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

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

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

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

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

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

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

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

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Jan Sammer**: *on* 3/7/15 at 10:19am UTC, wrote Douglas, to most readers this might seem like a trivial point, but to me,...

**Doug**: *on* 2/21/09 at 13:14pm UTC, wrote Hi Steven, Just as Newton established a program of research into the...

**StevenO**: *on* 2/20/09 at 23:29pm UTC, wrote Hi Doug, I think Bruce's theory moved already beyond the point of only...

**Doug**: *on* 2/19/09 at 16:59pm UTC, wrote Hi Steven, Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I've been tied up doing...

**StevenO**: *on* 2/13/09 at 0:29am UTC, wrote Hi Doug, Does'nt Bruce Perett already give some explanation of atomic...

**Doug**: *on* 2/10/09 at 18:29pm UTC, wrote Hi Steven, Primarily, the standard model is phenomenological. The three...

**StevenO**: *on* 2/9/09 at 22:34pm UTC, wrote Hi Doug, Thanks for your clarifications. Since I have very little...

**Doug**: *on* 2/6/09 at 16:51pm UTC, wrote Steven, In my last post above, I forgot to address your last question,...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Samuel Parsons**: "Thanks! That sounds like what I really need help with ! I love this kind of..."
*in* Outside the Box

** Bella Rahman**: "EAS does various ISO Lead Auditor Training Programs with real time trainers..."
*in* Outside the Box

**Zeeya Merali**: "Viviana Fafone is a member of the VIRGO collaboration that detects..."
*in* Micro and macro-physics...

**Zeeya Merali**: "Antonino Cataldo describes the how to synthesize bio-nanotechnologies to..."
*in* Bionanotechnologies and...

**Zeeya Merali**: "What is the scientific approach? Matteo Martini talks about the..."
*in* The 21st Century News...

**Zeeya Merali**: "in this introductory lecture, Frederick Van Der Veken discusses physics at..."
*in* Big Machines, High...

**Zeeya Merali**: "FQXi's Catalina Curceanu discusses how particle physics experiments at the..."
*in* Strangeness in Neutron...

**Zeeya Merali**: "Leader of the NEXT group, Stefano Bellucci, discusses applications of..."
*in* Nanomaterials for...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Building Agency in the Biology Lab**

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

**Think Quantum to Build Better AI**

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

**Outside the Box**

A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

**The Quantum Agent**

Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

FQXi FORUM

June 7, 2020

CATEGORY:
The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008)
[back]

TOPIC: A Mystic Dream of Four by Douglas Bundy [refresh]

TOPIC: A Mystic Dream of Four by Douglas Bundy [refresh]

The only observed relationship of time to space is a reciprocal relation, in the equation of motion. However, it seems absurd to think of space, defined as a set of points satisfying the postulates of geometry, as the inverse of time. Only when we view the observed increase of time, as the 0D inverse of the observed increase of 3D space, does it begin to make sense: The expanding universe is an expanding set of four-dimensional spacetime coordinates, just as Einstein conceived it, but this also may be its initial condition. The expanding block universe of spacetime, generated by a four-dimensional space^3/time^0 progression, is the simplest hypothesis we can make. If we make this assumption, then the remaining task is to understand how to introduce radiation, matter and energy, with their observed properties and behavior, into the 4D spacetime picture. This essay outlines the approach of one attempt to do just that, in less than 5000 words.

Douglas Bundy is the founder and Director of the Dewey B. Larson Memorial Research Center, near Salt Lake City, Utah. The late Mr. Larson was a classmate of Linus Pauling, at what is now Oregon State University, but he considered himself an "uncommitted investigator," investigating the structure of the physical universe. Mr. Bundy is also an "uncommitted investigator," following in the tradition of Larson, whose work he found irresistible in its compelling logic, fastidious thought and incisive prose.

The most common observation in comments I’ve received so far is that my essay is hard to understand, but I’m afraid that this is the common lot of all serious attempts to explain the nature of time. For me, the concept of time is not easy to grasp, unless we reduce it to a progression of numbers. Like the ticking of a clock, the constant, incessant, march of time is nothing more than a...

view entire post

view entire post

Douglas, to most readers this might seem like a trivial point, but to me, as someone who knew Larson and worked with him, it is far from trivial. Can you explain why you consistently spell Larson’s last name with a small "l"? Breaking the rules of grammar so egregiously must have some overriding purpose. Can you tell us what it is?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Since I've shared a preliminary version of my essay with some who wanted more exposition and less abstraction, the typical reaction has been "This is better than the one you submitted, why didn't you submit it instead?"

The answer is that it's hard to know what to cut out. The essay requirements for an accessible, but rigorous, treatment are difficult to fulfill, within the allotted size and space specs.

In the preliminary version (version 5!), I was within the 10-page limit, but a little over the 5,000-word limit. Three versions later, the final version was within both limits, but by then I had taken out so much background material that it made it harder for uninitiated readers to follow the logic of the paper.

Consequently, I've been persuaded to make the preliminary version more widely available, so here is the link:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/storage/documents/Mystic%20Dr

eam%20Prelim.pdf

Let me know what you think. Did I blow it?

The answer is that it's hard to know what to cut out. The essay requirements for an accessible, but rigorous, treatment are difficult to fulfill, within the allotted size and space specs.

In the preliminary version (version 5!), I was within the 10-page limit, but a little over the 5,000-word limit. Three versions later, the final version was within both limits, but by then I had taken out so much background material that it made it harder for uninitiated readers to follow the logic of the paper.

Consequently, I've been persuaded to make the preliminary version more widely available, so here is the link:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/storage/documents/Mystic%20Dr

eam%20Prelim.pdf

Let me know what you think. Did I blow it?

Doug,

I agree with Jen. Well done indeed. However, I have some questions on the preliminary essay you posted above. I see that its title is different. It's called "The Trouble with Spacetime: The Rise of the Planck Length, The End of a System of Theory, and What Comes Next.” Why did you change it, and what the heck is “a system of theory?”

BTW, you used the same term on page 1 of “A Mystic Dream of Four:”

“One of these new approaches reformulates the four-dimensional spacetime of general relativity theory (GR), into the four-dimensional space/time of a new system of theory, called the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST), which leads to the development of a new quantum theory of motion, based on 3D vibrations, the vibrations of 3D balls, rather than the vibrations of 1D strings.”

I never heard of a system of theory before. Please explain.

I agree with Jen. Well done indeed. However, I have some questions on the preliminary essay you posted above. I see that its title is different. It's called "The Trouble with Spacetime: The Rise of the Planck Length, The End of a System of Theory, and What Comes Next.” Why did you change it, and what the heck is “a system of theory?”

BTW, you used the same term on page 1 of “A Mystic Dream of Four:”

“One of these new approaches reformulates the four-dimensional spacetime of general relativity theory (GR), into the four-dimensional space/time of a new system of theory, called the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST), which leads to the development of a new quantum theory of motion, based on 3D vibrations, the vibrations of 3D balls, rather than the vibrations of 1D strings.”

I never heard of a system of theory before. Please explain.

Thanks Jen and Larry,

I appreciate the kudos. Obviously the title of the earlier version of the essay is a play on the words of the title to Lee Smolin’s book, where he refers to “The End of a Science.” This he attributes to many in the string theory community, who are want to follow the lead of Steven Weinberg in embracing the “anthropic principle.” Since string theory research...

view entire post

I appreciate the kudos. Obviously the title of the earlier version of the essay is a play on the words of the title to Lee Smolin’s book, where he refers to “The End of a Science.” This he attributes to many in the string theory community, who are want to follow the lead of Steven Weinberg in embracing the “anthropic principle.” Since string theory research...

view entire post

Ahhh.....the votes make sense now.....

[long link]

"Accordingly, I've now entered the contest by submitting a paper entitled "A Mystic Dream of Four," which can be read on the FQXI site:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/267

I hope there will be other papers submitted from the RS community. I would like to be able to cast my vote for one.

Doug

--

"Although there's a long ways to go yet in the FQXI contest, I'm happy to report that, so far, out of about thirty papers, "A Mystic Dream of Four," is currently in the number two spot in restricted voting, and in the number five spot in the public voting.

This will no doubt change before the end of the contest, and the essay could end up near the bottom, when all is said and done, but for right now, at least, it's great to see an RST-based paper obtaining such a prominent position in this world-wide showcase.

At the moment, the only essay ahead of it in the restricted voting (the vote that counts for cash awards) is "Forget time," by Carlo Rovelli, a famous physicist that has published many papers, including papers with Lee Smolin and Abhay Ashtekar, such as:

Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Spin Networks and Quantum Gravity 1995-11-15

Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity 1995-05-29

Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin The physical hamiltonian in nonperturbative quantum gravity 1994-01-24

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Weaving a classical geometry with quantum threads 1992-07-13

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Gravitons and Loops 1991-09-15

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Self Duality and Quantization 1991-06-01

and many more. These three guys are the most prominent physicists at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, up North in Robin's part of the world, and Carlo's colleague, Smolin, is a member of FQXI's Scientific Advisory Board.

Interesting to think some of these guys might at least read the paper. In the meantime, because so many said that, while they voted for my paper, they didn't understand it, I posted an earlier version of it in the discussion forum that is less abstract and more expository:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/storage/documents/Mysti

c%20Dream%20Prelim.pdf

Some readers of this earlier version of the paper have wondered why I didn't submit it instead of the later version, and maybe I should have, who knows.

Regards,

Doug

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

[long link]

"Accordingly, I've now entered the contest by submitting a paper entitled "A Mystic Dream of Four," which can be read on the FQXI site:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/267

I hope there will be other papers submitted from the RS community. I would like to be able to cast my vote for one.

Doug

--

"Although there's a long ways to go yet in the FQXI contest, I'm happy to report that, so far, out of about thirty papers, "A Mystic Dream of Four," is currently in the number two spot in restricted voting, and in the number five spot in the public voting.

This will no doubt change before the end of the contest, and the essay could end up near the bottom, when all is said and done, but for right now, at least, it's great to see an RST-based paper obtaining such a prominent position in this world-wide showcase.

At the moment, the only essay ahead of it in the restricted voting (the vote that counts for cash awards) is "Forget time," by Carlo Rovelli, a famous physicist that has published many papers, including papers with Lee Smolin and Abhay Ashtekar, such as:

Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Spin Networks and Quantum Gravity 1995-11-15

Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity 1995-05-29

Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin The physical hamiltonian in nonperturbative quantum gravity 1994-01-24

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Weaving a classical geometry with quantum threads 1992-07-13

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Gravitons and Loops 1991-09-15

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin Self Duality and Quantization 1991-06-01

and many more. These three guys are the most prominent physicists at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, up North in Robin's part of the world, and Carlo's colleague, Smolin, is a member of FQXI's Scientific Advisory Board.

Interesting to think some of these guys might at least read the paper. In the meantime, because so many said that, while they voted for my paper, they didn't understand it, I posted an earlier version of it in the discussion forum that is less abstract and more expository:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/storage/documents/Mysti

c%20Dream%20Prelim.pdf

Some readers of this earlier version of the paper have wondered why I didn't submit it instead of the later version, and maybe I should have, who knows.

Regards,

Doug

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Hi Andreas,

If your conclusion is that the merits of the essay are reduced by my attempt to encourage members of ISUS with a report of the success it has enjoyed to this point, I think you are quite mistaken in this respect.

If you are insinuating that the votes it’s received are because of that encouragement, you are really mislead. Not only were most of the public votes that...

view entire post

If your conclusion is that the merits of the essay are reduced by my attempt to encourage members of ISUS with a report of the success it has enjoyed to this point, I think you are quite mistaken in this respect.

If you are insinuating that the votes it’s received are because of that encouragement, you are really mislead. Not only were most of the public votes that...

view entire post

The interesting conversation is going on in Carlo’s forum. The point of his essay is “that dynamics can be expressed as correlations between variables, and does not NEED a time to be specified,” while it’s the flow of time (Hamilton’s “order in progression”) that is emergent. Evidently, some commentators have construed this to mean that he intends to replace dynamics with the...

view entire post

view entire post

I can tell that you are an intelligent, committed and driven person and this makes me feel like a bastard for writing arguments against you:

1)

In your essay you write, “…recognition that all forces are properties of motion.” I suppose you could say force is a property of motion but that property is the rate of change in motion. This has been summarized by Newton in his second law as F = m * dV/dt.

2)

From what I am able to mathematically extract from the Jargon of your idea and that of RS theory (http://rstheory.org/) is the pivotal argument is centered around the kinematical equation X(t) = V*t. Your reciprocity argument hinges on this equation being rewritten as X(t) / t = V and t / X(t) = 1 / V. I should point out that all three of these equation are identical but you use X(t) / t and t / X(t) as if they represented distinct physical properties.

3)

Your derived values of discrete space and time as:

tn = 1.5198 x 10-16 seconds

sn = 4.5563 x 10-6 cm

are experimentally falsified. The shortest measured interval of time, that I am currently aware of, is the attosecond, 10^-18 s. Your space interval is in the nanometer range while atoms are in the angstrom range,

10^-10 M. Your large space interval would outright prohibit the existence of subatomic particles.

I think a study of the twin paradox and its resolution might persuade you against a classical theory based solely on motion. Although I disagree with your arguments I would still like to encourage you to keep an interest in physics.

1)

In your essay you write, “…recognition that all forces are properties of motion.” I suppose you could say force is a property of motion but that property is the rate of change in motion. This has been summarized by Newton in his second law as F = m * dV/dt.

2)

From what I am able to mathematically extract from the Jargon of your idea and that of RS theory (http://rstheory.org/) is the pivotal argument is centered around the kinematical equation X(t) = V*t. Your reciprocity argument hinges on this equation being rewritten as X(t) / t = V and t / X(t) = 1 / V. I should point out that all three of these equation are identical but you use X(t) / t and t / X(t) as if they represented distinct physical properties.

3)

Your derived values of discrete space and time as:

tn = 1.5198 x 10-16 seconds

sn = 4.5563 x 10-6 cm

are experimentally falsified. The shortest measured interval of time, that I am currently aware of, is the attosecond, 10^-18 s. Your space interval is in the nanometer range while atoms are in the angstrom range,

10^-10 M. Your large space interval would outright prohibit the existence of subatomic particles.

I think a study of the twin paradox and its resolution might persuade you against a classical theory based solely on motion. Although I disagree with your arguments I would still like to encourage you to keep an interest in physics.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your comments and your concern. I know it must sound awfully naïve to claim that force is a property of motion, at this late stage of physical science, when for centuries the prevailing attitude of the physics community has regarded force as an autonomous entity, but please bear with me, while I try to explain.

First, the fact is that, as you correctly point...

view entire post

Thanks for your comments and your concern. I know it must sound awfully naïve to claim that force is a property of motion, at this late stage of physical science, when for centuries the prevailing attitude of the physics community has regarded force as an autonomous entity, but please bear with me, while I try to explain.

First, the fact is that, as you correctly point...

view entire post

Doug,

I thought I should expand on my view a little;

"First, the “motion” of temperature is scalar, just as John states. Like the prices of the stock market, temperature “moves” “up” or “down” relative to a given point. Its relative increase, or decrease, can be described as motion, but the motion is scalar; that is, it has no direction in space. Likewise, time is...

view entire post

I thought I should expand on my view a little;

"First, the “motion” of temperature is scalar, just as John states. Like the prices of the stock market, temperature “moves” “up” or “down” relative to a given point. Its relative increase, or decrease, can be described as motion, but the motion is scalar; that is, it has no direction in space. Likewise, time is...

view entire post

Larson has several other claims for instance his book Beyond Space and Time which describes the biological realm, and the unexplored third sector, referred to as the Metaphysical, or Ethical sector.

FQXI has a handful of members that include important theorists: Alan Guth, Dieter Zeh, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin, John Barrow and Brian Greene. Additionally high profile Nobel laureates, Frank Wilczek and Steven Weinberg are members. Some of these theorists may be remembered in the same regard as a Newton or Einstein. If your essay were to win a juried prize that would make you a member of FQXI giving Larson, and his more exotic ideas, powerful street credit. Your prose and compassion for your idea may warrant a community prize but I have focused on your mathematics because an expert jury would not be fooled.

I plan on submitting an essay that I have put a lot of work into and someone may punch it full of holes, but all is not lost. In the process of bringing it to fruition I learned a great deal more about the universe and being wrong can be the most humbling and character building of experiences.

This will be my last post so I would like to give you some parting advice. Your sole focus on Larson is creating group think and destroying your creativity. Also put down the physics books written for a general audience and study the textbooks. If you stay with RS theory without ever mastering the fundamentals of physics you stay frustrated. Your prose is there now we just need to get you up to speed on mathematical proofs!

FQXI has a handful of members that include important theorists: Alan Guth, Dieter Zeh, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin, John Barrow and Brian Greene. Additionally high profile Nobel laureates, Frank Wilczek and Steven Weinberg are members. Some of these theorists may be remembered in the same regard as a Newton or Einstein. If your essay were to win a juried prize that would make you a member of FQXI giving Larson, and his more exotic ideas, powerful street credit. Your prose and compassion for your idea may warrant a community prize but I have focused on your mathematics because an expert jury would not be fooled.

I plan on submitting an essay that I have put a lot of work into and someone may punch it full of holes, but all is not lost. In the process of bringing it to fruition I learned a great deal more about the universe and being wrong can be the most humbling and character building of experiences.

This will be my last post so I would like to give you some parting advice. Your sole focus on Larson is creating group think and destroying your creativity. Also put down the physics books written for a general audience and study the textbooks. If you stay with RS theory without ever mastering the fundamentals of physics you stay frustrated. Your prose is there now we just need to get you up to speed on mathematical proofs!

Hi John,

Thanks for expanding on your ideas. In my case, however, I’m forced by the postulates of the RST to follow their logical consequences. The first postulate is:

The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.

The first challenge is to understand what...

view entire post

Thanks for expanding on your ideas. In my case, however, I’m forced by the postulates of the RST to follow their logical consequences. The first postulate is:

The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.

The first challenge is to understand what...

view entire post

Brian wrote:

"Your prose is there now we just need to get you up to speed on mathematical proofs!"

Sounds good to me Brian!

"Your prose is there now we just need to get you up to speed on mathematical proofs!"

Sounds good to me Brian!

Doug,

To a certain extent we arrive at somewhat similar conclusions from vastly different foundations, in that I've come to doubt the central premise of an expanding universe.

I certainly didn't set out to disagree with the cosmological standard model when I first tried to make sense of it, but one particular observation has led me to where I am now. It is that, "Omega=1."

...

view entire post

To a certain extent we arrive at somewhat similar conclusions from vastly different foundations, in that I've come to doubt the central premise of an expanding universe.

I certainly didn't set out to disagree with the cosmological standard model when I first tried to make sense of it, but one particular observation has led me to where I am now. It is that, "Omega=1."

...

view entire post

John,

I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand professional physicists are continuously deluged by the half-baked ideas of the public, and they understandably become inured to this kind of thing. Yet, my hope is similar to Lee Smolin’s, which is that one of us non-professionals could help find the mountain in the landscape of possibilities that the professionals would then...

view entire post

I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand professional physicists are continuously deluged by the half-baked ideas of the public, and they understandably become inured to this kind of thing. Yet, my hope is similar to Lee Smolin’s, which is that one of us non-professionals could help find the mountain in the landscape of possibilities that the professionals would then...

view entire post

Doug,

I admire you your determination. In my own effort to make, what seems to me, a few very obvious points, some of which I've gone over here, it is like wandering through Alice's wonderland. I try making what seem simple observations, like events going from being in the future to being in the past constitutes an opposing direction of time and you would think something so basic would be well covered and any first year physics student could point out how its already been incorporated, but it's like I've happened upon some tribal sect and their mysterious rituals. If they are not trying to explain some version of block time and everything exists in some meta-dimension, than they will try denying it outright, or say,"it's not in the equations...." For crying out loud, tomorrow becoming yesterday is not in the equations!!!!!

So I admit I really haven't fully grasped all of what's involved with QM and generally have a basic understanding of relativity, but I really do get the impression they really are smoking something. Even their own theories and tests show the expansion of space is balanced by the contraction of gravity, yet pointing out this cancels out an expanding universe just doesn't register. I thought when the Hubble telescope went up, it would find evidence of processes older then could be explained within the timeframe of Big Bang theory and there were galaxy formations at the edge of the visible universe which were lager then could be explained, light spectrums showing mature later generation stars out on the edge, even stars in our own galaxy that were just about as old as the entire universe, yet they hardly blinked. I guess if you can swallow inflation theory, the rest is easy.

Not to mention asking how space expands from a point, when the speed of light remains relatively stable. They just don't have responses.

So you can see that now they are talking multiple universes to explain this one, many worlds growing out of every quantum fluctuation, etc., I'm just not surprised anymore and I know I'm not getting any straight answers either. If you think humanity has outgrown mass delusion, just look at the world's biggest credit bubble build on the notion that wealth is created by loaning money and expecting interest to be paid, when the only way to get the additional interest into the system is to loan more money. We have come a long, long way in the last hundred years, but I get the impression the people at the top are just today's witch doctors.

I admire you your determination. In my own effort to make, what seems to me, a few very obvious points, some of which I've gone over here, it is like wandering through Alice's wonderland. I try making what seem simple observations, like events going from being in the future to being in the past constitutes an opposing direction of time and you would think something so basic would be well covered and any first year physics student could point out how its already been incorporated, but it's like I've happened upon some tribal sect and their mysterious rituals. If they are not trying to explain some version of block time and everything exists in some meta-dimension, than they will try denying it outright, or say,"it's not in the equations...." For crying out loud, tomorrow becoming yesterday is not in the equations!!!!!

So I admit I really haven't fully grasped all of what's involved with QM and generally have a basic understanding of relativity, but I really do get the impression they really are smoking something. Even their own theories and tests show the expansion of space is balanced by the contraction of gravity, yet pointing out this cancels out an expanding universe just doesn't register. I thought when the Hubble telescope went up, it would find evidence of processes older then could be explained within the timeframe of Big Bang theory and there were galaxy formations at the edge of the visible universe which were lager then could be explained, light spectrums showing mature later generation stars out on the edge, even stars in our own galaxy that were just about as old as the entire universe, yet they hardly blinked. I guess if you can swallow inflation theory, the rest is easy.

Not to mention asking how space expands from a point, when the speed of light remains relatively stable. They just don't have responses.

So you can see that now they are talking multiple universes to explain this one, many worlds growing out of every quantum fluctuation, etc., I'm just not surprised anymore and I know I'm not getting any straight answers either. If you think humanity has outgrown mass delusion, just look at the world's biggest credit bubble build on the notion that wealth is created by loaning money and expecting interest to be paid, when the only way to get the additional interest into the system is to loan more money. We have come a long, long way in the last hundred years, but I get the impression the people at the top are just today's witch doctors.

John,

I agree that it’s easy to get cynical sometimes, but I also realized a long time ago that people do what they have to do and think what they have to think. You can’t blame them for that, since we all do it.

Building an alternative, if it can be done, is the only course that will work. In my case, I found that there was no need to focus on trying to convince other people,...

view entire post

I agree that it’s easy to get cynical sometimes, but I also realized a long time ago that people do what they have to do and think what they have to think. You can’t blame them for that, since we all do it.

Building an alternative, if it can be done, is the only course that will work. In my case, I found that there was no need to focus on trying to convince other people,...

view entire post

Doug,

I don't see myself as cynical. Knowledge, just like everything else, is evolutionarily bottom up. Occasionally it plateau's, either because it doesn't have the wherewithal to continue and needs to marshall the facts to do so, or because the facts have abandoned it and it hasn't the initiative to reset, assuming the facts will eventually support it. There is no real way to know which the case is, until history has fully judged the situation. This can take a long time sometimes. Ptolomy's epicycles wouldn't have lasted for 1500 years if western civilization hadn't gone into hibernation between the fall of Rome and the end of the Dark Ages. Currently we have a large and well funded academic establishment which views the foundation on which it rests as solid, since it has produced many stunning technological advances, so that the supporting society isn't going to question its current state too closely, but sometimes strengths obscure weaknesses. I may sound frustrated in the last post, but I'd be perfectly happy to find where and which points I'm making are wrong. It's not like events go from being in the future to being in the past falls in the category of 'not even wrong." Tomorrow becomes yesterday is a fact, not a theory. "Not even wrong" just means not coherent enough to make a clear statement, whether right, or wrong. I think a large part of the problem is the academic necessity of publishing, or perishing, so those who find themselves in the business have to say something, even if they are winging it.

As for the point you are making, it seems to be of the issue whether reality is fundamentally dynamic, or fundamentally static. Are what we consider 'nouns' just transient nodes in the network of activity and there are simply opposing energies, or is activity simply the consequence of some underlaying essence. Physics is determined to find this essence, be it a TOE, god particle or whatever. My argument is this either/or question is moot. It is essentially a dichotomy, like my point about energy and information. You can't have one without the other, as information defines the energy which manifests this information. So when you pursue one or the other, it just gets tangled up. If you view it from the perspective of the dynamic, as QM mostly does, the information breaks down and blurs into fuzziness. While if you view it from the static geometry of Relativity, the dynamic is lost and you end up with things like 'block time.'

Regards, John

I don't see myself as cynical. Knowledge, just like everything else, is evolutionarily bottom up. Occasionally it plateau's, either because it doesn't have the wherewithal to continue and needs to marshall the facts to do so, or because the facts have abandoned it and it hasn't the initiative to reset, assuming the facts will eventually support it. There is no real way to know which the case is, until history has fully judged the situation. This can take a long time sometimes. Ptolomy's epicycles wouldn't have lasted for 1500 years if western civilization hadn't gone into hibernation between the fall of Rome and the end of the Dark Ages. Currently we have a large and well funded academic establishment which views the foundation on which it rests as solid, since it has produced many stunning technological advances, so that the supporting society isn't going to question its current state too closely, but sometimes strengths obscure weaknesses. I may sound frustrated in the last post, but I'd be perfectly happy to find where and which points I'm making are wrong. It's not like events go from being in the future to being in the past falls in the category of 'not even wrong." Tomorrow becomes yesterday is a fact, not a theory. "Not even wrong" just means not coherent enough to make a clear statement, whether right, or wrong. I think a large part of the problem is the academic necessity of publishing, or perishing, so those who find themselves in the business have to say something, even if they are winging it.

As for the point you are making, it seems to be of the issue whether reality is fundamentally dynamic, or fundamentally static. Are what we consider 'nouns' just transient nodes in the network of activity and there are simply opposing energies, or is activity simply the consequence of some underlaying essence. Physics is determined to find this essence, be it a TOE, god particle or whatever. My argument is this either/or question is moot. It is essentially a dichotomy, like my point about energy and information. You can't have one without the other, as information defines the energy which manifests this information. So when you pursue one or the other, it just gets tangled up. If you view it from the perspective of the dynamic, as QM mostly does, the information breaks down and blurs into fuzziness. While if you view it from the static geometry of Relativity, the dynamic is lost and you end up with things like 'block time.'

Regards, John

Dear Doug and John,the comment poster,

May i introduce some lightness in your intimate , intensive discussions through the following points:-

1. The Universe was created or it has always existed! if Bigbang is right it has been created. If so, what existed before. If it is perfect vacuum or the non-physical 'consciousness', then how it gave rise to the Universe that we apparently observe now?

2. Let us always remember that we humans are a negligible part of this entire Universe, full of its mysteries. Cosmology and Astrophysics have only provided limited measurements and that too with more limited accuracy.

3. Our mind is the only source that may provide access to the non-physical entity called 'consciousness'. Have we done something to train and control our mind! Normal life that we live, indicates that it usually runs wildly. In my own essay, i have hinted at the techniques of meditation and Yoga, through my personal experience, to be relevant in such a matter.

4. Nothingness, thoughtlessneses and silence appear to contain all the chaos, randomness and various dualities that we note in the Universe and not the other way around!

5. Besides the western philosophers, there exist a number of eastern philosophers both in ancient and modern times, who have gone into the 'inner depths' and have provided some postulates that may be worth the consideration in order to understand " The nature of Time " and how to about seeking reality. I have quoted two verses from Patanjali, the founder of Yoga techniques some 4000 yrs. back. These are profound as the first quote goes well beyond what Quantum Mechanics gave us now in the form of the observer/observed relationship!

Let us all have fun with seriousness that the topic deserves, as i myself am enjoying the essays contributed and am posting my comments on many of them, no offance or criticism implied. Love is truly our unifying nature as humans and we shall win if we constantly remember it in practice.

May i introduce some lightness in your intimate , intensive discussions through the following points:-

1. The Universe was created or it has always existed! if Bigbang is right it has been created. If so, what existed before. If it is perfect vacuum or the non-physical 'consciousness', then how it gave rise to the Universe that we apparently observe now?

2. Let us always remember that we humans are a negligible part of this entire Universe, full of its mysteries. Cosmology and Astrophysics have only provided limited measurements and that too with more limited accuracy.

3. Our mind is the only source that may provide access to the non-physical entity called 'consciousness'. Have we done something to train and control our mind! Normal life that we live, indicates that it usually runs wildly. In my own essay, i have hinted at the techniques of meditation and Yoga, through my personal experience, to be relevant in such a matter.

4. Nothingness, thoughtlessneses and silence appear to contain all the chaos, randomness and various dualities that we note in the Universe and not the other way around!

5. Besides the western philosophers, there exist a number of eastern philosophers both in ancient and modern times, who have gone into the 'inner depths' and have provided some postulates that may be worth the consideration in order to understand " The nature of Time " and how to about seeking reality. I have quoted two verses from Patanjali, the founder of Yoga techniques some 4000 yrs. back. These are profound as the first quote goes well beyond what Quantum Mechanics gave us now in the form of the observer/observed relationship!

Let us all have fun with seriousness that the topic deserves, as i myself am enjoying the essays contributed and am posting my comments on many of them, no offance or criticism implied. Love is truly our unifying nature as humans and we shall win if we constantly remember it in practice.

I read your 'Mystic Number Four' theory with interest.

I do agree with you that the Superstring Model is a wrong mixture of dependent measurements taken as they were independent (through the dispersing prism of motion); and the result is to dig a ditch between theory and concretion*.

That's why I follow you when you try to put order (with geometry), when you are isolating the mistake as a virus in a body; and why not ask Euclide or Pythagore to help you for that? Is C. Rovelli's trial so different? I am not sure that he does not pull the ‘subtle’ Time and the cognition parameters over because of the disorder Time is introducing in the 'Quanta Theory'. But Temperature is as biological or chemical as Time is.

But in my opinion your method is spoiled as string theory ideograms on this point: your eight squares and symetry drives you to deduce the facts from the theory as SM theoricians do. For instance: where is the point in the middle of your two dimensional cross coming from? Space or Time? Yourself? It is not clear.

(*Einstein's intuition was that the Universe was not an expanding Universe.)

I do agree with you that the Superstring Model is a wrong mixture of dependent measurements taken as they were independent (through the dispersing prism of motion); and the result is to dig a ditch between theory and concretion*.

That's why I follow you when you try to put order (with geometry), when you are isolating the mistake as a virus in a body; and why not ask Euclide or Pythagore to help you for that? Is C. Rovelli's trial so different? I am not sure that he does not pull the ‘subtle’ Time and the cognition parameters over because of the disorder Time is introducing in the 'Quanta Theory'. But Temperature is as biological or chemical as Time is.

But in my opinion your method is spoiled as string theory ideograms on this point: your eight squares and symetry drives you to deduce the facts from the theory as SM theoricians do. For instance: where is the point in the middle of your two dimensional cross coming from? Space or Time? Yourself? It is not clear.

(*Einstein's intuition was that the Universe was not an expanding Universe.)

Doug,

I have another question or two. In figure 1, you show deuterium composed of a proton plus a neutron but the proton in the graphic must be protium (hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron). Is the upside down triangle with the reddish border and –3 in the center of the proton supposed to be the electron?

The second question has to do with your new definition of motion. On page 4 you write:

”What this means, in the final analysis, is that we are able to define a multi-dimensional type of motion, differing from, but not replacing, the familiar definition of 1-dimensional motion. The familiar vector motion requires the change in an object’s actual, or probable, location, for the purpose of defining a change in space over time, but under the new definition, a moving object is not required to define this change. We call this newcomer to the theoretical scene, scalar motion, a 3D, massless, motion, taking its place, by virtue of the definition of motion, along side the familiar definition of 1D vector motion, the motion of mass in one direction at a time.”

Since physics is all about potential and kinetic energy doesn’t this mean that you must redefine those two things as well? How can you do so without mass?

I have another question or two. In figure 1, you show deuterium composed of a proton plus a neutron but the proton in the graphic must be protium (hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron). Is the upside down triangle with the reddish border and –3 in the center of the proton supposed to be the electron?

The second question has to do with your new definition of motion. On page 4 you write:

”What this means, in the final analysis, is that we are able to define a multi-dimensional type of motion, differing from, but not replacing, the familiar definition of 1-dimensional motion. The familiar vector motion requires the change in an object’s actual, or probable, location, for the purpose of defining a change in space over time, but under the new definition, a moving object is not required to define this change. We call this newcomer to the theoretical scene, scalar motion, a 3D, massless, motion, taking its place, by virtue of the definition of motion, along side the familiar definition of 1D vector motion, the motion of mass in one direction at a time.”

Since physics is all about potential and kinetic energy doesn’t this mean that you must redefine those two things as well? How can you do so without mass?

Thanks to commentors Narendra Nath and F. Le Rouge. Your comments are appreciated.

F. Le Rouge says: “I read your 'Mystic Number Four' theory with interest…but in my opinion your method is spoiled as string theory ideograms on this point: your eight squares and symetry drives you to deduce the facts from the theory as SM theoricians do. For instance: where is the point in the middle of your two dimensional cross coming from? Space or Time? Yourself? It is not clear.”

Interesting question. The two-dimensional cross is the cross section of the eightfold cube, and the point is where the corners of the eight cubes in the 2x2x2 stack of one-unit cubes meet.

In order to observe a given, ongoing, unit, space/time progression, P, where space is 3D and time is 0D, a 3 + 1 dimensional reference location, x, y, z, t, must be selected in P. This location is necessarily zero, with respect to time, or t0, since all locations that are in the order before it is selected are at t0 – tn, and all locations after it is selected in the order will be at t0 + tn, in the infinite order of P.

This is not a fact; it is only a logical and mathematical consequence stemming from the assumption of an infinite, discrete, space/time progression in four dimensions. The fact is, however, that given the assumption of the progression, the mathematical consequences reproduce the tetraktys, and the four spaces of the associated Clifford algebra, at tn - t0, when n = 1.

It is immaterial “when,” or “where,“ the reference location is selected, the eightfold cube, the 3D pseudoscalar, will always be the result. This means that “when” and “where” really have no meaning until the reference location in P is selected.

What we can deduce from this, as far as constructing a physical theory, can only be verified to some degree of certainty that will always be less than 100%, by comparing the results with observation. Since it is possible to deduce consequences that have not yet been observed, the system possesses the power of prediction, making it falsifiable, unlike string theory, which appears to lack this property.

F. Le Rouge says: “I read your 'Mystic Number Four' theory with interest…but in my opinion your method is spoiled as string theory ideograms on this point: your eight squares and symetry drives you to deduce the facts from the theory as SM theoricians do. For instance: where is the point in the middle of your two dimensional cross coming from? Space or Time? Yourself? It is not clear.”

Interesting question. The two-dimensional cross is the cross section of the eightfold cube, and the point is where the corners of the eight cubes in the 2x2x2 stack of one-unit cubes meet.

In order to observe a given, ongoing, unit, space/time progression, P, where space is 3D and time is 0D, a 3 + 1 dimensional reference location, x, y, z, t, must be selected in P. This location is necessarily zero, with respect to time, or t0, since all locations that are in the order before it is selected are at t0 – tn, and all locations after it is selected in the order will be at t0 + tn, in the infinite order of P.

This is not a fact; it is only a logical and mathematical consequence stemming from the assumption of an infinite, discrete, space/time progression in four dimensions. The fact is, however, that given the assumption of the progression, the mathematical consequences reproduce the tetraktys, and the four spaces of the associated Clifford algebra, at tn - t0, when n = 1.

It is immaterial “when,” or “where,“ the reference location is selected, the eightfold cube, the 3D pseudoscalar, will always be the result. This means that “when” and “where” really have no meaning until the reference location in P is selected.

What we can deduce from this, as far as constructing a physical theory, can only be verified to some degree of certainty that will always be less than 100%, by comparing the results with observation. Since it is possible to deduce consequences that have not yet been observed, the system possesses the power of prediction, making it falsifiable, unlike string theory, which appears to lack this property.

Hi Larry,

The answer to your first question is yes. Unfortunately, the error in this graphic is misleading. The word “proton” should be “protium” instead. The electron, composed of three “negative” preons (three “red” S|T units), neutralizes the three net “positive” charges of the proton, composed of one down quark, with one net “negative” charge, and two up quarks,...

view entire post

The answer to your first question is yes. Unfortunately, the error in this graphic is misleading. The word “proton” should be “protium” instead. The electron, composed of three “negative” preons (three “red” S|T units), neutralizes the three net “positive” charges of the proton, composed of one down quark, with one net “negative” charge, and two up quarks,...

view entire post

Hi Narendra,

Thanks for your wise counsel. You wrote:

“1. The Universe was created or it has always existed! if Bigbang is right it has been created. If so, what existed before. If it is perfect vacuum or the non-physical 'consciousness', then how it gave rise to the Universe that we apparently observe now?”

Good question. We are all familiar with the usual answers, but I assume that you ask the question here in the context of my essay. In the universe of nothing but motion, the space/time expansion does not require an extrapolation back in time to a singularity. Since in the new system of theory, matter is not introduced into the space/time structure independently, but consists of combinations of discrete units of scalar motion, it becomes clear that an entirely new cosmology emerges from the theory, which only requires that we apply the consequences of the system to deduce the physical structure of the universe.

(see Larson’s The Structure of the Physical Universe, Vol III, The Universe of Motion)

Certainly, however, this does not solve the problem of the big bang, but only transforms it from the unanswerable question of what existed prior to the beginning of the big bang, to the unanswerable question of what, or who, initiated, or instituted, the motion of the space/time expansion. Then, instead of having to swallow a theory of inflation, we have to swallow a theory of “direction” reversals in space or time, which locally quantizes the spacetime continuum. The question then becomes, “By what mechanism does the expansion oscillate at certain locations, but not others?” The only answer is that whatever can happen, will happen, at some point in time or space.

These answers are hardly more satisfactory than the explanations of the hot big bang theory, but Godel’s incompleteness theorem gets us every time. In the end, we seem to have to just choose our poison, I suppose. It’s now clear to many that science cannot come up with anything but an approximation of the truth. How close the approximation of one approach is than another is something that is relative to what aspect of the truth one is partial to. The ancients were very good at some things that are still complete mysteries to us, even though the feats of our science and technology go far beyond theirs, in other aspects.

Thanks again for your comments. I liked your essay, by the way.

Thanks for your wise counsel. You wrote:

“1. The Universe was created or it has always existed! if Bigbang is right it has been created. If so, what existed before. If it is perfect vacuum or the non-physical 'consciousness', then how it gave rise to the Universe that we apparently observe now?”

Good question. We are all familiar with the usual answers, but I assume that you ask the question here in the context of my essay. In the universe of nothing but motion, the space/time expansion does not require an extrapolation back in time to a singularity. Since in the new system of theory, matter is not introduced into the space/time structure independently, but consists of combinations of discrete units of scalar motion, it becomes clear that an entirely new cosmology emerges from the theory, which only requires that we apply the consequences of the system to deduce the physical structure of the universe.

(see Larson’s The Structure of the Physical Universe, Vol III, The Universe of Motion)

Certainly, however, this does not solve the problem of the big bang, but only transforms it from the unanswerable question of what existed prior to the beginning of the big bang, to the unanswerable question of what, or who, initiated, or instituted, the motion of the space/time expansion. Then, instead of having to swallow a theory of inflation, we have to swallow a theory of “direction” reversals in space or time, which locally quantizes the spacetime continuum. The question then becomes, “By what mechanism does the expansion oscillate at certain locations, but not others?” The only answer is that whatever can happen, will happen, at some point in time or space.

These answers are hardly more satisfactory than the explanations of the hot big bang theory, but Godel’s incompleteness theorem gets us every time. In the end, we seem to have to just choose our poison, I suppose. It’s now clear to many that science cannot come up with anything but an approximation of the truth. How close the approximation of one approach is than another is something that is relative to what aspect of the truth one is partial to. The ancients were very good at some things that are still complete mysteries to us, even though the feats of our science and technology go far beyond theirs, in other aspects.

Thanks again for your comments. I liked your essay, by the way.

Thanks for the response. it is nice to like something but it is far more welcome to have queries/comments. I shall welcome the same from you on my essay, as i am an experimental nuclear physicist and a novice in cosmology! We acn all get to the depth of an issue even in modern times 'full of knowledge cum informatiom', provided we develop the capacity of 100 % living in the present moment. Mind requires some training of being 'kept quiet' in some of the moments. There is the role of meditation cum Yoga. Self experience is a must for grasping a problem at hand. External factors/opinions need self assimilation, otherwise these are mere words of little consequence. The longer the comments are the less significant these tend to become.

In his FQXI essay, Phillip Gibbs describes a crucial difference between time and space, in spite of their unification by Minkowski, through the symmetry in the Lorentz transformation. He writes,

”Time can distinguish itself from space in this way because the spacetime metric has a Lorentz signature that assigns a different sign in the time dimension versus the three space directions....

view entire post

”Time can distinguish itself from space in this way because the spacetime metric has a Lorentz signature that assigns a different sign in the time dimension versus the three space directions....

view entire post

Doug,

"Why should it be so amazing that the radius from the center of a sphere, expanding at light speed, should be equal to a point on its surface, defined by its rectangular coordinates? Isn’t it clear from this that BOTH space and time are expanding? There is only one minus sign for time because it is the zero-dimensional expansion, whereas space expands three-dimensionally.

The true symmetry Gibbs is unwilling to sacrifice is preserved in the independent reality of the union of space and time, just as Minkowski predicted it would be, but then, if this is true, why should we look for symmetry in something that has no independent reality, like time, or space, apart from motion? Neither can have any meaning without the other."

Forgive my essential ignorance, but the logic of this has always eluded me and I can never seem to get a clear answer as to why; If space has no independent reality from motion, then presumably the most stable description of distance we have is c, so how can it be said that space expands at c? If space is actually expanding, wouldn't that mean that c would be increasing proportionally? Example; If two points are x lightyears apart and space expanded to twice its size, would that make them 2x lightyears apart, or would they still be x lightyears apart, since c increased as space expanded?

If they are 2x lightyears apart, that would seem to be an increasing distance of a stable measure of space, not expanding space. If they are still x lightyears apart, how do we know they are really expanding?

What determines c, if it is a measure which pre-exists this "expanding sphere" of space?

"Why should it be so amazing that the radius from the center of a sphere, expanding at light speed, should be equal to a point on its surface, defined by its rectangular coordinates? Isn’t it clear from this that BOTH space and time are expanding? There is only one minus sign for time because it is the zero-dimensional expansion, whereas space expands three-dimensionally.

The true symmetry Gibbs is unwilling to sacrifice is preserved in the independent reality of the union of space and time, just as Minkowski predicted it would be, but then, if this is true, why should we look for symmetry in something that has no independent reality, like time, or space, apart from motion? Neither can have any meaning without the other."

Forgive my essential ignorance, but the logic of this has always eluded me and I can never seem to get a clear answer as to why; If space has no independent reality from motion, then presumably the most stable description of distance we have is c, so how can it be said that space expands at c? If space is actually expanding, wouldn't that mean that c would be increasing proportionally? Example; If two points are x lightyears apart and space expanded to twice its size, would that make them 2x lightyears apart, or would they still be x lightyears apart, since c increased as space expanded?

If they are 2x lightyears apart, that would seem to be an increasing distance of a stable measure of space, not expanding space. If they are still x lightyears apart, how do we know they are really expanding?

What determines c, if it is a measure which pre-exists this "expanding sphere" of space?

Thank you for your answer, Doug. I guess it is not an accident if this answer is based on quantas : "The DEGREE of certainty is always less than 100%". But I made an objection on the starting point, not on the 1 %.

For whatever it’s worth, my vote for a single FQXI essay, of all that have been submitted so far (excluding my own of course!), would be Peter Lynd’s essay. This is because he argues, very cogently, that the only independent reality that can exist logically is continuity, or constant change (i.e. motion). Yet, at the same time, his favorite quantum gravity theory would have to be Rovelli et...

view entire post

view entire post

In the previous post above, I promised to deal with Peter Lynds’ (indirect) question, as to the mystery of discrete and continuous space and time, but first, I want to address the comments of John and Le Rouge that have been posted in the meantime. Their comments and questions focus on the same thing, actually. Le Rouge questions the origin of the eightfold cube, while John questions the...

view entire post

view entire post

Admin: Please delete the previous two posts. I was trying to hurry because my wife just informed that the basement is flooding, just when I was doing the cutting and pasting and I didn't do it right. I'm sorry for the mess. Please help.

This is the errata comment that I've been trying to post:

Opps, sorry guys. I’m in too much of a hurry. The equation of the radius of the progression is d = s/t * t, but that’s not the equation of the space/time progression. The equation that yields 16s and 64s, when n = 2, is

(2n)^2s/nt^0 * nt^0 = 16s, and

(2n)^3s/nt^0 * nt^0 = 64s,

as shown in my preliminary paper, discussed earlier in this forum. My mistake. So sorry.

This is the errata comment that I've been trying to post:

Opps, sorry guys. I’m in too much of a hurry. The equation of the radius of the progression is d = s/t * t, but that’s not the equation of the space/time progression. The equation that yields 16s and 64s, when n = 2, is

(2n)^2s/nt^0 * nt^0 = 16s, and

(2n)^3s/nt^0 * nt^0 = 64s,

as shown in my preliminary paper, discussed earlier in this forum. My mistake. So sorry.

Doug,

" These discrete units are constant. They do not change, only the length, area and volume of the pseudoscalar changes, according to the dimensionality of the tetraktys."

It still seems to me what you are describing is increasing distance in stable units of space, as opposed to space itself expanding.

To put this in the context of my own thinking, if space is...

view entire post

" These discrete units are constant. They do not change, only the length, area and volume of the pseudoscalar changes, according to the dimensionality of the tetraktys."

It still seems to me what you are describing is increasing distance in stable units of space, as opposed to space itself expanding.

To put this in the context of my own thinking, if space is...

view entire post

John,

Please pardon the delay in my response. I’ve had to contend with a flooded basement, among other distractions. In trying to hurry under duress, I’ve only managed to mangle the stream of thought in this forum, by inadvertently posting the same comment three times!

What I would like to do, to get back on track, is to note that the major threads of thought developing here are...

view entire post

Please pardon the delay in my response. I’ve had to contend with a flooded basement, among other distractions. In trying to hurry under duress, I’ve only managed to mangle the stream of thought in this forum, by inadvertently posting the same comment three times!

What I would like to do, to get back on track, is to note that the major threads of thought developing here are...

view entire post

Hello John & Doug!

Great conversations here! I'll be re-reading Doug's paper on the treadmill in a few minutes.

John--above you write to Doug, "You propose something similar to Dr. E's theory of the expanding fourth dimension. As I pointed out to him, if, as he seems to suggest, this expanding wave is light, or represents light, than according to Einstein, light is the constant and...

view entire post

Great conversations here! I'll be re-reading Doug's paper on the treadmill in a few minutes.

John--above you write to Doug, "You propose something similar to Dr. E's theory of the expanding fourth dimension. As I pointed out to him, if, as he seems to suggest, this expanding wave is light, or represents light, than according to Einstein, light is the constant and...

view entire post

attachments: MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

In continuation of my earlier post some days back, may i refer your self to a postings made on Oct.26 and 28 on the essay of Carlo Rovelli ' Forget Time'. It deals with 'consciousness' and 'quantum' aspects while discussing 'gravitation'. The involvement of physical concepts/parameters along with the non-physical concept of 'consciousness' provides the expanding paradigms indiscussing the Nature of Time.As a propounder of MDT aspect, you may like to respond to my postings, as i expect to get enlightened.

Thanks for the comment, Dr. E. I’ll come to your forum to post a response, as soon as I can make time to do so. In the meantime, I’m trying to get to the discussion of the discrete vs. continuous issue raised by Peter Lynds’ essay.

People have been asking me to clarify the concept of binary oscillation, or rotation by ð, as opposed to quadrantal oscillation, or rotation by ð/2. The...

view entire post

People have been asking me to clarify the concept of binary oscillation, or rotation by ð, as opposed to quadrantal oscillation, or rotation by ð/2. The...

view entire post

Hello Mr. Bundy,

dang, some of these entries need their own e-groups.

liked your paper. the Greek stuff was fun, spiffy illustrations, but the poem at the end was horrible, whoever wrote that out to be... well.

i had a few other observations, all favorable, but the gravity of the situation compels me to keep my comments short and simple. i like simple. don't want to take up any more bandwidth here.

i see John's been here, talkin' 'bout light as some sort of standing wave. hm. wonder where he got that crazy idea...

:-)

matt kolasinski

"Alice said nothing; she had sat down again, with her face in her hands, wondering if anything would ever happen in a natural way again."

-Lewis Carrol, in Alice in Wonderland, coming just after Alice has made a strange recitation to Gryphon and the Mock Turtle.

dang, some of these entries need their own e-groups.

liked your paper. the Greek stuff was fun, spiffy illustrations, but the poem at the end was horrible, whoever wrote that out to be... well.

i had a few other observations, all favorable, but the gravity of the situation compels me to keep my comments short and simple. i like simple. don't want to take up any more bandwidth here.

i see John's been here, talkin' 'bout light as some sort of standing wave. hm. wonder where he got that crazy idea...

:-)

matt kolasinski

"Alice said nothing; she had sat down again, with her face in her hands, wondering if anything would ever happen in a natural way again."

-Lewis Carrol, in Alice in Wonderland, coming just after Alice has made a strange recitation to Gryphon and the Mock Turtle.

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the compliments. Hamilton is the author of the sonnet on the tetraktys. He also is the one who discovered the quaternions (literally meaning “four”), coined the term "vector," and made many other contributions to math and science. The guy was a genius, but is, at the same time, roundly dissed by many lesser lights, on several accounts, especially for his attempt at poetry!

His term for pi/2 rotations, or ¼ rotation, was “quadrantal” rotation, which he identified with quaternion units of rotation, but Altmann, who is the widely acknowledged expert on the rotation group, shows that quaternion units are not units of 1/4 rotation, but units of 1/2 rotation!

Therefore, if we plot the changing volume of the oscillating pseudoscalar, we don’t get a sine wave. We get a distorted saw tooth wave that looks like it has hysteresis. I don’t know if this implies that the system is physical or not, but it’s an intriguing sign. Meanwhile, the plot of the 2D pseudoscalar oscillation is very sinusoidal, and the plot of the 1D pseudoscalar looks like molar teeth! Plotting the resultant of all these, you get a distorted sine wave, with a pronounced negative bias.

I don’t know what all this may lead to, but it’s a fascinating study.

Thanks for the compliments. Hamilton is the author of the sonnet on the tetraktys. He also is the one who discovered the quaternions (literally meaning “four”), coined the term "vector," and made many other contributions to math and science. The guy was a genius, but is, at the same time, roundly dissed by many lesser lights, on several accounts, especially for his attempt at poetry!

His term for pi/2 rotations, or ¼ rotation, was “quadrantal” rotation, which he identified with quaternion units of rotation, but Altmann, who is the widely acknowledged expert on the rotation group, shows that quaternion units are not units of 1/4 rotation, but units of 1/2 rotation!

Therefore, if we plot the changing volume of the oscillating pseudoscalar, we don’t get a sine wave. We get a distorted saw tooth wave that looks like it has hysteresis. I don’t know if this implies that the system is physical or not, but it’s an intriguing sign. Meanwhile, the plot of the 2D pseudoscalar oscillation is very sinusoidal, and the plot of the 1D pseudoscalar looks like molar teeth! Plotting the resultant of all these, you get a distorted sine wave, with a pronounced negative bias.

I don’t know what all this may lead to, but it’s a fascinating study.

Hello Doug,

re:

[Hamilton] was a genius, but is, at the same time, roundly dissed by many lesser lights, on several accounts, especially for his attempt at poetry!

maybe sticking with math... ;-)

i'm not being terribly serious here, just trying to have a little fun with it. as i was with my quip about John's 'crazy idea' about light. i'd been considering the same thing...

view entire post

re:

[Hamilton] was a genius, but is, at the same time, roundly dissed by many lesser lights, on several accounts, especially for his attempt at poetry!

maybe sticking with math... ;-)

i'm not being terribly serious here, just trying to have a little fun with it. as i was with my quip about John's 'crazy idea' about light. i'd been considering the same thing...

view entire post

Doug,

The format here does not permit same posting on more than one essay. May i therefore request you to look at my last 2 postings on 'Forget Time' by Carlo Ravelli. The same are relevant to your essay too.

As a scientist who has worked both in the west and here in India, i find that we as scientists need not feel limited by the 'methodology' of conducting science that got built over the past 500 years of modern age. The expanding paradigms can come only if we expand our selves to all knowledge that exists and then rationalize our approach to develop path breaking precepts that may well lead to newer concepts that are able to cover much wider background than

covered earlier. For the nature can not be complex. It has evolved the Universe in a logical pattern. What happens when we cover a limited process/phenomenon in our theory, we limit ourselves unnecessarily. The failure or success of the current Super-string theory does not matter. We still need to follow an approach of a 'single' theory for all physical processes. One approach can come from the Unification efforts of the four force-fields where Gravity is holding on to itself presently. But this can be broken to unify the picture through some innovative 'thinking' yet to come! We need to emphasize excellence of 'mind' rather than just that of our intellect. Somehow i feel strongly about the closeness of interaction between the individual and the cosmic consciousness, as the latter is the storehouse of entire knowledge!

The format here does not permit same posting on more than one essay. May i therefore request you to look at my last 2 postings on 'Forget Time' by Carlo Ravelli. The same are relevant to your essay too.

As a scientist who has worked both in the west and here in India, i find that we as scientists need not feel limited by the 'methodology' of conducting science that got built over the past 500 years of modern age. The expanding paradigms can come only if we expand our selves to all knowledge that exists and then rationalize our approach to develop path breaking precepts that may well lead to newer concepts that are able to cover much wider background than

covered earlier. For the nature can not be complex. It has evolved the Universe in a logical pattern. What happens when we cover a limited process/phenomenon in our theory, we limit ourselves unnecessarily. The failure or success of the current Super-string theory does not matter. We still need to follow an approach of a 'single' theory for all physical processes. One approach can come from the Unification efforts of the four force-fields where Gravity is holding on to itself presently. But this can be broken to unify the picture through some innovative 'thinking' yet to come! We need to emphasize excellence of 'mind' rather than just that of our intellect. Somehow i feel strongly about the closeness of interaction between the individual and the cosmic consciousness, as the latter is the storehouse of entire knowledge!

Thanks for the comments Matt. I’m just happy that there’s a way to analyze the motion of the pseudoscalars. It wasn’t apparent for a while how that the sine and cosine of changing angle could be used to describe the expanding/contracting pseudoscalars, but it turns out it works out well, especially since the expanding/contracting diameter of the sine is the reciprocal of the...

view entire post

view entire post

Man, I hate the limitations of this editor. The strange symbols in the above post are supposed to be arrows:

-0 --> 1 0

-0 --> 1 0

Still didn't work. I guees backward arrows don't show. If only we had a preview capability.

There should be two, opposed, arrows separating the three numbers.

There should be two, opposed, arrows separating the three numbers.

Though you can tell from the context easily enough, the sentence in the 14:35 post that reads,

"In the context of these principles of non-geometric science, the geometric fact that the square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares of the sides is relevant."

Should read "...irrelevant."

Doug

"In the context of these principles of non-geometric science, the geometric fact that the square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares of the sides is relevant."

Should read "...irrelevant."

Doug

Hi Everyone,

With a basic understanding of the mathematical structure of the space/time | time/space progression established in the previous post above, we can continue the discussion of the cosmological implications of the new system.

However, the limitations of this forum’s editor being what they are, it’s better to post the entry on the LRC physics site, which can be previewed, edited and illustrated with graphics. Accordingly, a link to the entry is provided here, and discussion of it can be conducted there, or in this forum, as suits the reader.

With a basic understanding of the mathematical structure of the space/time | time/space progression established in the previous post above, we can continue the discussion of the cosmological implications of the new system.

However, the limitations of this forum’s editor being what they are, it’s better to post the entry on the LRC physics site, which can be previewed, edited and illustrated with graphics. Accordingly, a link to the entry is provided here, and discussion of it can be conducted there, or in this forum, as suits the reader.

Hello Doug,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dear Doug,

i await your response to my posting of Oct.,31 as also an earlier post on your draft essay on a pre-existing FQXI site. The later demanded suggestions to finalize the essay draft. Both cover more or less the same material.NN

i await your response to my posting of Oct.,31 as also an earlier post on your draft essay on a pre-existing FQXI site. The later demanded suggestions to finalize the essay draft. Both cover more or less the same material.NN

Hello Doug,

Over at http://www.lrcphysics.com/trouble-with-physics/?currentPage=

2, your write, "John Baez is fascinated by the mystery of these numbers too, but, being in the midst of the “Madding Crowd,” he can’t see these eight 3D directions, as we are seeing them now. He sees them as Clifford first saw them,"

Does John Baez also reject Einstein's General Relativity and...

view entire post

Over at http://www.lrcphysics.com/trouble-with-physics/?currentPage=

2, your write, "John Baez is fascinated by the mystery of these numbers too, but, being in the midst of the “Madding Crowd,” he can’t see these eight 3D directions, as we are seeing them now. He sees them as Clifford first saw them,"

Does John Baez also reject Einstein's General Relativity and...

view entire post

I prefer to reserve this forum for the discussion of my essay. Therefore, I have posted responses to Dr. E’s and Narendra’s comments in their own respective forums, and prefer to discuss those issues there, rather than here.

However, in regards to how our RST-based theory of gravity relates to Einstein’s general relativity, or covariant theory, as applied to cosmology, and the...

view entire post

However, in regards to how our RST-based theory of gravity relates to Einstein’s general relativity, or covariant theory, as applied to cosmology, and the...

view entire post

Dr. E,

As I’ve tried to explain to you over and over again, it’s not Einstein’s concepts that I reject, but your interpretation of them, so please stop trying to hide behind Einstein, at least in this forum.

As I’ve tried to explain to you over and over again, it’s not Einstein’s concepts that I reject, but your interpretation of them, so please stop trying to hide behind Einstein, at least in this forum.

Hello Doug,

I was actually referring to your paper in my above post:

"Your essay begins with, "The only observed relationship of time to space is a reciprocal relation, in the equation of motion. However, it seems absurd to think of space, defined as a set of points satisfying the postulates of geometry, as the inverse of time."

Now, if you are going to talk about time, space, and *geometry*, it makes little sense to refute Einstein's General Relativity--a well-tested *physical* theory which is built upon the fact that dimenions bend, warp, and move.

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

y

I hope that you get a chance to read Einstein's work "The Meaning of Relativity" and realize that General Relativity treats dimensions as *physical* entities with dynamical properties.

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

I was actually referring to your paper in my above post:

"Your essay begins with, "The only observed relationship of time to space is a reciprocal relation, in the equation of motion. However, it seems absurd to think of space, defined as a set of points satisfying the postulates of geometry, as the inverse of time."

Now, if you are going to talk about time, space, and *geometry*, it makes little sense to refute Einstein's General Relativity--a well-tested *physical* theory which is built upon the fact that dimenions bend, warp, and move.

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

y

I hope that you get a chance to read Einstein's work "The Meaning of Relativity" and realize that General Relativity treats dimensions as *physical* entities with dynamical properties.

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

Dr. E,

As I posted in your forum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just add to the above comment my summary of the problem: You have taken Einstein’s dynamics of spacetime and tried to transform them into your concept of the dynamics of the dimensions of spacetime. This is a subtle, but important , distinction, because it allows you to take Einstein’s fourth coordinate, the imaginary time variable, x4 = ict, and transform it into ic, by writing x4/dt = ic, and call it an expanding fourth dimension.

Well, the reason this is not even wrong, or is non-sensical, is that it conceives of the imaginary time variable, which Einstein employed to help make Minkowski spacetime into something more Euclidean-like, as a quantity, which changes over real time. Rejecting this nonsense is hardly tantamount to rejecting Einstein’s general relativity, so please stop trying to say that it is.

The fourth dimension is the time variable, whether real or imaginary. It increases, or progresses, but not in relation to itself. In expands (moves) in relation to the three space variables, constituting the expansion of space, which is the definition of motion. If you could get past this conceptual hurdle, it would help you to make your case for the “moving” fourth dimension, in a sensible manner, I believe.

As I posted in your forum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just add to the above comment my summary of the problem: You have taken Einstein’s dynamics of spacetime and tried to transform them into your concept of the dynamics of the dimensions of spacetime. This is a subtle, but important , distinction, because it allows you to take Einstein’s fourth coordinate, the imaginary time variable, x4 = ict, and transform it into ic, by writing x4/dt = ic, and call it an expanding fourth dimension.

Well, the reason this is not even wrong, or is non-sensical, is that it conceives of the imaginary time variable, which Einstein employed to help make Minkowski spacetime into something more Euclidean-like, as a quantity, which changes over real time. Rejecting this nonsense is hardly tantamount to rejecting Einstein’s general relativity, so please stop trying to say that it is.

The fourth dimension is the time variable, whether real or imaginary. It increases, or progresses, but not in relation to itself. In expands (moves) in relation to the three space variables, constituting the expansion of space, which is the definition of motion. If you could get past this conceptual hurdle, it would help you to make your case for the “moving” fourth dimension, in a sensible manner, I believe.

Doug,

"The fourth dimension is the time variable, whether real or imaginary. It increases, or progresses, but not in relation to itself. In expands (moves) in relation to the three space variables, constituting the expansion of space, which is the definition of motion."

Does motion cause time, or does time cause motion?

"The fourth dimension is the time variable, whether real or imaginary. It increases, or progresses, but not in relation to itself. In expands (moves) in relation to the three space variables, constituting the expansion of space, which is the definition of motion."

Does motion cause time, or does time cause motion?

Doug,

To clarify my previous point; If two atoms bump into each other, it causes an event. While these atoms go from past event to future ones, the events go from being in the future to being in the past. Now if time is a fundamental dimension along which reality travels, then it is carrying these atoms from one event to the next. On the other hand, if time is a consequence of these atoms bouncing around and creating events, then time is these series of events which go from being in the future to being in the past.

Now all we really see and know, the basis and extent of our knowledge, is of the immediate past which is as close as our consciousness can process the sea of energy that exists as the present. This immediate past is rapidly receding into the more distant past.

If you view time as a fundamental dimension, then it accords with the idea that is a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three static dimensions of space. On the other hand, if you see it as a consequence of motion, than all there is, is this sea of energy which is creating the events which constitute our knowledge and are represented by the three dimensions of space. So than it is this energy which is the constant and the three dimensions which are collapsing rapidly(at the speed of light) into the past. That there is some stability to our world is a function of some of this energy maintaining some consistency of form, aka, mass.

So, do you think motion is the basis of time, or time is the basis of motion?

To clarify my previous point; If two atoms bump into each other, it causes an event. While these atoms go from past event to future ones, the events go from being in the future to being in the past. Now if time is a fundamental dimension along which reality travels, then it is carrying these atoms from one event to the next. On the other hand, if time is a consequence of these atoms bouncing around and creating events, then time is these series of events which go from being in the future to being in the past.

Now all we really see and know, the basis and extent of our knowledge, is of the immediate past which is as close as our consciousness can process the sea of energy that exists as the present. This immediate past is rapidly receding into the more distant past.

If you view time as a fundamental dimension, then it accords with the idea that is a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three static dimensions of space. On the other hand, if you see it as a consequence of motion, than all there is, is this sea of energy which is creating the events which constitute our knowledge and are represented by the three dimensions of space. So than it is this energy which is the constant and the three dimensions which are collapsing rapidly(at the speed of light) into the past. That there is some stability to our world is a function of some of this energy maintaining some consistency of form, aka, mass.

So, do you think motion is the basis of time, or time is the basis of motion?

Doug,

You write,

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

This is getting funny.

In THE MEANING OF...

view entire post

You write,

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

This is getting funny.

In THE MEANING OF...

view entire post

Hello John,

You write,

"So, do you think motion is the basis of time, or time is the basis of motion?"

The fourth dimension is very, very real.

All motion rests upon its fundamental expansion relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Every object moves at but one speed through space-time--c. This is because space-time moves at but one speed through every object--c. Catch up with the fourth expanding dimension, and you'll be going close to c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions, and you'll be traveling at close to c relative to the fourth dimension. And isn't it cool that the faster an object moves, the shorter it is in the three spatial dimensions? This is because it is physically being rotated into the fourth dimension--the fundamental source of all motion by its never-ending motion, which sets the universe's maximum velcoity at c.

Relativists oft imply a frozen, timeless, block universe. But as Galileo said, "Yet it moves!" *Why* is this? Because dx4/dt = ic! And the spherically-symmetric expansion that the expanding fourth dimension manifests itself as--this smearing of locality--jives perfectly with the motion of a photon as well as its nonlocal properties, setting its velocity to c independent of the source and rendering it timeless and ageless--stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, which would also explain entanglement with other photons with which it once shared a common origin! And we also get a *physical* model for entropy and time.

Well, I hope this helps! Thanks for the questions!

MDT shows that time, and all motion, emegres from a more fundamental universal invariant. The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.

For the first time in the history of relativity, *change* has been *physically* woven into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, with dx4/dt = ic. And that's where change needs to be! For can you name any branch of physics in which change, and time, do not exist? Without change, no measurement can be made.

MDT is unique in that it offers a *physical* model underlying entropy, entanglement, and nonlocality, and too, all of relativity can be immediately derived from its simple postulate and equation.

I expect MDT to bring additional boons for years to come!

You write,

"So, do you think motion is the basis of time, or time is the basis of motion?"

The fourth dimension is very, very real.

All motion rests upon its fundamental expansion relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Every object moves at but one speed through space-time--c. This is because space-time moves at but one speed through every object--c. Catch up with the fourth expanding dimension, and you'll be going close to c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions, and you'll be traveling at close to c relative to the fourth dimension. And isn't it cool that the faster an object moves, the shorter it is in the three spatial dimensions? This is because it is physically being rotated into the fourth dimension--the fundamental source of all motion by its never-ending motion, which sets the universe's maximum velcoity at c.

Relativists oft imply a frozen, timeless, block universe. But as Galileo said, "Yet it moves!" *Why* is this? Because dx4/dt = ic! And the spherically-symmetric expansion that the expanding fourth dimension manifests itself as--this smearing of locality--jives perfectly with the motion of a photon as well as its nonlocal properties, setting its velocity to c independent of the source and rendering it timeless and ageless--stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, which would also explain entanglement with other photons with which it once shared a common origin! And we also get a *physical* model for entropy and time.

Well, I hope this helps! Thanks for the questions!

MDT shows that time, and all motion, emegres from a more fundamental universal invariant. The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.

For the first time in the history of relativity, *change* has been *physically* woven into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, with dx4/dt = ic. And that's where change needs to be! For can you name any branch of physics in which change, and time, do not exist? Without change, no measurement can be made.

MDT is unique in that it offers a *physical* model underlying entropy, entanglement, and nonlocality, and too, all of relativity can be immediately derived from its simple postulate and equation.

I expect MDT to bring additional boons for years to come!

Dr. E,

"Every object moves at but one speed through space-time--c. This is because space-time moves at but one speed through every object--c. Catch up with the fourth expanding dimension, and you'll be going close to c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions, and you'll be traveling at close to c relative to the fourth dimension. And isn't it cool that the faster an object moves, the shorter it is in the three spatial dimensions? This is because it is physically being rotated into the fourth dimension--the fundamental source of all motion by its never-ending motion, which sets the universe's maximum velcoity at c."

What does C mean? Constant, right? So doesn't that mean it's the three spatial dimensions which are shrinking?

"the faster an object moves, the shorter it is in the three spatial dimensions"

"Every object moves at but one speed through space-time--c. This is because space-time moves at but one speed through every object--c. Catch up with the fourth expanding dimension, and you'll be going close to c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions, and you'll be traveling at close to c relative to the fourth dimension. And isn't it cool that the faster an object moves, the shorter it is in the three spatial dimensions? This is because it is physically being rotated into the fourth dimension--the fundamental source of all motion by its never-ending motion, which sets the universe's maximum velcoity at c."

What does C mean? Constant, right? So doesn't that mean it's the three spatial dimensions which are shrinking?

"the faster an object moves, the shorter it is in the three spatial dimensions"

Dear Doug,

while perusing through the past few postings on your essay by other authors, i note some acrimonious comments. We all need to avoid questioning the understanding and ability of others versus our own. Your response to my postings of Oct 31 and Nov.06 is neither found here nor on my essay site, point to point. In fact, you comment that you don't like religion and associated bigotry to be discussed here! I don't seem to mention any such thing at least in my postings. To be more matter of fact with your own essay, may i request you to illuminate me on the following aspects:-

1. Your basis of discussing Physics is based purely on fundamental mathematics, using scalars, pseudoscalars and their extension on the physical symmetry considerations. Thus, you attempt to provide geometrical representations for the fundamental particles. You then convert physical parameters into dimensionality numbers in dealing with fundamental physics. In short your hope is to describe physical phenomenon/processes in terms of frequencies of vibrations of space-time dimensions that implicitly involve

mass/energy and the interaction force-fields!

To me, Maths in Physics is a mere tool and certainly not a dictating factor. Observations and experimental facts control the conditions that govern mathematical parameters/expressions, not the other way around!

2.You have stopped far short of discussing any physical process or phenomenon in your model developed thus far. I doubt if you can go much further this way.

3.Physics thus far has developed on the basis of precepts and concepts that are physical in nature and not mathematical to start with. Mathematical expressions follow the conceptual picture one evolves after due considerations of observations/measurements available and intuitive and critical assessment of the same.

4. In my view, your mystic of four is a special case of Mathematical involvement, devoid of physical conditions prevalent to discuss the physical universe and processes undergoing therein. It is more a dream and less of reality or may i say, relative truth as seen in scientific phenomenon.

My observations above may well be ruled out by arguments best known to yourself. i humbly look forward to your enlightening and wise comments to satisfy my ignorance and 'childish' foolishness.This may well be true, as my understanding of Physics is rather limited to my R & D studies and general understanding only of mathematical physics, being an experimentalist.

N. Nath

while perusing through the past few postings on your essay by other authors, i note some acrimonious comments. We all need to avoid questioning the understanding and ability of others versus our own. Your response to my postings of Oct 31 and Nov.06 is neither found here nor on my essay site, point to point. In fact, you comment that you don't like religion and associated bigotry to be discussed here! I don't seem to mention any such thing at least in my postings. To be more matter of fact with your own essay, may i request you to illuminate me on the following aspects:-

1. Your basis of discussing Physics is based purely on fundamental mathematics, using scalars, pseudoscalars and their extension on the physical symmetry considerations. Thus, you attempt to provide geometrical representations for the fundamental particles. You then convert physical parameters into dimensionality numbers in dealing with fundamental physics. In short your hope is to describe physical phenomenon/processes in terms of frequencies of vibrations of space-time dimensions that implicitly involve

mass/energy and the interaction force-fields!

To me, Maths in Physics is a mere tool and certainly not a dictating factor. Observations and experimental facts control the conditions that govern mathematical parameters/expressions, not the other way around!

2.You have stopped far short of discussing any physical process or phenomenon in your model developed thus far. I doubt if you can go much further this way.

3.Physics thus far has developed on the basis of precepts and concepts that are physical in nature and not mathematical to start with. Mathematical expressions follow the conceptual picture one evolves after due considerations of observations/measurements available and intuitive and critical assessment of the same.

4. In my view, your mystic of four is a special case of Mathematical involvement, devoid of physical conditions prevalent to discuss the physical universe and processes undergoing therein. It is more a dream and less of reality or may i say, relative truth as seen in scientific phenomenon.

My observations above may well be ruled out by arguments best known to yourself. i humbly look forward to your enlightening and wise comments to satisfy my ignorance and 'childish' foolishness.This may well be true, as my understanding of Physics is rather limited to my R & D studies and general understanding only of mathematical physics, being an experimentalist.

N. Nath

- You, D. Bundy, are squaring the Greeks in mystic Pythagore; of course the Nature is not a question of 'numbers' for all the Greeks. It is not the case of Eleates. Zeno for example to whom C. Rovelli look like as he is attempting to disqualify the Time too.

Plato and Aristotle are very different too from the 'Greeks' you are speaking about. Aristotle is even building his Physics AGAINST Pythagore or Thales!

- The dichotomy is not in the Nature. Dots are not in the Nature but in our mind, so the dichotomy is in our mind and its name is: the language. It is the reason why I wrote in my article that you are quantifying the sphere instead of squaring the circle.

- I do agree with you oppositely when you say that Einstein's vectorial Time is made of the same nature than Quanta Physic's cellar Time; that is to say 'fake Time' in my opinion and the reason why I suggest to give up Einstein's idea of Time.

(I read recently in a scientific newspaper that it took a long Time to French scientists to admit Einstein's Theory just because French people were hating Jewish at this Time. No, it is because Einstein's theory is a 'musical Theory' (analogy with Organ pipes as 'Superstring Theory' and French people are not 'musical': just listen to a French guy speaking and you will understand what I say.)

Plato and Aristotle are very different too from the 'Greeks' you are speaking about. Aristotle is even building his Physics AGAINST Pythagore or Thales!

- The dichotomy is not in the Nature. Dots are not in the Nature but in our mind, so the dichotomy is in our mind and its name is: the language. It is the reason why I wrote in my article that you are quantifying the sphere instead of squaring the circle.

- I do agree with you oppositely when you say that Einstein's vectorial Time is made of the same nature than Quanta Physic's cellar Time; that is to say 'fake Time' in my opinion and the reason why I suggest to give up Einstein's idea of Time.

(I read recently in a scientific newspaper that it took a long Time to French scientists to admit Einstein's Theory just because French people were hating Jewish at this Time. No, it is because Einstein's theory is a 'musical Theory' (analogy with Organ pipes as 'Superstring Theory' and French people are not 'musical': just listen to a French guy speaking and you will understand what I say.)

Elliot, John, Narendra and F,

I appreciate the honest differences of opinions, on so many levels. To Elliot, I say, “Good try, but it won’t fly.” To John, I say, “Time is one aspect of motion. We can’t have one without the other.” To Narendra, I say, “That the fundamental physical processes might be unified with the fundamental mathematical functions, is the ultimate dream of a final theory.” To F. Le Rouge, I say, “It was the dichotomy of the discrete and continuous that brought down the Pythagoreans and that Einstein plagued himself about, but it disappears in the harmony of music.”

In all seriousness though, Einstein’s relativity theory (more accurately his covariant theory), was a breakthrough of immense proportions, not just because it was a leap from the absolute space and time of Newton, but because it was more than that. In reality, it showed that there is nothing but motion, albeit from a backdoor so-to-speak.

The question, then, becomes, if time can be slowed down, by motion, can it eventually be stopped and then reversed, by motion? Elliot will see that, if so, then what ever is traveling fast enough to stop time will be turned into a photon! Of course, turning fermions into bosons is just what Supersymmetry is all about. What? This means turning matter into force, and force into matter?

More…

I appreciate the honest differences of opinions, on so many levels. To Elliot, I say, “Good try, but it won’t fly.” To John, I say, “Time is one aspect of motion. We can’t have one without the other.” To Narendra, I say, “That the fundamental physical processes might be unified with the fundamental mathematical functions, is the ultimate dream of a final theory.” To F. Le Rouge, I say, “It was the dichotomy of the discrete and continuous that brought down the Pythagoreans and that Einstein plagued himself about, but it disappears in the harmony of music.”

In all seriousness though, Einstein’s relativity theory (more accurately his covariant theory), was a breakthrough of immense proportions, not just because it was a leap from the absolute space and time of Newton, but because it was more than that. In reality, it showed that there is nothing but motion, albeit from a backdoor so-to-speak.

The question, then, becomes, if time can be slowed down, by motion, can it eventually be stopped and then reversed, by motion? Elliot will see that, if so, then what ever is traveling fast enough to stop time will be turned into a photon! Of course, turning fermions into bosons is just what Supersymmetry is all about. What? This means turning matter into force, and force into matter?

More…

Doug,

“Time is one aspect of motion."

So would you agree that the arrow of time for the series of states created by the periodicity of motion go from future potential to past circumstance?

That the energy manifesting these states can only inhabit one state at a time, thus there is no "block time," so the information recorded in these states is deteriorated and lost?

“Time is one aspect of motion."

So would you agree that the arrow of time for the series of states created by the periodicity of motion go from future potential to past circumstance?

That the energy manifesting these states can only inhabit one state at a time, thus there is no "block time," so the information recorded in these states is deteriorated and lost?

Dear Doug,

there were four specific points i raised on your essay. Your short response saying that 'fundamental physical processes might be unified with the fundamental mathematical functions, is the ultimate dream of a final theory'. The truth about science lies with the Experimental observations and not with any theoretical approach that is developed ignoring observed facts and due analysis of the same.The later help provide the precepts that are then logically converted into basic conceptualization before working out a pertinent mathematical approach.

You are of course free to disregard the four point approach i happen to mention for developing a theory using mathematical tools! All good luck to your theory!

there were four specific points i raised on your essay. Your short response saying that 'fundamental physical processes might be unified with the fundamental mathematical functions, is the ultimate dream of a final theory'. The truth about science lies with the Experimental observations and not with any theoretical approach that is developed ignoring observed facts and due analysis of the same.The later help provide the precepts that are then logically converted into basic conceptualization before working out a pertinent mathematical approach.

You are of course free to disregard the four point approach i happen to mention for developing a theory using mathematical tools! All good luck to your theory!

John,

When you say, “So would you agree that the arrow of time for the series of states created by the periodicity of motion go from future potential to past circumstance?”

I assume you mean to ask if I agree that the arrow of time “goes” from future to past. No, I don’t believe that it goes from future to past, but I agree that you could look at it that way, in a sense, just as a moving observer in a car could look at the passing terrain that way.

But as far as agreeing that the energy in a series of states must eliminate the possibility of block time, I can’t answer that, because the question is complicated by too many uncertain definitions and assumptions.

In general, though, the basic periodic process of potential and kinetic energy exchange is still the best description of what happens on the largest scale. Potential energy is converted into kinetic energy and vice-versa, when gravitational motion aggregates matter over time, eventually leading to exceedingly violent explosions that impart vectorial motions to matter at high enough speeds to cross the unit boundary, where the inverse motion in the t/s sector takes over, and the cycle restarts in that sector.

It was knowledge of this process that enabled Larson to predict what are now called quasars and radio galaxies, a year or two before they were discovered, but it’s complicated by the principles of interaction of vectorial and scalar motion and their inverses.

In the s/t sector, the dimensions of energy, t/s, are the inverse of the dimensions of motion, s/t, but the dimensions of mass are convertible into the dimensions of energy, by the inverse dimensions of velocity squared, because mass is the resistance to motion, in any given direction. This is a consequence of the three-dimensional character of the inward motion constituting matter, but, as long as the only way to measure it is by its resistance to outward motion, its dimensions appear as t^3/s^3 dimensions, confusing the heck out of things.

This, and the fact that energy is defined, through the concepts of force and work, as a one-dimensional vector, instead of as a zero-dimensional scalar, has to be understood, before one can sort out the arrow of time in terms of energy and information conservation.

As I implied in the article here, the process of entropy that follows the arrow of time in one sector is restarted, when the arrow of “time” is reversed, in the inverse sector, but this is only possible because that arrow of “time” appears as the arrow of space, from across the unit boundary.

When you say, “So would you agree that the arrow of time for the series of states created by the periodicity of motion go from future potential to past circumstance?”

I assume you mean to ask if I agree that the arrow of time “goes” from future to past. No, I don’t believe that it goes from future to past, but I agree that you could look at it that way, in a sense, just as a moving observer in a car could look at the passing terrain that way.

But as far as agreeing that the energy in a series of states must eliminate the possibility of block time, I can’t answer that, because the question is complicated by too many uncertain definitions and assumptions.

In general, though, the basic periodic process of potential and kinetic energy exchange is still the best description of what happens on the largest scale. Potential energy is converted into kinetic energy and vice-versa, when gravitational motion aggregates matter over time, eventually leading to exceedingly violent explosions that impart vectorial motions to matter at high enough speeds to cross the unit boundary, where the inverse motion in the t/s sector takes over, and the cycle restarts in that sector.

It was knowledge of this process that enabled Larson to predict what are now called quasars and radio galaxies, a year or two before they were discovered, but it’s complicated by the principles of interaction of vectorial and scalar motion and their inverses.

In the s/t sector, the dimensions of energy, t/s, are the inverse of the dimensions of motion, s/t, but the dimensions of mass are convertible into the dimensions of energy, by the inverse dimensions of velocity squared, because mass is the resistance to motion, in any given direction. This is a consequence of the three-dimensional character of the inward motion constituting matter, but, as long as the only way to measure it is by its resistance to outward motion, its dimensions appear as t^3/s^3 dimensions, confusing the heck out of things.

This, and the fact that energy is defined, through the concepts of force and work, as a one-dimensional vector, instead of as a zero-dimensional scalar, has to be understood, before one can sort out the arrow of time in terms of energy and information conservation.

As I implied in the article here, the process of entropy that follows the arrow of time in one sector is restarted, when the arrow of “time” is reversed, in the inverse sector, but this is only possible because that arrow of “time” appears as the arrow of space, from across the unit boundary.

Narendra,

I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to ignore your specific questions. It’s only a matter of available time and energy that I must prioritize. You wrote:

“1. Your basis of discussing Physics is based purely on fundamental mathematics, using scalars, pseudoscalars and their extension on the physical symmetry considerations. Thus, you attempt to provide geometrical...

view entire post

I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to ignore your specific questions. It’s only a matter of available time and energy that I must prioritize. You wrote:

“1. Your basis of discussing Physics is based purely on fundamental mathematics, using scalars, pseudoscalars and their extension on the physical symmetry considerations. Thus, you attempt to provide geometrical...

view entire post

I am so happy to see your response to me as well as John in the last 2 posts. i now have a better prospective of what your approach is. Best of luck. One point i am sure u will agree to is to intermix mathematical and physical concepts before proceeding too far with pure maths. it may well save you from unnecessary efforts that may not help Physics in any way!

The point about entropy with regard to time was raised. Universe was homogeneous with low entropy to begin with, compared to its hetrogenous state now. Will the end then correspond to complete chaos without any order left in the universe. How to develop a theory for describing such an end of the Universe in cosmology? Before Big bang there were schools of thought which believed in creation through collisions between contracting and expanding or between matter and antimatter pre-existing universes, for generating a new universe! Somehow i strongly believe that an element of order can never be eliminated from chaos. Order contains chaos but not the other way around!In my own essay on the site, i have raised such prospects!

The point about entropy with regard to time was raised. Universe was homogeneous with low entropy to begin with, compared to its hetrogenous state now. Will the end then correspond to complete chaos without any order left in the universe. How to develop a theory for describing such an end of the Universe in cosmology? Before Big bang there were schools of thought which believed in creation through collisions between contracting and expanding or between matter and antimatter pre-existing universes, for generating a new universe! Somehow i strongly believe that an element of order can never be eliminated from chaos. Order contains chaos but not the other way around!In my own essay on the site, i have raised such prospects!

Doug,

I understand the entropic, cause and effect direction of time. My observation is that this series of occurrences is manifested by the same energy set. So, from a physical standpoint, which is foundational; The energy, or the events. If we view the energy as the constant and the time vector of these events as the consequence, the flow of time is of the events going from future potential to past circumstance. The earth doesn't exist in a block time, where it is yesterday, today and tomorrow. By the motion of rotation, the event that is today, becomes yesterday. Yesterday and tomorrow don't exist because the energy to manifest them is busy with today. Otherwise there would have to be sufficient energy to manifest every point in time and that just isn't very efficient. Also the transition from one energy set to the next would be complicated, to say the least.

It is when we try to construct a physical description of reality in which energy moves along this vector that confusion arises. Consider quantum probability; When we view energy moving toward the probabilities of the future, it branches out into many worlds and cats who are both living and dead, but if we view it from the other direction and energy is just moving about and settling on those paths with the greatest probabilities, then it is future potential collapsing into past circumstance.

The irony here is that epicycles, physics greatest wrong turn, were based on the same basic conceptual error. We see the sun as moving east to west and the assumption was that it must be circling the earth in that direction. Yet the opposite is true, it is the earth rotating relative to the sun, west to east. Our clocks still represent that original assumption, in that from the northern hemisphere, we see the sun moving left to right, just as the hands of the clock go left to right across the top of the clock. So a clock which would truly represent the heliocentric reality would therefore have a stable hand to represent the sun and a face that rotated counterclockwise, or right to left across the top.

There are natives of South America who view the past as in front of them and the future as behind them. That is because their point of reference, the hands of their clock, is the energy, not the observer. Our model of the observer as the point of reference is actually more primitive, since we view time as the dimension along which we travel, from past events to future ones. While from their perspective, it is the event which occurs first, then it is observed. Now put that model in the context of Schrodinger's cat. The arrow of time travels from the quantum fluctuation, to the poison, to the cat, to the observer. Does that make some sense?

I understand the entropic, cause and effect direction of time. My observation is that this series of occurrences is manifested by the same energy set. So, from a physical standpoint, which is foundational; The energy, or the events. If we view the energy as the constant and the time vector of these events as the consequence, the flow of time is of the events going from future potential to past circumstance. The earth doesn't exist in a block time, where it is yesterday, today and tomorrow. By the motion of rotation, the event that is today, becomes yesterday. Yesterday and tomorrow don't exist because the energy to manifest them is busy with today. Otherwise there would have to be sufficient energy to manifest every point in time and that just isn't very efficient. Also the transition from one energy set to the next would be complicated, to say the least.

It is when we try to construct a physical description of reality in which energy moves along this vector that confusion arises. Consider quantum probability; When we view energy moving toward the probabilities of the future, it branches out into many worlds and cats who are both living and dead, but if we view it from the other direction and energy is just moving about and settling on those paths with the greatest probabilities, then it is future potential collapsing into past circumstance.

The irony here is that epicycles, physics greatest wrong turn, were based on the same basic conceptual error. We see the sun as moving east to west and the assumption was that it must be circling the earth in that direction. Yet the opposite is true, it is the earth rotating relative to the sun, west to east. Our clocks still represent that original assumption, in that from the northern hemisphere, we see the sun moving left to right, just as the hands of the clock go left to right across the top of the clock. So a clock which would truly represent the heliocentric reality would therefore have a stable hand to represent the sun and a face that rotated counterclockwise, or right to left across the top.

There are natives of South America who view the past as in front of them and the future as behind them. That is because their point of reference, the hands of their clock, is the energy, not the observer. Our model of the observer as the point of reference is actually more primitive, since we view time as the dimension along which we travel, from past events to future ones. While from their perspective, it is the event which occurs first, then it is observed. Now put that model in the context of Schrodinger's cat. The arrow of time travels from the quantum fluctuation, to the poison, to the cat, to the observer. Does that make some sense?

Hi John,

I think it does make some sense, but I don’t know how to work with it. In my development of an RST-based theory, the present doesn’t materialize as an event, until a measurement is made, and since the measurement potentially can be made at any point on the surface of the expanding pseudoscalar, the path from the past to the present doesn’t materialize until the measurement in the present is made in relation to a past measurement.

In other words, it’s not until the second measurement is made that the past has any meaning. A series of measurements in the present defines the past, which otherwise not only remains undefined, but undefinable.

This is so much like the collapse of the wave function that it’s eerie. With two events, it is impossible not to define the line between them, but with three events, the probability that a line will be defined between the three is minuscule. The greater probability is that an area will be defined (i.e. the three events will not lie on a line). With four events, the probability that all four events will lie on a line is all but non-existent, while the probability that they will all lie on a plane is small, and the probability that they will be contained in a volume is the greatest.

But what is just mind boggling to my mind is that there is no way to define the future or the past with a succession of measurements on the progression, since if one waits long enough between measurements, the possibility exists that any two or more measuring events can spatially coincide!

This means that distance cannot be definitely correlated with the passage of time, nor that spatial proximity can be confidently correlated with temporal proximity. The implications of this are immense, but inescapable. Causality is not sacrificed, it’s just that it is indeterminate!

I think it does make some sense, but I don’t know how to work with it. In my development of an RST-based theory, the present doesn’t materialize as an event, until a measurement is made, and since the measurement potentially can be made at any point on the surface of the expanding pseudoscalar, the path from the past to the present doesn’t materialize until the measurement in the present is made in relation to a past measurement.

In other words, it’s not until the second measurement is made that the past has any meaning. A series of measurements in the present defines the past, which otherwise not only remains undefined, but undefinable.

This is so much like the collapse of the wave function that it’s eerie. With two events, it is impossible not to define the line between them, but with three events, the probability that a line will be defined between the three is minuscule. The greater probability is that an area will be defined (i.e. the three events will not lie on a line). With four events, the probability that all four events will lie on a line is all but non-existent, while the probability that they will all lie on a plane is small, and the probability that they will be contained in a volume is the greatest.

But what is just mind boggling to my mind is that there is no way to define the future or the past with a succession of measurements on the progression, since if one waits long enough between measurements, the possibility exists that any two or more measuring events can spatially coincide!

This means that distance cannot be definitely correlated with the passage of time, nor that spatial proximity can be confidently correlated with temporal proximity. The implications of this are immense, but inescapable. Causality is not sacrificed, it’s just that it is indeterminate!

Doug,

"In other words, it’s not until the second measurement is made that the past has any meaning. A series of measurements in the present defines the past, which otherwise not only remains undefined, but undefinable."

So we are basically describing the same thing, that the past emerges from the present. We don't know what is going to happen, until it does, then it recedes into...

view entire post

"In other words, it’s not until the second measurement is made that the past has any meaning. A series of measurements in the present defines the past, which otherwise not only remains undefined, but undefinable."

So we are basically describing the same thing, that the past emerges from the present. We don't know what is going to happen, until it does, then it recedes into...

view entire post

John,

What’s so intriguing about this is that it means that it wouldn’t just apply to the findings that old galaxies are out of place, but also that short-lived particles are strangely out of place too. Now, guess what is causing a sensation in the physics blogosphere? Ghostly muons!.

There’s a short article about it in New Scientist and also one at Slashdot.

Of course, they’re not sure if they are just seeing things or not, but theorists are sure scrambling to try and explain it anyway, as Peter Woit explains in his blog entry, the Circus Begins.

I can’t imagine that it would ever occur to any of them that the source of the muon decay (if it’s real) didn’t necessarily have to live long enough to have traveled to the outside of the beam pipe!

What’s so intriguing about this is that it means that it wouldn’t just apply to the findings that old galaxies are out of place, but also that short-lived particles are strangely out of place too. Now, guess what is causing a sensation in the physics blogosphere? Ghostly muons!.

There’s a short article about it in New Scientist and also one at Slashdot.

Of course, they’re not sure if they are just seeing things or not, but theorists are sure scrambling to try and explain it anyway, as Peter Woit explains in his blog entry, the Circus Begins.

I can’t imagine that it would ever occur to any of them that the source of the muon decay (if it’s real) didn’t necessarily have to live long enough to have traveled to the outside of the beam pipe!

I hate this lame editor! You have to remove the protocol text from links, which I guess I didn't remember to do. Here are the links that should work.

Ghostly Muons.

New Scientist.

Slashdot.

Circus Begins.

Hopefully, they work.

Ghostly Muons.

New Scientist.

Slashdot.

Circus Begins.

Hopefully, they work.

Doug,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your interpretation of this is that since the process by which these particles are produced is unknown, that means there is no process and they simply appear. ?

If that is so, I should note all the effort being argued over in these papers is to find and describe the process.

I should note that prior to these particles appearing, for whatever reason, or lack thereof, they were in the future and after they disintegrate, they are in the past. So it would seem their timeline is future to past. Now the fundamental energy of which they consist, presumably, goes from past particles to future particles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your interpretation of this is that since the process by which these particles are produced is unknown, that means there is no process and they simply appear. ?

If that is so, I should note all the effort being argued over in these papers is to find and describe the process.

I should note that prior to these particles appearing, for whatever reason, or lack thereof, they were in the future and after they disintegrate, they are in the past. So it would seem their timeline is future to past. Now the fundamental energy of which they consist, presumably, goes from past particles to future particles.

John,

No, it's that just as the sequence of measuring events at the expanding surface of a spatial pseudoscalar cannot be ordered spatially, due to the uncertainty principle, so too the sequence of measuring events at the expanding surface of a temporal pseudoscalar cannot be ordered temporally, and I thought one might be able to explain some things, if that were to be taken into account, in this case.

But it’s way to early to say much. The only point I would make at this point is that, in RST-based theory, both vectorial motion and scalar motion have a part in natural phenomena and it’s not always easy to separate them.

In this case, thirty-three percent of the collaborators wouldn’t even sign off on the paper. If this rare event turns out to be a meaningful event, then it will no doubt be confirmed at CERN, so it’s probably best to wait to see what happens then.

No, it's that just as the sequence of measuring events at the expanding surface of a spatial pseudoscalar cannot be ordered spatially, due to the uncertainty principle, so too the sequence of measuring events at the expanding surface of a temporal pseudoscalar cannot be ordered temporally, and I thought one might be able to explain some things, if that were to be taken into account, in this case.

But it’s way to early to say much. The only point I would make at this point is that, in RST-based theory, both vectorial motion and scalar motion have a part in natural phenomena and it’s not always easy to separate them.

In this case, thirty-three percent of the collaborators wouldn’t even sign off on the paper. If this rare event turns out to be a meaningful event, then it will no doubt be confirmed at CERN, so it’s probably best to wait to see what happens then.

Doug,

"it's that just as the sequence of measuring events at the expanding surface of a spatial pseudoscalar cannot be ordered spatially, due to the uncertainty principle, so too the sequence of measuring events at the expanding surface of a temporal pseudoscalar cannot be ordered temporally"

This explains why the inherent relationship between the concepts of time and temperature are inseparable.

"it's that just as the sequence of measuring events at the expanding surface of a spatial pseudoscalar cannot be ordered spatially, due to the uncertainty principle, so too the sequence of measuring events at the expanding surface of a temporal pseudoscalar cannot be ordered temporally"

This explains why the inherent relationship between the concepts of time and temperature are inseparable.

In the latest post in his forum, Philip Gibbs writes:

“A central idea of the thesis in my essay is that symmetry is still important in going beyond our current understanding of physics. Actually it is a dual message. One half of it is that time reversal symmetry (or CPT at least) should not be ignored in deeper theories of quantum gravity or cosmology. In other words we should not be...

view entire post

“A central idea of the thesis in my essay is that symmetry is still important in going beyond our current understanding of physics. Actually it is a dual message. One half of it is that time reversal symmetry (or CPT at least) should not be ignored in deeper theories of quantum gravity or cosmology. In other words we should not be...

view entire post

i agree that the concept of time is not an essential to understand the universe. But somehow it is tied to the velocity of light in space/time picture of theory of relativity and the observational aspect gets involved with the limiting nature of 'c'. Till one works out alternate theory of 'all things',one has to contend with what we have. Motion includes vibrations of various kinds and Physics is nothing more than the study of such motions. Even mass and energy are mere distortions of space/time. Somehow, if one can just deal with using a unified force field, instead of its four variants, one may have to bear with the dualities in Physics.

Hello Doug,

I'm not sure if you have been keeping up with the literature, but String Theory isn't really a physical theory, nor is M Theory. Five years ago you might have won a first place prize simply by talking about them, but after thirty years of doing nothing to advance physics, String Theory and M Theory are on their way out.

And "Symmtrey" as an oft abused notion, as Nobel...

view entire post

I'm not sure if you have been keeping up with the literature, but String Theory isn't really a physical theory, nor is M Theory. Five years ago you might have won a first place prize simply by talking about them, but after thirty years of doing nothing to advance physics, String Theory and M Theory are on their way out.

And "Symmtrey" as an oft abused notion, as Nobel...

view entire post

Dear Dr.E on the essay site of Doug Bundy,

i agree that you apologised for your long post. Did Doug demanded such a legthy post from you? May i interject to indicate that such posts repeating things said by others as well as yourself earlier only make things difficult to follow, rather than provide clarity to the discussions. The fate of MDT will be decided with the passage of time and not now. To me, theory of everything is a desired objective but it requires total comprehension of Physics. The latter is hard to achieve, most of us are specialists in limited areas. To have bright innovative ideas, one needs to be free from biases. It is easy said than done. Let Doug respond to your post. If he does not, kindly avoid another post if you can!

i agree that you apologised for your long post. Did Doug demanded such a legthy post from you? May i interject to indicate that such posts repeating things said by others as well as yourself earlier only make things difficult to follow, rather than provide clarity to the discussions. The fate of MDT will be decided with the passage of time and not now. To me, theory of everything is a desired objective but it requires total comprehension of Physics. The latter is hard to achieve, most of us are specialists in limited areas. To have bright innovative ideas, one needs to be free from biases. It is easy said than done. Let Doug respond to your post. If he does not, kindly avoid another post if you can!

Hello Narenda,

Sorry if some of the post repeated earlier criticisms of string theory, but from the way string theory was still being lauded just above, in 11/2008, I got the feeling that nobody had yet seen any of the criticisms of string theory, which isn't science.

I also highly recommend Smolin's THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS and Woit's NOT EVEN WRONG, as well as Laughlin's A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE--he won the Nobel Laureate and his views on symmetry are great to read, as I quote above.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Sorry if some of the post repeated earlier criticisms of string theory, but from the way string theory was still being lauded just above, in 11/2008, I got the feeling that nobody had yet seen any of the criticisms of string theory, which isn't science.

I also highly recommend Smolin's THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS and Woit's NOT EVEN WRONG, as well as Laughlin's A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE--he won the Nobel Laureate and his views on symmetry are great to read, as I quote above.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Elliot,

Thanks for your lengthy tirade against string theory. However, anybody who studies theoretical physics and fundamental questions and isn’t familiar with those issues and quotes, would have to have been living in a cave.

What string theory did, though, was find a way to use the concept of vibration (i.e. motion) to overcome the problem with the particle concept. As Einstein said, it would be enough to understand the electron. The electron as a point particle is enigmatic, while the electron, as a vibrating string is not so much, at least in as much as the infinities are concerned.

The best way to understand this is through the differences in the Feynman diagrams of particles, with their vertices, and the corresponding Feynman diagrams of strings, where their “pants” form replaces the problematic vertices, which is the point at which the infinities occur.

As far as the validity of the fundamental role of the principle of symmetry goes, please re-read Philip Gibb’s essay.

As far as your using this forum to practice writing your book on the virtues of MDT, I wish you wouldn’t. I notice that whenever you post in other essay forums, the subject of your comment is usually little more than a pretext for praising MDT. Enough already, please.

Thanks for your lengthy tirade against string theory. However, anybody who studies theoretical physics and fundamental questions and isn’t familiar with those issues and quotes, would have to have been living in a cave.

What string theory did, though, was find a way to use the concept of vibration (i.e. motion) to overcome the problem with the particle concept. As Einstein said, it would be enough to understand the electron. The electron as a point particle is enigmatic, while the electron, as a vibrating string is not so much, at least in as much as the infinities are concerned.

The best way to understand this is through the differences in the Feynman diagrams of particles, with their vertices, and the corresponding Feynman diagrams of strings, where their “pants” form replaces the problematic vertices, which is the point at which the infinities occur.

As far as the validity of the fundamental role of the principle of symmetry goes, please re-read Philip Gibb’s essay.

As far as your using this forum to practice writing your book on the virtues of MDT, I wish you wouldn’t. I notice that whenever you post in other essay forums, the subject of your comment is usually little more than a pretext for praising MDT. Enough already, please.

Thanks Doug,

You write, "What string theory did, though, was find a way to use the concept of vibration (i.e. motion) to overcome the problem with the particle concept. As Einstein said, it would be enough to understand the electron. The electron as a point particle is enigmatic, while the electron, as a vibrating string is not so much, at least in as much as the infinities are concerned."

Yes--I'll give you that--string theory at least tried to weave motion into the fundamental fabric of our universe, but where String Theory failed, MDT succeeded, by weaving change and motion into the fundamental fabric of spacetime: dx4/dt=ic.

The fourth dimension expands at the rate c, as a spherically-symmetric wavefront with a wavelength of Planck's length, alleviating us of the problems of point particles, and determining the following:

1. The value of Planck's constant.

2. The velocity of light.

3. The wave/particle nature of all matter/energy.

4. The maximum/minimum/only velocity of the universe.

5. The quantum nature of all matter/energy (comes from the wave-like expansion of the fourth dimension)

6. Nonlocality/entanglement--the fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time

7. Time and all its arrows and assymetries

8. Entropy

9. Huygens' Principle

10. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (comes form the fact that the fourth dimension itself has a wavelike character with a wavelength of the Planck Length, thusly limiting all measurements to an accuracy on the order of the Planck Length).

11. All of relativity is readily derived from MDT, as MDT provides the deeper, fundamental motivation for replacing x4 with ict in a 4D universe.

To keep this message short, attached please find figures which also show how MDT accounts for gravitational redshift and slowing of light and time, while illustrating the fundamental universal invariant--the constant, wavelike expansion of the fourth dimension--that sets the velocity of light as well as the value of Planck's constant.

What's not to love about MDT's massive unification based on a simple/novel *physical* model and maverick concept which weaves change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, while liberating us from frozen time and the block universe, granting us free will?

OK--back to string theory/M-theory now, and all their non-existsent, gallant, handwaving tricks and triumphs, as they are far, far better funded than MDT, to the tune of billions. :)

attachments: 3_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

You write, "What string theory did, though, was find a way to use the concept of vibration (i.e. motion) to overcome the problem with the particle concept. As Einstein said, it would be enough to understand the electron. The electron as a point particle is enigmatic, while the electron, as a vibrating string is not so much, at least in as much as the infinities are concerned."

Yes--I'll give you that--string theory at least tried to weave motion into the fundamental fabric of our universe, but where String Theory failed, MDT succeeded, by weaving change and motion into the fundamental fabric of spacetime: dx4/dt=ic.

The fourth dimension expands at the rate c, as a spherically-symmetric wavefront with a wavelength of Planck's length, alleviating us of the problems of point particles, and determining the following:

1. The value of Planck's constant.

2. The velocity of light.

3. The wave/particle nature of all matter/energy.

4. The maximum/minimum/only velocity of the universe.

5. The quantum nature of all matter/energy (comes from the wave-like expansion of the fourth dimension)

6. Nonlocality/entanglement--the fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time

7. Time and all its arrows and assymetries

8. Entropy

9. Huygens' Principle

10. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (comes form the fact that the fourth dimension itself has a wavelike character with a wavelength of the Planck Length, thusly limiting all measurements to an accuracy on the order of the Planck Length).

11. All of relativity is readily derived from MDT, as MDT provides the deeper, fundamental motivation for replacing x4 with ict in a 4D universe.

To keep this message short, attached please find figures which also show how MDT accounts for gravitational redshift and slowing of light and time, while illustrating the fundamental universal invariant--the constant, wavelike expansion of the fourth dimension--that sets the velocity of light as well as the value of Planck's constant.

What's not to love about MDT's massive unification based on a simple/novel *physical* model and maverick concept which weaves change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, while liberating us from frozen time and the block universe, granting us free will?

OK--back to string theory/M-theory now, and all their non-existsent, gallant, handwaving tricks and triumphs, as they are far, far better funded than MDT, to the tune of billions. :)

attachments: 3_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Elliot,

I don’t know why you keep insisting on using the forums for other people’s essays to discuss MDT, even though you have been asked repeatedly and politely to cease and desist.

I’ve told you before, the fact that time and space are expanding is a very good bet, but to say that x4 is a moving dimension, without saying a dimension of what, and making it expand over time is...

view entire post

I don’t know why you keep insisting on using the forums for other people’s essays to discuss MDT, even though you have been asked repeatedly and politely to cease and desist.

I’ve told you before, the fact that time and space are expanding is a very good bet, but to say that x4 is a moving dimension, without saying a dimension of what, and making it expand over time is...

view entire post

"I’ve told you before, the fact that time and space are expanding is a very good bet, but to say that x4 is a moving dimension, without saying a dimension of what, and making it expand over time is just nonsense, and everyone but you knows it." --Doug

I find Dr. E's MDT far more appealing than your theory on numerous levels. For starters he actually focuses on a new physical model and mechanism, not just a bunch of neither-here-nor-there words pretending to be physics/maths.

What do you mean "without saying a dimension of what?"

x4 is a dimension just like the three spatial dimensions, as far as I can tell, except it moves. What are the three spatial dimensions of?

"In an RST-based theory, x4, is the fourth time variable. It is a scalar expansion, the reciprocal of the 1D, 2D and 3D pseudoscalar expansion. However, there’s no need to equate it to ict. Einstein did this in order to equate Minkowski spacetime with expanding Euclidean space." --doug

This sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Doug, before we go any further, do you have a Ph.D. in physics, or a bachelors degree in physics? Have you studied physics?

x4 = ict is a fact of nature.

And what do you mean that x4 is the fourth time variable? What are the other three time variables?

Einstein and Minkowski wrote x4 = ict because it is true.

And it seems to me that Dr. E is onto something, for as t progresses, x4 must change, or move. Simple and elegant with far-reaching consequences in all fields of physics. General Relativity already taught us that dimensions stretch/move.

Also, the spacetime of General Relativity is non-Euclidian.

Please get a physics degree, if you do not have one, and join us again.

How did your essay get so many votes, and how is it that you are the head of a physics institute without a physics degree? Where does one sign up for this career track?

Really. Your words are worse than the Sokal Hoax: "What my essay discusses is that there exists a mathematical symmetry, consisting of these two circles and the inverse of the real circle, with radius r = 2. That the symmetry underlies a field, consisting of the group of integers, under addition, and the rationals, under multiplication, is very important, because it means that an algebra exists that the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division (except division by zero) may be performed in a way that satisfies some familiar rules from the arithmetic of ordinary numbers."

Is this a satire of a satire?

Do any other true physicists see a problem here?

Thanks,

Physics Nick

I find Dr. E's MDT far more appealing than your theory on numerous levels. For starters he actually focuses on a new physical model and mechanism, not just a bunch of neither-here-nor-there words pretending to be physics/maths.

What do you mean "without saying a dimension of what?"

x4 is a dimension just like the three spatial dimensions, as far as I can tell, except it moves. What are the three spatial dimensions of?

"In an RST-based theory, x4, is the fourth time variable. It is a scalar expansion, the reciprocal of the 1D, 2D and 3D pseudoscalar expansion. However, there’s no need to equate it to ict. Einstein did this in order to equate Minkowski spacetime with expanding Euclidean space." --doug

This sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Doug, before we go any further, do you have a Ph.D. in physics, or a bachelors degree in physics? Have you studied physics?

x4 = ict is a fact of nature.

And what do you mean that x4 is the fourth time variable? What are the other three time variables?

Einstein and Minkowski wrote x4 = ict because it is true.

And it seems to me that Dr. E is onto something, for as t progresses, x4 must change, or move. Simple and elegant with far-reaching consequences in all fields of physics. General Relativity already taught us that dimensions stretch/move.

Also, the spacetime of General Relativity is non-Euclidian.

Please get a physics degree, if you do not have one, and join us again.

How did your essay get so many votes, and how is it that you are the head of a physics institute without a physics degree? Where does one sign up for this career track?

Really. Your words are worse than the Sokal Hoax: "What my essay discusses is that there exists a mathematical symmetry, consisting of these two circles and the inverse of the real circle, with radius r = 2. That the symmetry underlies a field, consisting of the group of integers, under addition, and the rationals, under multiplication, is very important, because it means that an algebra exists that the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division (except division by zero) may be performed in a way that satisfies some familiar rules from the arithmetic of ordinary numbers."

Is this a satire of a satire?

Do any other true physicists see a problem here?

Thanks,

Physics Nick

Thanks for your favourable remarks concerning my essay.

I see you have many interesting mathematical concepts in your work. Clifford algebras and other structures that work in powers of two are very important in physics and keep appearing. E.g. in the work of Tony Smith and Matti Pitkänen as well as more established theories like superstrings. My necklace algebras are also closely related to Clifford algebras. Of course they appeared decades ago when spinors were introduced and also as fermionic creation operators but that was just the tip of the iceberg.

These powers of two seem to be related to the role of information in physics. Information arises as a theoretical concept for understanding entropy so its importance in the foundations of physics is not surprising. What is surprising is that the universe seems to be programmed in binary qubits just like a quantum computer.

These ideas go back many years, for example in the ur theory of Carl von Weizsäcker. He started with a classical bit and used multiple quantisation to bootstrap the universe. It is amazing how even the craziest ideas originally based on the simplest of clues can later turn out to be related to real physics. That is why it is so good to have platforms like this essay contest where anyone can put forward their theories.

Your recipocracy makes me think of dualities in string theory, especially T-duality where small distance scales R are daul to larage distance scales 1/R.

Good luck!

I see you have many interesting mathematical concepts in your work. Clifford algebras and other structures that work in powers of two are very important in physics and keep appearing. E.g. in the work of Tony Smith and Matti Pitkänen as well as more established theories like superstrings. My necklace algebras are also closely related to Clifford algebras. Of course they appeared decades ago when spinors were introduced and also as fermionic creation operators but that was just the tip of the iceberg.

These powers of two seem to be related to the role of information in physics. Information arises as a theoretical concept for understanding entropy so its importance in the foundations of physics is not surprising. What is surprising is that the universe seems to be programmed in binary qubits just like a quantum computer.

These ideas go back many years, for example in the ur theory of Carl von Weizsäcker. He started with a classical bit and used multiple quantisation to bootstrap the universe. It is amazing how even the craziest ideas originally based on the simplest of clues can later turn out to be related to real physics. That is why it is so good to have platforms like this essay contest where anyone can put forward their theories.

Your recipocracy makes me think of dualities in string theory, especially T-duality where small distance scales R are daul to larage distance scales 1/R.

Good luck!

Dear author Doug Bundy,

The above two postings by Physics Nick and Philip Gibbs do need a response from you. Also, my own posts of Nov., 15 & 19 may be considered along with, for your response.

The above two postings by Physics Nick and Philip Gibbs do need a response from you. Also, my own posts of Nov., 15 & 19 may be considered along with, for your response.

Physics Nick,

Are you a sock puppet? Your writing style and sentiment are so close to Elliot’s that it’s difficult to tell you apart. In fact, I will assume that you are the same, unless you care to identify yourself and give me some reason to believe otherwise.

You write: “I find Dr. E's MDT far more appealing than your theory on numerous levels. For starters he actually...

view entire post

Are you a sock puppet? Your writing style and sentiment are so close to Elliot’s that it’s difficult to tell you apart. In fact, I will assume that you are the same, unless you care to identify yourself and give me some reason to believe otherwise.

You write: “I find Dr. E's MDT far more appealing than your theory on numerous levels. For starters he actually...

view entire post

Hi Philip,

Thanks so much for your comments. When people ask me what I do, I tell them that I study the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, all day long and into the night. Of course, they don’t believe me, but it is true.

I’m glad you noticed the parallel with the T-duality of string theory. It is striking, but you are the first to mention it to me. When I first heard David Gross talk about it years ago I marveled, but had to keep it to myself.

Of course, as you point out, the fundamental duality in the powers of two is everywhere, teasing us out of thought in geometry, in abstract algebra, in physics. I love John Baez’s musings about octonions and Bott periodicity, one of the “spooky facts of mathematics that you'd never guess in a million years…,” as he puts it.

I found a really great paper on the ubiquitous factor of 2, by Peter Rowlands, entitled “The Factor 2 in Fundamental Physics,” I highly recommend it, if you’re not already familiar with it:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0110/0110069v1.pdf

Well

thanks again Philip. Best wishes and good luck to you too on your essay.

Thanks so much for your comments. When people ask me what I do, I tell them that I study the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, all day long and into the night. Of course, they don’t believe me, but it is true.

I’m glad you noticed the parallel with the T-duality of string theory. It is striking, but you are the first to mention it to me. When I first heard David Gross talk about it years ago I marveled, but had to keep it to myself.

Of course, as you point out, the fundamental duality in the powers of two is everywhere, teasing us out of thought in geometry, in abstract algebra, in physics. I love John Baez’s musings about octonions and Bott periodicity, one of the “spooky facts of mathematics that you'd never guess in a million years…,” as he puts it.

I found a really great paper on the ubiquitous factor of 2, by Peter Rowlands, entitled “The Factor 2 in Fundamental Physics,” I highly recommend it, if you’re not already familiar with it:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0110/0110069v1.pdf

Well

thanks again Philip. Best wishes and good luck to you too on your essay.

Hi Naarendra,

You wrote:

“i agree that the concept of time is not an essential to understand the universe. But somehow it is tied to the velocity of light in space/time picture of theory of relativity and the observational aspect gets involved with the limiting nature of 'c'. Till one works out alternate theory of 'all things',one has to contend with what we have. Motion includes vibrations of various kinds and Physics is nothing more than the study of such motions. Even mass and energy are mere distortions of space/time. Somehow, if one can just deal with using a unified force field, instead of its four variants, one may have to bear with the dualities in Physics.”

My point is that time is only a measure of change, but as such, it is only one aspect of that change. The other aspect of change is another quantity, such as space. We cannot measure one aspect of change without the other, reciprocal, aspect. It is this fundamental duality of reciprocity that shows up everywhere.

You wrote:

“i agree that the concept of time is not an essential to understand the universe. But somehow it is tied to the velocity of light in space/time picture of theory of relativity and the observational aspect gets involved with the limiting nature of 'c'. Till one works out alternate theory of 'all things',one has to contend with what we have. Motion includes vibrations of various kinds and Physics is nothing more than the study of such motions. Even mass and energy are mere distortions of space/time. Somehow, if one can just deal with using a unified force field, instead of its four variants, one may have to bear with the dualities in Physics.”

My point is that time is only a measure of change, but as such, it is only one aspect of that change. The other aspect of change is another quantity, such as space. We cannot measure one aspect of change without the other, reciprocal, aspect. It is this fundamental duality of reciprocity that shows up everywhere.

Hello Doug,

I am not "physics nick," although I appreciate the support!

I love the theoretical physics community--Einsetin, Wheeler, Bohr, Dirac, Fermi, Feyman, Born, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Faraday. I love reading their original papers and marveling at their eloquent use of language, which is used to make clear and elucidate eternal equations, while you use it to confound the simple...

view entire post

I am not "physics nick," although I appreciate the support!

I love the theoretical physics community--Einsetin, Wheeler, Bohr, Dirac, Fermi, Feyman, Born, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Faraday. I love reading their original papers and marveling at their eloquent use of language, which is used to make clear and elucidate eternal equations, while you use it to confound the simple...

view entire post

attachments: retina.jpg

Elliot,

You are just repeating yourself over and over and over. It gets tiring for others to hear the same thing repeated time and again. I tried to point out (and have from the beginning) that your basic idea is on the right track, but your fundamentals are so confused nothing can be done with MDT. Yet, you refuse to answer the specific criticisms.

Now, you copy and paste these long diatribes against string theory and modern physicists, over and over, as if to convince readers that the failure of string theory implies that the concepts in my RST-based essay are erroneous by association.

The only thing this does is persuade me that, like others here have thought, I don’t think you even read the essays, because, if you had read mine, you would know that it has more in common with MDT than string theory. However, lest I begin repeating myself, like you, I am done with it. I’ve said what I’ve said about MDT and I’m content to leave it at that.

I guess I’m left to join the chorus of voices of people here, such as Carlo, who refuses to be drawn into a discussion with you, and John, who has begged the forum moderator for relief from your onslaught, and Brian, who has asked you to please stop, and from Rajanna, who has warned:

“Please note that insulting and/or excessively long postings will be removed as per the forum guidelines.”

Good luck with your own essay.

You are just repeating yourself over and over and over. It gets tiring for others to hear the same thing repeated time and again. I tried to point out (and have from the beginning) that your basic idea is on the right track, but your fundamentals are so confused nothing can be done with MDT. Yet, you refuse to answer the specific criticisms.

Now, you copy and paste these long diatribes against string theory and modern physicists, over and over, as if to convince readers that the failure of string theory implies that the concepts in my RST-based essay are erroneous by association.

The only thing this does is persuade me that, like others here have thought, I don’t think you even read the essays, because, if you had read mine, you would know that it has more in common with MDT than string theory. However, lest I begin repeating myself, like you, I am done with it. I’ve said what I’ve said about MDT and I’m content to leave it at that.

I guess I’m left to join the chorus of voices of people here, such as Carlo, who refuses to be drawn into a discussion with you, and John, who has begged the forum moderator for relief from your onslaught, and Brian, who has asked you to please stop, and from Rajanna, who has warned:

“Please note that insulting and/or excessively long postings will be removed as per the forum guidelines.”

Good luck with your own essay.

Hello Doug,

I have now read your essay twice. It has very little in common with MDT, if anything at all. What similarities do you see between your non-theory and MDT? MDT has a simple postulate and equation representing a hitherto unsung physical reality form where relativity and other physical phenomena naturally emerge, including time and all its arrows and assymetries. Your antitheory lacks any such substance. It lacks a simple postulate and equation:

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

You yet deny Einstein's general relativity which states that dimensions can warp, bend, and move. Until you accept physical reality and one of the greatest contributions to modern physics, it will be hard to take your ideas seriously.

It seems Carlo refuses to be drawn into discussion with anyone. Once the anti-theorists obtain thier funding and seats high up in the ivory towers, they generally reel in the ladders of truth, logic, reason, and dialogue, so as to protect funding for their antitheory regimes, which have little to gain from truth, logic, reason, and physical reality. Of course you can join them by being a sycophantic postdoc or grad student, but those ladders are old and rickety, and they lead nowhere fast.

You write, "I guess I’m left to join the chorus of voices of people here."

Yes, MDT refuses to join the antitheory chorus of voices, instead postulating a hitherto unsung universal invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c: dx4/dt=ic, which is turning out to be a most powerful, simple unifying force; underlying time and all its arrows and assymetries, while providing a common *physical* model for entropy, relativity, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement, while setting the invariant velocity of light to c for all observers and liberating us from frozen time and the block universe.

The dancing/singing chorus will most likely make off with the cash prizes, but I have come here for that higher prize--physical truth represented in immortal equations:

dx4/dt=ic

If anybody else has physical postulates and equations, I would suggest they share them before December 15th--before this forum is forzen for all of eternity, so that future physicists/historians of science can marvel at the snarky inhumanity of our era's antitheory regimes.

Best,

Dr. E :) (The Real McCoy)

I have now read your essay twice. It has very little in common with MDT, if anything at all. What similarities do you see between your non-theory and MDT? MDT has a simple postulate and equation representing a hitherto unsung physical reality form where relativity and other physical phenomena naturally emerge, including time and all its arrows and assymetries. Your antitheory lacks any such substance. It lacks a simple postulate and equation:

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

You yet deny Einstein's general relativity which states that dimensions can warp, bend, and move. Until you accept physical reality and one of the greatest contributions to modern physics, it will be hard to take your ideas seriously.

It seems Carlo refuses to be drawn into discussion with anyone. Once the anti-theorists obtain thier funding and seats high up in the ivory towers, they generally reel in the ladders of truth, logic, reason, and dialogue, so as to protect funding for their antitheory regimes, which have little to gain from truth, logic, reason, and physical reality. Of course you can join them by being a sycophantic postdoc or grad student, but those ladders are old and rickety, and they lead nowhere fast.

You write, "I guess I’m left to join the chorus of voices of people here."

Yes, MDT refuses to join the antitheory chorus of voices, instead postulating a hitherto unsung universal invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c: dx4/dt=ic, which is turning out to be a most powerful, simple unifying force; underlying time and all its arrows and assymetries, while providing a common *physical* model for entropy, relativity, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement, while setting the invariant velocity of light to c for all observers and liberating us from frozen time and the block universe.

The dancing/singing chorus will most likely make off with the cash prizes, but I have come here for that higher prize--physical truth represented in immortal equations:

dx4/dt=ic

If anybody else has physical postulates and equations, I would suggest they share them before December 15th--before this forum is forzen for all of eternity, so that future physicists/historians of science can marvel at the snarky inhumanity of our era's antitheory regimes.

Best,

Dr. E :) (The Real McCoy)

Elliot,

Thank you for reading and rereading my essay and asking for clarification. You write:

“I have now read your essay twice. It has very little in common with MDT, if anything at all. What similarities do you see between your non-theory and MDT?”

The similarity is found in the reciprocal relationship of space and time. In Larson’s reciprocal system of physical theory...

view entire post

Thank you for reading and rereading my essay and asking for clarification. You write:

“I have now read your essay twice. It has very little in common with MDT, if anything at all. What similarities do you see between your non-theory and MDT?”

The similarity is found in the reciprocal relationship of space and time. In Larson’s reciprocal system of physical theory...

view entire post

Hello Doug,

You are actually arguing against the photon in arguing against MDT.

Consider the timeless, ageless photon.

Relativity tells us that it stays in the same place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum Mechanics tells us that a photon's motion is described by a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c.

While staying in the same place in the fourth dimension, a photon is also manifested as a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c.

Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at c, distributing locality as a spherically-symmetric wavefront.

Hence entanglement, as two intially-interacting photons yet share a unique locality in the fourth expanding dimension, which distributes locality. hence quantum mechanics' nonlocality.

Einstein already demonstrated that dimensions can bend, warp, amd move in General Relativity, and MDT extends this fundamental *physical* principle in a simple and natural manner--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, or dx4/dt=ic.

No other theory comes close to uniting entropy, entanglement, and relativity in a simple *physical* model, which celebrates a fundamental *physical* universal invariant, while providing a physical mechanism for time and all its arrows and assymetires across all realms.

Why does radiation manifest itself as expanding spherical wavefronts, but not as contracting ones? Because dx4/dt=ic--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

You are actually arguing against the photon in arguing against MDT.

Consider the timeless, ageless photon.

Relativity tells us that it stays in the same place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum Mechanics tells us that a photon's motion is described by a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c.

While staying in the same place in the fourth dimension, a photon is also manifested as a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c.

Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at c, distributing locality as a spherically-symmetric wavefront.

Hence entanglement, as two intially-interacting photons yet share a unique locality in the fourth expanding dimension, which distributes locality. hence quantum mechanics' nonlocality.

Einstein already demonstrated that dimensions can bend, warp, amd move in General Relativity, and MDT extends this fundamental *physical* principle in a simple and natural manner--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, or dx4/dt=ic.

No other theory comes close to uniting entropy, entanglement, and relativity in a simple *physical* model, which celebrates a fundamental *physical* universal invariant, while providing a physical mechanism for time and all its arrows and assymetires across all realms.

Why does radiation manifest itself as expanding spherical wavefronts, but not as contracting ones? Because dx4/dt=ic--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Elliot,

I’m not arguing against anything. I’m only arguing that x4 is the time coordinate of Einstein’s spacetime, not something undefined, as in MDT.

However, the major difference is that, in the MDT, as in all vector motion – based systems, the photons, etc. have to be put into the theory, as external parameters, while in an RST-based theory, there are no external parameters permitted.

In the new theory, photons propagate at the speed of light for the same reason they do in MDT: They “move” with the space/time expansion. Although, I’m not sure I would characterize it as “surfing” along the expansion, I have to admit that that’s a picturesque way of describing it.

As far as the other consequences of this propagation that you mention go, I’ll have to take your word for it for now, because the main thing I’m concentrating on is the calculation of the atomic spectra. Once we can calculate the spectra, hopefully not just for hydrogenic atoms, and understand the foundation of quantum mechanics, we will definitely have something physicists can dig their teeth into. Without that, though, I think we’re just whistling in the wind, like so many others are doing.

I guess you must use the wave equation and quantum mechanics in MDT to make these calculations, but then how do you get around the conflicts in strong gravity, Elliot? How do you write the wave equation for gravity, and how do you evolve it in time? I would really like to know that.

Regards,

Doug

I’m not arguing against anything. I’m only arguing that x4 is the time coordinate of Einstein’s spacetime, not something undefined, as in MDT.

However, the major difference is that, in the MDT, as in all vector motion – based systems, the photons, etc. have to be put into the theory, as external parameters, while in an RST-based theory, there are no external parameters permitted.

In the new theory, photons propagate at the speed of light for the same reason they do in MDT: They “move” with the space/time expansion. Although, I’m not sure I would characterize it as “surfing” along the expansion, I have to admit that that’s a picturesque way of describing it.

As far as the other consequences of this propagation that you mention go, I’ll have to take your word for it for now, because the main thing I’m concentrating on is the calculation of the atomic spectra. Once we can calculate the spectra, hopefully not just for hydrogenic atoms, and understand the foundation of quantum mechanics, we will definitely have something physicists can dig their teeth into. Without that, though, I think we’re just whistling in the wind, like so many others are doing.

I guess you must use the wave equation and quantum mechanics in MDT to make these calculations, but then how do you get around the conflicts in strong gravity, Elliot? How do you write the wave equation for gravity, and how do you evolve it in time? I would really like to know that.

Regards,

Doug

Doug--you write, "I’m not arguing against anything. I’m only arguing that x4 is the time coordinate of Einstein’s spacetime, not something undefined, as in MDT."

MDT fully agrees with Einstein's relativity, and MDT defines X4 *exactly* as Einstein and Minkowski defined it:

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

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

MDT fully agrees with Einstein's relativity, and MDT defines X4 *exactly* as Einstein and Minkowski defined it:

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

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Hi Doug,

Seems to me Dr E is determined to go round and round. Too bad. I appreciate your answers to my earlier questions. Now I have another. What do you call the two balls and the three barbells at the top of figure 1 in your essay?

Seems to me Dr E is determined to go round and round. Too bad. I appreciate your answers to my earlier questions. Now I have another. What do you call the two balls and the three barbells at the top of figure 1 in your essay?

Hi Larry,

Initially, we called the red pseudoscalar (red ball) the space unit displacement ratio, or SUDR, and the blue pseudoscalar (blue ball), the time unit displacement ratio, or TUDR, but those two acronyms are just lame.

I’ve been thinking of changing them to quanton and anti-quanton, respectively, because they are the fundamental quantities of the theoretical universe of motion. When they combine, there are three possibilities: either the combination has an equal number of “quantons” and “anti-quantons,” or it has more of one than the other. Because everything else is formed from these units, which we called S|T units before, we should call them “preons.”

No one talks much about anti-dark matter yet, but it’s easy to see that, if what we now refer to as dark matter turns out to have a corresponding anti-matter partner, quanton and anti-quanton would fit quite nicely as the first prediction of the theory.

As far as Dr E’s circular arguments go, I agree. When I answer one thing, he ignores it and goes on to the next until he finally gets back to where he started. The last time he asserted that “MDT fully agrees with Einstein's relativity, and MDT defines X4 *exactly* as Einstein and Minkowski defined it,” I paraphrased Einstein’s words to the contrary and he demanded exact quotes and references.

When I provided them, he never said a word more about it, but went on to something else. Now, I asked him how he calculates the atomic spectra and formulates the wave equation of gravity, but he ignores that and instead comes back to the definition of x4 again, but this time quoting himself. Geezsh. I give up.

Initially, we called the red pseudoscalar (red ball) the space unit displacement ratio, or SUDR, and the blue pseudoscalar (blue ball), the time unit displacement ratio, or TUDR, but those two acronyms are just lame.

I’ve been thinking of changing them to quanton and anti-quanton, respectively, because they are the fundamental quantities of the theoretical universe of motion. When they combine, there are three possibilities: either the combination has an equal number of “quantons” and “anti-quantons,” or it has more of one than the other. Because everything else is formed from these units, which we called S|T units before, we should call them “preons.”

No one talks much about anti-dark matter yet, but it’s easy to see that, if what we now refer to as dark matter turns out to have a corresponding anti-matter partner, quanton and anti-quanton would fit quite nicely as the first prediction of the theory.

As far as Dr E’s circular arguments go, I agree. When I answer one thing, he ignores it and goes on to the next until he finally gets back to where he started. The last time he asserted that “MDT fully agrees with Einstein's relativity, and MDT defines X4 *exactly* as Einstein and Minkowski defined it,” I paraphrased Einstein’s words to the contrary and he demanded exact quotes and references.

When I provided them, he never said a word more about it, but went on to something else. Now, I asked him how he calculates the atomic spectra and formulates the wave equation of gravity, but he ignores that and instead comes back to the definition of x4 again, but this time quoting himself. Geezsh. I give up.

Hello Doug,

You write, "As far as Dr E’s circular arguments go, I agree. When I answer one thing, he ignores it and goes on to the next until he finally gets back to where he started. The last time he asserted that “MDT fully agrees with Einstein's relativity, and MDT defines X4 *exactly* as Einstein and Minkowski defined it,” I paraphrased Einstein’s words to the contrary and he demanded exact quotes and references."

Never have you presented any quotes, nor words, nor ideas from Einstein which counter MDT.

MDT agrees 100% with Einstein's relativity.

I seem to recall you stating that Einsteinian/Minkowski spacetime was Euclidean, but Einstein says that the spacetime underlying General Relativity is non-Euclidean.

MDT agrees with this, as well as with all the rest of relativity.

In fact, all of relativity may be derived from MDT's fundamental postulate and equation: "the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt=ic."

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

You write, "As far as Dr E’s circular arguments go, I agree. When I answer one thing, he ignores it and goes on to the next until he finally gets back to where he started. The last time he asserted that “MDT fully agrees with Einstein's relativity, and MDT defines X4 *exactly* as Einstein and Minkowski defined it,” I paraphrased Einstein’s words to the contrary and he demanded exact quotes and references."

Never have you presented any quotes, nor words, nor ideas from Einstein which counter MDT.

MDT agrees 100% with Einstein's relativity.

I seem to recall you stating that Einsteinian/Minkowski spacetime was Euclidean, but Einstein says that the spacetime underlying General Relativity is non-Euclidean.

MDT agrees with this, as well as with all the rest of relativity.

In fact, all of relativity may be derived from MDT's fundamental postulate and equation: "the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt=ic."

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Elliot: "The fourth dimension is not time, but ict."

Einstein: "…according to the theory of relativity, the “time,” x4, enters into the natural laws in the space coordinates, x1, x2, x3.”

Elliot: ”I seem to recall you stating that Einsteinian/Minkowski spacetime was Euclidean, but Einstein says that the spacetime underlying General Relativity is non-Euclidean.”

Nope, I said he used ict to show that Minkowski spacetime could be understood as Euclidean space-like. He explained:

“We can regard Minkowski’s “world” in a formal manner as a four dimensional Euclidean space (with an imaginary time coordinate).”

Don’t make this so hard, Elliot. It’s not rocket science!

Einstein: "…according to the theory of relativity, the “time,” x4, enters into the natural laws in the space coordinates, x1, x2, x3.”

Elliot: ”I seem to recall you stating that Einsteinian/Minkowski spacetime was Euclidean, but Einstein says that the spacetime underlying General Relativity is non-Euclidean.”

Nope, I said he used ict to show that Minkowski spacetime could be understood as Euclidean space-like. He explained:

“We can regard Minkowski’s “world” in a formal manner as a four dimensional Euclidean space (with an imaginary time coordinate).”

Don’t make this so hard, Elliot. It’s not rocket science!

Pardon the minor typo. The first Einstein quote should read "...as the space coordinates, x1, x2, x3," not "...in the space coordinates...":

"Einstein: "…according to the theory of relativity, the “time,” x4, enters into the natural laws as the space coordinates, x1, x2, x3.”

See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3409/eBook-PDF-Science-Albert-Eins

tein-Relativity-1

"Einstein: "…according to the theory of relativity, the “time,” x4, enters into the natural laws as the space coordinates, x1, x2, x3.”

See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3409/eBook-PDF-Science-Albert-Eins

tein-Relativity-1

Doug--you are still completely ignoring Einstein's book RELATIVITY: THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY.

Please read chapter XXVII, which is titled "THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM."

Ergo, as I stated, Einstein's spacetime is non-Euclidean.

And your above quote leaves out the entire context, which explains why "time" is in quotation marks.

The entire paragraph reads at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3409/eBook-PDF-Science-Albert-E

instein-Relativity-1

"WE SEE FROM (1) THAT THE IMAGINARY TIME COORDINATE x4, ENTERS INTO THE CONDITION OF TRANSFORMATION IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS THE SPACE COORDINATES x1, x2, x3. IT IS DUE TO THIS FACT, ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF RELATIVTY, THE "TIME" x4 ENTERS INTO NATURAL LAWS IN THE SAME FORM AS THE SPACE COORDINATES x1, x2, x3."

Note, Doug, that x4 is THE IMAGINARY TIME COORDINATE, hich is given by ict.

Ergo x4 = ict, exactly as Einstein stipulated in his 1912 paper.

Note that Einstein refers to x4 as "time" in quotation marks, and the "imaginary time coordinate."

Ergo x4 is not time, but ict.

If you look up higher on the EXACT SAME PAGE:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3409/eBook-PDF-Science-Albert

-Einstein-Relativity-1

you will see

x1=x

x2=y

x3=z

x4=ict

Ergo x4 = ict, naturally implyong MDT's equation: dx4/dt = ic--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.

How else would you weave change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, liberating us from the block universe and granting us free will, while also accounting for quantum nonlocality and entanglement, while providing a *physical* mechanism underlying relativity, entropy, and time and all its arrows?

Please, please, please read Einstein's book, including entire pages and chapters. Please read chapter XXVII, which is titled "THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM."

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Please read chapter XXVII, which is titled "THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM."

Ergo, as I stated, Einstein's spacetime is non-Euclidean.

And your above quote leaves out the entire context, which explains why "time" is in quotation marks.

The entire paragraph reads at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3409/eBook-PDF-Science-Albert-E

instein-Relativity-1

"WE SEE FROM (1) THAT THE IMAGINARY TIME COORDINATE x4, ENTERS INTO THE CONDITION OF TRANSFORMATION IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS THE SPACE COORDINATES x1, x2, x3. IT IS DUE TO THIS FACT, ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF RELATIVTY, THE "TIME" x4 ENTERS INTO NATURAL LAWS IN THE SAME FORM AS THE SPACE COORDINATES x1, x2, x3."

Note, Doug, that x4 is THE IMAGINARY TIME COORDINATE, hich is given by ict.

Ergo x4 = ict, exactly as Einstein stipulated in his 1912 paper.

Note that Einstein refers to x4 as "time" in quotation marks, and the "imaginary time coordinate."

Ergo x4 is not time, but ict.

If you look up higher on the EXACT SAME PAGE:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3409/eBook-PDF-Science-Albert

-Einstein-Relativity-1

you will see

x1=x

x2=y

x3=z

x4=ict

Ergo x4 = ict, naturally implyong MDT's equation: dx4/dt = ic--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.

How else would you weave change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, liberating us from the block universe and granting us free will, while also accounting for quantum nonlocality and entanglement, while providing a *physical* mechanism underlying relativity, entropy, and time and all its arrows?

Please, please, please read Einstein's book, including entire pages and chapters. Please read chapter XXVII, which is titled "THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM."

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dear Doug,

We all mostly talk of the physical time. What about the biological times in the three states of existence, wakeful, dream and sleep. Are these identical to what the humans observe in the outside physical world during their wakeful state. To this may i add another state of 'meditation'. That is a kind of wakeful state with deep sleep relaxation! The awareness of time scale can thus be quite different in the different states of 'consciousness' that human mind can experience!

We all mostly talk of the physical time. What about the biological times in the three states of existence, wakeful, dream and sleep. Are these identical to what the humans observe in the outside physical world during their wakeful state. To this may i add another state of 'meditation'. That is a kind of wakeful state with deep sleep relaxation! The awareness of time scale can thus be quite different in the different states of 'consciousness' that human mind can experience!

Dear Elliot,

Thanks for engaging the discussion in a more specific way. Please understand that I concur with you completely, in that Einstein called x4 imaginary time, and that relativity’s spacetime is not an Euclidean continuum. I’m not arguing against your position on this at all.

However, what I am arguing, fervently, is that the way Einstein used “ict” to make Minkowski spacetime ANALOGOUS to Euclidean space, does NOT IMPLY MDT’s equation. This is my argument here, ok?

Clearly, there is no fourth space coordinate in Euclidean space, and real time is certainly not a coordinate in Euclidean space, but using the term “ict” in the Pythagorean theorem, WHERE IT MUST BE SQUARED, Einstein thought he could help people, most of whom were completely unfamiliar with Minkowski’s concept of the continuum at the time, understand it easier.

In this manner, he was able to mathematically transform real time into a fourth space “coordinate,” making one concept ANALOGOUS to the other concept, even though we all know that real time is not really a Euclidean space coordinate.

Nevertheless, what you want to do is to take the square root of Einstein’s Euclidean “space coordinate” term out of its intended context of forming an analogous “space coordinate” out of imaginary “time,” and differentiate it with respect to real time. This is something Einstein would never have done, because, while what he did with the imaginary “time” term, “ict,” makes sense mathematically and logically, what you want to do with it does not make sense logically, even though it might make sense mathematically.

What makes this argument so hard for me to continue to press is that I agree with you in that the fourth dimension is expanding, relative to the three spatial dimensions! It’s just that this expanding dimension is the real fourth dimension of time, not some ill-defined, imaginary, dimension of something that is neither time nor space.

This different interpretation of the nature of the expanding fourth dimension does not imply that Einstein’s concept of the non-Euclidean spacetime continuum, or that his use of imaginary “time,” to form an analogous Euclidean continuum, for pedagogical purposes, are not valid constructs. Not at all. It simply asserts that the expanding fourth dimension is real time, which is something Einstein did not conceive, because he didn’t know in his day that the three spatial dimensions were actually expanding over time, like we now know today.

I sincerely wish there were some way to resolve this difference between us, Elliot, because, if we could, we might be able to collaborate, instead of to contend like this.

Regards,

Doug

Thanks for engaging the discussion in a more specific way. Please understand that I concur with you completely, in that Einstein called x4 imaginary time, and that relativity’s spacetime is not an Euclidean continuum. I’m not arguing against your position on this at all.

However, what I am arguing, fervently, is that the way Einstein used “ict” to make Minkowski spacetime ANALOGOUS to Euclidean space, does NOT IMPLY MDT’s equation. This is my argument here, ok?

Clearly, there is no fourth space coordinate in Euclidean space, and real time is certainly not a coordinate in Euclidean space, but using the term “ict” in the Pythagorean theorem, WHERE IT MUST BE SQUARED, Einstein thought he could help people, most of whom were completely unfamiliar with Minkowski’s concept of the continuum at the time, understand it easier.

In this manner, he was able to mathematically transform real time into a fourth space “coordinate,” making one concept ANALOGOUS to the other concept, even though we all know that real time is not really a Euclidean space coordinate.

Nevertheless, what you want to do is to take the square root of Einstein’s Euclidean “space coordinate” term out of its intended context of forming an analogous “space coordinate” out of imaginary “time,” and differentiate it with respect to real time. This is something Einstein would never have done, because, while what he did with the imaginary “time” term, “ict,” makes sense mathematically and logically, what you want to do with it does not make sense logically, even though it might make sense mathematically.

What makes this argument so hard for me to continue to press is that I agree with you in that the fourth dimension is expanding, relative to the three spatial dimensions! It’s just that this expanding dimension is the real fourth dimension of time, not some ill-defined, imaginary, dimension of something that is neither time nor space.

This different interpretation of the nature of the expanding fourth dimension does not imply that Einstein’s concept of the non-Euclidean spacetime continuum, or that his use of imaginary “time,” to form an analogous Euclidean continuum, for pedagogical purposes, are not valid constructs. Not at all. It simply asserts that the expanding fourth dimension is real time, which is something Einstein did not conceive, because he didn’t know in his day that the three spatial dimensions were actually expanding over time, like we now know today.

I sincerely wish there were some way to resolve this difference between us, Elliot, because, if we could, we might be able to collaborate, instead of to contend like this.

Regards,

Doug

Dear Narendra,

Many essays in this contest seek to expound on the nature of time relative to its connection with the perception of the observer. However, to me, it is challenge enough to deal with it as a physical concept. I find that physical entropy continues to increase, monetary interest continues to accrue and my body continues to age, regardless of the state of my mind.

Peace,

Doug

Many essays in this contest seek to expound on the nature of time relative to its connection with the perception of the observer. However, to me, it is challenge enough to deal with it as a physical concept. I find that physical entropy continues to increase, monetary interest continues to accrue and my body continues to age, regardless of the state of my mind.

Peace,

Doug

Doug,

You write, "What makes this argument so hard for me to continue to press is that I agree with you in that the fourth dimension is expanding, relative to the three spatial dimensions!"

DOUG! YOU AGREE WITH MDT'S POSTULATE! O HAPPY DAY!

MDT: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the race of c.

dx4/dt=ic

WELCOME HOME...

view entire post

You write, "What makes this argument so hard for me to continue to press is that I agree with you in that the fourth dimension is expanding, relative to the three spatial dimensions!"

DOUG! YOU AGREE WITH MDT'S POSTULATE! O HAPPY DAY!

MDT: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the race of c.

dx4/dt=ic

WELCOME HOME...

view entire post

Elliot,

You are only seeing what you want to see, and this makes intelligent discussion so hard! I’m not saying anything new here. I’m just rephrasing what I have always said. Let me try again (!).

The term “ic” makes no sense. The concept of the imaginary number is an ad hoc invention concocted to deal with the fact that (–1)^2 = +1. Just as Brian explains in his...

view entire post

You are only seeing what you want to see, and this makes intelligent discussion so hard! I’m not saying anything new here. I’m just rephrasing what I have always said. Let me try again (!).

The term “ic” makes no sense. The concept of the imaginary number is an ad hoc invention concocted to deal with the fact that (–1)^2 = +1. Just as Brian explains in his...

view entire post

Doug--you write "The term “ic” makes no sense. The concept of the imaginary number is an ad hoc invention concocted to deal with the fact that (–1)^2 = +1."

How dare you stipulate that ic makes no sense?!?

Instead, one must ask, "what is the *physical* meaning of ic?" as MDT does. And the answer to that leads us to a brand new physical invariant--the fourth dimension is...

view entire post

How dare you stipulate that ic makes no sense?!?

Instead, one must ask, "what is the *physical* meaning of ic?" as MDT does. And the answer to that leads us to a brand new physical invariant--the fourth dimension is...

view entire post

Doug--above you write "The Copenhagen interpretation postulates the unsquared wavefunction as a mathematical object with no physical significance," again ignoring *physical reality* and the Founding Fathers of Quantum Mechanics.

"The question of whether the waves are something 'real' or a function to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... Quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born, Dover publ., 1964, 'Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance', p. 107)

Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

When you lead by math alone for thirty+ years, the end result is one big snarkfest. And as the Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek noted, when the Truth ends, the Worst get on top.

MDT, by treating physical reality as *real,* has found the mechanism for time and its arrows that Feynman had been seeking: "Now if the world of nature is made of atoms, and we too are made of atoms and obey physical laws, the most obvious interpretation of this evident distinction between past and future, and this irreversibility of all phenomena, would be that some laws, some of the motion laws of the atoms, are going one way – that the atom laws are not such that they can go either way. There should be somewhere in the works some kind of principle that uxles only make wuxles, and never vice versa, and so the world is turning away from uxley character to wuxley character all the time – and this one-way business of the interactions of things should be the thing that makes the whole phenomena of the world seem to go one way.

But we have not found this yet. That is, in all the laws of physics that we have found so far there does not seem to be any distinction between the past and the future. The moving picture should work the same going both ways, and the physicist who looks at it should not laugh.

(The Distinction of Past and Future, from The Character of Physical Law, Richard Feynman, 1965)"

"The question of whether the waves are something 'real' or a function to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... Quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born, Dover publ., 1964, 'Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance', p. 107)

Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

When you lead by math alone for thirty+ years, the end result is one big snarkfest. And as the Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek noted, when the Truth ends, the Worst get on top.

MDT, by treating physical reality as *real,* has found the mechanism for time and its arrows that Feynman had been seeking: "Now if the world of nature is made of atoms, and we too are made of atoms and obey physical laws, the most obvious interpretation of this evident distinction between past and future, and this irreversibility of all phenomena, would be that some laws, some of the motion laws of the atoms, are going one way – that the atom laws are not such that they can go either way. There should be somewhere in the works some kind of principle that uxles only make wuxles, and never vice versa, and so the world is turning away from uxley character to wuxley character all the time – and this one-way business of the interactions of things should be the thing that makes the whole phenomena of the world seem to go one way.

But we have not found this yet. That is, in all the laws of physics that we have found so far there does not seem to be any distinction between the past and the future. The moving picture should work the same going both ways, and the physicist who looks at it should not laugh.

(The Distinction of Past and Future, from The Character of Physical Law, Richard Feynman, 1965)"

Dear Doug,

i saw your philosophical response to my post. Thanks. i like your confinement in discussing the science of time. But the Nature of Time is also very intersting, as i indicated in my post. there are a few questions i have on the science aspect too. Hope you will care to respond to this old man!

Yes, ict is the time coordinate in relativity. Involvement of c with t has interesting aspects. We need not consider c as constant . Then, t becomes more interesting. If there are multi-universes , then t-scales in them and even the c value can be greatly different there! I also find the quantum uncertainty between time and enrgy also intersting from the same point of view. If anything happens to t, e will have to face the consequences and viceversa.

i raised the question of time verses consciousness too!.There are three states of human awareness, wakeful, dream and deep sleep. It is common to experience different time scales to prevail in these states. If i add another state, as i have done in my essay and several postings on different essays, the matter becomes fascinating. Let me say that one may treat ' meditation' as a state of awareness where we are aware in total peace of deep sleep type! It is subject to your acceptance that the technique of 'meditation' is basically a method to achieve 'peace of mind'. the levels/degree of consciousness is supposed to get enhanced in such a state, permiting scientists to get a higher chance to receive intuitional/inspirational ideas from outside their regular thinking processes. Einstein attributes such contribution to make possible his famous discoveries of 1905!

Will greatly appreciate your response, as your essay has received the highest postings in this contest!!

i saw your philosophical response to my post. Thanks. i like your confinement in discussing the science of time. But the Nature of Time is also very intersting, as i indicated in my post. there are a few questions i have on the science aspect too. Hope you will care to respond to this old man!

Yes, ict is the time coordinate in relativity. Involvement of c with t has interesting aspects. We need not consider c as constant . Then, t becomes more interesting. If there are multi-universes , then t-scales in them and even the c value can be greatly different there! I also find the quantum uncertainty between time and enrgy also intersting from the same point of view. If anything happens to t, e will have to face the consequences and viceversa.

i raised the question of time verses consciousness too!.There are three states of human awareness, wakeful, dream and deep sleep. It is common to experience different time scales to prevail in these states. If i add another state, as i have done in my essay and several postings on different essays, the matter becomes fascinating. Let me say that one may treat ' meditation' as a state of awareness where we are aware in total peace of deep sleep type! It is subject to your acceptance that the technique of 'meditation' is basically a method to achieve 'peace of mind'. the levels/degree of consciousness is supposed to get enhanced in such a state, permiting scientists to get a higher chance to receive intuitional/inspirational ideas from outside their regular thinking processes. Einstein attributes such contribution to make possible his famous discoveries of 1905!

Will greatly appreciate your response, as your essay has received the highest postings in this contest!!

Oh boy. There are many new essays that have been submitted now, including one from Sean Carroll and one from Chia Tze. What fun! So many essays, so little time!

Whereas Carlo uses the relativity of time to argue for eliminating it as a special variable, reflecting a utilitarian trend in spite of Smolin’s non-contest essay, pointing out that the constant c in 4D spacetime, and the limit of measurement precision, make this an impractical approach, Sean “imagines” that time does exist, after all, and uses it to explain its arrow via a “Heraclitean universe.”

In an RST-based theory, we also “imagine” that time exists, but only as one of two, reciprocal, aspects of universal change. The trouble is, given the challenge of the ancient Greeks, as articulated in Peter Lynd’s essay, given discrete instants of time, continuous time cannot exist. Therefore, the fundamental question concerning time is the same as that concerning space: How does nature unify the discrete with the continuous?

Peter challenged Sean on this point, but was ignored. Maybe he didn’t understand the fundamental nature of it, or maybe he hasn’t read Peter’s essay. Upon challenging Carlo in the same manner, Peter was given a semantic argument, similar to Einstein’s argument for substituting the properties of spacetime for the properties of the aether.

In his discussion with Brian, who insists that since energy is quantized, velocity must be, Peter argues that translational kinetic energy is not quantized, making a distinction between the discrete energy of radiation and the continuous energy of mass. This is an important distinction to make, since energy with dimensions t/s, the inverse of the dimensions of velocity, s/t, is a scalar quantity, but treated as a vector through the concepts of force and work.

What I find myself insisting on is this: Unless an author has a convincing answer to Peter’s challenge that “no so such thing as instantaneous magnitudes [exist] in Nature,” nothing else matters.

In an RST-based theory, we also “imagine” that time exists, but only as one of two, reciprocal, aspects of universal change. The trouble is, given the challenge of the ancient Greeks, as articulated in Peter Lynd’s essay, given discrete instants of time, continuous time cannot exist. Therefore, the fundamental question concerning time is the same as that concerning space: How does nature unify the discrete with the continuous?

Peter challenged Sean on this point, but was ignored. Maybe he didn’t understand the fundamental nature of it, or maybe he hasn’t read Peter’s essay. Upon challenging Carlo in the same manner, Peter was given a semantic argument, similar to Einstein’s argument for substituting the properties of spacetime for the properties of the aether.

In his discussion with Brian, who insists that since energy is quantized, velocity must be, Peter argues that translational kinetic energy is not quantized, making a distinction between the discrete energy of radiation and the continuous energy of mass. This is an important distinction to make, since energy with dimensions t/s, the inverse of the dimensions of velocity, s/t, is a scalar quantity, but treated as a vector through the concepts of force and work.

What I find myself insisting on is this: Unless an author has a convincing answer to Peter’s challenge that “no so such thing as instantaneous magnitudes [exist] in Nature,” nothing else matters.

Doug,

You write "What I find myself insisting on is this: Unless an author has a convincing answer to Peter’s challenge that “no so such thing as instantaneous magnitudes [exist] in Nature,” nothing else matters."

What does "to exist" mean? If it means "physically real," consider Einstein's definition of physically real as that which is "... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect, but not itself influenced by physical conditions." (The Meaning of Relativity.) If this is a universe in which motion exists, then the magnitude of instantaneous motion is the aggregate of all possible inertial states (Mach's Principle). If energy is conserved, this sum is zero. A zero magnitude still can be said to exist. Though time is an illusion in general relativity, it is a useful fiction much as centrifugal force is a useful fiction in Newtonian mechanics. "A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inert and the gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body." (op. cit.)

Therefore, the instantaneous state of motion in the field continuum. The field is physically real, independent of the nature of the body. (This extends, of course, into quantum field theory and its string theory branch.) Even zero instants have physical meaning; we can calculate precisely the zero timelike separation between bodies. That is the meaning of instantaneous magnitudes and they do physically exist in nature.

Tom

You write "What I find myself insisting on is this: Unless an author has a convincing answer to Peter’s challenge that “no so such thing as instantaneous magnitudes [exist] in Nature,” nothing else matters."

What does "to exist" mean? If it means "physically real," consider Einstein's definition of physically real as that which is "... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect, but not itself influenced by physical conditions." (The Meaning of Relativity.) If this is a universe in which motion exists, then the magnitude of instantaneous motion is the aggregate of all possible inertial states (Mach's Principle). If energy is conserved, this sum is zero. A zero magnitude still can be said to exist. Though time is an illusion in general relativity, it is a useful fiction much as centrifugal force is a useful fiction in Newtonian mechanics. "A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inert and the gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body." (op. cit.)

Therefore, the instantaneous state of motion in the field continuum. The field is physically real, independent of the nature of the body. (This extends, of course, into quantum field theory and its string theory branch.) Even zero instants have physical meaning; we can calculate precisely the zero timelike separation between bodies. That is the meaning of instantaneous magnitudes and they do physically exist in nature.

Tom

Hello Doug,

You wirte,

"Therefore, the fundamental question concerning time is the same as that concerning space: How does nature unify the discrete with the continuous?"

Attached please find a paper/figures which show how space is continuous, while the expansion of the fourth dimension has a wavelike character with a definitive, discreet wavelength, and thus is responsible for all quantum phenomena. There is no need to quantize gravity. The wave-nature of all matter comes form the wave-nature of the fourth expanding dimension, as does dark energy.

MDT's postulate, that the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, is shown to account for the gravitational slowing of time and light in the attached paper, while also setting c--the veloity of light, and lh and h--Planck's length and Planck's constant.

t is an emergent phenomenon that arises because our clocks and watches are tuned to demarcate seconds, relative to the propagation of energy in computer circuits, and energy/light/EM waves are but matter trapped upon the expanding fourth dimension, whose expansion distributes locality and fathers time and all its arrows and assymetries. dx4/dt=ic.

The fundamental wavelength/wave nature of the fourth expanding dimension lies at the foundation of quantum mechanics. The velocity of the fourth expanding dimension sets c, and its fundamental expansion/velocity underlies the foundations of relativity.

Ergo MDT provides a more fundamental *physical* model underlying time and all its arrows and assymetries, entropy, relativity, entanglement, and nonlocality.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

attachments: 10_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

You wirte,

"Therefore, the fundamental question concerning time is the same as that concerning space: How does nature unify the discrete with the continuous?"

Attached please find a paper/figures which show how space is continuous, while the expansion of the fourth dimension has a wavelike character with a definitive, discreet wavelength, and thus is responsible for all quantum phenomena. There is no need to quantize gravity. The wave-nature of all matter comes form the wave-nature of the fourth expanding dimension, as does dark energy.

MDT's postulate, that the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, is shown to account for the gravitational slowing of time and light in the attached paper, while also setting c--the veloity of light, and lh and h--Planck's length and Planck's constant.

t is an emergent phenomenon that arises because our clocks and watches are tuned to demarcate seconds, relative to the propagation of energy in computer circuits, and energy/light/EM waves are but matter trapped upon the expanding fourth dimension, whose expansion distributes locality and fathers time and all its arrows and assymetries. dx4/dt=ic.

The fundamental wavelength/wave nature of the fourth expanding dimension lies at the foundation of quantum mechanics. The velocity of the fourth expanding dimension sets c, and its fundamental expansion/velocity underlies the foundations of relativity.

Ergo MDT provides a more fundamental *physical* model underlying time and all its arrows and assymetries, entropy, relativity, entanglement, and nonlocality.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

attachments: 10_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Hi Tom,

That’s an interesting comment. I guess it constitutes the argument on the other side of the coin so-to-speak. However, to say that something exists, such as Einstein’s spacetime, it merely has to be defined, as something with physical effect, yet also as something not effected by physical conditions, is a heavy concept.

I’m not sure I understand things in the same way....

view entire post

That’s an interesting comment. I guess it constitutes the argument on the other side of the coin so-to-speak. However, to say that something exists, such as Einstein’s spacetime, it merely has to be defined, as something with physical effect, yet also as something not effected by physical conditions, is a heavy concept.

I’m not sure I understand things in the same way....

view entire post

Hello Doug,

You write "I guess it constitutes the argument on the other side of the coin so-to-speak. However, to say that something exists, such as Einstein’s spacetime, it merely has to be defined, as something with physical effect, yet also as something not effected by physical conditions, is a heavy concept."

It isn't just a definition. When Einstein speaks of spacetime as...

view entire post

You write "I guess it constitutes the argument on the other side of the coin so-to-speak. However, to say that something exists, such as Einstein’s spacetime, it merely has to be defined, as something with physical effect, yet also as something not effected by physical conditions, is a heavy concept."

It isn't just a definition. When Einstein speaks of spacetime as...

view entire post

Dear Tom,

"Peter's principle, however (to coin a phrase), seems to deny that measurability is an objective property of the real universe."

That's not the case at all. I think you may have misunderstood my essay. As always, one can naturally measure all observables up to the limits of measurement. Moreover, quantities such as mass and energy "are" observables that can be measured.

"We measure motion by changes in relative positions of mass points. Do points exist physically? Can you draw one?"

That's analogous to arguing that unicorns exist because you can draw one. Points exist in a platonic sense, but they don't physically (as distinct from representations in pictures, graphs etc).

The validity of the contents of my essay hinge upon, and are reducible to, the very simple question of whether a body in relative motion has a determined or instantaneous relative position. As, by way of logical necessity, for something to be motion its position has to be constantly changing (if it weren't changing, it could not be in motion), I think the answer is quite clear-cut. If someone wants to cut down the work, however, this is where to try to chop.

In relation to Einstein, I'll post some comments about his views on instants on my essay thread within the next few days. There is a passage from an essay that he wrote late in his life that is especially interesting.

Dear Doug,

Thanks for your comments regarding my essay. You seem to be very insightful and on the ball. I appreciate your manner too. As for...

"For whatever it's worth, my vote for a single FQXI essay, of all that have been submitted so far (excluding my own of course!), would be Peter Lynd's essay."

Thanks! That's really kind of you.

Best wishes

Peter

"Peter's principle, however (to coin a phrase), seems to deny that measurability is an objective property of the real universe."

That's not the case at all. I think you may have misunderstood my essay. As always, one can naturally measure all observables up to the limits of measurement. Moreover, quantities such as mass and energy "are" observables that can be measured.

"We measure motion by changes in relative positions of mass points. Do points exist physically? Can you draw one?"

That's analogous to arguing that unicorns exist because you can draw one. Points exist in a platonic sense, but they don't physically (as distinct from representations in pictures, graphs etc).

The validity of the contents of my essay hinge upon, and are reducible to, the very simple question of whether a body in relative motion has a determined or instantaneous relative position. As, by way of logical necessity, for something to be motion its position has to be constantly changing (if it weren't changing, it could not be in motion), I think the answer is quite clear-cut. If someone wants to cut down the work, however, this is where to try to chop.

In relation to Einstein, I'll post some comments about his views on instants on my essay thread within the next few days. There is a passage from an essay that he wrote late in his life that is especially interesting.

Dear Doug,

Thanks for your comments regarding my essay. You seem to be very insightful and on the ball. I appreciate your manner too. As for...

"For whatever it's worth, my vote for a single FQXI essay, of all that have been submitted so far (excluding my own of course!), would be Peter Lynd's essay."

Thanks! That's really kind of you.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, you write, quoting me:

T: "Peter's principle, however (to coin a phrase), seems to deny that measurability is an objective property of the real universe."

P: That's not the case at all. I think you may have misunderstood my essay. As always, one can naturally measure all observables up to the limits of measurement. Moreover, quantities such as mass and energy "are" observables that can be measured."

T: The key word here is "objective." When you deny that discrete instants exist, you obviate measurability of energy, because that measure depends on an exchange of particles between other particles and that exchange requires an interval, an instant. Mass and energy being equivalent, then, elimination of time permits no objective measure of change in position between mass points. You can then claim that all is illusion, that things don't really change, but you are doing philosophy, not science.

T: "We measure motion by changes in relative positions of mass points. Do points exist physically? Can you draw one?"

P: That's analogous to arguing that unicorns exist because you can draw one. Points exist in a platonic sense, but they don't physically (as distinct from representations in pictures, graphs etc).

T: Right. A point does not even physically exist as a representation of anything physical; it's a pure abstraction. It's long been known that physical phenomena that appear continuous can be analyzed discretely by treating points as lines. That requires a two dimensional method; i.e., complex analysis.

P: The validity of the contents of my essay hinge upon, and are reducible to, the very simple question of whether a body in relative motion has a determined or instantaneous relative position. As, by way of logical necessity, for something to be motion its position has to be constantly changing (if it weren't changing, it could not be in motion), I think the answer is quite clear-cut. If someone wants to cut down the work, however, this is where to try to chop.

T: You're leaving out the physics. If no energy is exchanged between those particles in motion, there is no objective way to determine relative changes in position, because measure itself imposes change which requires energy which requires an interval. That leaves your argument self consistent, but tautological. That is, it is equivalent to saying that time does not exist because energy does not exist except as an illusion, since one cannot measure an interval of time in which particles exchange energy and therefore any apparent energy exchange is assumed continuous. Again, that may be philosophically acceptable, but it is not scientifically objective.

Tom

T: "Peter's principle, however (to coin a phrase), seems to deny that measurability is an objective property of the real universe."

P: That's not the case at all. I think you may have misunderstood my essay. As always, one can naturally measure all observables up to the limits of measurement. Moreover, quantities such as mass and energy "are" observables that can be measured."

T: The key word here is "objective." When you deny that discrete instants exist, you obviate measurability of energy, because that measure depends on an exchange of particles between other particles and that exchange requires an interval, an instant. Mass and energy being equivalent, then, elimination of time permits no objective measure of change in position between mass points. You can then claim that all is illusion, that things don't really change, but you are doing philosophy, not science.

T: "We measure motion by changes in relative positions of mass points. Do points exist physically? Can you draw one?"

P: That's analogous to arguing that unicorns exist because you can draw one. Points exist in a platonic sense, but they don't physically (as distinct from representations in pictures, graphs etc).

T: Right. A point does not even physically exist as a representation of anything physical; it's a pure abstraction. It's long been known that physical phenomena that appear continuous can be analyzed discretely by treating points as lines. That requires a two dimensional method; i.e., complex analysis.

P: The validity of the contents of my essay hinge upon, and are reducible to, the very simple question of whether a body in relative motion has a determined or instantaneous relative position. As, by way of logical necessity, for something to be motion its position has to be constantly changing (if it weren't changing, it could not be in motion), I think the answer is quite clear-cut. If someone wants to cut down the work, however, this is where to try to chop.

T: You're leaving out the physics. If no energy is exchanged between those particles in motion, there is no objective way to determine relative changes in position, because measure itself imposes change which requires energy which requires an interval. That leaves your argument self consistent, but tautological. That is, it is equivalent to saying that time does not exist because energy does not exist except as an illusion, since one cannot measure an interval of time in which particles exchange energy and therefore any apparent energy exchange is assumed continuous. Again, that may be philosophically acceptable, but it is not scientifically objective.

Tom

Time is short for nay response and my earlier post still awaits one! i can say one thing about your essay that really it is a mystery of forth dimension with time taking it in the form 'ict'. The constancy of 'c' is under question, as per data from universe 12 billion years back. It is expected to be much higher 'c' if one goes closer to first billion years of the universe. Thus unification os space/time becomes questionable in such periods of the universe existence. Not only that human experiences about time in different stages of consciousness, waking, dream, sleep and meditation do vary in scale. Also, if multi-universes are a possibility, the sensing mechanisms there may well be beyond our grasp at present!

Hi Everyone,

Yes, NN, time IS short and I’m way behind in the discussion here. The thing is, we still cannot calculate the speed of light, Planck’s constant, or the electron’s mass, from first principles, let alone the stages of the universe’s existence. It’s so obvious that we yet lack answers to many fundamental questions.

But let me try to focus on the question of the...

view entire post

Yes, NN, time IS short and I’m way behind in the discussion here. The thing is, we still cannot calculate the speed of light, Planck’s constant, or the electron’s mass, from first principles, let alone the stages of the universe’s existence. It’s so obvious that we yet lack answers to many fundamental questions.

But let me try to focus on the question of the...

view entire post

Dear Tom,

"You can then claim that all is illusion, that things don't really change, but you are doing philosophy, not science."

I am beginning to question if you properly read my essay. It is time (and space and space-time), instants (and spatial points), and instantaneous magnitudes, that I am arguing do not exist, nothing more. Furthermore, showing how change is only possible due to these things not existing (and that calculus [frozen] has its limits when applied to Nature [dynamic]) is the central thesis of my essay. That is, change is very much the major player in it.

"When you deny that discrete instants exist, you obviate measurability of energy, because that measure depends on an exchange of particles between other particles and that exchange requires an interval, an instant."

No it doesn't. It simply requires a clock. Any mathematical value representing a reading of a clock (or meter) naturally represents an interval (and as such, two instants or spatial points to bound and determine such an interval), but it does not mean that such intervals or points exist. Indeed, one can show that if they did exist, one could forget about change, motion, energy and clocks altogether. Once again, your comment makes me wonder if you have given any real thought to my essay.

Finally, you acknowledged that points do not physically exist, and yet, claim that instants do. As instants are obviously just points – point of time – you seem to be going around a little bit in circles.

.

Dear Doug,

"My answer to Peter's challenge is that the discrete interval is an illusion all right, but it is nevertheless real in its effect. By assuming that there is no discrete interval in which there is no change, but there IS a discrete interval in which there exists a change in direction as well as in magnitude, we are able to escape the dilemma, having our cake and eating it too."

There can be no "discrete interval in which there exists a change in direction as well as in magnitude" either. Like Tom, I realise that time is central to your theory (even though your theories are obviously very different). Considering our disparate views in this respect, it sort of presents a few challenges. I guess the most I can ask of you and Tom is to think carefully and honestly about the issues. I'll obviously try to do the same.

Best wishes

Peter

PS: As I don't have a PhD or degree, I don't really consider myself a philosopher or a physicist. I'm not really sure what I am.

"You can then claim that all is illusion, that things don't really change, but you are doing philosophy, not science."

I am beginning to question if you properly read my essay. It is time (and space and space-time), instants (and spatial points), and instantaneous magnitudes, that I am arguing do not exist, nothing more. Furthermore, showing how change is only possible due to these things not existing (and that calculus [frozen] has its limits when applied to Nature [dynamic]) is the central thesis of my essay. That is, change is very much the major player in it.

"When you deny that discrete instants exist, you obviate measurability of energy, because that measure depends on an exchange of particles between other particles and that exchange requires an interval, an instant."

No it doesn't. It simply requires a clock. Any mathematical value representing a reading of a clock (or meter) naturally represents an interval (and as such, two instants or spatial points to bound and determine such an interval), but it does not mean that such intervals or points exist. Indeed, one can show that if they did exist, one could forget about change, motion, energy and clocks altogether. Once again, your comment makes me wonder if you have given any real thought to my essay.

Finally, you acknowledged that points do not physically exist, and yet, claim that instants do. As instants are obviously just points – point of time – you seem to be going around a little bit in circles.

.

Dear Doug,

"My answer to Peter's challenge is that the discrete interval is an illusion all right, but it is nevertheless real in its effect. By assuming that there is no discrete interval in which there is no change, but there IS a discrete interval in which there exists a change in direction as well as in magnitude, we are able to escape the dilemma, having our cake and eating it too."

There can be no "discrete interval in which there exists a change in direction as well as in magnitude" either. Like Tom, I realise that time is central to your theory (even though your theories are obviously very different). Considering our disparate views in this respect, it sort of presents a few challenges. I guess the most I can ask of you and Tom is to think carefully and honestly about the issues. I'll obviously try to do the same.

Best wishes

Peter

PS: As I don't have a PhD or degree, I don't really consider myself a philosopher or a physicist. I'm not really sure what I am.

Peter, I have read your paper, and I will reply to it just once more here, so as not to wear out my welcome in Doug's forum. You write: "I am beginning to question if you properly read my essay. It is time (and space and space-time), instants (and spatial points), and instantaneous magnitudes, that I am arguing do not exist, nothing more. Furthermore, showing how change is only possible due to...

view entire post

view entire post

No worries Tom. To me, this is a significant, relevant and worthwhile discussion. Both you and Peter are defending your views vigorously, but politely. Feel free to keep it right here, if you like.

Peter, I don’t think there is a conflict here, if you understand what I’m saying. I agree with you that “There is no such thing as an instant in time, and regardless of how small the time...

view entire post

Peter, I don’t think there is a conflict here, if you understand what I’m saying. I agree with you that “There is no such thing as an instant in time, and regardless of how small the time...

view entire post

Dear Doug,

To coclude, you did have a large number of postings and you are most welcome to get the highest votes. But i am a bit worried, have it been able to extend our understanding about the fundamnetals of physics to a better level? We appear to have discussed theoretical approaches to attempt a solution. In the process we have not given the due to the precepts and concepts that only should lead us to the correct mathematical tools for use to explain physical processes and no the other around. The concepts of maths. have no direct relevance in Physics, as we in fact rule out Mathematical possibilities in Physics simply on the basis of the physical realities.

To coclude, you did have a large number of postings and you are most welcome to get the highest votes. But i am a bit worried, have it been able to extend our understanding about the fundamnetals of physics to a better level? We appear to have discussed theoretical approaches to attempt a solution. In the process we have not given the due to the precepts and concepts that only should lead us to the correct mathematical tools for use to explain physical processes and no the other around. The concepts of maths. have no direct relevance in Physics, as we in fact rule out Mathematical possibilities in Physics simply on the basis of the physical realities.

Hi Doug,

Good, we arrived at something I understand. You write

"...if we think of a continuous rotation as a constant change of space/time (e.g. a planet’s orbit), the continuous change of location, and the simultaneous change in direction, ultimately divides the orbital period into two halves.

Projection of the rotation onto the diameter of the orbit “folds” the motion, if you will. It folds it into two, discrete, halves, or into two intervals. These two intervals constitute a cycle of vibration, yet this happens without violating the continuity of the rotational motion, which never ceases; that is, two, discrete, intervals of space/time are formed from the constantly changing and undetermined motion of the rotating body.

Thus, in this sense, discrete intervals of motion emerge from the continuous motion, without paradox, as at some instantaneous point, a boundary is defined, when the “direction” at either end of the projected diameter is changed instantaneously (changed from more positive (negative) to less positive (negative), or changed from positive (negative) to negative (positive), when crossing zero)."

Central to my FQXI essay's thesis is a complex plane analog to Kepler's 2nd law of motion ("equal areas in equal times") for elliptical orbits. Equal areas swept in imaginary time complete an asymmetric event space; i.e., assuming the time metric to be n-dimensional continuous (n>4) allows dissipative energy over n-dimensional manifolds while conserving energy in the 3 + 1 domain.

Tom

Good, we arrived at something I understand. You write

"...if we think of a continuous rotation as a constant change of space/time (e.g. a planet’s orbit), the continuous change of location, and the simultaneous change in direction, ultimately divides the orbital period into two halves.

Projection of the rotation onto the diameter of the orbit “folds” the motion, if you will. It folds it into two, discrete, halves, or into two intervals. These two intervals constitute a cycle of vibration, yet this happens without violating the continuity of the rotational motion, which never ceases; that is, two, discrete, intervals of space/time are formed from the constantly changing and undetermined motion of the rotating body.

Thus, in this sense, discrete intervals of motion emerge from the continuous motion, without paradox, as at some instantaneous point, a boundary is defined, when the “direction” at either end of the projected diameter is changed instantaneously (changed from more positive (negative) to less positive (negative), or changed from positive (negative) to negative (positive), when crossing zero)."

Central to my FQXI essay's thesis is a complex plane analog to Kepler's 2nd law of motion ("equal areas in equal times") for elliptical orbits. Equal areas swept in imaginary time complete an asymmetric event space; i.e., assuming the time metric to be n-dimensional continuous (n>4) allows dissipative energy over n-dimensional manifolds while conserving energy in the 3 + 1 domain.

Tom

Dear Tom,

"As those outcomes are only measured in the territory to which the map refers, the non-existence of points (of which the manifest map is composed) would obviate any mathematical model to accompany your philosophy. Hence, my demonstrable claim that your philosophy is outside science."

You seem very keen to dismiss my work as philosophy. As it deals with questions of the...

view entire post

"As those outcomes are only measured in the territory to which the map refers, the non-existence of points (of which the manifest map is composed) would obviate any mathematical model to accompany your philosophy. Hence, my demonstrable claim that your philosophy is outside science."

You seem very keen to dismiss my work as philosophy. As it deals with questions of the...

view entire post

Peter, you write, quoting me:

T: "As those outcomes are only measured in the territory to which the map refers, the non-existence of points (of which the manifest map is composed) would obviate any mathematical model to accompany your philosophy. Hence, my demonstrable claim that your philosophy is outside science."

P: You seem very keen to dismiss my work as philosophy. As it deals...

view entire post

T: "As those outcomes are only measured in the territory to which the map refers, the non-existence of points (of which the manifest map is composed) would obviate any mathematical model to accompany your philosophy. Hence, my demonstrable claim that your philosophy is outside science."

P: You seem very keen to dismiss my work as philosophy. As it deals...

view entire post

Tom and Peter,

I see that sarcasm is starting to creep into your debate. It would be a shame to let your differences degenerate into hostility at this point. Tom’s argument is that the concept of instants and instantaneous positions must be valid, in order for physics to work, while Peter’s point is that the only way the concept of change can be logically consistent is by rejecting the...

view entire post

I see that sarcasm is starting to creep into your debate. It would be a shame to let your differences degenerate into hostility at this point. Tom’s argument is that the concept of instants and instantaneous positions must be valid, in order for physics to work, while Peter’s point is that the only way the concept of change can be logically consistent is by rejecting the...

view entire post

Hi Tom,

While I agree with you that the universe is organized from “pure space and time,” I must confess that I do not understand the conjecture in your essay, much less its mathematical support.

I wish I did, though; It’s intriguing.

While I agree with you that the universe is organized from “pure space and time,” I must confess that I do not understand the conjecture in your essay, much less its mathematical support.

I wish I did, though; It’s intriguing.

Dear Doug,

Let the mystery of Four turn into reality for you. However, will it worry you if 'c' is not a constant and its consequences for 't'. Also, what may happen to E in 'E=mc^2'. It is an experimental fact that 'c' has gone down in magnitude since the birth of the universe.

On the side of human awareness or may i say 'consciousness', time in waking state appears to be not identical with one's experience in the dream and sleep state. Then, i attempted to talk about the fourth state of ' meditation' where one is fully aware but he is so calm as in deep sleep state. The connection with consciousness may well affect the way one need to look at TIME as a concept!

Let the mystery of Four turn into reality for you. However, will it worry you if 'c' is not a constant and its consequences for 't'. Also, what may happen to E in 'E=mc^2'. It is an experimental fact that 'c' has gone down in magnitude since the birth of the universe.

On the side of human awareness or may i say 'consciousness', time in waking state appears to be not identical with one's experience in the dream and sleep state. Then, i attempted to talk about the fourth state of ' meditation' where one is fully aware but he is so calm as in deep sleep state. The connection with consciousness may well affect the way one need to look at TIME as a concept!

Hi Peter,

You wrote:

“I think the problem with that is, as soon as you define such an interval, you naturally invoke the existence of instants to bound and determine it as an interval. Because, if change is to be possible, instants cannot exist, no such interval can exist either. If you haven't read it already, some of the material in the notes linked to from my essay is related to this issue.”

Clearly, though, if an interval between the time that the “direction” is increasing, and the time that it is decreasing, cannot be identified, then, on the basis of logic, we must conclude that an interval of “directional” change must not exist either. Certainly, the increasing change of position, up to the change in “direction,” is real, as is the decreasing change of position, after the change in “direction.”

Consequently, we must admit that a change from real increase to real decrease is real as well, but if no real interval for the change from one “direction” to the other can be identified, then, by definition, the change must be an instant of change, albeit this instant of change is not an instant change of position, but an instant change of “direction.”

Thus, we can say, “If change [of position] is to be possible, instants cannot exist, [in change defined as change of position].” However, we can also say, “If change [of ‘direction’] is to be possible, intervals cannot exist, [in change defined as change of ‘direction’].”

Yet you wrote:

“With the example, I can see what are you saying, but I do not think there is any sense in which the motions are physically discrete, as, with the motion being continuous, there can be no instant at which the ‘direction’ at either end of the projected diameter [instantaneously] changed.’’

LOL. If both arguments hold then, we must conclude that there can be no instant in which position does not change, but there also can be no interval in which direction does not change. Where does this leave us? Is there something that is neither an instant nor an interval of change?

Is it any wonder that scientists get impatient with epistemologists? Yet, as Einstein warned, the two disciplines are tied together at the hip!

Doug

You wrote:

“I think the problem with that is, as soon as you define such an interval, you naturally invoke the existence of instants to bound and determine it as an interval. Because, if change is to be possible, instants cannot exist, no such interval can exist either. If you haven't read it already, some of the material in the notes linked to from my essay is related to this issue.”

Clearly, though, if an interval between the time that the “direction” is increasing, and the time that it is decreasing, cannot be identified, then, on the basis of logic, we must conclude that an interval of “directional” change must not exist either. Certainly, the increasing change of position, up to the change in “direction,” is real, as is the decreasing change of position, after the change in “direction.”

Consequently, we must admit that a change from real increase to real decrease is real as well, but if no real interval for the change from one “direction” to the other can be identified, then, by definition, the change must be an instant of change, albeit this instant of change is not an instant change of position, but an instant change of “direction.”

Thus, we can say, “If change [of position] is to be possible, instants cannot exist, [in change defined as change of position].” However, we can also say, “If change [of ‘direction’] is to be possible, intervals cannot exist, [in change defined as change of ‘direction’].”

Yet you wrote:

“With the example, I can see what are you saying, but I do not think there is any sense in which the motions are physically discrete, as, with the motion being continuous, there can be no instant at which the ‘direction’ at either end of the projected diameter [instantaneously] changed.’’

LOL. If both arguments hold then, we must conclude that there can be no instant in which position does not change, but there also can be no interval in which direction does not change. Where does this leave us? Is there something that is neither an instant nor an interval of change?

Is it any wonder that scientists get impatient with epistemologists? Yet, as Einstein warned, the two disciplines are tied together at the hip!

Doug

Dear Doug,

Thanks for your comments. In relation to physics and philosophy, the point is that, as physics generally stands at the moment, my arguments are physically based, but they shouldn't be. In a funny way, by trying to dismiss my work philosophy, Tom is doing me a favour and negating his view that instants in time, time etc, do exist. In the same sense, in respect to time, instants etc, I naturally disagree that Tom's position is arrived at in any physical way. In relation to my work's relevance to physics, as it clearly has direct significance to a number of fundamental questions and problems in physics (time and space's quatization, the question of the existence of time, space, and space-time, how change is possible in the face of a number of perceived roadblocks etc), to claim otherwise because, by its very nature, it cannot have a mathematical model to back it up, is a little bit silly.

In relation to Lee Smolin's article, and as you alluded to too, I think a tendency to want to "shut up and calculate" (and to also appeal to mathematical novelty) at the expense of physical intuition and a care for the philosophical and logical underpinnings of a theory, probably represents modern physics greatest current problem and challenge. Thankfully, with a growing focus on foundational aspects, topics such as time, and with initiatives such as FQXi (and this essay contest!), this is clearly changing. There was actually recently an excellent conference at the Perimeter Institute on time. I was only there for a day, but I was fortunate to meet and spend some time with Lee there. Although I disagree with some of his view about time, I think he is very much right on the button about a number of things.

"If both arguments hold then, we must conclude that there can be no instant in which position does not change, but there also can be no interval in which direction does not change. Where does this leave us? Is there something that is neither an instant nor an interval of change?"

All that one needs is motion (and as such, a clock). That is, it is motion that enables the hands of a clock to rotate and to "represent" an interval with a clock, and it is not the other way around (the existence of time/interval enabling motion). I discuss this in more detail in my essay (and notes).

Best wishes

Peter

Thanks for your comments. In relation to physics and philosophy, the point is that, as physics generally stands at the moment, my arguments are physically based, but they shouldn't be. In a funny way, by trying to dismiss my work philosophy, Tom is doing me a favour and negating his view that instants in time, time etc, do exist. In the same sense, in respect to time, instants etc, I naturally disagree that Tom's position is arrived at in any physical way. In relation to my work's relevance to physics, as it clearly has direct significance to a number of fundamental questions and problems in physics (time and space's quatization, the question of the existence of time, space, and space-time, how change is possible in the face of a number of perceived roadblocks etc), to claim otherwise because, by its very nature, it cannot have a mathematical model to back it up, is a little bit silly.

In relation to Lee Smolin's article, and as you alluded to too, I think a tendency to want to "shut up and calculate" (and to also appeal to mathematical novelty) at the expense of physical intuition and a care for the philosophical and logical underpinnings of a theory, probably represents modern physics greatest current problem and challenge. Thankfully, with a growing focus on foundational aspects, topics such as time, and with initiatives such as FQXi (and this essay contest!), this is clearly changing. There was actually recently an excellent conference at the Perimeter Institute on time. I was only there for a day, but I was fortunate to meet and spend some time with Lee there. Although I disagree with some of his view about time, I think he is very much right on the button about a number of things.

"If both arguments hold then, we must conclude that there can be no instant in which position does not change, but there also can be no interval in which direction does not change. Where does this leave us? Is there something that is neither an instant nor an interval of change?"

All that one needs is motion (and as such, a clock). That is, it is motion that enables the hands of a clock to rotate and to "represent" an interval with a clock, and it is not the other way around (the existence of time/interval enabling motion). I discuss this in more detail in my essay (and notes).

Best wishes

Peter

Hi Doug,

You write,

"While I agree with you that the universe is organized from “pure space and time,” I must confess that I do not understand the conjecture in your essay, much less its mathematical support."

Do you mean my extension of Kepler's 2nd law of planetary motion to complex analysis? What I means is that, insofar as Kepler's law conserves angular momentum, a...

view entire post

You write,

"While I agree with you that the universe is organized from “pure space and time,” I must confess that I do not understand the conjecture in your essay, much less its mathematical support."

Do you mean my extension of Kepler's 2nd law of planetary motion to complex analysis? What I means is that, insofar as Kepler's law conserves angular momentum, a...

view entire post

Hi Everyone,

Well now that the contest is closed there is nothing left but the voting for the best of the 126, or so, 10 page essays! I see Carlo’s essay, which was the first to receive 2 restricted votes, has now received 3 restricted votes. It makes me wonder if this early lead reflects a tendency in the community to favor the “End of Time.” If so, I guess we can expect to see...

view entire post

Well now that the contest is closed there is nothing left but the voting for the best of the 126, or so, 10 page essays! I see Carlo’s essay, which was the first to receive 2 restricted votes, has now received 3 restricted votes. It makes me wonder if this early lead reflects a tendency in the community to favor the “End of Time.” If so, I guess we can expect to see...

view entire post

Having commented a lot about the importance of instants and intervals that drove me to vote for Peter’s essay, and the principles of symmetry that drove me to vote for Philip’s essay, I now want to write about why I voted for Hestenes’ essay. Here is the first of two parts of a lengthy explanation:

One of the reasons I voted for Hestenes’ essay is that I agree with him that the...

view entire post

One of the reasons I voted for Hestenes’ essay is that I agree with him that the...

view entire post

Part 2 of commentary on Hestenes vote.

With this much understood, we can now look at Hestenes’ introduction of de Broglie’s equations, and try to clarify some of the dimensional/conceptual confusion that the RST approach brings to light.

When we consider Planck’s constant, we see that it has the dimensions of action, t^2/s, which, when multiplied by frequency, nu, with...

view entire post

With this much understood, we can now look at Hestenes’ introduction of de Broglie’s equations, and try to clarify some of the dimensional/conceptual confusion that the RST approach brings to light.

When we consider Planck’s constant, we see that it has the dimensions of action, t^2/s, which, when multiplied by frequency, nu, with...

view entire post

Are you comparing your model with the Hestenes model then? The figure in his essay looks nothing like the figures in your essay.

Hi Larry,

No, not at all, but what I am saying is that his attribution of the electron’s properties to a “clock,” a zitter frequency, supports the RST-based model as well, since it also consists of oscillations, though oscillations of very different kind.

Hestenes’ model is based on a circulating point charge of very high frequency, and the figure in his essay shows its world...

view entire post

No, not at all, but what I am saying is that his attribution of the electron’s properties to a “clock,” a zitter frequency, supports the RST-based model as well, since it also consists of oscillations, though oscillations of very different kind.

Hestenes’ model is based on a circulating point charge of very high frequency, and the figure in his essay shows its world...

view entire post

Doug,

I am sure I am not the only one who is overwhelmed with the ideas in these FQXI essays. Beverly thinks it has cured him with his obsession with time. I have been tempted to join in the discussions now going on too only I cannot always follow it. Since here the discussion is mostly reduced between the two of us I will stick to it.

I find the ideas of frozen time hard to accept. I read Christi’s essay and the discussion. His essay explains how we can flow with the frozen river of time. I’m not convinced I understand it. Sadykov writes: “One of many questions in the essay "Flowing with a Frozen River": is time discrete, or continuous? Or in other words: whether time has the quantum nature?”

He answers the question like this: “Contrary to the general tendency to quantize all, we accept the continuous space, continuous time and continuous motion because of absence of any contradictions.” His essay looks impressive just skimming it.

I kept thinking of this because you have put much stress on Peter Lynds essay. It seems like the moments of frozen time are excluded by the Greek paradoxes and the Russian logic. I don’t really understand how your ideas get around this.

Ditto with your ideas of symmetry. How does the symmetry of your system come into play?

I like your essay very much, but I didn’t write one and can’t cast a restricted vote. Would you like to convince me anyway? You have written much on other essays. Please write more about yours. I don’t think I am the only one who wants this inspite of the early voting.

I am sure I am not the only one who is overwhelmed with the ideas in these FQXI essays. Beverly thinks it has cured him with his obsession with time. I have been tempted to join in the discussions now going on too only I cannot always follow it. Since here the discussion is mostly reduced between the two of us I will stick to it.

I find the ideas of frozen time hard to accept. I read Christi’s essay and the discussion. His essay explains how we can flow with the frozen river of time. I’m not convinced I understand it. Sadykov writes: “One of many questions in the essay "Flowing with a Frozen River": is time discrete, or continuous? Or in other words: whether time has the quantum nature?”

He answers the question like this: “Contrary to the general tendency to quantize all, we accept the continuous space, continuous time and continuous motion because of absence of any contradictions.” His essay looks impressive just skimming it.

I kept thinking of this because you have put much stress on Peter Lynds essay. It seems like the moments of frozen time are excluded by the Greek paradoxes and the Russian logic. I don’t really understand how your ideas get around this.

Ditto with your ideas of symmetry. How does the symmetry of your system come into play?

I like your essay very much, but I didn’t write one and can’t cast a restricted vote. Would you like to convince me anyway? You have written much on other essays. Please write more about yours. I don’t think I am the only one who wants this inspite of the early voting.

Hi Larry,

I appreciate your probing questions. You’re right. I ought to give the reasons why one should vote for my essay. To say that it quantizes time, without violating Lynds’ arguments, that it is based on underlying symmetry principles, as is Gibbs’ article, and that its model of the electron and other particles constitutes a high-frequency clock, in a similar fashion to...

view entire post

I appreciate your probing questions. You’re right. I ought to give the reasons why one should vote for my essay. To say that it quantizes time, without violating Lynds’ arguments, that it is based on underlying symmetry principles, as is Gibbs’ article, and that its model of the electron and other particles constitutes a high-frequency clock, in a similar fashion to...

view entire post

In his essay, Sean Carroll writes:

“What if time exists, and is eternal, and the state of the universe evolves with time obeying something like Schrödinger’s equation? This is a point of view that has by no means become obsolete, and may ultimately prove to be indispensable. We will find that, by taking time seriously, we can conclude a great deal about the deep architecture of...

view entire post

“What if time exists, and is eternal, and the state of the universe evolves with time obeying something like Schrödinger’s equation? This is a point of view that has by no means become obsolete, and may ultimately prove to be indispensable. We will find that, by taking time seriously, we can conclude a great deal about the deep architecture of...

view entire post

Doug, you write, "What Sean needs now is an infinite-dimensional Hilbert “time,” to go along with his infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, where the low entropy of the arrow of time is actually the high entropy of the arrow of space, and vice-versa."

Bingo. Hence my requirement of n-dimenisonal continuous time, n > 4. See my reply in Sean's forum.

Tom

Bingo. Hence my requirement of n-dimenisonal continuous time, n > 4. See my reply in Sean's forum.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Sorry I’ve taken so long to respond. It’s a busy time. Let me just say that you understand your concept better than I do, and I understand mine better than you do, so I’ll try to elaborate a bit on mine, and then you can be the judge of how it might apply to yours.

The thing with a temporal Hilbert space, as well as a spatial one, is that, in both cases, the magnitudes are scalar magnitudes. So, to speak of infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, whether spatial or temporal spaces, makes sense, since the dimensions are simply multiplication factors, in one of the four linear spaces of the tetraktys.

However, the importance of recognizing that there can be no more than four linear, or independent, dimensional spaces is paramount to understanding my concept; that is, we can raise the number of 0D, 1D, 2D, or 3D space/time magnitudes to any power, but these exponential numbers do not affect the degrees of freedom of the n-dimensional magnitudes themselves.

In other words, we can speak of (x^n)^m space/time magnitudes, where x and m are any number, but n must always be less than four, in Euclidean geometry, or Hilbert spaces, either spatial or temporal.

What then becomes important are the generators of the n-dimensional spaces. For example, in the expanding pseudoscalar/scalar equation, elapsed time simply counts the expansion of the pseudoscalar over time, but this is not a linear quantity in all cases.

The 1D component of the spherical expansion is 6/1, 12/2, 18/3, …, which is a constant ratio (space/time ratio = 6), or a first “geometric” derivative, analogous to velocity, only it’s 1D expansion in six directions, simultaneously outward from the origin.

The 2D component of the spherical expansion is 12/1, 48/2, 108/3, …, which, as you can see, is a constant change of ratio (i.e. the ratio increases by 12 each step), or second “geometric” derivative, and, the 3D expansion is 8/1, 64/2, 216/3, …, which is a constant change of a constant change of ratio (i.e. the increase by which the ratio increases is 16 each step), or a third “geometric” derivative, we might say.

That the concept of change in these simple n-dimensional space/time scalar ratios are analogous to velocity, acceleration, and jerk, as defined in our more familiar system of 1D vector motions, existing in three dimensions of space and one of time, is significant, when it is realized that the space/time magnitudes are quantized by changes in the pseudoscalar change “direction;” that is, when “direction” reversals quantize the n-dimensional space and time units, as explained in my essay (which I assert is the only way it can be done to avoid the inconsistencies raised in Lynds’ essay), it is tantamount to quantizing velocity, acceleration, and jerk.

It follows from this, then, that mass and energy should also be quantifiable, in terms of these changing space and time quantities.

Sorry I’ve taken so long to respond. It’s a busy time. Let me just say that you understand your concept better than I do, and I understand mine better than you do, so I’ll try to elaborate a bit on mine, and then you can be the judge of how it might apply to yours.

The thing with a temporal Hilbert space, as well as a spatial one, is that, in both cases, the magnitudes are scalar magnitudes. So, to speak of infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, whether spatial or temporal spaces, makes sense, since the dimensions are simply multiplication factors, in one of the four linear spaces of the tetraktys.

However, the importance of recognizing that there can be no more than four linear, or independent, dimensional spaces is paramount to understanding my concept; that is, we can raise the number of 0D, 1D, 2D, or 3D space/time magnitudes to any power, but these exponential numbers do not affect the degrees of freedom of the n-dimensional magnitudes themselves.

In other words, we can speak of (x^n)^m space/time magnitudes, where x and m are any number, but n must always be less than four, in Euclidean geometry, or Hilbert spaces, either spatial or temporal.

What then becomes important are the generators of the n-dimensional spaces. For example, in the expanding pseudoscalar/scalar equation, elapsed time simply counts the expansion of the pseudoscalar over time, but this is not a linear quantity in all cases.

The 1D component of the spherical expansion is 6/1, 12/2, 18/3, …, which is a constant ratio (space/time ratio = 6), or a first “geometric” derivative, analogous to velocity, only it’s 1D expansion in six directions, simultaneously outward from the origin.

The 2D component of the spherical expansion is 12/1, 48/2, 108/3, …, which, as you can see, is a constant change of ratio (i.e. the ratio increases by 12 each step), or second “geometric” derivative, and, the 3D expansion is 8/1, 64/2, 216/3, …, which is a constant change of a constant change of ratio (i.e. the increase by which the ratio increases is 16 each step), or a third “geometric” derivative, we might say.

That the concept of change in these simple n-dimensional space/time scalar ratios are analogous to velocity, acceleration, and jerk, as defined in our more familiar system of 1D vector motions, existing in three dimensions of space and one of time, is significant, when it is realized that the space/time magnitudes are quantized by changes in the pseudoscalar change “direction;” that is, when “direction” reversals quantize the n-dimensional space and time units, as explained in my essay (which I assert is the only way it can be done to avoid the inconsistencies raised in Lynds’ essay), it is tantamount to quantizing velocity, acceleration, and jerk.

It follows from this, then, that mass and energy should also be quantifiable, in terms of these changing space and time quantities.

Hi Doug,

I much appreciate this reply, as it finally gives me a handle on your theory in language that I can understand.

A scalar, by definition, is a magnitude without direction. Time is a scalar in general relativity because it is a simple parameter of reversible direction. When you define scalar as a magnitude increasing in all directions of space and time, this is not what...

view entire post

I much appreciate this reply, as it finally gives me a handle on your theory in language that I can understand.

A scalar, by definition, is a magnitude without direction. Time is a scalar in general relativity because it is a simple parameter of reversible direction. When you define scalar as a magnitude increasing in all directions of space and time, this is not what...

view entire post

Hi Tom,

I appreciate your willingness to earnestly engage. You write:

“A scalar, by definition, is a magnitude without direction. Time is a scalar in general relativity because it is a simple parameter of reversible direction. When you define scalar as a magnitude increasing in all directions of space and time, this is not what mathematicians generally mean. What your operation...

view entire post

I appreciate your willingness to earnestly engage. You write:

“A scalar, by definition, is a magnitude without direction. Time is a scalar in general relativity because it is a simple parameter of reversible direction. When you define scalar as a magnitude increasing in all directions of space and time, this is not what mathematicians generally mean. What your operation...

view entire post

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the reply. It's possible that this technique is too deep for my rationalist mind to wrap around. It doesn't cohere with any mathematics or physics that I know, and contradicts many conventions that I do know, as I pointed out.

Nevertheless, good luck with it. I suppose I'll have to remain curious about how you connect with Peter Lynds' idea since he claims that there is no possible mathematical model for it.

Happy holiday to you as well.

Tom

Thanks for the reply. It's possible that this technique is too deep for my rationalist mind to wrap around. It doesn't cohere with any mathematics or physics that I know, and contradicts many conventions that I do know, as I pointed out.

Nevertheless, good luck with it. I suppose I'll have to remain curious about how you connect with Peter Lynds' idea since he claims that there is no possible mathematical model for it.

Happy holiday to you as well.

Tom

Thanks Tom,

It’s different for sure, but pretty straight forward. Anyway, thanks for the effort. As far as connecting with Peter’s essay goes, I’ve already explained above how I don’t agree with his conclusions, only with the premise of his idea that the concept of change rules out the possibility of discrete units, in which there is no change.

As soon as a discrete unit of a quantity is defined, boundaries are established, and, in order for change to occur between the boundaries, still smaller quantities must exist. So, no matter how small the quantity defined, it can never be small enough to define continuous change. Hence, if this is the end of the story, there is no possibility to define anything other than continuous change, and, since numbers are discrete, there appears to be no way to define change mathematically without compromise.

However, this is not the end of the story. The way out of the impasse is to recognize that change can take place in the direction property of a quantity, as well as in its magnitude property. While a change in magnitude cannot be instantaneous, without contradiction, by the same token, a change in direction cannot be continuous, without contradiction. But with the two together, a continuous change in magnitude, coupled with periodic, instantaneous, changes in direction, the boundaries of discrete quantities of change can be defined consistently.

Peter hasn’t acknowledged this point yet, but neither he nor anyone else has refuted it either. The mathematics of the pseudoscalar units of the RST-based theory, which are quantized by these periodic “direction” reversals, do not constitute a formalism, based on imaginary numbers, or partial differential equations, and this is no doubt why it seems so baffling to you.

However, the mathematics of the system emerge from the same, intuitive, foundation of operationally interpreted, reciprocal, quantities that the physical concepts do, where the quantities –1, 0, 1, are operationally defined by the same reciprocal quantities that define the quantities –0, 1, 0, the difference being a matter of operational interpretation.

While this may sound like mumble jumble, it’s actually quite defensible, and enables one to define group symmetries, without having to resort to imaginary numbers and the use of rotations in the complex plane. On this basis, a new path of theoretical development is opened, once one accepts the premise of eternal, space/time, progression.

Regards,

Doug

It’s different for sure, but pretty straight forward. Anyway, thanks for the effort. As far as connecting with Peter’s essay goes, I’ve already explained above how I don’t agree with his conclusions, only with the premise of his idea that the concept of change rules out the possibility of discrete units, in which there is no change.

As soon as a discrete unit of a quantity is defined, boundaries are established, and, in order for change to occur between the boundaries, still smaller quantities must exist. So, no matter how small the quantity defined, it can never be small enough to define continuous change. Hence, if this is the end of the story, there is no possibility to define anything other than continuous change, and, since numbers are discrete, there appears to be no way to define change mathematically without compromise.

However, this is not the end of the story. The way out of the impasse is to recognize that change can take place in the direction property of a quantity, as well as in its magnitude property. While a change in magnitude cannot be instantaneous, without contradiction, by the same token, a change in direction cannot be continuous, without contradiction. But with the two together, a continuous change in magnitude, coupled with periodic, instantaneous, changes in direction, the boundaries of discrete quantities of change can be defined consistently.

Peter hasn’t acknowledged this point yet, but neither he nor anyone else has refuted it either. The mathematics of the pseudoscalar units of the RST-based theory, which are quantized by these periodic “direction” reversals, do not constitute a formalism, based on imaginary numbers, or partial differential equations, and this is no doubt why it seems so baffling to you.

However, the mathematics of the system emerge from the same, intuitive, foundation of operationally interpreted, reciprocal, quantities that the physical concepts do, where the quantities –1, 0, 1, are operationally defined by the same reciprocal quantities that define the quantities –0, 1, 0, the difference being a matter of operational interpretation.

While this may sound like mumble jumble, it’s actually quite defensible, and enables one to define group symmetries, without having to resort to imaginary numbers and the use of rotations in the complex plane. On this basis, a new path of theoretical development is opened, once one accepts the premise of eternal, space/time, progression.

Regards,

Doug

Hi Doug and Tom,

Too bad your discussion reached an end. I was enjoying it. I googled “kissing number” and found out it was something started by Newton. Six spheres can surround a central sphere in a plane without over lapping. Newton maintained only 12 could fit in three dimensions. A guy named David Gregory challenged him by saying it was 13. Two hundred fifty years later, Newton was vindicated.

Now the question is how many will fit in four dimensions? I guess the answer is 24. That part is easy to understand, but when Tom talks about Riemann tensors and its 16 components in 4 dimensions, I get lost.

Can you explain what he’s talking about and why or why not it is relevant to your work, Doug?

Too bad your discussion reached an end. I was enjoying it. I googled “kissing number” and found out it was something started by Newton. Six spheres can surround a central sphere in a plane without over lapping. Newton maintained only 12 could fit in three dimensions. A guy named David Gregory challenged him by saying it was 13. Two hundred fifty years later, Newton was vindicated.

Now the question is how many will fit in four dimensions? I guess the answer is 24. That part is easy to understand, but when Tom talks about Riemann tensors and its 16 components in 4 dimensions, I get lost.

Can you explain what he’s talking about and why or why not it is relevant to your work, Doug?

Larry,

The kissing number 24 was proved (2004) by Oleg Musin. (k=12 for dimension 3 was proved by Hales in 1998. The 3 dimensional problem was known as the Kepler sphere packing conjecture.)

If you read my essay, "Time Counts," you can see a treatment of sphere packing and kissing numbers. (If you want to go deeper into the mathematics, you can read my proposed article to InterJournal of Complex Systems).

The Riemann metric tensor reference is to the 16 coordinate points it takes to describe a position in four dimensional space. Six of those points are redundant, being the coordinates of three dimensional space.

All best,

Tom

The kissing number 24 was proved (2004) by Oleg Musin. (k=12 for dimension 3 was proved by Hales in 1998. The 3 dimensional problem was known as the Kepler sphere packing conjecture.)

If you read my essay, "Time Counts," you can see a treatment of sphere packing and kissing numbers. (If you want to go deeper into the mathematics, you can read my proposed article to InterJournal of Complex Systems).

The Riemann metric tensor reference is to the 16 coordinate points it takes to describe a position in four dimensional space. Six of those points are redundant, being the coordinates of three dimensional space.

All best,

Tom

Hi Larry,

The confusion is due, in large part I think, to a lack of communication. When we speak of distance and direction, a vector, in 4D spacetime, we are dealing only with the surface of a sphere, not the volume. In fact, technically, the word sphere is used to refer to the surface of a ball. The word ball is used to refer to the interior volume, but I don’t always make the proper...

view entire post

The confusion is due, in large part I think, to a lack of communication. When we speak of distance and direction, a vector, in 4D spacetime, we are dealing only with the surface of a sphere, not the volume. In fact, technically, the word sphere is used to refer to the surface of a ball. The word ball is used to refer to the interior volume, but I don’t always make the proper...

view entire post

Don't go away, Larry. This dialogue may not yet be over. :-)

Doug, that was an excellent survey.

I just want to add, Larry--a point that Doug made in his earlier posting that his theory "...enables one to define group symmetries, without having to resort to imaginary numbers and the use of rotations in the complex plane. On this basis, a new path of theoretical development is opened, once one accepts the premise of eternal, space/time, progression" is something I obviously disagree with, for while an eternal space/time progression has attractive mathematical properties, it doesn't account for observational consequences of physical discontinuity, particularly quantum mechanical unitarity.

And while Doug and I (and most every physicist) agree that it's important to reconcile apparently continuous motion with apparently discrete change, his statement, "While a change in magnitude cannot be instantaneous, without contradiction, by the same token, a change in direction cannot be continuous, without contradiction. But with the two together, a continuous change in magnitude, coupled with periodic, instantaneous, changes in direction, the boundaries of discrete quantities of change can be defined consistently" signals a different mathematical strategy than that I use, although we both aim ultimately for an algebraic basis of unified physics. Doug insists on no role for complex analysis, and my strategy demands complex analysis for reasons that I hope my essay makes clear.

Many essayists here, including Doug, have sent me back to the books. It's a healthy experience.

All best,

Tom

Doug, that was an excellent survey.

I just want to add, Larry--a point that Doug made in his earlier posting that his theory "...enables one to define group symmetries, without having to resort to imaginary numbers and the use of rotations in the complex plane. On this basis, a new path of theoretical development is opened, once one accepts the premise of eternal, space/time, progression" is something I obviously disagree with, for while an eternal space/time progression has attractive mathematical properties, it doesn't account for observational consequences of physical discontinuity, particularly quantum mechanical unitarity.

And while Doug and I (and most every physicist) agree that it's important to reconcile apparently continuous motion with apparently discrete change, his statement, "While a change in magnitude cannot be instantaneous, without contradiction, by the same token, a change in direction cannot be continuous, without contradiction. But with the two together, a continuous change in magnitude, coupled with periodic, instantaneous, changes in direction, the boundaries of discrete quantities of change can be defined consistently" signals a different mathematical strategy than that I use, although we both aim ultimately for an algebraic basis of unified physics. Doug insists on no role for complex analysis, and my strategy demands complex analysis for reasons that I hope my essay makes clear.

Many essayists here, including Doug, have sent me back to the books. It's a healthy experience.

All best,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for deciding to not give up on our dialog just yet. I think there is a lot that is worth our while in pursuing it still.

You wrote, “for while an eternal space/time progression has attractive mathematical properties, it doesn't account for observational consequences of physical discontinuity, particularly quantum mechanical unitarity.”

The unitarity of QM is...

view entire post

Thanks for deciding to not give up on our dialog just yet. I think there is a lot that is worth our while in pursuing it still.

You wrote, “for while an eternal space/time progression has attractive mathematical properties, it doesn't account for observational consequences of physical discontinuity, particularly quantum mechanical unitarity.”

The unitarity of QM is...

view entire post

I admire your commitment, Doug; however, unless I understood more of your geometry, I could not differentiate from the ancient Greek philosophy that "all is geometry," and the descent into mysticism that that implies. I find it hard to do physics that way. I feel the same way of the Pythagorean philosophy, "all is number."

So even though I don't have a firm handle on Hestenes's method of geometric algebra, I have to agree with you in principle that it is a unifying strategy.

You'll find, in fact, that I have dealt with the questions you raise vis a vis Hestenes. You'll find me commenting on it in David's blog. You'll also find that my theory does reduce (real) space to zero dimensions (a 0 + 1) complex model in which the 4-dimensional horizon is identical to the 10-dimension limit, and explains "...how such a transformation might take place..."

All best,

Tom

So even though I don't have a firm handle on Hestenes's method of geometric algebra, I have to agree with you in principle that it is a unifying strategy.

You'll find, in fact, that I have dealt with the questions you raise vis a vis Hestenes. You'll find me commenting on it in David's blog. You'll also find that my theory does reduce (real) space to zero dimensions (a 0 + 1) complex model in which the 4-dimensional horizon is identical to the 10-dimension limit, and explains "...how such a transformation might take place..."

All best,

Tom

Thanks Tom,

But I don’t see how you have reached that conclusion. Geometry is the science of space, while algebra is the science of time. However, Newton recognized that the glory of geometry does not stand alone, but depends upon “principles from without,” which delivers to it the “right lines and circles” that it uses to teach us truth.

Similarly, the glory of algebra does not stand alone, but instead of needing an input of “right lines and circles,” algebra needs an input of equalities and numbers. Yet, just as geometry has nothing to say about how to draw right lines and circles, algebra cannot tell us anything about how to obtain the equalities and numbers that it needs. These also must be given it by principles from without.

But if we find that the science of geometry depends on principles from without, and the that the science of algebra depends upon principles from without, what are those principles? Clearly, they are not the principles of mysticism, but of motion, a reciprocal relationship of changing space and time. And what is physics, then, if not the science of motion?

Regards,

Doug

But I don’t see how you have reached that conclusion. Geometry is the science of space, while algebra is the science of time. However, Newton recognized that the glory of geometry does not stand alone, but depends upon “principles from without,” which delivers to it the “right lines and circles” that it uses to teach us truth.

Similarly, the glory of algebra does not stand alone, but instead of needing an input of “right lines and circles,” algebra needs an input of equalities and numbers. Yet, just as geometry has nothing to say about how to draw right lines and circles, algebra cannot tell us anything about how to obtain the equalities and numbers that it needs. These also must be given it by principles from without.

But if we find that the science of geometry depends on principles from without, and the that the science of algebra depends upon principles from without, what are those principles? Clearly, they are not the principles of mysticism, but of motion, a reciprocal relationship of changing space and time. And what is physics, then, if not the science of motion?

Regards,

Doug

Doug, thinking this all the way through, I have to conclude that my criticism toward assigning a primary role to motion would apply as much to your theory as to Lynds's.

While philosophically one can hold that "nothing changes except change itself," the physics of change that regards "principles of motion" as primary neglects that defining motion only in terms of itself fails at providing any means to introduce inertia.

If physics really were the science of motion, then Mach's mechanics would be its foundation and only inertia would be real--space would be fiction. You and Lynds appear to want to keep both space and inertia without recognizing the logical inconsistencies of that view that Mach so carefully argued. ("No one is competent to predicate things about absolute space and absolute motion; they are pure things of thought, pure mental constructs, that cannot be produced in experience."--The Science of Mechanics).

I think Einstein still has a lot to teach us about what constitutes a valid physical theory as we weigh experience against experiment. I keep coming back to his definition of "physically real" (The Meaning of Relativity) "...independent in its properties...having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions." Motion is not independent in its properties.

Wishing you and your family the best of holidays.

Tom

While philosophically one can hold that "nothing changes except change itself," the physics of change that regards "principles of motion" as primary neglects that defining motion only in terms of itself fails at providing any means to introduce inertia.

If physics really were the science of motion, then Mach's mechanics would be its foundation and only inertia would be real--space would be fiction. You and Lynds appear to want to keep both space and inertia without recognizing the logical inconsistencies of that view that Mach so carefully argued. ("No one is competent to predicate things about absolute space and absolute motion; they are pure things of thought, pure mental constructs, that cannot be produced in experience."--The Science of Mechanics).

I think Einstein still has a lot to teach us about what constitutes a valid physical theory as we weigh experience against experiment. I keep coming back to his definition of "physically real" (The Meaning of Relativity) "...independent in its properties...having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions." Motion is not independent in its properties.

Wishing you and your family the best of holidays.

Tom

Happy Holidays Doug!

I hope you have had the chance to study up on some general relativity and see that the dimensions bend, warp, and move. Indeed--dimensions even "wiggle." Do not take my word for it, but listen to Lee Smolin.

Hope all is well!

In this BBC video, Lee Smolin states, "Einstein taught us that space is not a background that things move in. Spoace is a network...

view entire post

I hope you have had the chance to study up on some general relativity and see that the dimensions bend, warp, and move. Indeed--dimensions even "wiggle." Do not take my word for it, but listen to Lee Smolin.

Hope all is well!

In this BBC video, Lee Smolin states, "Einstein taught us that space is not a background that things move in. Spoace is a network...

view entire post

Merry Christmas Tom,

As last night’s caroling is over, this morning’s presents unwrapped, and I’m sitting here sipping my hot chocolate, my thoughts turn to the meaning of this life and the life to come. In that context, the concepts of change and inertia have a special, if different, meaning, but I can’t help making comparisons.

If we define inertia, as the resistance of an...

view entire post

As last night’s caroling is over, this morning’s presents unwrapped, and I’m sitting here sipping my hot chocolate, my thoughts turn to the meaning of this life and the life to come. In that context, the concepts of change and inertia have a special, if different, meaning, but I can’t help making comparisons.

If we define inertia, as the resistance of an...

view entire post

Hi Doug,

Let me begin at the end. You wrote: "We have defined motion in the only way it can be defined, in terms of changing space and time. If there is another way, please let me know."

I did let you know. Mach's principle, which is the philosophical foundation of general relativity, defines motion as the relative change in position among center of mass points. Space counts for...

view entire post

Let me begin at the end. You wrote: "We have defined motion in the only way it can be defined, in terms of changing space and time. If there is another way, please let me know."

I did let you know. Mach's principle, which is the philosophical foundation of general relativity, defines motion as the relative change in position among center of mass points. Space counts for...

view entire post

Hi Doug, Tom

I’ve been following your conversation with interest. It seems like you have reached an impasse, or maybe Doug’s just too busy to answer Tom’s last comment. Hopefully we will hear something soon. In the meantime I thought I would bring up the subject of Peter Rowlands’ essay,” Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics.”

The reason I like Doug’s essay is that it seems to answer Rowlands’ challenge that Doug quoted in the earlier version of his paper:

“Creating a sophisticated mathematical superstructure will not provide answers to the fundamental questions that we would expect from a truly unified theory…If physics is to prove itself the most fundamental possible way of understanding the ‘natural world’, then it must explain space, time and matter, as well as use them, and it must generate the mathematical structures it uses; it must also show how all things that are sophisticated arise from things that are much more simple. In principle, all possible complications must be removed from the ultimate starting point. It has to be intrinsically simple and absolutely single.”

Doug are you saying that the progression of space and time generate the mathematical structure you are using?

I’ve been following your conversation with interest. It seems like you have reached an impasse, or maybe Doug’s just too busy to answer Tom’s last comment. Hopefully we will hear something soon. In the meantime I thought I would bring up the subject of Peter Rowlands’ essay,” Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics.”

The reason I like Doug’s essay is that it seems to answer Rowlands’ challenge that Doug quoted in the earlier version of his paper:

“Creating a sophisticated mathematical superstructure will not provide answers to the fundamental questions that we would expect from a truly unified theory…If physics is to prove itself the most fundamental possible way of understanding the ‘natural world’, then it must explain space, time and matter, as well as use them, and it must generate the mathematical structures it uses; it must also show how all things that are sophisticated arise from things that are much more simple. In principle, all possible complications must be removed from the ultimate starting point. It has to be intrinsically simple and absolutely single.”

Doug are you saying that the progression of space and time generate the mathematical structure you are using?

Hi Tom, Larry,

Tom, I really appreciate your thoughtful and considered comments. However, I think you may have inadvertently set up a straw man argument to contend with. When I assert that motion can only be defined by changing space and time, you resist by pointing to an interpretation of what Einstein called Mach’s principle, which you say is defined in terms of the changing positions...

view entire post

Tom, I really appreciate your thoughtful and considered comments. However, I think you may have inadvertently set up a straw man argument to contend with. When I assert that motion can only be defined by changing space and time, you resist by pointing to an interpretation of what Einstein called Mach’s principle, which you say is defined in terms of the changing positions...

view entire post

Hi Doug,

You wrote,

"Tom, I really appreciate your thoughtful and considered comments. However, I think you may have inadvertently set up a straw man argument to contend with. When I assert that motion can only be defined by changing space and time, you resist by pointing to an interpretation of what Einstein called Mach’s principle, which you say is defined in terms of the...

view entire post

You wrote,

"Tom, I really appreciate your thoughtful and considered comments. However, I think you may have inadvertently set up a straw man argument to contend with. When I assert that motion can only be defined by changing space and time, you resist by pointing to an interpretation of what Einstein called Mach’s principle, which you say is defined in terms of the...

view entire post

Larry,

As promised, I want to try to answer your question, based on Peter Rowland’s assertion that “If physics is to prove itself the most fundamental possible way of understanding the ‘natural world’, then it must explain space, time and matter, as well as use them, and it must generate the mathematical structures it uses.”

Your question was, “Does the progression of...

view entire post

As promised, I want to try to answer your question, based on Peter Rowland’s assertion that “If physics is to prove itself the most fundamental possible way of understanding the ‘natural world’, then it must explain space, time and matter, as well as use them, and it must generate the mathematical structures it uses.”

Your question was, “Does the progression of...

view entire post

Happy New Year Tom,

It’s great to start the New Year off talking theoretical physics. Hopefully, I can convince you that the foundational premise of an RST-based physical theory does not contradict known physics and certainly does not redefine motion with a preferred inertial frame outside the universe.

True, to accept the premise of the RST, one has to think outside the box, but...

view entire post

It’s great to start the New Year off talking theoretical physics. Hopefully, I can convince you that the foundational premise of an RST-based physical theory does not contradict known physics and certainly does not redefine motion with a preferred inertial frame outside the universe.

True, to accept the premise of the RST, one has to think outside the box, but...

view entire post

And happy new year to you, Doug!

First, I have to say that the idea of a self-interacting geometry that generates energy lacks a necessary quality of a physical theory--dynamic exchange of information.

At least one reason that Einstein's general relativity is so brilliant is that by making the geometry of spacetime physically real, he created the means for mass points to interact...

view entire post

First, I have to say that the idea of a self-interacting geometry that generates energy lacks a necessary quality of a physical theory--dynamic exchange of information.

At least one reason that Einstein's general relativity is so brilliant is that by making the geometry of spacetime physically real, he created the means for mass points to interact...

view entire post

Hi Tom,

You write:

“First, I have to say that the idea of a self-interacting geometry that generates energy lacks a necessary quality of a physical theory--dynamic exchange of information.”

I don’t know what you mean by “self-interacting geometry that generates energy…” What is that?

You write:

“First, I have to say that the idea of a self-interacting geometry that generates energy lacks a necessary quality of a physical theory--dynamic exchange of information.”

I don’t know what you mean by “self-interacting geometry that generates energy…” What is that?

Doug, you wrote "I don’t know what you mean by “self-interacting geometry that generates energy…” What is that?"

I don't know. That's why I need elaboration on how a system that calls t/s "energy" and s/t "motion" can be other than self-referential. Motion is identical to energy.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

I don't know. That's why I need elaboration on how a system that calls t/s "energy" and s/t "motion" can be other than self-referential. Motion is identical to energy.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

Then let me elaborate a bit. In writing s/t, I am writing the dimensions of velocity, v = delta s/delta t, in a simplified manner, assuming that we understand the deltas implicitly. Since the dimensions of energy are the inverse of velocity, they are written E = t/s.

As a physicist, you are used to writing the action, but, as a theorist, good use of dimensional analysis can be made too. For instance, we can write the equation for energy as E = pv, or t/s = t^2/s^2 * s/t, in order to show how the dimensions of energy, momentum and velocity, are related.

Clearly, motion is NOT identical to energy, in terms of its space/time dimensions. In fact, the dimensions of motion (velocity) are the inverse of the dimensions of energy. In the case of matter, mass is converted to energy, via the dimensions of velocity squared, E = mc^2 = t/s = t^3/s^3 * (s/t)^2.

In the case of radiation, action is converted to energy, via the dimensions of frequency, E = hnu = t/s = t^2/s * 1/t, but if we convert the frequency in this equation to velocity, then Planck’s constant has the dimensions of momentum and the equation E = hnu takes the form E = pv, recognizing that the momentum in this case is the angular momentum of spin.

Similarly, force has dimensions of energy per unit space, or F = t/s * 1/s = t/s^2, while acceleration has dimensions of velocity per unit time, or a = s/t * 1/t = s/t^2.

Does this help?

Doug

Then let me elaborate a bit. In writing s/t, I am writing the dimensions of velocity, v = delta s/delta t, in a simplified manner, assuming that we understand the deltas implicitly. Since the dimensions of energy are the inverse of velocity, they are written E = t/s.

As a physicist, you are used to writing the action, but, as a theorist, good use of dimensional analysis can be made too. For instance, we can write the equation for energy as E = pv, or t/s = t^2/s^2 * s/t, in order to show how the dimensions of energy, momentum and velocity, are related.

Clearly, motion is NOT identical to energy, in terms of its space/time dimensions. In fact, the dimensions of motion (velocity) are the inverse of the dimensions of energy. In the case of matter, mass is converted to energy, via the dimensions of velocity squared, E = mc^2 = t/s = t^3/s^3 * (s/t)^2.

In the case of radiation, action is converted to energy, via the dimensions of frequency, E = hnu = t/s = t^2/s * 1/t, but if we convert the frequency in this equation to velocity, then Planck’s constant has the dimensions of momentum and the equation E = hnu takes the form E = pv, recognizing that the momentum in this case is the angular momentum of spin.

Similarly, force has dimensions of energy per unit space, or F = t/s * 1/s = t/s^2, while acceleration has dimensions of velocity per unit time, or a = s/t * 1/t = s/t^2.

Does this help?

Doug

Hi Tom and Doug,

Well, looks as if the dialog has died. This is not unexpected since the contest is closed and the winners soon to be announced. I did hope to hear an answer from Tom about the identity of energy and motion. Doug correctly points out that their dimensions are inverse. I don’t know anyone who would say they are not.

I think Tom is thinking in terms of the motion of mass. Energy is momentum times velocity. Doug is thinking in terms of pure motion. If motion is simply a change of space over time, energy has to simply be a change of time over space. This makes sense dimension wise.

My confusion comes in on how physics defines energy as a scalar with dimensions t/s. By definition a scalar cannot be one-dimensional.

Well, looks as if the dialog has died. This is not unexpected since the contest is closed and the winners soon to be announced. I did hope to hear an answer from Tom about the identity of energy and motion. Doug correctly points out that their dimensions are inverse. I don’t know anyone who would say they are not.

I think Tom is thinking in terms of the motion of mass. Energy is momentum times velocity. Doug is thinking in terms of pure motion. If motion is simply a change of space over time, energy has to simply be a change of time over space. This makes sense dimension wise.

My confusion comes in on how physics defines energy as a scalar with dimensions t/s. By definition a scalar cannot be one-dimensional.

Hi Larry,

I agree with you. Tom is no doubt thinking in terms of speed defined as a moving mass, since in Newton’s system of theory there is no velocity without the changing location of mass to define it. So, in this sense, one might be led to conclude that energy and motion are identical, but, in order to avoid confusion, we have to be much more precise than that.

Tom wrote...

view entire post

I agree with you. Tom is no doubt thinking in terms of speed defined as a moving mass, since in Newton’s system of theory there is no velocity without the changing location of mass to define it. So, in this sense, one might be led to conclude that energy and motion are identical, but, in order to avoid confusion, we have to be much more precise than that.

Tom wrote...

view entire post

Doug & Larry,

I have been ill and otherwise occupied. I do think this dialog has run its course for me, however.

The idea that motion is primary--asserted by Lynds and defended by Doug--is simply philosophy empty of any physical content.

We know that the energy of motion, i.e., kinetic energy, is a form of energy. To speak of motion without energy begs a preferred inertial reference frame which contradicts general relativity. I don't think one can justify such a contradiction. While it's acceptable to speak of energy without motion--potential energy, rest mass--the inverse is not true. If motion were independent of energy, we could prove it plausible that God and angels interfere with the course of human history. Now, that would be a breakthrough.

Bottom line, as I have said repeatedly, is that the Einstein definition of "physically real," is fundamental.

My best wishes for success; however, I don't think I have any more to contribute.

Tom

I have been ill and otherwise occupied. I do think this dialog has run its course for me, however.

The idea that motion is primary--asserted by Lynds and defended by Doug--is simply philosophy empty of any physical content.

We know that the energy of motion, i.e., kinetic energy, is a form of energy. To speak of motion without energy begs a preferred inertial reference frame which contradicts general relativity. I don't think one can justify such a contradiction. While it's acceptable to speak of energy without motion--potential energy, rest mass--the inverse is not true. If motion were independent of energy, we could prove it plausible that God and angels interfere with the course of human history. Now, that would be a breakthrough.

Bottom line, as I have said repeatedly, is that the Einstein definition of "physically real," is fundamental.

My best wishes for success; however, I don't think I have any more to contribute.

Tom

Yes Tom!

I agree that we must seek out *physical* postulates and *physical" equations representing *physical* reality.

The Prime Mover is the fourth dimension's expansion.

Moving Dimensions Theory's Postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

MDT's Equation: dx4/dt=ic

MDT's consequences: Relativity, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, quantum nonlocality and entanglement, entropy, and all motion.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

I agree that we must seek out *physical* postulates and *physical" equations representing *physical* reality.

The Prime Mover is the fourth dimension's expansion.

Moving Dimensions Theory's Postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

MDT's Equation: dx4/dt=ic

MDT's consequences: Relativity, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, quantum nonlocality and entanglement, entropy, and all motion.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Hi Dr. E,

I am a little conflicted here, for while I feel somewhat compelled to reply in order to clear up misconceptions, I have no desire to impose on Doug's good natured tolerance for dissent from his views, in his own forum.

Nevertheless, I think I will make just this one post to clarify why I invoke Einstein's definition of "physically real." He was very specific, with no room...

view entire post

I am a little conflicted here, for while I feel somewhat compelled to reply in order to clear up misconceptions, I have no desire to impose on Doug's good natured tolerance for dissent from his views, in his own forum.

Nevertheless, I think I will make just this one post to clarify why I invoke Einstein's definition of "physically real." He was very specific, with no room...

view entire post

Hi Tom,

An interesting FQXI article came out yesterday, entitled “Through a Glass Darkly,” evidently alluding to the apostle Paul’s characterization of the faith of the Saints in the New Testament, illustrating the faith of a mathematician and a physicist, seeking to work out a non-schizo physical theory.

I was very interested in it for several reasons. Number one, it’s all...

view entire post

An interesting FQXI article came out yesterday, entitled “Through a Glass Darkly,” evidently alluding to the apostle Paul’s characterization of the faith of the Saints in the New Testament, illustrating the faith of a mathematician and a physicist, seeking to work out a non-schizo physical theory.

I was very interested in it for several reasons. Number one, it’s all...

view entire post

Dear Tom,

"I entered this forum in this first place, to point out Peter Lynds's error--that there is no physics in Lynds' claim that motion is primary; his physics is identical to metaphysical philosophy."

"Lynds's philosophy contradicts the facts of quantum measurement and relativity."

"We know that the energy of motion, i.e., kinetic energy, is a form of energy. To speak of motion without energy begs a preferred inertial reference frame which contradicts general relativity."

"You and Lynds appear to want to keep both space..."

Where do you get this from?

"I entered this forum in this first place, to point out Peter Lynds's error--that there is no physics in Lynds' claim that motion is primary; his physics is identical to metaphysical philosophy."

"Lynds's philosophy contradicts the facts of quantum measurement and relativity."

"We know that the energy of motion, i.e., kinetic energy, is a form of energy. To speak of motion without energy begs a preferred inertial reference frame which contradicts general relativity."

"You and Lynds appear to want to keep both space..."

Where do you get this from?

Hi Doug,

Thank you for the kind compliment. My response, however, is driven by your own intellectual integrity and honesty. I too am interested only in what objective truth we can mutually arrive at, based on logical rules and facts in argument and evidence. Given that most of what we objectively (i.e., scientifically) know, is counterintuitive, there is little room for ridicule. It wasn't really that long ago that the idea that the surface of the earth curves back on itself would be considered ludicrous by most.

I strive, though I am not always successful, to base my objections to anyone's hypothesis on known theorems and demonstrated facts, and to refrain from assigning value to personal belief.

Thanks also for pointing out the article. It was interesting, although I think the universal set of complex numbers short of quaternions and octonions is sufficient to describe all physical phenomenology. The mathematical argument is contained in my NECSI ICCS 2006 paper, section 5.3.1. For the interested reader, my conference papers and preprints are at http://home.comcast.net/~thomasray1209/site/

Definitely, I am in accord with Hestenes, in that there is no boundary between classical and quantum domains (your source of "schizo" physics). My FQXI paper identifies a real measurable difference between a classical and imaginary time interval that in a scale invariant theory would extend all the way to the quantum jitters of Hestenes' model.

I have great respect for your geometric approach, in principle. I just can't get physics from it, in a mathematically complete way from first principles.

All best,

Tom

Thank you for the kind compliment. My response, however, is driven by your own intellectual integrity and honesty. I too am interested only in what objective truth we can mutually arrive at, based on logical rules and facts in argument and evidence. Given that most of what we objectively (i.e., scientifically) know, is counterintuitive, there is little room for ridicule. It wasn't really that long ago that the idea that the surface of the earth curves back on itself would be considered ludicrous by most.

I strive, though I am not always successful, to base my objections to anyone's hypothesis on known theorems and demonstrated facts, and to refrain from assigning value to personal belief.

Thanks also for pointing out the article. It was interesting, although I think the universal set of complex numbers short of quaternions and octonions is sufficient to describe all physical phenomenology. The mathematical argument is contained in my NECSI ICCS 2006 paper, section 5.3.1. For the interested reader, my conference papers and preprints are at http://home.comcast.net/~thomasray1209/site/

Definitely, I am in accord with Hestenes, in that there is no boundary between classical and quantum domains (your source of "schizo" physics). My FQXI paper identifies a real measurable difference between a classical and imaginary time interval that in a scale invariant theory would extend all the way to the quantum jitters of Hestenes' model.

I have great respect for your geometric approach, in principle. I just can't get physics from it, in a mathematically complete way from first principles.

All best,

Tom

Peter,

I rarely neglect to cite my sources. I will repeat:

Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity, 1956, Princeton University Press. See esp. p. 55.

For background on what led Einstein to his conclusions on what could be considered physically real:

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L., The Evolution of Physics, 1938, Simon & Schuster.

Mach, E., The Science of Mechanics, 1883 (reprinted 1960, Open Court Publishing).

Now:

What gives you the notion that motion is primary (and therefore, independent of physics)?

Best,

Tom

I rarely neglect to cite my sources. I will repeat:

Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity, 1956, Princeton University Press. See esp. p. 55.

For background on what led Einstein to his conclusions on what could be considered physically real:

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L., The Evolution of Physics, 1938, Simon & Schuster.

Mach, E., The Science of Mechanics, 1883 (reprinted 1960, Open Court Publishing).

Now:

What gives you the notion that motion is primary (and therefore, independent of physics)?

Best,

Tom

Dear Tom,

Thanks. Can you explain why you think the things I highlighted in my previous post (including, perhaps, how you think the references you just gave apply to them)?

"What gives you the notion that motion is primary (and therefore, independent of physics)?"

If you've read my essay, you'll know why I think motion is fundamental, not time. I can't see how this negates the existence of energy or makes motion independent of physics. Why you think this is one of the things I wanted you to explain.

Best wishes

Peter

Thanks. Can you explain why you think the things I highlighted in my previous post (including, perhaps, how you think the references you just gave apply to them)?

"What gives you the notion that motion is primary (and therefore, independent of physics)?"

If you've read my essay, you'll know why I think motion is fundamental, not time. I can't see how this negates the existence of energy or makes motion independent of physics. Why you think this is one of the things I wanted you to explain.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

You wrote:

"If you've read my essay, you'll know why I think motion is fundamental, not time. I can't see how this negates the existence of energy or makes motion independent of physics. Why you think this is one of the things I wanted you to explain."

First, that you imply that this conclusion is merely my personal opinion makes it necessary that you read and digest...

view entire post

You wrote:

"If you've read my essay, you'll know why I think motion is fundamental, not time. I can't see how this negates the existence of energy or makes motion independent of physics. Why you think this is one of the things I wanted you to explain."

First, that you imply that this conclusion is merely my personal opinion makes it necessary that you read and digest...

view entire post

Hi Tom, Peter,

Thanks for the link to your papers, Tom. I’ve started reading the first conference (2006) paper and find it fascinating, but I will have to find more time to read it entirely. You make some statements in section 1 that are very provocative to me.

For instance, you write

“One is compelled to ask, therefore, whether – or in what sense – phenomenological...

view entire post

Thanks for the link to your papers, Tom. I’ve started reading the first conference (2006) paper and find it fascinating, but I will have to find more time to read it entirely. You make some statements in section 1 that are very provocative to me.

For instance, you write

“One is compelled to ask, therefore, whether – or in what sense – phenomenological...

view entire post

Hello Doug,

You write "What Larson did (and Einstein and Lynds in a different way) was to recognize that time is only one aspect of change, that one cannot properly speak of changing space without the notion of changing time. Of course, one can fashion continuous notions of other changing quantities, such as stock market values, which change over time and do not involve any notion of space, but when we speak of changing space and changing time, we are speaking of one fundamental entity, motion, with two, reciprocal, aspects, neither of which can be said to enjoy an independent existence."

I don't know about Larson, but I do know about Einstein. (And Lynds says nothing remotely like Einstein vis a vis motion; in fact, as I pointed out, he outright contradicts him). What you have put forward here, is Minkowski space-time. Yes of course, one cannot speak of space changing without time changing--that does not, however, imply motion. It simply implies relation. The error is in assuming that the geometry is other than static, that it "moves" simply because space and time share a unitary relation. It doesn't happen that way--the geometry doesn't mystically "turn on" the physics. Einstein was most careful to note this, as you can read in my reply to Peter.

Thanks for reading my paper. You note that when I wrote “One is compelled to ask, therefore, whether – or in what sense – phenomenological order becomes mathematical order ..." that you think "We may not be able to answer that question definitively ..." but later you will find that I do answer it definitively, in eqns. 4 & 5. I.e., there is analytical continuation of physical space with hyperspace. The resulting term is the one I use in my FQXI paper to show that motion (inertia) is forced by this overvalue of the zeroth member of a well ordered set of hyperspheres. Using only the fundamental principles of scale invariance and least action, we obtain momentum. It is only here at the threshold of hyperspace that we can speak of counting in physical terms. My research program is an attempt to derive the natural numbers from analysis, and I got much more from it than I imagined long ago.

I see you continue to speak of "Peter's argument." What argument? I see only assumptions that beg the question.

All best,

Tom

You write "What Larson did (and Einstein and Lynds in a different way) was to recognize that time is only one aspect of change, that one cannot properly speak of changing space without the notion of changing time. Of course, one can fashion continuous notions of other changing quantities, such as stock market values, which change over time and do not involve any notion of space, but when we speak of changing space and changing time, we are speaking of one fundamental entity, motion, with two, reciprocal, aspects, neither of which can be said to enjoy an independent existence."

I don't know about Larson, but I do know about Einstein. (And Lynds says nothing remotely like Einstein vis a vis motion; in fact, as I pointed out, he outright contradicts him). What you have put forward here, is Minkowski space-time. Yes of course, one cannot speak of space changing without time changing--that does not, however, imply motion. It simply implies relation. The error is in assuming that the geometry is other than static, that it "moves" simply because space and time share a unitary relation. It doesn't happen that way--the geometry doesn't mystically "turn on" the physics. Einstein was most careful to note this, as you can read in my reply to Peter.

Thanks for reading my paper. You note that when I wrote “One is compelled to ask, therefore, whether – or in what sense – phenomenological order becomes mathematical order ..." that you think "We may not be able to answer that question definitively ..." but later you will find that I do answer it definitively, in eqns. 4 & 5. I.e., there is analytical continuation of physical space with hyperspace. The resulting term is the one I use in my FQXI paper to show that motion (inertia) is forced by this overvalue of the zeroth member of a well ordered set of hyperspheres. Using only the fundamental principles of scale invariance and least action, we obtain momentum. It is only here at the threshold of hyperspace that we can speak of counting in physical terms. My research program is an attempt to derive the natural numbers from analysis, and I got much more from it than I imagined long ago.

I see you continue to speak of "Peter's argument." What argument? I see only assumptions that beg the question.

All best,

Tom

Dear Doug,

Happy new(ish) year. I hope you're well. As we talked about earlier, I don't think that "instantaneous" changes in direction are possible either. Is your theory really dependent on this, in the sense that change in direction must be considered instantaneous?

Dear Tom,

Just a couple of points. Firstly, I don't reject "mathematics to describe the universe". I've gone to pains to highlight that, while I don't think instantaneous magnitudes exist, I think they are still valuable in physics. One just has to be very careful about what one infers about them. There are also obviously intervals.

As for Einstein, the reality of space-time, motion being fundamental, time not etc, apart from simply noting that there is nothing about motion being possible without time existing that contradicts the fundamentals of general relativity (nor indeed, does the non-existence of instants and instantaneous magnitudes), I don't really have anything further to add that isn't already in my essay. Of course, a large number of highly esteemed physicists do believe that space-time actually exists, and John Wheeler seems to have been one of them. From what I can tell, Kip Thorne is another. Einstein, however – at least, late in his life – wasn't. Here are some related quotes.

"Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field."

-- Einstein. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, 1920, Fifth Appendix (added in 1952).

"Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we live."

-- Albert Einstein, as quoted by A. Forsee in: Albert Einstein, Theoretical Physicist (Mcmillan, 1963).

"It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things."

-- Ernst Mach. The Science of Mechanics, 1893.

I wouldn't want to be standing next to you on a sinking ship Tom. I said that.

Peter

Happy new(ish) year. I hope you're well. As we talked about earlier, I don't think that "instantaneous" changes in direction are possible either. Is your theory really dependent on this, in the sense that change in direction must be considered instantaneous?

Dear Tom,

Just a couple of points. Firstly, I don't reject "mathematics to describe the universe". I've gone to pains to highlight that, while I don't think instantaneous magnitudes exist, I think they are still valuable in physics. One just has to be very careful about what one infers about them. There are also obviously intervals.

As for Einstein, the reality of space-time, motion being fundamental, time not etc, apart from simply noting that there is nothing about motion being possible without time existing that contradicts the fundamentals of general relativity (nor indeed, does the non-existence of instants and instantaneous magnitudes), I don't really have anything further to add that isn't already in my essay. Of course, a large number of highly esteemed physicists do believe that space-time actually exists, and John Wheeler seems to have been one of them. From what I can tell, Kip Thorne is another. Einstein, however – at least, late in his life – wasn't. Here are some related quotes.

"Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field."

-- Einstein. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, 1920, Fifth Appendix (added in 1952).

"Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we live."

-- Albert Einstein, as quoted by A. Forsee in: Albert Einstein, Theoretical Physicist (Mcmillan, 1963).

"It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things."

-- Ernst Mach. The Science of Mechanics, 1893.

I wouldn't want to be standing next to you on a sinking ship Tom. I said that.

Peter

Peter,

I haven't offered you any opinions that aren't supported in conventional, objective physics. Reject the facts if you wish, although I can't imagine that will add to your knowledge.

If your theory does not reject mathematical modeling, please supply a model that assumes motion as an independent property of the universe. That very philosophy is unmistakably Aristotelian and contradictory of contemporary science.

And no, Einstein did not--in early life, in middle life, or in later life--reject the physical reality of space-time. Please, absorb the meaning of Einstein's very explicit and unambiguous definition of physically real phenomena. Your quotes, even out of context, do not contradict that definition.

Mach's point was that time and space are convenient fictions that do not affect objective measure of changes in the positions of mass points--Einstein's general relativity introduced a continuum of space and time which _does_ affect objective measure of changes in positions of mass points, which is experimentally validated.

Well, at least my ship has sailed. My best wishes that yours gets underway.

Tom

I haven't offered you any opinions that aren't supported in conventional, objective physics. Reject the facts if you wish, although I can't imagine that will add to your knowledge.

If your theory does not reject mathematical modeling, please supply a model that assumes motion as an independent property of the universe. That very philosophy is unmistakably Aristotelian and contradictory of contemporary science.

And no, Einstein did not--in early life, in middle life, or in later life--reject the physical reality of space-time. Please, absorb the meaning of Einstein's very explicit and unambiguous definition of physically real phenomena. Your quotes, even out of context, do not contradict that definition.

Mach's point was that time and space are convenient fictions that do not affect objective measure of changes in the positions of mass points--Einstein's general relativity introduced a continuum of space and time which _does_ affect objective measure of changes in positions of mass points, which is experimentally validated.

Well, at least my ship has sailed. My best wishes that yours gets underway.

Tom

Hi Peter, Tom,

Peter, a little reflection will convince you that change in “direction” must be instantaneous. It can't be changed over an interval, because there are only two “directions” in a given dimension. It's a binary choice, with nothing in between.

I believe that the best way to understand this is to consider the rotation of a radius in the 2D plane. If we describe the rotation in terms of changing sine and cosine, we cannot identify an interval in which neither is changing, but we know that they both must change signs at some point. Since there must be a point where the sign change will occur, as the rotation proceeds, the change must be instantaneous, by construction.

Tom, this brings us back to the geometry. You admit that “...one cannot speak of space changing without time changing...,” but you insist that this “...does not, however, imply motion. It simply implies relation. The error is in assuming that the geometry is other than static, that it "moves" simply because space and time share a unitary relation. It doesn't happen that way--the geometry doesn't mystically "turn on" the physics. Einstein was most careful to note this, as you can read in my reply to Peter.”

But what does it mean to say, “It simply implies relation?” If motion, by definition is the relation between changing space and changing time, then it makes no sense to say that the existence of this relation is not motion. We observe that the expansion of space redshifts the frequency of light, and we observe that the march of time increases entropy. As time increases, space increases, and these two are reciprocally related in the science of physics. What more fundamental relation could we ask for?

Appealing to the authority in the pronouncements of great scientists may be helpful at times, pedagogically, but we shouldn't let those blind our minds to the facts we can observe. This is especially true when we can benefit from observations that they couldn't. Einstein's ideas about motion and spacetime might have been quite disconcerting to him had he known that the expansion of the universe is increasing and that the QM calculation of the vacuum energy is off by 120 orders of magnitude!

This is a huge embarrassment to the physics community, and I think that the fact that our idea of vacuum energy plays such a crucial role in our cosmological theory, where the equations of Einstein can only be invoked after the ship is well underway, should give us more pause.

Peter, a little reflection will convince you that change in “direction” must be instantaneous. It can't be changed over an interval, because there are only two “directions” in a given dimension. It's a binary choice, with nothing in between.

I believe that the best way to understand this is to consider the rotation of a radius in the 2D plane. If we describe the rotation in terms of changing sine and cosine, we cannot identify an interval in which neither is changing, but we know that they both must change signs at some point. Since there must be a point where the sign change will occur, as the rotation proceeds, the change must be instantaneous, by construction.

Tom, this brings us back to the geometry. You admit that “...one cannot speak of space changing without time changing...,” but you insist that this “...does not, however, imply motion. It simply implies relation. The error is in assuming that the geometry is other than static, that it "moves" simply because space and time share a unitary relation. It doesn't happen that way--the geometry doesn't mystically "turn on" the physics. Einstein was most careful to note this, as you can read in my reply to Peter.”

But what does it mean to say, “It simply implies relation?” If motion, by definition is the relation between changing space and changing time, then it makes no sense to say that the existence of this relation is not motion. We observe that the expansion of space redshifts the frequency of light, and we observe that the march of time increases entropy. As time increases, space increases, and these two are reciprocally related in the science of physics. What more fundamental relation could we ask for?

Appealing to the authority in the pronouncements of great scientists may be helpful at times, pedagogically, but we shouldn't let those blind our minds to the facts we can observe. This is especially true when we can benefit from observations that they couldn't. Einstein's ideas about motion and spacetime might have been quite disconcerting to him had he known that the expansion of the universe is increasing and that the QM calculation of the vacuum energy is off by 120 orders of magnitude!

This is a huge embarrassment to the physics community, and I think that the fact that our idea of vacuum energy plays such a crucial role in our cosmological theory, where the equations of Einstein can only be invoked after the ship is well underway, should give us more pause.

Peter,

My apologies in advance for commenting on a question directed to Doug, and my apologies to Doug for butting in. Nevertheless, this question strongly reinforces the point I have been trying to get across, about the difference between physics and philosophy.

You wrote, "I don't think that "instantaneous" changes in direction are possible either. Is your theory really dependent on this, in the sense that change in direction must be considered instantaneous?"

I think I have mentioned this before, and it bears repeating: one may in all truth and justification define a faster than light particle as one that changes direction without changing velocity. This definition is in full accord with theoretical and experimental physics even though one cannot do physics with it.

Point is, that Doug's recognition of instantaneous change and the significance attached thereto, in the context of what we _know_ to be true of physics, is what makes his theory physical rather than philosophical. He doesn't deny the facts. He supplies a theory that proposes to explain the facts.

Tom

My apologies in advance for commenting on a question directed to Doug, and my apologies to Doug for butting in. Nevertheless, this question strongly reinforces the point I have been trying to get across, about the difference between physics and philosophy.

You wrote, "I don't think that "instantaneous" changes in direction are possible either. Is your theory really dependent on this, in the sense that change in direction must be considered instantaneous?"

I think I have mentioned this before, and it bears repeating: one may in all truth and justification define a faster than light particle as one that changes direction without changing velocity. This definition is in full accord with theoretical and experimental physics even though one cannot do physics with it.

Point is, that Doug's recognition of instantaneous change and the significance attached thereto, in the context of what we _know_ to be true of physics, is what makes his theory physical rather than philosophical. He doesn't deny the facts. He supplies a theory that proposes to explain the facts.

Tom

Hi Doug,

Our last posts crossed instantaneously. :-)

You wrote: "But what does it mean to say, “It simply implies relation?”

I mean, the relation between geometric parts. Continuing:

"If motion, by definition is the relation between changing space and changing time, then it makes no sense to say that the existence of this relation is not motion."

Sure it does. Our choice of spacetime points is arbitrary, and the physics is independent of our choice. Our mathematical move in time cannot be plausibly identical to the universe's move in time. Further:

"We observe that the expansion of space redshifts the frequency of light, and we observe that the march of time increases entropy. As time increases, space increases, and these two are reciprocally related in the science of physics. What more fundamental relation could we ask for?"

The origin of inertia in relation to the geometry. A mathematically complete kinetic theory. Continuing:

"Appealing to the authority in the pronouncements of great scientists may be helpful at times, pedagogically, but we shouldn't let those blind our minds to the facts we can observe."

Neither have I done so. We do not observe geometry move. We do observe energy transform geometry.

"This is especially true when we can benefit from observations that they couldn't. Einstein's ideas about motion and spacetime might have been quite disconcerting to him had he known that the expansion of the universe is increasing and that the QM calculation of the vacuum energy is off by 120 orders of magnitude!"

Of course. He was a classical physicist, after all. The last of the breed.

"This is a huge embarrassment to the physics community, and I think that the fact that our idea of vacuum energy plays such a crucial role in our cosmological theory, where the equations of Einstein can only be invoked after the ship is well underway, should give us more pause."

Einstein allowed that the cosmological problem remains the final stumbling block to general relativity. Both special and general relativity explicitly recognize the limits of their mathematical completeness, however.

Therefore: quantum field theory, string theory, and a new frontier to be settled.

All best,

Tom

Our last posts crossed instantaneously. :-)

You wrote: "But what does it mean to say, “It simply implies relation?”

I mean, the relation between geometric parts. Continuing:

"If motion, by definition is the relation between changing space and changing time, then it makes no sense to say that the existence of this relation is not motion."

Sure it does. Our choice of spacetime points is arbitrary, and the physics is independent of our choice. Our mathematical move in time cannot be plausibly identical to the universe's move in time. Further:

"We observe that the expansion of space redshifts the frequency of light, and we observe that the march of time increases entropy. As time increases, space increases, and these two are reciprocally related in the science of physics. What more fundamental relation could we ask for?"

The origin of inertia in relation to the geometry. A mathematically complete kinetic theory. Continuing:

"Appealing to the authority in the pronouncements of great scientists may be helpful at times, pedagogically, but we shouldn't let those blind our minds to the facts we can observe."

Neither have I done so. We do not observe geometry move. We do observe energy transform geometry.

"This is especially true when we can benefit from observations that they couldn't. Einstein's ideas about motion and spacetime might have been quite disconcerting to him had he known that the expansion of the universe is increasing and that the QM calculation of the vacuum energy is off by 120 orders of magnitude!"

Of course. He was a classical physicist, after all. The last of the breed.

"This is a huge embarrassment to the physics community, and I think that the fact that our idea of vacuum energy plays such a crucial role in our cosmological theory, where the equations of Einstein can only be invoked after the ship is well underway, should give us more pause."

Einstein allowed that the cosmological problem remains the final stumbling block to general relativity. Both special and general relativity explicitly recognize the limits of their mathematical completeness, however.

Therefore: quantum field theory, string theory, and a new frontier to be settled.

All best,

Tom

Hi Everybody,

I want to give more complete answers to Tom's many assertions, but I find it difficult, because they tend to cover so much ground. It's not easy to succinctly address the philosophical and scientific issues of motion, space and time inherent in a span of ideas from Pythagoras and Aristotle to Mach and Einstein!

But let me try to take just one of his blanket statements...

view entire post

I want to give more complete answers to Tom's many assertions, but I find it difficult, because they tend to cover so much ground. It's not easy to succinctly address the philosophical and scientific issues of motion, space and time inherent in a span of ideas from Pythagoras and Aristotle to Mach and Einstein!

But let me try to take just one of his blanket statements...

view entire post

Hi Tom,

Yes they did, and they continue to do so. LOL

But the pace is dizzying. I have to pause for a while. I want to watch the coronation with my wife.

Thanks for all your input. There's enough here to keep us going all year I think.

Warm regards,

Doug

Yes they did, and they continue to do so. LOL

But the pace is dizzying. I have to pause for a while. I want to watch the coronation with my wife.

Thanks for all your input. There's enough here to keep us going all year I think.

Warm regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,

Okay, I will stand by for more debate. For now, though, I want to again note that my "assertions" are not mere personal opinions. They are well sourced and long argued.

You can count on me to take the position that science is not philosophy. (In fact, with my collaborator Patrick Frank, I have published on that subject, with that exact title, in Free Inquiry.)

Let's have at it. :-)

Tom

Okay, I will stand by for more debate. For now, though, I want to again note that my "assertions" are not mere personal opinions. They are well sourced and long argued.

You can count on me to take the position that science is not philosophy. (In fact, with my collaborator Patrick Frank, I have published on that subject, with that exact title, in Free Inquiry.)

Let's have at it. :-)

Tom

Hi Tom,

To start things off, could you elaborate a little on the following paragraph from your paper, “Self Organization in Real and Complex Analysis?”

“1.3 If nature appears to be self-organized, and mathematics appears to be the language of nature, what can we mean when we suggest that mathematics (at the level of Analysis) is itself self-organized Suppose we mean: the self-organization of spatial dimensions. We are obliged to show, then, how dimensions are self-similar and self-limiting. And we are obliged to show how the physical quality of time relates to the mathematical quantity of number. We measure motion by changes in relative position of points in space; if these motions are random and self-avoiding, the self-similarity produced by such a system may make it appear classically that “time flows equably” as Newton believed – or that time has no reality independent of space, as Einstein asserted – while time is actually chaotic. I.e., there is no actually smooth function in nature corresponding to our mathematically smooth models. The model is not the theory. Nevertheless, we will show how such a disordered system organically produces a well ordered sequence, with no appeal to the Axiom of Choice.”

I'm really not sure what you mean by “We are obliged to show, then, how dimensions are self-similar and self-limiting,” among other things.

Regards,

Doug

To start things off, could you elaborate a little on the following paragraph from your paper, “Self Organization in Real and Complex Analysis?”

“1.3 If nature appears to be self-organized, and mathematics appears to be the language of nature, what can we mean when we suggest that mathematics (at the level of Analysis) is itself self-organized Suppose we mean: the self-organization of spatial dimensions. We are obliged to show, then, how dimensions are self-similar and self-limiting. And we are obliged to show how the physical quality of time relates to the mathematical quantity of number. We measure motion by changes in relative position of points in space; if these motions are random and self-avoiding, the self-similarity produced by such a system may make it appear classically that “time flows equably” as Newton believed – or that time has no reality independent of space, as Einstein asserted – while time is actually chaotic. I.e., there is no actually smooth function in nature corresponding to our mathematically smooth models. The model is not the theory. Nevertheless, we will show how such a disordered system organically produces a well ordered sequence, with no appeal to the Axiom of Choice.”

I'm really not sure what you mean by “We are obliged to show, then, how dimensions are self-similar and self-limiting,” among other things.

Regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,

"I'm really not sure what you mean by 'We are obliged to show, then, how dimensions are self-similar and self-limiting,' among other things."

Sure. A self organized system has these properties of necessity. Consider a self-similar object such as the Koch snowflake. We impose those boundaries by fiat in 2 dimensions. Then consider a complex object of fractal dimension such as the Mandelbrot set. Here, chaos plays a role in creation of the set , by the generating function's sensitive dependence on initial conditions; however, self-similarity holds all the way through, at every scale.

The cited paragraph is the departure point to show that non-ordered complex plane operations are equivalent to chaotic time flows on the complex sphere (the Riemann sphere generalization of the complex plane). Converted back to 1-dimensional arithmetic order, we recover a well ordered sequence from this hyperspatial chaos. This could only hold if the universal set of complex numbers is in fact self-organized (and therefore implying self-similarity and self-limitation). Discrete dimensions are defined in coordinate points, and invariant by Brouwer's theorem.

Currently, I am on task to make clearer and more accessible the tersely worded concepts in this paper, so I find any questions especially helpful. Thanks.

All best,

Tom

"I'm really not sure what you mean by 'We are obliged to show, then, how dimensions are self-similar and self-limiting,' among other things."

Sure. A self organized system has these properties of necessity. Consider a self-similar object such as the Koch snowflake. We impose those boundaries by fiat in 2 dimensions. Then consider a complex object of fractal dimension such as the Mandelbrot set. Here, chaos plays a role in creation of the set , by the generating function's sensitive dependence on initial conditions; however, self-similarity holds all the way through, at every scale.

The cited paragraph is the departure point to show that non-ordered complex plane operations are equivalent to chaotic time flows on the complex sphere (the Riemann sphere generalization of the complex plane). Converted back to 1-dimensional arithmetic order, we recover a well ordered sequence from this hyperspatial chaos. This could only hold if the universal set of complex numbers is in fact self-organized (and therefore implying self-similarity and self-limitation). Discrete dimensions are defined in coordinate points, and invariant by Brouwer's theorem.

Currently, I am on task to make clearer and more accessible the tersely worded concepts in this paper, so I find any questions especially helpful. Thanks.

All best,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks. I guess what I would want to know first is why we would want to show that non-ordered complex plane operations are equivalent to chaotic time flows on the complex sphere, or why we would want to start with a “correspondence between the physical principle of least action and the mathematical concept of well ordering,” in order to understand “a deeply organic connection between physics and mathematics.”.

To get an idea of why this would puzzle me, take a look at this blog entry that I wrote August of 2007:

[link=”http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2

007/8/26/mathesis-universalis-the-intuition-of-time.html”]

http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/8/26/mathe

sis-universalis-the-intuition-of-time.html

Of course, Hamilton was not aware of things like self similar and self limiting dimensions, let alone chaotic time flows on the complex sphere. Yet, his genius for penetrating to the fundamental issues of time and algebra is still phenomenally useful, so I'm wondering if we can address some of them in our dialog, since they are not clothed in the obtuse vernacular of modern mathematics, which is so inaccessible to so many.

In this vein, I think its important to understand what we have assumed, even in the case of a discussion of what we mean by magnitude and number, let alone “the universal set of complex numbers.” So, if you could also read the blog entry I wrote in February of 2007, I would greatly appreciate it:

[linkl=“http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/20

07/2/12/the-marriage-of-numbers-and-magnitudes.html”] http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/2/12/the-m

arriage-of-numbers-and-magnitudes.html

In discussing this “Marriage of Numbers and Magnitudes,” I refer to the “Chart of Motion.” I put this chart together to show the simple relation of space and time in four dimensions, which shows the corresponding types of n-dimensional motion that can be understood from these considerations, but we can ignore it initially.

Regards,

Doug

Thanks. I guess what I would want to know first is why we would want to show that non-ordered complex plane operations are equivalent to chaotic time flows on the complex sphere, or why we would want to start with a “correspondence between the physical principle of least action and the mathematical concept of well ordering,” in order to understand “a deeply organic connection between physics and mathematics.”.

To get an idea of why this would puzzle me, take a look at this blog entry that I wrote August of 2007:

[link=”http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2

007/8/26/mathesis-universalis-the-intuition-of-time.html”]

http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/8/26/mathe

sis-universalis-the-intuition-of-time.html

Of course, Hamilton was not aware of things like self similar and self limiting dimensions, let alone chaotic time flows on the complex sphere. Yet, his genius for penetrating to the fundamental issues of time and algebra is still phenomenally useful, so I'm wondering if we can address some of them in our dialog, since they are not clothed in the obtuse vernacular of modern mathematics, which is so inaccessible to so many.

In this vein, I think its important to understand what we have assumed, even in the case of a discussion of what we mean by magnitude and number, let alone “the universal set of complex numbers.” So, if you could also read the blog entry I wrote in February of 2007, I would greatly appreciate it:

[linkl=“http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/20

07/2/12/the-marriage-of-numbers-and-magnitudes.html”] http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/2/12/the-m

arriage-of-numbers-and-magnitudes.html

In discussing this “Marriage of Numbers and Magnitudes,” I refer to the “Chart of Motion.” I put this chart together to show the simple relation of space and time in four dimensions, which shows the corresponding types of n-dimensional motion that can be understood from these considerations, but we can ignore it initially.

Regards,

Doug

Darn it, I shouldn't have assumed that I remembered the link format in the post above! Grrrrr.

The first link is:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/8/26/mathe

sis-universalis-the-intuition-of-time.html

The second link is:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/2/12/th

e-marriage-of-numbers-and-magnitudes.html[/linl]

Doug

The first link is:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/8/26/mathe

sis-universalis-the-intuition-of-time.html

The second link is:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/2/12/th

e-marriage-of-numbers-and-magnitudes.html[/linl]

Doug

I should just give up!

The second link is:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/2/12/th

e-marriage-of-numbers-and-magnitudes.html

The second link is:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalar-mathematics/2007/2/12/th

e-marriage-of-numbers-and-magnitudes.html

Hello Doug,

None of the links works for me. Are you sure the web site is still active? To address your other points as stated, however:

You wrote, "I guess what I would want to know first is why we would want to show that non-ordered complex plane operations are equivalent to chaotic time flows on the complex sphere, or why we would want to start with a “correspondence between the physical principle of least action and the mathematical concept of well ordering,” in

order to understand “a deeply organic connection between physics and mathematics.”.

Let me turn this around. Why should we be interested in a theory that claims motion as a property of the geometry, with no mechanism or experimental evidence? Why should we be interested in Lynd's claim that motion is fundamental, which is demonstrably false?

The only really valid "why" question in physics, is why there is something rather than nothing. Any other "why" is philosophical, not physical.

The Riemannian geometry of my conjecture is the same space that Einstein chose for general relativity. Because Einstein's theory is a continuous function model, however, the origin of inertia is assumed dynamically and not from first principles. By marrying the principle of least action--which is empirically validated--to a complex sphere model in hyperspace where one can derive an n-dimensional counting order, my aim is to get a theory of classical determinism from quantum rules. This is also a result of Einstein's quest:

In the final paragraph of his failed attempt to write a unified field theory (Appendix II, "Relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field," The Meaning of Relativity, 1956) Einstein wrote, "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely descibed by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory." That basis is what I seek.

I will be happy to discuss the Hamiltonian, if you can show me how the Hamiltonian may be chosen in an other than arbitrary manner. Otherwise, we are back at square one.

All best,

Tom

None of the links works for me. Are you sure the web site is still active? To address your other points as stated, however:

You wrote, "I guess what I would want to know first is why we would want to show that non-ordered complex plane operations are equivalent to chaotic time flows on the complex sphere, or why we would want to start with a “correspondence between the physical principle of least action and the mathematical concept of well ordering,” in

order to understand “a deeply organic connection between physics and mathematics.”.

Let me turn this around. Why should we be interested in a theory that claims motion as a property of the geometry, with no mechanism or experimental evidence? Why should we be interested in Lynd's claim that motion is fundamental, which is demonstrably false?

The only really valid "why" question in physics, is why there is something rather than nothing. Any other "why" is philosophical, not physical.

The Riemannian geometry of my conjecture is the same space that Einstein chose for general relativity. Because Einstein's theory is a continuous function model, however, the origin of inertia is assumed dynamically and not from first principles. By marrying the principle of least action--which is empirically validated--to a complex sphere model in hyperspace where one can derive an n-dimensional counting order, my aim is to get a theory of classical determinism from quantum rules. This is also a result of Einstein's quest:

In the final paragraph of his failed attempt to write a unified field theory (Appendix II, "Relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field," The Meaning of Relativity, 1956) Einstein wrote, "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely descibed by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory." That basis is what I seek.

I will be happy to discuss the Hamiltonian, if you can show me how the Hamiltonian may be chosen in an other than arbitrary manner. Otherwise, we are back at square one.

All best,

Tom

Hi Tom,

The links work fine for me. I don't know what the problem might be, but oh well. You wrote,

“Let me turn this around. Why should we be interested in a theory that claims motion as a property of the geometry, with no mechanism or experimental evidence? Why should we be interested in Lynd's claim that motion is fundamental, which is demonstrably false?”

Ok, first...

view entire post

The links work fine for me. I don't know what the problem might be, but oh well. You wrote,

“Let me turn this around. Why should we be interested in a theory that claims motion as a property of the geometry, with no mechanism or experimental evidence? Why should we be interested in Lynd's claim that motion is fundamental, which is demonstrably false?”

Ok, first...

view entire post

Hi Doug,

Sorry, the links don't open for me either at work or at home.

Anyway, you wrote: "Ok, first of all, I know of no theory that claims motion as a property of the geometry, with no mechanism or experimental evidence. In the case of an RST-based theory, like mine, motion is defined as a change in space per change in time."

A lot of fallacies here. First, your...

view entire post

Sorry, the links don't open for me either at work or at home.

Anyway, you wrote: "Ok, first of all, I know of no theory that claims motion as a property of the geometry, with no mechanism or experimental evidence. In the case of an RST-based theory, like mine, motion is defined as a change in space per change in time."

A lot of fallacies here. First, your...

view entire post

Tom,

You wrote,

“A lot of fallacies here. First, your definition of motion does not imply change. "...change in space per change in time ..." is empty of physical content. It's not Einsteinian at all--one does not measure change in a space that is isomorphic for all observers (as special relativity informs us); one only measures change by the differences in relations among mass...

view entire post

You wrote,

“A lot of fallacies here. First, your definition of motion does not imply change. "...change in space per change in time ..." is empty of physical content. It's not Einsteinian at all--one does not measure change in a space that is isomorphic for all observers (as special relativity informs us); one only measures change by the differences in relations among mass...

view entire post

Hi Doug,

This is a stimulating dialog, so I regret having to abandon it, at least for the foreseeable future. I am in a stage of manuscript preparation that demands unbroken concentration.

I will comment on some misinterpretations, which seem neverending: "You see it as “empty of physical content,” only because you insist on defining the change of space in the equation of motion, as the change in the location of a mass point. If something isn't moving, if an object is at rest in an observer's rest frame, as time passes, you see no motion present."

I don't define "... the change of space in the equation of motion, as the change in the location of a mass point..." The space doesn't change--please, please grasp Einstein's definition of "physically real" in order to understand my explanations.

And, "However, we have no fundamental definition of a mass point. If we assume it is an electron, and try to describe it, we find an inherent contradiction. This mass point is charged, a point with no extent, yet it possesses angular momentum in the form of something called quantum spin that science has no clue how to describe."

??? You have referenced Hestenes several times in the past. In his FQXI essay, he explicitly connects conservation of angular momentum in classical phyics with quantum effects. I spent another hour with that essay this morning just to make sure I hadn't misunderstood something.

I wish you success in your research, but at this point I cannot connect with it.

All best,

Tom

This is a stimulating dialog, so I regret having to abandon it, at least for the foreseeable future. I am in a stage of manuscript preparation that demands unbroken concentration.

I will comment on some misinterpretations, which seem neverending: "You see it as “empty of physical content,” only because you insist on defining the change of space in the equation of motion, as the change in the location of a mass point. If something isn't moving, if an object is at rest in an observer's rest frame, as time passes, you see no motion present."

I don't define "... the change of space in the equation of motion, as the change in the location of a mass point..." The space doesn't change--please, please grasp Einstein's definition of "physically real" in order to understand my explanations.

And, "However, we have no fundamental definition of a mass point. If we assume it is an electron, and try to describe it, we find an inherent contradiction. This mass point is charged, a point with no extent, yet it possesses angular momentum in the form of something called quantum spin that science has no clue how to describe."

??? You have referenced Hestenes several times in the past. In his FQXI essay, he explicitly connects conservation of angular momentum in classical phyics with quantum effects. I spent another hour with that essay this morning just to make sure I hadn't misunderstood something.

I wish you success in your research, but at this point I cannot connect with it.

All best,

Tom

Thanks Tom,

I understand the time constraints. It's been fun while it lasted though. You write,

“I don't define "... the change of space in the equation of motion, as the change in the location of a mass point..." The space doesn't change--please, please grasp Einstein's definition of "physically real" in order to understand my explanations. “

I didn't say that the space changes in your definition, I said that the change in the mass point's location marks the change in space used in the equation of motion. When anybody calculates the speed of an object, they must measure the distance traveled per unit time, and this distance is the “space” change used in the equation. However, the moving object itself plays no direct role in the equation. This is the important point to understand.

For the Einstein that most people know, the field concept was as physically real as the chair he sat on, but, as you know, the other Einstein, brought to light by John Stachel, sought a more fundamental concept in a discontinuum.

Regardless, however, his dialog with Max Born and Pauli over issues of determinism and reality in the context of quantum mechanics shows that his efforts to make his ideas clear were not always successful, even with prominent contemporary scientists.

Today, “spooky action at a distance” is common place in scientific work.

Regards,

Doug.

I understand the time constraints. It's been fun while it lasted though. You write,

“I don't define "... the change of space in the equation of motion, as the change in the location of a mass point..." The space doesn't change--please, please grasp Einstein's definition of "physically real" in order to understand my explanations. “

I didn't say that the space changes in your definition, I said that the change in the mass point's location marks the change in space used in the equation of motion. When anybody calculates the speed of an object, they must measure the distance traveled per unit time, and this distance is the “space” change used in the equation. However, the moving object itself plays no direct role in the equation. This is the important point to understand.

For the Einstein that most people know, the field concept was as physically real as the chair he sat on, but, as you know, the other Einstein, brought to light by John Stachel, sought a more fundamental concept in a discontinuum.

Regardless, however, his dialog with Max Born and Pauli over issues of determinism and reality in the context of quantum mechanics shows that his efforts to make his ideas clear were not always successful, even with prominent contemporary scientists.

Today, “spooky action at a distance” is common place in scientific work.

Regards,

Doug.

Dear Doug,

I am not a physicist, but somewhat familiar with the work of Dewey Larson, which I think has great value, and that is also why I have been following your work for some time.

Then my apologies for being slightly off topic, but before discussing your interpretation of his time concepts, first I was wondering why you never to refer to Larson's concept of the photon as the simple harmonic motion of a S|T unit being the first physical object leading to more complex objects and natural phenomena through scalar rotations?

Thanks for your time,

Steven

I am not a physicist, but somewhat familiar with the work of Dewey Larson, which I think has great value, and that is also why I have been following your work for some time.

Then my apologies for being slightly off topic, but before discussing your interpretation of his time concepts, first I was wondering why you never to refer to Larson's concept of the photon as the simple harmonic motion of a S|T unit being the first physical object leading to more complex objects and natural phenomena through scalar rotations?

Thanks for your time,

Steven

Hi Steven,

Thanks for writing. You are right. Larson's concept of the photon stems from his idea of simple harmonic motion (SHM). He realized that this type of motion would be a stable condition that we would expect to find in a universe of motion, simply because a constant change of “direction” is one of the different kinds of motion one can think of.

In classifying scalar...

view entire post

Thanks for writing. You are right. Larson's concept of the photon stems from his idea of simple harmonic motion (SHM). He realized that this type of motion would be a stable condition that we would expect to find in a universe of motion, simply because a constant change of “direction” is one of the different kinds of motion one can think of.

In classifying scalar...

view entire post

Hi Doug,

Thanks a lot for your answers. I understand your reasons for differing from Larson, but since the difference is so early following Larsons deductive line of reasoning it is hard for me to oversee the impact on the subsequent development of the theory where Larson has shown so many results.

Also I miss the intellectual bagage to discuss the development of your algebra, so forgive me if I test your patience by not knowing answers that I could have read, but I do have some additional questions:

1. You state that Larson's photon cannot account for the quantum properties of the photon, but according to Larson quantum phenomena are observations of motion in the time region in the space unit, while the photon always remains on the boundary of the two regions. Could'nt it be then that these photon properties are always related to the interaction with massive particles?

2. You state "rotation is simply not a scalar phenomenom". But is'nt it necessary to accept rotation as a fundamental motion if one accepts the existence of a physical system based on motion having multiple dimensions? How would one link these dimensions otherwise?

Steven

Thanks a lot for your answers. I understand your reasons for differing from Larson, but since the difference is so early following Larsons deductive line of reasoning it is hard for me to oversee the impact on the subsequent development of the theory where Larson has shown so many results.

Also I miss the intellectual bagage to discuss the development of your algebra, so forgive me if I test your patience by not knowing answers that I could have read, but I do have some additional questions:

1. You state that Larson's photon cannot account for the quantum properties of the photon, but according to Larson quantum phenomena are observations of motion in the time region in the space unit, while the photon always remains on the boundary of the two regions. Could'nt it be then that these photon properties are always related to the interaction with massive particles?

2. You state "rotation is simply not a scalar phenomenom". But is'nt it necessary to accept rotation as a fundamental motion if one accepts the existence of a physical system based on motion having multiple dimensions? How would one link these dimensions otherwise?

Steven

Hi Steven,

You are right about the impact in Larson's early development, but I was just following my nose. I couldn't escape the fact that space is three dimensional, and time is zero dimensional. Since scalar magnitudes have no direction, and pseudoscalar magnitudes have all directions, scalar expansion/contraction, or spatial/temporal magnitudes, have to be 3D/0D, in the absence of any...

view entire post

You are right about the impact in Larson's early development, but I was just following my nose. I couldn't escape the fact that space is three dimensional, and time is zero dimensional. Since scalar magnitudes have no direction, and pseudoscalar magnitudes have all directions, scalar expansion/contraction, or spatial/temporal magnitudes, have to be 3D/0D, in the absence of any...

view entire post

Thanks for your enlightening posts. It seems that the explanation of atomic spectra is a big hurdle for physics community acceptance on the basics of RSt, so I wish you lots of success with your endeavour. Still, there are so many places where Larson is right that even though his mathematics are incorrect, his line of reasoning is apparently leading to correct results.

As stated before, it is hard for me to judge whether your mathemetic approach is correct though I have the impression that Larson's SHM, Neru's birotation and your pseudoscalar expansion are all interpretations of the same thing: a 1D rotation. I was impressed by Larson's new concept of scalar rotation since it explained for me how these simultaneously distributed rotations were able to weave matter. Can your multi-dimensional pseudoscalar expansions do the same thing?

I also had a question about the natural dimensions of the tetraktys: Does'nt Larson take this into account when the explains the calculation of the inter-regional ratio? How would your tetraktys and atom model explain this number?

Regards,

Steven

As stated before, it is hard for me to judge whether your mathemetic approach is correct though I have the impression that Larson's SHM, Neru's birotation and your pseudoscalar expansion are all interpretations of the same thing: a 1D rotation. I was impressed by Larson's new concept of scalar rotation since it explained for me how these simultaneously distributed rotations were able to weave matter. Can your multi-dimensional pseudoscalar expansions do the same thing?

I also had a question about the natural dimensions of the tetraktys: Does'nt Larson take this into account when the explains the calculation of the inter-regional ratio? How would your tetraktys and atom model explain this number?

Regards,

Steven

Hi Doug,

What would be the equivalent of 'rotational vibration' in your tetraktys system? Would you explain ionization in similar manner? It would seem that emission spectra are related to ionization mechanisms?

Steven

What would be the equivalent of 'rotational vibration' in your tetraktys system? Would you explain ionization in similar manner? It would seem that emission spectra are related to ionization mechanisms?

Steven

Hi Steven,

Thanks for some challenging questions. I'll do my best to answer them, but some go beyond the level of the current development.

First, I don't think that it's fair to say that Larson's mathematics are incorrect. Actually, he loved mathematics and was much better at it than I am. However, he insisted that the new system required no new mathematical formalism, that its...

view entire post

Thanks for some challenging questions. I'll do my best to answer them, but some go beyond the level of the current development.

First, I don't think that it's fair to say that Larson's mathematics are incorrect. Actually, he loved mathematics and was much better at it than I am. However, he insisted that the new system required no new mathematical formalism, that its...

view entire post

Hi Doug,

As we say here in Holland: 'a fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer'. Your answers inspire many more questions, like:

1) Why is it so important to hold on to the standard model, Lie algebra's and so on, while Larson explains that most of these short-lived particles are 'cosmic particle/atom' debris?

2) About the inter-regional ratio. I was referring to Dewey's explanation of this number as the number of possible rotation combinations in a space unit combined with the fact that rotational motion is the rotation of a vibration which adds an additional amount of 2/9 of rotational motion putting this number to (1+2/9) * 128 to 1 (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/iratio.htm). Is this analysis something that can follow from the tetraktys?

3. About the gravitional constant. Xavier Borg puts it's dimensions as s^6/t^5 but according to Larson that is invalid since the product of gravitional and inertial mass is a dimensionless number. That is as far as I can follow his explanation of all these masses that are involved (Nothing but Motion, CH 13). How does mass appear in your 3D vibrations?

Best regards,

Steven

As we say here in Holland: 'a fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer'. Your answers inspire many more questions, like:

1) Why is it so important to hold on to the standard model, Lie algebra's and so on, while Larson explains that most of these short-lived particles are 'cosmic particle/atom' debris?

2) About the inter-regional ratio. I was referring to Dewey's explanation of this number as the number of possible rotation combinations in a space unit combined with the fact that rotational motion is the rotation of a vibration which adds an additional amount of 2/9 of rotational motion putting this number to (1+2/9) * 128 to 1 (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/iratio.htm). Is this analysis something that can follow from the tetraktys?

3. About the gravitional constant. Xavier Borg puts it's dimensions as s^6/t^5 but according to Larson that is invalid since the product of gravitional and inertial mass is a dimensionless number. That is as far as I can follow his explanation of all these masses that are involved (Nothing but Motion, CH 13). How does mass appear in your 3D vibrations?

Best regards,

Steven

Hi Steven,

Your questions are welcome. I'll do my best to answer them to the extent within my power.

It's not that it's “so important to hold on to the standard model, Lie's algebras and so on,” but it's important to explain observations. The standard model is a phenomenologically based model of what we observe. The names used to classify the particles and even the theory of how...

view entire post

Your questions are welcome. I'll do my best to answer them to the extent within my power.

It's not that it's “so important to hold on to the standard model, Lie's algebras and so on,” but it's important to explain observations. The standard model is a phenomenologically based model of what we observe. The names used to classify the particles and even the theory of how...

view entire post

Steven,

In my last post above, I forgot to address your last question, “How does mass appear in your 3D vibrations?” This is really the most important question of all.

Legacy physics make mass and energy equivalent, and in this way “accounts” for mass. On the other hand, Larson points out that just because they can be converted into one another does not mean that they are equivalent. He writes,

“Mass is equivalent to energy only when and if it is transformed from the one condition to the other, and the mass-energy equation merely gives the mathematical equivalents in the event of such a conversion. In other words, an existing quantity of energy does not correspond to any existing mass but to the mass that would exist if the energy were actually converted into mass.”

This is because of the dimensional differences between the two. Mass has three space/time dimensions, while energy only has one time/space dimension. Thus, the second power of one-dimensional speed is required to convert from one to the other.

In the LRC's new RST-based theory, the pseudoscalar/scalar vibrations are three-dimensional motion with one and two-dimensional subsets, which fact makes for an interesting combination of interactions, all of which have not been explored at this point in time. But it's interesting to note that, since the pseudoscalars are spherical, if their locations are not perfectly coincident, the S|T combination of the two is constrained geometrically: The S|T combo has to form a line. Likewise, the combination of three S|T combos is constrained geometrically: If the combo is to be anything other than a line, it has to first be a plane, the plane of the triangle.

Consequently, as shown in figure 1 of my essay, we start with the points of the spatial and temporal pseudoscalar oscillations, and these take two geometric forms in combination, the line of the bosons and the plane of the fermions.

Given that observation indicates that the direction of propagation of a photon (boson) is always orthogonal to the axis of oscillation (the theory behind this is way beyond the scope of this comment), we can easily see that, contrary to the linear array of S|T units, the bosons, the planar array of S|T units, the fermions, would not be able to propagate at all, since the outward direction, relative to one another, is collectively opposed.

This “killing” of the 1D boson propagation, by the formation of non-propagating 2D fermions, leads us to notions of supersymmetry, where bosons are transformed into fermions and vice-versa, via symmetry transformations. In the toy model of figure 1, the implication that this must be the case is startling.

Thus, we can easily see how mass arises from these pseudoscalar vibrations, and we can see the relation between mass and electromagnetic energy in the S|T combos, but then why, or how, mass constitutes inward scalar motion is another story.

Regards,

Doug

In my last post above, I forgot to address your last question, “How does mass appear in your 3D vibrations?” This is really the most important question of all.

Legacy physics make mass and energy equivalent, and in this way “accounts” for mass. On the other hand, Larson points out that just because they can be converted into one another does not mean that they are equivalent. He writes,

“Mass is equivalent to energy only when and if it is transformed from the one condition to the other, and the mass-energy equation merely gives the mathematical equivalents in the event of such a conversion. In other words, an existing quantity of energy does not correspond to any existing mass but to the mass that would exist if the energy were actually converted into mass.”

This is because of the dimensional differences between the two. Mass has three space/time dimensions, while energy only has one time/space dimension. Thus, the second power of one-dimensional speed is required to convert from one to the other.

In the LRC's new RST-based theory, the pseudoscalar/scalar vibrations are three-dimensional motion with one and two-dimensional subsets, which fact makes for an interesting combination of interactions, all of which have not been explored at this point in time. But it's interesting to note that, since the pseudoscalars are spherical, if their locations are not perfectly coincident, the S|T combination of the two is constrained geometrically: The S|T combo has to form a line. Likewise, the combination of three S|T combos is constrained geometrically: If the combo is to be anything other than a line, it has to first be a plane, the plane of the triangle.

Consequently, as shown in figure 1 of my essay, we start with the points of the spatial and temporal pseudoscalar oscillations, and these take two geometric forms in combination, the line of the bosons and the plane of the fermions.

Given that observation indicates that the direction of propagation of a photon (boson) is always orthogonal to the axis of oscillation (the theory behind this is way beyond the scope of this comment), we can easily see that, contrary to the linear array of S|T units, the bosons, the planar array of S|T units, the fermions, would not be able to propagate at all, since the outward direction, relative to one another, is collectively opposed.

This “killing” of the 1D boson propagation, by the formation of non-propagating 2D fermions, leads us to notions of supersymmetry, where bosons are transformed into fermions and vice-versa, via symmetry transformations. In the toy model of figure 1, the implication that this must be the case is startling.

Thus, we can easily see how mass arises from these pseudoscalar vibrations, and we can see the relation between mass and electromagnetic energy in the S|T combos, but then why, or how, mass constitutes inward scalar motion is another story.

Regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,

Thanks for your clarifications. Since I have very little knowledge of the SM and the mathematics pertaining to it I can give no other comments than just my gut feelings, which are that even though it is extremely complicated and needs at least 20 parameters to get certain numbers right in the first place, it still cannot be used to explain basic physics phenomena like gravity or the conversion between matter and radiation.

Therefore it looks very hard for me to use the SM as guidance for developing an RST based system. Maybe I just need some more time to let your interpretation of RST sink in.

I had one last question that popped into my mind when looking at your 3D Space/0D Time cube. The interaction between the 0D time point, 3D Space and its reciprocal would that be described by a convolution process?

Regards,

Steven

Thanks for your clarifications. Since I have very little knowledge of the SM and the mathematics pertaining to it I can give no other comments than just my gut feelings, which are that even though it is extremely complicated and needs at least 20 parameters to get certain numbers right in the first place, it still cannot be used to explain basic physics phenomena like gravity or the conversion between matter and radiation.

Therefore it looks very hard for me to use the SM as guidance for developing an RST based system. Maybe I just need some more time to let your interpretation of RST sink in.

I had one last question that popped into my mind when looking at your 3D Space/0D Time cube. The interaction between the 0D time point, 3D Space and its reciprocal would that be described by a convolution process?

Regards,

Steven

Hi Steven,

Primarily, the standard model is phenomenological. The three families of quarks and leptons and the bosons are observed phenomena, although quarks are not directly observable. The attempt to explain the phenomena in terms of four fundamental forces has been very successful up to a point, and the calculations based on quantum field theory are extremely accurate.

In a...

view entire post

Primarily, the standard model is phenomenological. The three families of quarks and leptons and the bosons are observed phenomena, although quarks are not directly observable. The attempt to explain the phenomena in terms of four fundamental forces has been very successful up to a point, and the calculations based on quantum field theory are extremely accurate.

In a...

view entire post

Hi Doug,

Does'nt Bruce Perett already give some explanation of atomic spectra when calculating photons frequencies in his RS2 theory?

Regards,

Steven

Does'nt Bruce Perett already give some explanation of atomic spectra when calculating photons frequencies in his RS2 theory?

Regards,

Steven

Hi Steven,

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I've been tied up doing other things.

Bruce, like Larson, like Bohr, are able to calculate the atomic spectra for hydrogen, because it's based on a simple integral relation, but the only physicists capable of calculating the spectra of elements beyond hydrogen, at least in principle, are quantum physicists.

In his book “The Story of Spin,” Tomonaga explains why. The spectra of the heavier elements breaks up into different energy levels. The phenomenon is referred to as spectral multiplicity. The origin of multiplicity and the Zeeman effect stumped the most brilliant quantum physicists at first, until the idea of electron spin and the quantum numbers of QM evolved sufficiently to explain the selection rules for state transitions.

However, in QM, the origin of multiplicity is in the orbiting electron itself, so in an RST-based theory, another explanation must be found, since, as you know, there are no orbiting electrons and there is no electron cloud of moving electrons, surrounding a nucleus, in an RST-based theory of atomic structure, such as Larson's, or Peret's or the LRC's.

If you look at the toy model in my essay, you will see that the scalar motion of the electron's three S|T units neutralizes the net scalar motion of the proton's nine S|T units. The different quark configuration of the neutron makes it neutral without the electron, and combining the two yields the deuterium atom, which would have a net scalar motion equal to, but opposite in sign to the electron's net scalar motion, if it weren't for the electron's presence in the combo.

From there, the pattern is repeated in the higher combos of heavier elements, showing how the “embedded electron” of each proton accounts for the number of electrons in the atom of each element and their isotopes.

Now, the question of how the structure absorbs electromagnetic energy in a multiplicity of discrete energy units, and emits them according to some probability of transition, some set of selection rules, if you will, is what we have to answer next.

Since the S|T units of bosons and fermions in the RST-based model of figure 1 are identical, except for their geometric configuration and net scalar motion, the implication is that the different energy states can be explained in simple chemical-like manner: It appears to be just a matter of balancing the scalar motion equations.

Although there have been some interesting developments along this line, there's no breakthrough to report as yet.

Regards,

Doug

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I've been tied up doing other things.

Bruce, like Larson, like Bohr, are able to calculate the atomic spectra for hydrogen, because it's based on a simple integral relation, but the only physicists capable of calculating the spectra of elements beyond hydrogen, at least in principle, are quantum physicists.

In his book “The Story of Spin,” Tomonaga explains why. The spectra of the heavier elements breaks up into different energy levels. The phenomenon is referred to as spectral multiplicity. The origin of multiplicity and the Zeeman effect stumped the most brilliant quantum physicists at first, until the idea of electron spin and the quantum numbers of QM evolved sufficiently to explain the selection rules for state transitions.

However, in QM, the origin of multiplicity is in the orbiting electron itself, so in an RST-based theory, another explanation must be found, since, as you know, there are no orbiting electrons and there is no electron cloud of moving electrons, surrounding a nucleus, in an RST-based theory of atomic structure, such as Larson's, or Peret's or the LRC's.

If you look at the toy model in my essay, you will see that the scalar motion of the electron's three S|T units neutralizes the net scalar motion of the proton's nine S|T units. The different quark configuration of the neutron makes it neutral without the electron, and combining the two yields the deuterium atom, which would have a net scalar motion equal to, but opposite in sign to the electron's net scalar motion, if it weren't for the electron's presence in the combo.

From there, the pattern is repeated in the higher combos of heavier elements, showing how the “embedded electron” of each proton accounts for the number of electrons in the atom of each element and their isotopes.

Now, the question of how the structure absorbs electromagnetic energy in a multiplicity of discrete energy units, and emits them according to some probability of transition, some set of selection rules, if you will, is what we have to answer next.

Since the S|T units of bosons and fermions in the RST-based model of figure 1 are identical, except for their geometric configuration and net scalar motion, the implication is that the different energy states can be explained in simple chemical-like manner: It appears to be just a matter of balancing the scalar motion equations.

Although there have been some interesting developments along this line, there's no breakthrough to report as yet.

Regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,

I think Bruce's theory moved already beyond the point of only explaining the hydrogen spectrum. The splitting of the spectral lines according to him is caused by the magnetic and electric rotations of the atom, as he describes with his theory on quantum numbers.

Also I think his model of the atom now includes possibility to capture electrons: atoms.

So, why did the research in ISUS split up into at least three different directions? (yours, Bruce's and Ronald's).

It there a difference in insights on the basics?

Thanks so much for your time,

Steven

I think Bruce's theory moved already beyond the point of only explaining the hydrogen spectrum. The splitting of the spectral lines according to him is caused by the magnetic and electric rotations of the atom, as he describes with his theory on quantum numbers.

Also I think his model of the atom now includes possibility to capture electrons: atoms.

So, why did the research in ISUS split up into at least three different directions? (yours, Bruce's and Ronald's).

It there a difference in insights on the basics?

Thanks so much for your time,

Steven

Hi Steven,

Just as Newton established a program of research into the structure of the physical universe that ushered in a new age and that has continued for centuries, Larson has established a new program of research that promises to usher in a new age that will continue for a long, long, time.

At the LRC, we distinguish between the two systems by referring to the Larsonian program...

view entire post

Just as Newton established a program of research into the structure of the physical universe that ushered in a new age and that has continued for centuries, Larson has established a new program of research that promises to usher in a new age that will continue for a long, long, time.

At the LRC, we distinguish between the two systems by referring to the Larsonian program...

view entire post

Login or create account to post reply or comment.