice of the time coordinate, four equivalent coordinates that are wholly analogous to the coordinates x,y,z of spatial geomtry, in a manner very similar to the way this is done by the vector calculus with respect to three-dimensional space. He accomplishes that (following the example of vector analysis) by conceptionally uniting a number of quantities (or differntial operations) whose transofrmation properties are of a certain type. In what follows, we shall consider the most important of these auxillary concepts that greatly simplify the system of the theory of relativity." --Albert Einstein, page 46, 1912 Manuscript on Relativity

So you see Einstein's words: "In what follows, we shall consider the most important of these auxillary concepts that greatly simplify the system of the theory of relativity." So it is that Einstein's tensor notation does not change the meaning of relativity, but simplifies it.

And a again, we see a clue for Moving Dimensions Theory in Einstein's words!

"Minkowski has the very fruitful idea of reshaping the equations of the theory of relativity, which include, with his choice of the time coordinate, four equivalent coordinates that are wholly analogous to the coordinates x,y,z of spatial geomtry, in a manner very similar to the way this is done by the vector calculus with respect to three-dimensional space."

Not the words "four equivalent coordinates that are wholly analogous" and "with his choice of the time coordinate."

Well, we do get four equivalent coordinates x1, x2, x3, x4. But there is something different about x4, ofr it alone is related to time, with x4 = ict. Now, and forever, x4 is inextricably linked to time. This means that as the seconds tick away on your watch, x4 must move!

Ergo, the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Not only is all of relativity derived from this simple postulate and equation, but a *physical* model is presented which accounts for quantum entanglement, nonlocality, entropy, and all of time's arrows and assymetries, as well as the invariance of the velocity of light. The deeper invariance is dx4/dt = ic -- the fundamental source of all motion and change in the universe. Finally we have been liberated from the block universe, and yet we get to keep relativity. Finally time has been unfrozen and motion has been granted to all objects that move through space-time at c, which includes ever single object! And with this newfound free-will, we can travel on back to Einstein's 1912 Manuscript--back to that heroic age of physics, and with simple logic and reason, see something new, bold, and profound. We can present a novel postulate and a new equation that describe a hitherto formally unacknowledged aspect of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, fathering time and its assymetries and arrows, relativity, quantum mechnics, entropy, the universe's expansion, and Moving Dimensions Theory.

Another interesting paper would be Are New Ideas Important in Postmodern Physics? Is it proper and fashionable for postmodern physicists to read foundational papers and think about them? I would say it ought be mandatory! For Newton himself said that he has only seen further because he stood upon the shoulders of giants.

And Newton was ranked as the greatest all-time physicist, for what it's worth: "http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2927"

"Sir Isaac Newton has come first in the PhysicsWeb survey to find out which scientists have made the most important contributions to physics. Not only does Newton's work on mechanics and gravitation form the basis of much of classical physics, but Newton also made major contributions to the studies of optics, light and heat. Second place goes to Albert Einstein, who developed the theories of special and general relativity and discovered the photoelectric effect. He is followed by James Clerk Maxwell, who unified electricity and magnetism within a single theoretical framework - electromagnetism. The man who paved the way for Newton's laws of gravitation and helped develop the telescope, Galileo, is fourth. And in fifth place is Paul Dirac, one of the founders of quantum mechanics." --from http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2927

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." --Isaac Newton

Surely we ought heed Newton's advice!

Best,

Dr. E

view post as summary

Hello Mr. Nikolić,

i'm slowly working my way through the papers here.

i enjoyed reading yours. i appreciate that you kept it not too technical. communications is getting to be an issue. people in science spend all their lives studying what they need to know just to get to talk about something specific, there winds up only two or three others in the whole world to chat with about...

view entire post

Hello Mr. Nikolić,

i'm slowly working my way through the papers here.

i enjoyed reading yours. i appreciate that you kept it not too technical. communications is getting to be an issue. people in science spend all their lives studying what they need to know just to get to talk about something specific, there winds up only two or three others in the whole world to chat with about it. not good. especially considering how much info there is out there these days. getting complicated. which brings me to...

two names for time may indeed be a useful pedagogic tool.

but i'm concerned about the potential for complicating things more rather than simplifying/clarifying the situation.

re:

"But is a measure of time the same thing as time itself?"

no, it isn't. think about the characteristic properties of what gets measured and what is used to measure it. would you use a clock to measure a desk? no, of course not. what are you measuring? and what is it about a clock? do you set the clock down next to what you're measuring and mark off it's width? no. what is it about a clock that provides a unit of measurement (this was more obvious before digital clocks came along)? i don't know how we'd go about measuring time itself. as you said, in physics, it just is.

you might enjoy reading some of the observations on the origins of the notion of time in 'some thoughts on time' elsewhere here.

yes. consciousness. needs study. i'm noting this to be a recurring theme in the papers here.

maybe wisdom would be good too, but that doesn't appear to fall within the purview of physics. ;-)

i seem to have a very different picture of consciousness than you apparently envision it.

i have it being both effected by and effecting the external 'reality'. what enabled you to move your body to type the words, 'unmatter cannot influence matter' while identifying consciousness as unmatter?

this is an issue for physics.

in order to study consciousness, however, physics will in some way have to objectify 'unmatter'.

that's going to be tricky.

Pitkänen's paper here gets into it a little, but it's not easy to follow. i'm not terribly up on string theory, and he's got this blend with quantum stuff...

looks like a couple of others here get into consciousness specifically also, but i've not gotten to them yet.

i seem to have consciousness (not to be confused with conscious awareness) as being remarkably aware of a tremendous amount of information, that one of it's most important functions is actually to filter out most of the material as personally irrelevant, presenting a 'news brief' on the fly to conscious awareness of that which is of greater personal interest. part of you is aware of the color of the chair you sit on, the whir of the cooling fan on the computer, maybe the tick of a clock, and other stuff that's near by you at this moment and if you stopped to think about it you could probably name a lot of items and characteristics of your immediate environment without even looking, but your conscious awareness doesn't need to know all that right now. so it gets filtered out of the data being presented. that's a small example. i seem to have consciousness at it's heart a vast sea, quite possibly extending to the ends of time/space (that's not actually as far as it might seem, takes a shortcut through i). just that we don't need to know that much. there are also some advantages on occasion to 'pretending' to be dumb. surprises can on occasion be fun (that first meeting with a special someone) and would you really want to consciously know how you're going to die? somewhere within us, i have reason to believe we all do know such things.

i don't know if i'd say that free will is an illusion, but it certainly has it's limits. in any instance, while we may have multiple options for actions, we are invariably limited to actualizing only one action in any given instance (i don't see how i can both sit down at the computer here and walk out the front door at the same time), whatever that choice may be, which makes each moment unique. it looks like determinism because of this uniqueness of a moment, but seems to be something of a blend of intersecting influences, including our own 'free will'. a 'negotiation' of sorts. significantly enters into crossing busy streets and such.

:-)

matt kolasinski

view post as summary