Search FQXi

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Previous Contests

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

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

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

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 4/6/17 at 11:21am UTC, wrote Mohamed, Very interesting, original (still!) and nicely written. The...

Mohamed Haj Yousef: on 4/6/17 at 1:23am UTC, wrote Thank you dear Paulan for encouraging me.... Recently there has been a...

Paulan Moldier: on 4/1/17 at 16:25pm UTC, wrote I think this is quite plausible result if you go along the postulate of...

Paulan Moldier: on 4/1/17 at 16:22pm UTC, wrote I just read your post above, and I think it AMAZING: >>>> In...

Mohamed Haj Yousef: on 4/1/17 at 16:18pm UTC, wrote In the recent developments, I found that just like time, energy can also be...

Mohamed Haj Yousef: on 4/1/17 at 15:39pm UTC, wrote Originally I posted this essay to share it with professionals, but by...

Mohamed Haj Yousef: on 4/1/17 at 15:37pm UTC, wrote Yes! Unfortunately, I must say that I am greatly disappointed by this site...

Paulan Moldier: on 4/1/17 at 15:05pm UTC, wrote I mean now it is 4.8 ???????

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Dear Lorraine, :) thanks a lot, I am touched by these words from you, take..." in The Present State of...

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

Dr Narayan Bhadra: "Honourable Scientists are cordially requested to feedback my article..." in Undecidability,...

Stefan Weckbach: "To shortly resume my main points here for a better understanding: I wrote ..." in The Present State of...

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

Georgina Woodward: ""Superfluous" is not the correct word. 'Redundant' or 'no longer viable' is..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

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

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

RECENT ARTICLES

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

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

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

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

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

FQXi FORUM
September 19, 2021

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The Cosmic Computer: digital manipulation of matter, space and time by Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef [refresh]

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef wrote on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 20:18 GMT
Essay Abstract

Relativity is mainly based on the principle of the constancy and invariance of the speed of light. Although this has been proved experimentally, there is yet no philosophical explanation why this speed can never be surpassed. This article introduces the concept of the duality of time, based on the Re-creation Principle of the Single Monad Model that was first introduced in 2005. This model reduces “matter” and “space” into “time” by explaining how the physical multiplicity is perpetually being constructed by a metaphysical monad which is spreading chronologically over the inner dimensions of space, and then extending over the outer dimension of time to create the dynamic universe. This innovative concept, which has an intrinsic arrow of time, will solve the problem of entropy and explain causality and nonlocality and why the speed of light is the maximum cosmological speed limit. It will be shown that each metaphysical point is continuously and sequentially blinking between rest and light speed, which makes the cosmos literally like a digital machine where the physical properties of particles, such as mass and energy, result from averaging these fluctuations that occur in the inner metaphysical level of time and then evolve over the outer physical level.

Author Bio

A writer and researcher in philosophy, physics and cosmology. He studied physics in the University of Aleppo, then he got the Master's degree in Microelectronic Engineering and Semiconductor Physics from the University of Cambridge in the UK in 1992. After a period of work in the field of teaching, he studied Islamic philosophy, where he received a PhD from the University of Exeter in 2005. He published many books including: Ibn Arabi - Time and Cosmology, and The Single Monad Model of the Cosmos. He is currently working in UAE University.

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef wrote on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 21:45 GMT

I would like also to thank the readers for taking the time to read it, and I welcome any comment or criticism.

view entire post

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 16:04 GMT

Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 17:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine posted comments.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about the supposed constant speed of light.

The real...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 18:06 GMT
Thank you dear realist Joe Fisher... I like serious critical comments, they are more useful, but I am not sure if you really read my article carefully because you seem to have posted the same comments to other articles as well.

Anyway, in general your conclusion is really correct: the reality of nature is so simple that a single cell amoeba could deal with it. Thus, nothing is more simple...

view entire post

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 23:04 GMT
Dear Mr. Yousef,

You are a philosopher, with extraordinary observations in your work. Surprise me that you do not have the references of Leibnitz and Bošković. By reading you and Ibn Arab once again I see that I was right that I noted in my essay:

"All I would say has already been told countless times and all my attempts at philosophy would thus be a repetition of what had already...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Jan. 28, 2017 @ 00:12 GMT
Thank you dear Branko for the kind comments.

Originally my paper is about 30 pages, so I had to delete many sections and cut others in order to make it fit the FQXI contest rules. That is why I removed the historical introduction which included references to the works of philosophers. In fact I held the view that although Newton's laws and theory of gravity lead to great industrial...

view entire post

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Jan. 28, 2017 @ 10:35 GMT
Note: the difference between vacuum and void is that vacuum is an empty "space" which can be excited into virtual particles, which is also known as quantum foam, but void is absolute "nothing".

Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 14:26 GMT
Very nice and precise distinction between VACUUM and VOID. i also like the idea that the (potential) future is vacuum and the past is void and the presence is in between, continuously becoming and going. VERY NICE!

report post as inappropriate

Efthimios Harokopos wrote on Jan. 28, 2017 @ 17:40 GMT
"Consequently, there is no gradual motion in the common sense that the object leaves its place to occupy new adjacent places, but it is successively re-created in those new places, i.e. motion occurs

as a result of change and not transmutation, so the observed objects are always at rest in the different positions that they appear in. "

This is the old idea of Descartes, "continuous...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Jan. 28, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Efthimios Harokopos;

Leibniz is not the fist philosopher to talk about monads, and the main idea here is the Single Monad, not the monads in general. Moreover, this essay is dedicated to study some of the consequences of the Single Monad Model which have been explained in other publications as referenced in this essay. I have discussed the various philosophical views and the history of monadology in chapter six of my book (The Single Monad Model of the Cosmos).

Best Regards

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Jan. 28, 2017 @ 19:11 GMT
Also I would like to mention that, just like the theory of monads, the doctrine of "continuous recreation" is not idea of Descartes, as he himself acknowledged. On the other hand, although the Single Monad Model view the cosmos as discrete instances in space, and therefore motion is only a change rather than transmutation, yet each subsequent instance is connected to the previous like the connection between a cause and effect, and that is because of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Therefore, this is different from the Occassionalism doctrine.

Muder H. Moldier replied on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 19:03 GMT
The principle of re-creation is traced back into many ancient philosophies, and also the monads. The Greeks have most likely inherited that from Egyptian or Babylonians. Parmenides was famous for such views, and all his students including Plato who have actually transferred it to the West.

report post as inappropriate

Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
HI, This is an interesting essay and might be well wroth thinking about, but I was unable to understand what if anything it had to do with the essay contest topic.

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 15:37 GMT
I thank you Harry for your important note.

If all physical matter and space are manipulated on the deeper metaphysical level, this means that everything is predestined. The article clearly shows that despite all the apparent motion of particles and objects, effectively everything is at rest at every instance of the actual flow of time. Therefore, because of this zero instantaneous velocity all motions instantly amounts to zero, but the changes occur as a result or re-creation. This means that the cosmos is programmed to run in the way it is running, and we are like actors simply following one manuscript, each performing his or her own role with his own goals, but leading to the final total destination.

We can compare the cosmos to a movie or even a game that is displayed on a computer monitor, but the manuscript is manipulated inside the vertical hierarchy of this cosmic computer structure. This was already nicely demonstrated in the Allegory of the Cave in the Republic of Plato. Therefore, all the images and shapes that are displayed on the screen are pure simulation.

Muder H. Moldier replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 16:49 GMT
If everything is predestined, what is then the role of the players and how could they become responsible for their actions!

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 18:25 GMT
Well Muder this is really a very tricky question, and I am no sure if my answer will be convincing, but I will try to answer in the form of a narration I have read in this respect about (maybe hypothetical) encounter on the judgement day between God and Lucifer who asked this question: "How come you punish me for something which you have preordained on me!" Then God answer: "When did you know that it was preordained? Before or after!", Satan said: "After!" So although everything is destined to be in the way is going to be, but everyone works only according to his/her own will, because at the time they don't know what was destined to be before it is.

Nature gives us certain limited choices and we choose to do one way or the other or even not to do, all under our own will, which what makes us responsible.

I hope this answer is convincing, but the issue is more complicated and it may lead way beyond the theme and beyond the laws of physics.

Muder H. Moldier wrote on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 12:33 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef;

You mention in the abstract: "This innovative concept, which has an intrinsic arrow of time, will solve the problem of entropy and explain causality and non-locality and why the speed of light is the maximum cosmological speed limit". After reading the article, I can now understand why the speed of light is constant and invariant and how non-local quantum interactions could...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 15:19 GMT
Indeed it is all the reason of continuous recreation that leads to all these astounding results, an even much more than what is mentioned in the abstract or even this short essay.

So because of the fact that the recreation takes time (the inner level of time) we have a maximum cosmological speed that can never be exceeded. And because of the resulting granular structure of space-time, we have discrete change and not continuous transmutation, which explains nonlocality without breaking this speed limit. Yet also in the same way now causality is a result of the conservation of energy between the consecutive discrete frames of space so that any perturbation in one frame will require synchronization in the following frames until the specific energy is dissipated into other points of space which may also not be directly connected through space or time, but by quantum entanglement.

Furthermore, we now don't need any inflation to explain why the cosmos is homogeneous or why its density is flat, because it is created instantaneously from the same single source, as if we have instantaneous (or eternal) inflation, which will also explain why we don't observe the magnetic monopole.

The cosmological constant problem can also be eliminated, simply because the ground state energy is the result of one single particle and not the sum of all particles because they are created in chronological sequence in the inner level of time.

I have tested this concept of the duality of time against all major problems in physics and cosmology, and, as far as I can clearly see, it solves them all!

report post as inappropriate

Muder H. Moldier replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 10:40 GMT
This reply appears to me as "Anonymous", but I suppose the writer is the author of the article: Dr. Mohamed Haj Yousef.

If what you are saying is true, it will be the next Nobel prize!

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 11:22 GMT
Yes I am the one who replied, yet I don't know why it appears as "Anonymous".

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 21:09 GMT
Recent experiments showed 'speed of light can be surpassed', this proposition as given in the start of Abstract is controversial ... see for example for super luminal neutrinos.......

arXiv:1109.5917v2 [hep-ph] 26 Oct 2011

arXiv:1109.4980v2 [hep-ph] 13 Jan 2012

arXiv:1109.5368v5 [astro-ph.HE] 31 Oct 2011

arXiv:1109.6930v3 [hep-ph] 8 Oct 2011

etc

Like all...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu ;

I would like to thank you for commenting on this article, but I don't agree with your conclusion at all, because there is absolutely no verified experimental results of anything "travelling faster than light".

The faster-than-light neutrino anomaly that was observed by the OPERA experiment in 2011 has been falsified and the team themselves reported two flaws in their data.

Other reports may refer to some quantum phenomena as superluminal, but this is not "travelling faster than light". For example in EPR and quantum tunneling it is possible to communicate information non-locally. Galaxies could also apparently move faster than light but this is only due to the expansion of space.

So indeed there is no single experiment or theory which incorporates objects or particles with superluminal speeds.

Best Regards

Mohamed Haj Yousef

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT
I would like also to add that if there was no cosmological speed limit then we must be able to observe superluminal speeds on large scale, for example at hundred times faster or even millions.

Of course it is generally accepted that the constancy and invariance of the speed of light is a cornerstone of modern physics.

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 04:27 GMT
Dear sir,

I hope you will get some time for your perusal on Dynamic Universe Model...

See the wiki page… for Neutrinos travelled faster than light….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neu
trino_anomaly

… Said..”This comparison indicated neutrinos had arrived at the detector 57.8 nanoseconds faster than if they had been traveling at the speed of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Muder H. Moldier wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 11:09 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef;

I completely agree with you that there is no verified experimental results of anything "travelling faster than light". And you mentioned in one of your replies above that you "postulate that its (light) full speed in absolute vacuum, or void, is exactly 300000000 m/s, because of the three dimensions of space to one dimension of time". And that you don't think the definition of meter and second are conventional.

I would appreciate it if you could elaborate further on this issue!

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 14:07 GMT
The standard value of the speed of light in vacuum is now considered a universal physical constant, and its exact value is 299,792,458 meters per second. Since 1983, the length of the meter has been defined from this constant as well as the international standard for time. However, this experimentally measured value corresponds to the speed of light in vacuum that is in fact not exactly empty,...

view entire post

Muder H. Moldier replied on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 14:24 GMT
Thank you Dr. Yousef, I think the subject requires a dedicated study, because I completely agree with you that the measured value of the speed of light is so close to 300000000 that it cannot be by chance, despite the fact that the meter was defined well before the measurement of the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate

Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 15:21 GMT
How do you get infinity=1/12 ?

report post as inappropriate

Muder H. Moldier wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 12:48 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef... I found on your website that you have a book called "the cosmic heart", but I could not find this book on the internet. Could you please send me the link or information on how to get it?

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Muder;

Thank you for this inquiry.

Actually this book is not ready yet. I am in the process and I think it might take a year before it is pub;ished. If you leave a note on the website or send me your email I will inform you when it is ready.

Best Regards

Mohamed

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 08:07 GMT

The conceptual conflict between the Quantum and Relativity theories is the modern version of the recurring ancient philosophical competition between the continuum and discrete views of matter. The problem is that these two contrasting views are mutually exclusive, yet each one alone...

view entire post

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 08:09 GMT
Sorry the link did not appear! here again: The Cosmic Heart

Patrick Tonin wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 13:02 GMT
Dear Mohamed,

You wrote an interesting essay. We share of lot of views (monads, recreation, everything at rest etc..) but I don't agree on "everything is predestined". I believe that although we are going through a series of 2D frames of information (like in a movie), that movie is played an infinite number of times and the "pixels" making up the frame can change over "Universe" time. I believe that past/present/future coexist as concurrent layers of information and are constantly changing.

You might want to take a look at my essay where I try to show that monads (existence/non-existence) and a primordial state of consciousness are inevitable and ubiquitous in the Universe.

All the best,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Thank you dear Patrick for your positive comment.

I read your essay, and although it is very short but it does actually touch on the basic reality, though it requires further analysis.

In my openion althogh everything is essentially predestined, but since we do not know the destination we need to work in order to arrive to it. So you see it is all about knowledge and information as...

view entire post

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 16:08 GMT
Good the equations work here.

Only please notice that for m=0 we have v=c.

Muder H. Moldier replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 20:11 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef;

This is really amazing, it is the first time I understand how everything could be predestined and yet we feel that we are in control, we feel we are the ones who are doing the things we do!

I completely agree with you that we must take the two points of views at the same time, just as Relativity does. I think you have solve the biggest problem in theology and philosophy!

AMAZING!!!

So the speed of light holds the key to all that: because it is the maximum speed limit and no mass could be accelerated to the speed of light ... this is not only the reason behind the theory of relativity, but it is also the reason behind the relativity of perception or consciousness.

But how could someone achieve these limits? You mentioned that one has to give up mass! How?

I thank you in advance and I appreciate it if you could elaborate further.

report post as inappropriate

Janice F. Murin wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 09:26 GMT
I don't how did you get the mass-energy equation E=mc^2.

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Janice;

I answered your question above, but it may not be visible until you click on "show all replies".

Best Wishes

Mohamed

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 09:58 GMT
Ok Janice I will repeat the answer here with more clarification:

If you integrate the first equation above:

$E=\int^x_0{F.dx}=\int^t_0{F.vdt}=\int^t_0{\frac{d(mv)}{dt}.vdt}=\int{(v^2dm+mvdv)}$

if you integrate it in a regular way you will get the standard equation that gives us the kinetic energy:

$E_k=\int{(v^2dm+mvdv)}=m\int^v_0{vdv}=\frac{1}{2}mv^2$

that is if you assume dm=0 for normal velocities. The reason why we are getting the "half" in this equation is because the velocity increases gradually with time, which makes the integration equals the area of the triangle. Please see the figure in E=mc^2.

Now if you integrate the same first equation above from 0 to c but considering that this happens abruptly without gradual increase on the outer time level because it is not possible to accelerate a mass to the speed of light on the normal time level, but I showed in the article that it is possible on the inner level of time which appear instantaneous on the outer level. So we get:

$E=\int{(v^2dm+mvdv)}=m\int^c_0{v.dv}=mc^2$

In this case the integration will give us the area of the square as in the figure in E=mc^2.

Also you can get the same result if you integrate from m to zero or vice versa (and considering dv=0):

$E=\int{(v^2dm+mvdv)}=\int^0_m{v^2dm}=mv^2=mc^2$

Or also from 0 to m, it will give the same result, which corresponds for example to the emission of radiation while the first one corresponds to the absorption.

I hope this clarifies the problem.

Please tell me if you need more clarification, because this is really in the heart of the mathematical formulation of the single monad model.

Muder H. Moldier replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 12:49 GMT
I think this derivation of E=mc^2 is different from Einstein's derivation, because I remember the original derivation is based on Doppler shift.

report post as inappropriate

Janice F. Murin wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 18:09 GMT
Dear Dr. Mohamed Haj Yousef;

I understand from your title and abstract that the "digital manipulation" of the cosmos that what we see in the cosmos is not real!

Is this true?

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 19:39 GMT
Dear Janice;

No this model does not deny the objectivity of physical things, but it concludes that they are produced by the sequential multiplication over the inner

dimension of time, thus they all exist but not in the same real instance. Being part of this physical multiplicity that we describe as the universe, the other parts are as objective as ourselves, but we cannot conceive of them without the

flow of time.

Mohamed

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 19:40 GMT
The essential underlying principle in this model is that no two entities can ever co-exist together in a real single instance of time, so the physical multiplicity can only emerge by the sequential multiplication of a metaphysical monad through the inner level of time, and then evolve throughout the outer level. This can even be proved with simple logic, as follows: Because of the three...

view entire post

Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 10:58 GMT
I don't really understand how the physical cosmos is still objective and yet you proof that it is metaphysical!

report post as inappropriate

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 12:57 GMT
Dear Mr. Yousef,

I am satisfied with the your response to me and the other participants. Your: speed jumps from 0 to c, agrees with Boskovic's curves. So that function is broken. It should therefore be very careful when using the integral and differential (see articles of Temur Kalanov). My personal opinion; the reason for the existence of Big Bang Theory is a misunderstanding of mathematics.

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 17:11 GMT
Thank Dear Branko for your positive comment:

You are completely right about mathematics.

Mathematicians usually start their theories by saying: "Let us suppose ..." and they build up on their suppositions which work nicely in all practical situations, but not in extreme theoretical situations.

Analysis, for example is based on the concept of limits which presupposes infinitesimal changes, which is impossible in nature because it implies infinities. In the end it might work as a kind of approximation, but cannot be used to describe the reality.

You are right: the reason for the existence of Big Bang Theory is a misunderstanding of mathematics.

Thank you for suggesting the articles of Temur Kalanov. I will have a look.

I appreciate it if you do rate my article.

Best Regards

Mohamed

Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 21:49 GMT
Einstein says: “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” After several readings I think I am starting to grasp the meaning of the inner time, but it is still unbelievable.

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 05:47 GMT
Thank you Janice, I like your quote of Einstein: “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” An you are right, the idea is really absurd even to me: how can all this physical multiplicity, all the stars and galaxies are being made from one single metaphysical monad every instance of time!

I proposed this model in 2005, and only after inventing the concept of the duality of time and applying it to Relativity and mass-energy equivalence, and I found that id does solve most, if not all major physics problems, only after that I am starting to take it seriously.

I don't think people will take this model seriously very soon, it is really crazy. We spend so much time and money searching for the truth and when we find it we deny it.

Muder H. Moldier wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef;

Your model explains how "space" is created in "time", but what about matter particles, since you also say in the title that they are also manipulated?

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Muder;

I thank you again for asking this question.

Honestly I don't have a clear idea how matter is dynamically created with space in the inner dimensions of time, but my impression is that the difference between matter and space is that "space" is the simplest form of matter, you can say it is "flat matter" and "matter" is condensed or curved space. I believe that this will agree with general relativity which confirmed that matter causes the curvature of space, and will potentially solve the problem of dark matter and dark energy.

As I said in one previous comment that the SMM model brings back the concept of aether and quintessence in a novel way that does not require it to affect the speed of light or matter particles, since it is now the background space itself, and not something in the background.

Best Regards

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear friends;

I would like to share with you this video presentation by prof. Haider Khan. His discussion in this short video is right into the point of what I am trying to show of the relation between time, space, and matter, which is based on Ibn Arabi-Time and Cosmology and he puts it in the context of the theory of relativity.

Best Regards

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 16:40 GMT
I am sorry the link was broken, here again I hope it will work:

I would like to share with you this video presentation by prof. Haider Khan. His discussion in this short video is right into the point of what I am trying to show of the relation between time, space, and matter, which is based on and he puts it in the context of the theory of relativity.

Muder H. Moldier replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 17:11 GMT
Thank you Dr. Yousef; I always thought that super-strings is the scientific version of the "science of letters" which I also think it is related to they philosophical theory of Pythagoras.

report post as inappropriate

Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 14:05 GMT
Thank you for posting this video, it is very nice.

report post as inappropriate

Janice F. Murin wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef;

So according to your model; is space and time discrete or continuous?

Regards

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 10:35 GMT
In this model of continuous space construction, multiplicity is revealed through the inner level of time, and then evolves over the outer level. Although the reality of time in both levels is discrete, on the inner level, where space and matter are constructed, space will appear potentially continuous due to the vast possible manifestations that spread over the three outward dimensions and any other inward curled dimensions. Eventually, the ultimate structure of space could be discrete below the Planck distance as it is commonly believed, though this is still an open question, but in my opinion it is not, because the potential possibilities are always infinite regardless of scale. The same could also be said about the outer level of time, which will also appear potentially continuous, and is expected to be discrete below the Planck time. The difference happens only when we make an observation or measurement, because the possibilities will be now confined and mostly the particle nature will be revealed. Even when waves are observed they are still confined in a region of space in which the field will take certain finite values each of which is inevitably represented by some confined particles or finite space points.

Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 16:09 GMT
thank you

report post as inappropriate

Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:25 GMT
I believe that space is continuous, but time is discrete.

report post as inappropriate

Munrid Qaraq wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 17:32 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef;

I was very happy to come across your article.

It is really very interesting and I am enjoying the discussion.

I just scanned your replies, but I will study them carefully because I believe your model really solves many problems and answer many deep questions.

Meanwhile, can I ask you if this idea of the duality of time has ever been proposed before?

Many Thanks

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 19:07 GMT
Dear Munrid;

To answer your question above: As far as I am aware, the concept of the duality of time has never been proposed or discussed by anyone before.

However, if you think about it is equivalent to, but more realistic than, the inflation scenario by Alan Guth. The reason is that inflation leads to eternal inflation or infinite hypothetical multiverse. The duality of time, which is part of the Single Monad Model, solves all the problems solved by inflation because the cosmos is re-created, or inflated, from the single monad every instance of time.

Best Regards

Muder H. Moldier replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 19:12 GMT
>> ...the Single Monad Model solves all the problems solved by inflation because the cosmos is re-created, or inflated, from the single monad every instance of time.

Amazing, absolutely amazing. REALLY AMAZING! I believe this is Nobel prize model. I can see it very clearly. It is a matter of time.

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 20:10 GMT
Thank you Muder, I will share it with you!

Munrid Qaraq wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef, I completely agree with your response above for the question related to the deficiency of mathematics since it must use some kind of approximation such as that used in differentiation or integration. But does that mean that the reality can not be described by mathematics?

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 21:28 GMT
On the contrary, I believe the reality is mathematical, but the current mathematics that is based on continuous space-time is not adequate.

I believe that mathematics should be granular the same as reality. I think that the reality is only made of natural numbers: 1, 2, 3, ... Irrational numbers are the problem, although they are a necessity, but they cause infinities which do not belong to the real world. So they must be viewed as approximation and not facts. In reality there is only number "one" and then "zero" is its absence. This "one" is then multiplied in space which produce numbers that then evolve in time. Negative numbers are only relative, and so are the irrationals.

Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 22:21 GMT
Every single word of this is worth to be written in gold

....>

I believe that mathematics should be granular the same as reality. I think that the reality is only made of natural numbers: 1, 2, 3, ... Irrational numbers are the problem, although they are a necessity, but they cause infinities which do not belong to the real world. So they must be viewed as approximation and not facts. In reality there is only number "one" and then "zero" is its absence. This "one" is then multiplied in space which produce numbers that then evolve in time. Negative numbers are only relative, and so are the irrationals.

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 09:19 GMT
Thank you Janice, truth is brilliant. It shines of its own right. It is more precious than gold. That is why the joy of knowing is invaluable.

Muder H. Moldier wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 08:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Haj Yousef;

The main idea in your model is the continuous creation of matter.

Does this somehow match the eternal inflation or what is known as chaotic inflation theory?

Regards

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 10:08 GMT
Dear Muder;

The main motivation behind inflationary scenarios is to solve the horizon problem, or why the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. This problem is solved by the single monad model, or the continuous creation, because, no matter how large and complex it might be, and thus how long it might take to be created in the inner level of time, the creation is still instantaneous on the outward level that we encounter. In fact the perfect cosmological principle might also hold true, which means that, on the large scale, the universe can be homogeneous in time as well as in space, as it is predicted by eternal-inflationary models.

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 10:21 GMT
The duality of time, can be considered an alternative realistic scenario to eternal inflation, because by replacing inflation in the outer (physical) level of time with continuous creation from one single point in the inner metaphysical level, the universe will still be finite because multiplicity is only observed at the outer level. In fact, this scenario can also be considered as alternative to the cyclic, or oscillating, models considered by early theoretical physicists, including Einstein, but those models failed because they violate the second law of thermodynamics. The duality of time, however, does not only comply with this law, but it can also explain why entropy can only increase because of this intrinsic arrow of time on the inner level. With this continuous creation scenario, the universe oscillates between the instances of the outward level of time, without reversing the entropy because this process of continuous space construction is metaphysical since it is performed by one single monad .

Paulan A. Moldier wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:57 GMT
Well done Dr. Yousef, your essay is excellent, very deep and provocative.

I wrote some comments on your previous answers to other comments. I don't want to repeat here but there are few things which I don't agree with.

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 21:15 GMT

John A. Murelle wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 11:01 GMT
I think your article is winning.

report post as inappropriate
Muder H. Moldier replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 19:32 GMT
Thank you John. I trust the judges, but I already got my prize.

report post as inappropriate

Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 21:06 GMT
Congratulations Muder for the prize!

report post as inappropriate

John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 21:09 GMT
Something is going wrong here!

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 23:49 GMT
Dr. Yousef,

Interesting tying together of science and religion. The trinity of subject, object, and action and the trinity of father, son and holy spirit have a union of spirit and body. Your Single Monad Model has scalar units like frames in a movie seemingly to transcend time and space. Your concepts lend perception to the theory of everything mystery that is quite interesting with how quantities are either discrete or continuous or both.

Quite thought provoking in the realm of science and religion both.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 00:15 GMT
Dr. Yousef,

Would be interested in your thoughts on my essay.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 07:05 GMT
Dear Jim;

I would like to thank you so much for your kind comments.

Your essay looks interesting too. I would like to have a closer look at it.

I wish you all the best.

Munrid Qaraq replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:46 GMT
The trinity in nature is operating on all levels:

Sun - Moon - Earth

Subject - action - Object

Spirit - Mind - Body

Mind - Heart - Body

report post as inappropriate

Paulan A. Moldier wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef;

I would really like to thank you again for this deep thought-provocative article. I believe that the idea is genuine and does solve many problems and put things together.

I would like that you may comment further abut the relation to inflationary models and how your model can solve other related problems like the magnetic monopole.

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 10:14 GMT
Dear Paulan;

Inflation, as the name also suggests, means that the cosmos inflated from small size to large size in very short time. Although this solved many problems, but in the beginning there were no explanation as to why such extreme thing could happen. The idea of false vacuum was one possible explanation, but then this lead to eternal inflation because the condition for false vacuum is always there somewhere in the cosmos, actually in many regions.

As you can see this means that every moment of time there are many new universes are born, each of which could develop many newer baby universes, and so on. I believe this is absurd! Really!

In the duality of time, the universe is not inflated but re-created every moment of time. The difference is very big, but the effect is equivalent, because re-creation is on the metaphysical level, the inner level of time.

So the first benefit is that we can now explain homogeneity very easily because, no matter how large and complex it might be, and thus how long it might take to be created in the inner level of time, the creation is still instantaneous on the outward level that we encounter.

Second, the monopole problem is also solved, but this requires longer discussion. Only I could tell you here that the monopole is the single monad itself, the metaphysical point, but it only exists coupled with other instances on the physical level. In my original book I showed that although the Single Monad is metaphysical, it is still compound of deeper elements, this is very difficult to explain here.

So the duality of time can be considered an alternative realistic scenario to eternal inflation, because by replacing inflation in the outer (physical) level of time with continuous creation from one single point in the inner metaphysical level, the universe will still be finite because multiplicity is only observed at the outer level. In fact, this scenario can also be considered as alternative to the cyclic, or oscillating, models considered by early theoretical physicists, including Einstein, but those models failed because they violate the second law of thermodynamics. The duality of time, however, does not only comply with this law, but it can also explain why entropy can only increase because of this intrinsic arrow of time on the inner level. With this continuous creation scenario, the universe oscillates between the instances of the outward level of time, without reversing the entropy because this process of continuous space construction is metaphysical since it is performed by one single monad.

Best Regards

John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 15:47 GMT
I find eternal inflation not appealing, because there is no infinity in nature.

If your model does really solve the horizon problem, I think it is promising.

report post as inappropriate

Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 17:18 GMT
Thank you Dr. Yousef, but do you have any reference for your work on the magnetic monopole?

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 17:41 GMT
Dr. Yousef,

"With the re-creation principle everything is instantly popping into existence from zero speed into the speed of light, and collapsing again."

In itself, is this process a manifestation of the quantum world meeting the macro world?

Jim

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear James;

Thank you for your delicate question.

As you expect, this process of "popping up into existence" is like "quantum tunneling" , because it is clearly not possible for physical objects to change speed in zero time, since this would require infinite acceleration and energy. The solution to this is to treat objects as waves, thus you get to quantum mechanics. However, this is normally done on small particles and not on large objects, as large as the universe! In the SMM, however, since it postulates a single monad at a time, so the whole universe is still metaphysical on the inner level of time, so what actually pop-up into existence at once is the whole physical universe all at once, but the metaphysical single monad. So the laws of physics are not violated.

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:30 GMT

In the inner level of time the whole physical universe comes into existence one single metaphysical monad at a time (quantum tunneling), and this whole process takes only one instance on the outer level of time that we encounter.

Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 19:59 GMT
>> In the inner level of time the whole physical universe comes into existence one single metaphysical monad at a time (quantum tunneling), and this whole process takes only one instance on the outer level of time that we encounter.

Does this mean that quantum tunneling is the dominating process in creation?

report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef!

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it.

If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 17:43 GMT
Thank you Dizhechko for sharing this information here.

Your ideas seem to be interesting, but I don't see how they may be related to the SMM and duality of time.

----> continues in the following pot

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 13:44 GMT
Dear Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef, I was waiting for your comment on my essay in my subject. It turned out that You only work in your theme.

We write about the same thing, only in different words. You go from private (the monad) to the General, I go from General to specific. Here are your words:

"In effect, this model brings back the concept of aether and quintessence in a novel way that does not require it to affect the speed of light or matter particles, since it is now the background space itself, and not something in the background. Moreover, this one directional and linear progression of time that is continuously creating the space and its contents can also provide a straightforward explanation of entropy and the arrow of time"

Monada you have creates space. I proceed from the principle of Descartes's identity of space and matter. In New Cartesian Physic in the role of monads are irrational points of space defined by the principle of certainty of Heisenberg. Irrational point of physical space is the last point of existence, which requires an infinite large momentum to move it in space.

In your theory there a split on one side you build a space with unique properties, on the other hand you don't want to distance themselves from the current nonsense physics: dark matter, dark energy, big Bang, the concept of space-time, etc. In the New Cartesian Physic time is a measure in aggregate of all changes in the physical space. Statement in philosophy that matter exists in space and time should be put incorrect. Correctly one should say that matter creates space and time are attributes, not existing independently.

We need to reconcile our theory. Your theory can only have a New Cartesian sequel. You have to be in the lead of the competition. For your deductive structure of the space I give you the highest rating.

All the best, Dizhechko

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris;

Unfortunately, I must say that I am greatly disappointed by this site because it is being misused by some people who are voting without reading and without commenting or discussing the essay.

I feel that I have wasted my time, because despite the many positive and constructive comments and discussion and despite the high rates that my essay received from serious scholars like yourself, other people have deliberately and unjustifiably reduced the rating out of blind competition. I don't know how the number of competitors increased to 219 voters. I can see that many of the essays are empty, and my essay is lost in the crowd. This is supposed to be a serious forum and not a place for amateur discussions.

Anyways, I wish you good luck.

Mohamed

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 06:56 GMT
Thank you Dizhechko for sharing this information here.

Your ideas seem to be interesting, but I don't see how they may be related to the SMM and duality of time.

John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 09:49 GMT
The essay of Dizhechko is poorly written and I do not see any new concepts in it. I think he is only trying to advertise it in this thread!

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 10:03 GMT
I am sorry John, if you want to criticize other essays please do that on their threads.

John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 15:55 GMT
I apologize!

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 16:31 GMT
Dear Mohamed,

It is the second time that I read your very well written essay.

The first time I always do it in fast-reading, and when interesting then...

The "Sinle Monad Model" seems to have a lot of paralels with my own Total Simultaneity. It is lso a metaphysical view on the mergence of the restrictions of time and space.

The seemingly deterministic character of this emergent phenomenon called reality makes it maybe appear like a machine, but the "cause" of that is that the also emergent agents inside only are aware of the past.

I hope that thes remarks can convince you of reading, leaving a comment and give a rating to my essay : "The Purpose of Life". I gave you a high rating because of the depth of your thoughts.

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 17:15 GMT

Thank you once more!

John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:53 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 13:00 GMT
Again I thank you John for your encouraging opinion.

The last few days opened new frontiers in this particular regard. Based on the new hypothesis of the duality of time, which produce granular space structure, I was able to obtain Lorentz boost and the equivalence principle directly without any transformation or thought experiments. This means a real unification of relativity with quantum theories.

Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 16:10 GMT
Dear Mohamed,

I have read your essay with interest. Is there a mathematical development of the Single Monad Model'?

In my essay I try to address the incompatibility between quantum theory and relativity, by questioning the inclusion of classical time in quantum theory.

Best regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 17:31 GMT
Dear Tejinder;

I would like to thank you for your encouraging comment.

As a quick answer to your question (Is there a mathematical development of the `Single Monad Model'?): Not yet, but it is in the oven.

I believe that physics should come first, and mathematics can often be misleading in many ways. First, not all accurate mathematical models describe the reality. For...

view entire post

John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 15:35 GMT
I think if this model is formulated mathematically it will be the theory of everything. I have no doubt.

report post as inappropriate

John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 16:01 GMT
because this is the first time I see a model that could combine the principles of relativity with quantum field theory.

report post as inappropriate

Paulan A. Moldier wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 19:26 GMT
Don't be disappointed Dr. Mohamed, this the usual way these contests run, but in the end the reality will prevail, very slowly though.

>>

Unfortunately, I must say that I am greatly disappointed by this site because it is being misused by some people who are voting without reading and without commenting or discussing the essay.

I feel that I have wasted my time, because despite the many positive and constructive comments and discussion and despite the high rates that my essay received from serious scholars like yourself, other people have deliberately and unjustifiably reduced the rating out of blind competition. I don't know how the number of competitors increased to 219 voters. I can see that many of the essays are empty, and my essay is lost in the crowd. This is supposed to be a serious forum and not a place for amateur discussions.

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:45 GMT
Thank you dear Paulan for your encouraging remarks.

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 07:13 GMT
Dear Mohamed,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

«Yes I also believe that the cosmos is finite in all aspects, so there is no infinity or singularity, but the possibilities are infinite.»

Your assumptions are very close to me

«in this model in which space itself is continuously being constructed in the same manner as other matter particles, so it must have its own intrinsic background mass and energy.»

You might also like reading my essay , where the fractal principle of the device of matter is substantiate.

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:30 GMT

I had a quick look at your interesting essay. I wish you all good luck in the competition. I am sorry I cannot promise to study your article at this time.

John A. Murelle wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:43 GMT
I believe your article is by far the most promising research.

I think you should submit your research to specialized physics journals.

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 13:03 GMT
Again I thank you John for your encouraging opinion.

As I mentioned in reply to your comment above: The last few days opened new frontiers based on the new hypothesis of the duality of time, which produce granular space structure, I was able to obtain Lorentz boost and the equivalence principle directly without any transformation or thought experiments. This means a real unification of relativity with quantum theories.

I am currently trying to put all this together in a paper.

John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 15:16 GMT
That is great news, I wonder if you could mention more details!

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 19:04 GMT
The fact that the creation of space in the inner level of time appears instantaneous on the outward level means that these two levels of time are perpendicular to each other, or the normal time is perpendicular on space that can be treated as a plane or spherical wave. Mathematically, this can be best represented by imaginary numbers in the complex plane. This concept of imaginary time is already being used widely in various mathematical formulation in quantum physics and cosmology, without any actual justification apart from the fact that it is quite convenient. As Hawking states: "It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons."

Using this concept of imaginary time with the fact that the instantaneous velocity in the outer time is always zero, and the instantaneous velocity in the inner time that constitutes space is always the speed of light, we can arrive easily to Lorentz boost by using Pythagorean theorem and that fact that i^2=-1. Therefore, when an object moves between two points in space-time, its total velocity will be given by: c+iv whose magnitude is:

$\sqrt{c^2-v^2}$

Lorentz boost is therefore the ratio between the velocity in the inner time: c (when the observer is at rest as it appears in the outer time) over the velocity in space-time (or inner-outer-time) as given above, for any observer moving at an average velocity v in the outer time:

$\gamma=c/\sqrt{c^2-v^2}=1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

It is as simple as that! without using Lorenz transformation.

The equivalence principle of general relativity can also be obtained in similar manner. To the best of my knowledge, this would be the first time this critical principle is rigorously deduced from fundamental classical principles.

John A. Murelle wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 11:52 GMT
Excuse me Mohamed, I don't understand: if imaginary time is already used in the mathematical formulation and relativity and quantum mechanics. What is new then in your model in this regard?

report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 16:49 GMT
Without postulating the duality of time and the resulting continuous construction of space, this concept of imaginary time does not have any meaning or justification outside the mathematical formulation, because both the Euclidean space and Minkowski space-time consider space and time to be coexisting together, i.e. they both are real. The fact that each frame of the inner time (which constitutes space) appears as one instance on the outward time is what justifies treating time as imaginary with relation to space, thus perpendicular on it. Moreover, this same fact, that the inner time/space and the outer time do not exist together, has another more essential characteristic, because it is the only way we can think of granular space-time without any background. This is exactly the reason why strings theory and loop quantum gravity could not succeed in fully quantizing space-time, because they could not get rid of the background continuum.

John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 17:57 GMT
Amazing!

What I like about your theory is the way it explains things before any mathematical formulation. When the theory is correct, mathematics will follow. It is in the oven as you said.

report post as inappropriate

Janice F. Murin replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 00:21 GMT
I also believe that time has to be imaginary, that is why it is very difficult to understand it. I read before that some theories use imaginary time but this is the first time I see it can be used in relativity.

report post as inappropriate

Paulan A. Moldier wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 14:12 GMT
It is very clear that somebody is intentionally down rating this exceptional essay. I remember it was rated very high, and then it ran down: 7.8, 7.2, 6.6, 6.4, ... and now 5.8? They should not allow rating down with reasoning!

Why don't force the users who rate to make comment, even if it is negative, because they must give the author the chance to defend his hypothesis, and prevent blind rating down.

report post as inappropriate
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 15:05 GMT
I mean now it is 4.8 ???????

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 15:37 GMT
Yes! Unfortunately, I must say that I am greatly disappointed by this site because it is being misused by some people who are voting without reading and without commenting or discussing the essay.

Originally I posted this essay to share it with professionals, but by looking at most of the essays in this contest I see that they are simply repeating previous matters and not discussing any real fundamental questions, as the name FQXI means.

Paulan A. Moldier wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 16:22 GMT

>>>>

In the recent developments, I found that just like time, energy can also be imaginary and negative. This appeared very clearly in the equations. If fact, it turned out that energy is multi-dimensional, just like space which according to the inner level of time is being created continuously.

What this means? Well it means that a huge energy can be stored in some other dimension that can be harmless in our level of time, for example just like mass is a huge energy that stored in harmless form.

report post as inappropriate
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 16:25 GMT
I think this is quite plausible result if you go along the postulate of multi-leveled time.

Because energy is related directly to time.

I wish I live long enough to see this theory in application.

if you like to post more details it would be just great.

report post as inappropriate

Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 01:23 GMT
Thank you dear Paulan for encouraging me....

Recently there has been a great achievement recently. The concept is now a full scale theory, with almost all the essential problems tackled. The duality of time meant in the end that there is real time and imaginary time as I said. This solved many problems and turned gravity into quantum Euclidean, without singularities !!!!!

The application of imaginary discrete time to the relativistic energy-momentum gave two terms whose sum is invariant, that meant that the COMPLEX force which is the derivation of momentum is always ZERO, just like the imaginary velocity is always zero in the outer time as I described above. This meant that the real part of the force always equaled its imaginary part, which is the EQUIVALENCE PRINCPLE? can you imagine, I got the equivalence principle by direct mathematical derivation?

You know what does this mean? AGREAT THING, it is like the derivation of the law of gravity.

Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 11:21 GMT
Mohamed,

Very interesting, original (still!) and nicely written. The models seems to be getting ever more refined, and I entirely agree and invoke local modulation to c by fermions. After someone just surprisingly suggested on my blog that 'Relativistic QFT had unified SR & QM' it was nice to read; "Quantum Mechanics had also been proved successful in describing the interactions between fields and subatomic particles, despite the fact that it clearly contradicts the aforementioned central principle of Relativity".

A good score coming. I hope you get a chance to read mine before the impending deadline as it lead to an important (dynamic geometrical) classical derivation of QMs predictions which DOES emerge as compatible with QM (also refined, from last years red & green reversible socks!). Please do any analyse and falsify it if you can. A short taster video is here. 100sec glimpse and full version here; Classic QM on Vimeo.

Very best of luck in the run in.

Peter

report post as inappropriate