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]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef wrote on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 20:18 GMT
Essay AbstractRelativity 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 BioA 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.
Download Essay PDF File
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef wrote on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 21:45 GMT
I would like to thank FQXI for publishing this article.
I would like also to thank the readers for taking the time to read it, and I welcome any comment or criticism.
For more information about the Single Monad Model: http://www.smonad.com
For more information about Ibn Arabi: http://www.ibnalarabi.com
For more information about the author:...
view entire post
I would like to thank FQXI for publishing this article.
I would like also to thank the readers for taking the time to read it, and I welcome any comment or criticism.
For more information about the Single Monad Model: http://www.smonad.com
For more information about Ibn Arabi: http://www.ibnalarabi.com
For more information about the author: http://www.mhajyousef.ibnalarabi.com
view post as summary
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
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 Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
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
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 than a Single Monad, being a massless and dimensionless metaphysical essence from which all the multiplicity in nature is continuously emerging and spreading over the dimensions of space and time.
The complex physical particles and objects as well as all living creation are all the multiplication of this single entity, or its spatial and temporal images. This innovative concept is actually attributed to Enoch and it is rooted deep in the history of Sumerians and Babylonians and it has been inherited by the Greeks, namely: Parmenides, and then later transferred to many other philosophers and sages, though it had been widely misinterpreted. My role was only to analyze it and compare it with the recent experimental results and test it against the main problems in physics and cosmology. As far as I can see, it can solve and even eliminate many of the major problems, such as the problem of entropy and the arrow of time, dark matter and dark energy, and even the cosmological constant problem, to mention just a few.
view post as summary
Anonymous replied on Jan. 28, 2017 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef,
I have read all but five of the essays that have been published so far and they all contain abstract musings about some sort of ficticious invisible complicated codswallop that has nothing to do with the real simple observable Universe that exists. I keep posting the same comment in the futile hope that my fellow essayist will at least look at my essay and comment on it....
view entire post
Dear Dr. Yousef,
I have read all but five of the essays that have been published so far and they all contain abstract musings about some sort of ficticious invisible complicated codswallop that has nothing to do with the real simple observable Universe that exists. I keep posting the same comment in the futile hope that my fellow essayist will at least look at my essay and comment on it. The real VISIBLE Universe has nothing to do with any invisible monads.
Good luck in the competition,
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Jan. 28, 2017 @ 17:40 GMT
Dear Joe;
Eventually the interested readers will read all the essays and it will be up to them to write the comments that reflect their opinions. I don't think pushing them to that is ever useful.
I also wish you good luck in the competition.
Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 14:22 GMT
I have seen this same comment in almost all of the other essays!!!
report post as inappropriate
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:44 GMT
You are right, he posted the same comment in almost all other essays!
report post as inappropriate
John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 17:34 GMT
Joe Fisher keep posting the same comments over all threads, time and time again!
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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 been stated."
So I read what Ibn Arab speaks of Circular Time and Cyclical Time ...
Since I got better at math I am also expressed mathematically by introducing the concept of Time Cycle for 13.7 billion years (instead of the age of the Universe).
Do you agree with the position Ruder Boskovic "Now, although I do not hold with infinite divisibility, yet I do admit infinite componibility".
And with my atitude: "mass and space of the universe and any other phenomenon is finite but the number of their combination is infinite and Universe is eternal."
I thought there are not velocity v=0, but you are precise:
„Therefore, the universe is always coming to be in “zero time”, and its points are sequentially fluctuating between existence and nonexistence, which means that the actual instantaneous speed
of each metaphysical point in space can only change from v=0 to v=c., and vice versa.
So it is v=0 for metaphysical point and v=/=0 for material objects. Very nice.
Best Regards,
Branko Zivlak
view post as summary
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
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 applications, but Leibniz monodology would have lead to quantum mechanics, and even quantum gravity, much earlier had it been given equal consideration. In some of the sections that I had to delete, I proved that monodology is the only way to explain E=mc^2 mathematically and philosophically, because it is based on discrete motion from zero to the speed of light (see
E=mc^2).
To answer some of your other profound questions:
Yes I also believe that the cosmos is finite in all aspects, so there is no infinity or singularity, but the possibilities are infinite. So infinity may only be realized with the eternal flow of time, because the infinite possibilities may not exist at once or in finite time.
With longer discussion we can argue that the future is the vacuum with infinite possibilities that can be excited to the present, the present is energy or vibrations always moving at the speed of light, and the past is void with infinite mass that may never be excited again to the present. The limited energy and masses of particles and objects that we normally encounter are relative temporal excitations from the vacuum that are always collapsing again to the become void, though their apparent continuous presence is a result of them causing new excitations that appear very similar to them because of the conservation of energy, just like when we make a tone on a string: the first vibration ceases instantly but it causes a new vibration that takes the same form until it decay due external causes.
Therefore, you are absolutely right by saying that in practice there is no zero velocity, since there is always some motion. But also you should add that there is also no full speed of light, because it is always returning back to void by absorption for example, and that is why the speed of light in vacuum is 299792458 m/s, while I postulate that its full speed in absolute vacuum, or void, is exactly 300000000 m/s, because of the three dimensions of space to one dimension of time (I know you will say the meter and second are conventional, but this is a long argument).
So in in the ultimate metaphysical reality everything is instantly fluctuating between real rest and the real full speed of light, but in the measurable physical world neither limits are fully realized.
With my best Regards
view post as summary
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
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:45 GMT
This interesting, I used to think of vacuum and void as the same thing.
report post as inappropriate
Janice F. Murin replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 12:27 GMT
vacuum is full of quantum foam. Is this the aether or quintessence?
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 17:38 GMT
>> vacuum is full of quantum foam. Is this the aether or quintessence?
I am sorry Janice I have not noticed your question here before.
I believe that aether or quintessence are basically the same, but aether has to do with multiplicity while quintessence is the metaphysical essence.
Janice F. Murin replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 00:25 GMT
Thank you for replying, I have not seen this before, because it was not displayed.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
"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 recreation of the world by an immutable God." that led to the Occassionalism doctrine.
It was described in my 2011 essay "A Functional Virtual Reality"
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/846
It is interesting that your essay never mentioned Descartes or even Leibniz who firts talked about Monads.
Note that recreation is not necessary to solve Zeno's paradoxes. The block universe of Einstein resolved the paradoxes at the expense of free will.
view post as summary
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
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:48 GMT
I believe all previous civilizations had deep philosophy and understanding of the cosmos, maybe much deeper than what we have, simply because they were less materialistic.
On the other hand; when you examine ancient philosophies you see similar patterns of thought that have dominated over the millennia. Yet we come to believe that we are more advanced despite that we are working in other directions. I think we are bein arrogant and wrong.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 21:20 GMT
I agree with you Paulan, you are right. we should not be deceived by the advanced technology. We still lack the knowledge of the ancients.
Janice F. Murin replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 12:25 GMT
the knowledge of the ancients is wisdom, our knowledge is technology.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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 replied on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 12:17 GMT
Thank you Dr. Yousef for answering my question. This distinction between before and after males the issue of free will and choice clear.
report post as inappropriate
Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 14:30 GMT
I also found some difficulties in understanding the relation between this essay and the theme of the contest. However, after reading it again and reading your comments I now agree with you that we have no ultimate effect on the flow of things. Although we tend to believe that we can act on things, but eventually the cosmological goals will be fulfilled and our role is really minor.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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 happen without breaking the light speed limit; which I think is a great achievement.
However, I don't know how can you explain causality, since it is itself a fundamental principle in physics and philosophy! I think that a principle can only be explained based on a deeper principle.
view post as summary
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
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 the models based on relativity, this model is also suffers experimental verification. I feel the approach like 'space and time different ' may be better.
view post as summary
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
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 light in vacuum.”
Your words…. “There is no single theory which incorporates objects or particles with superluminal speeds.”
Please use Dynamic Universe Model. This single theoretical model’s …
Prediction of existence of large number of Blue shifted Galaxies came true. Prediction of “no dark matter” came true.
I hope you will see work on Astronomical Jets. You take ray of light or flow of neutrinos, or alpha particles parallel to plane of the Galaxy. Allow it to travel towards center of Galaxy. When that reaches center…
.WOOOOSH !… suddenly it turns its direction perpendicular to Galaxy center. See this paper
Explaining formation of Astronomical Jets using Dynamic Universe Model
http://viXra.org/abs/1606.0219
I actually observed super luminal velocities in astronomical jets. See these papers…
Explaining near light velocities observed in Astronomical Jets using SITA simulations
http://viXra.org/abs/1606.0232
Dynamic Universe Model solves ‘Faster than Light Neutrinos’ riddle
http://viXra.org/abs/1608.0313
Dynamic Universe Model is really wonderful; you have to SEE yourself to believe it….
See for an introduction…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p
/blog-page_15.html
Jn Dynamic Universe Model….
……….No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many results published…
Many papers and books were published on Dynamic universe Model by the author on unsolved problems (of Bigbang) of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe
Have a look at:
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/10-feb-201-
6-all-my-published-papers.html
Best Regards
=snp.gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 08:01 GMT
Thank you dear Satyavarapu for the comment and suggestions with the links.
I will read further the links you provided, however single reports are not enough to make a theory that contradict an already established theory, that is the theory of relativity which is based on the invariance and constancy of the speed of light.
Moreover, I am not defending the speed of light itself as much as the cosmological speed limit, though they look the same so far, but what I mean is that if there was no cosmological speed limit we should be able to observe arbitrary high speeds that could several hundreds or thousands or much higher than the speed of light.
So in the end we clearly have a speed limit, and there is no model that could explain this apart from the Single Monad Model, or the continuous creation of space.
But anyway I thank you again for the links which I will look at later today as I am travelling now.
Best Regards
Mohamed
Janice F. Murin replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 01:44 GMT
All these FTL has been reported or examined, but non is truly faster than light:
1 FTL travel of non-information 1.1 Daily sky motion
1.2 Light spots and shadows
1.3 Apparent FTL propagation of static field effects
1.4 Closing speeds
1.5 Proper speeds
1.6 Possible distance away from Earth
1.7 Phase velocities above c
1.8 Group velocities above c
1.9 Universal expansion
1.10 Astronomical observations
1.11 Quantum mechanics 1.11.1 Hartman effect
1.11.2 Casimir effect
1.11.3 EPR paradox
1.11.4 Delayed choice quantum eraser
2 Superluminal communication
3 Justifications 3.1 Faster light (Casimir vacuum and quantum tunnelling)
3.2 Give up (absolute) relativity
3.3 Spacetime distortion
3.4 Heim theory
3.5 Lorentz symmetry violation
3.6 Superfluid theories of physical vacuum
4 Time of flight of neutrinos 4.1 MINOS experiment
4.2 OPERA neutrino anomaly
5 Tachyons
6 Exotic matter
7 General relativity
8 Variable speed of light
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References
12 External links 12.1 Scientific links
12.2 Proposed FTL Methods links
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 10:15 GMT
Hi all,
I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay… “Distances,...
view entire post
Hi all,
I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..
I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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, since it may have virtual particles or what is known as quantum foam. The true speed that should be considered as the upper Cosmological Speed limit is the speed of light in “void” rather than vacuum. Vacuum still has some energy that may interact with light, but void is real “nothing”. Of course, even vacuum is very hard to achieve in labs, so void is really impossible.
The speed of light in the theoretical void is the absolute speed of the Single Monad that is necessarily in void, because it is the whole existence, and nothing is outside. In the Single Monad Model, the ultimate Cosmological Speed should be an exact integer ratio that is equal to “3”, and it has no units because both space and time originate from the same revolution of the Single Monad that performs six basic revolutions to create the three dimensions of space, and then one revolution to display it as a single frame, and start anew. Because we naturally distinguish between space and time, this speed must be measured in terms of meters per second, and it should be therefore exactly equal to 300,000,000 meters per second. The difference between this value and the standard measured value, 299,792,458 meters per second, is what accounts for the quantum vacuum in contrast to the absolute void that cannot be excited.
Of course this all relates to how actually the “meter” and “second” are initially defined, which may look just as a result of local convention. The division of the day into hours, minutes and seconds is based on the sexagenarian system that was used by the Babylonians and can be also traced back to the Sumerians, while the “meter” is known to have been originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole, and then redefined or calibrated several times until it was fixed in 1983 as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second. The Babylonian sexagenarian system is built around metaphysical principles that start by dividing the celestial orbs into twelve zodiac signs each of which takes thirty degrees which make a total of 360 degrees in the circle. The division of the day into 24 hours will need even more metaphysical reasoning which is beyond this discussion. It may suffice to mention here that “infinity” according to some Quantum Field Theories is considered equal to 1/12. Furthermore, although the definition of the meter has a completely different story but it looks also closely related to the above sexagenarian system, because for example a one-meter-long simple pendulum will have a period of two seconds when it oscillates in an arc of 30 degrees. Additionally, there are various speculations that connects the meter to the royal cubit that also equals the length of the above arc of 30 degrees when the radius of the circle is equal to one meter. All this within a possible small error because these definitions varied slightly over time.
However, apart from the above admittedly insufficient reasoning, we can reasonably ask why the current standard value of the speed of light is so close to 300,000,000 meter per second! The difference is only 0.0006918 %. If the meter and second are only defined conventionally, which happened well before the exact measurement of the speed of light, then how could they fit this big number within such a very small margin. Furthermore, we know now that vacuum is not all empty, so it must also have a small refraction index, since it may absorb light due to various reasons. This will bring the actual speed of light in void, rather than vacuum, even closer to 300,000,000 meter per second. Although we admit that all these speculations are not at all scientifically adequate, but it is clear that the speed of light in vacuum is related the ratio of three that the ratio of the three spatial over one temporal revolution of the Single Monad.
This the best I could say in this regard, and I admit that it is not scientifically rigorous yet.
view post as summary
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
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Janice;
Thank you so much for commenting on this posts.
Regarding this question I would like to refer you to the following video:
Why -1/12 is a gold nugget and in fact there many similar videos which explain the idea. This idea I think it was first devised by the famous mathmetician Ramanujan.
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 15:28 GMT
The above video explains that 1+2+3+4+....=-1/12
So I am sorry it is -1/12 and not +1/12, but either way I think it gives us some hint why the zodiac is divided into 12 signs.
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:50 GMT
I agree that there is nothing that can move faster than light.
However, I don't understand what this has to do with the dimensions of space and the relation that you put above:
1+2+3+4+....=-1/12
And how thins equation could be true!
report post as inappropriate
Janice F. Murin replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 00:24 GMT
Thank you for replying, I have not seen this before, because it was not displayed.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
Here you can read more about this book () which is actually based on the same idea presented in this essay.
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
Here you can read more about this book (
) which is actually based on the same idea presented in this essay.
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 is not capable of describing the whole reality.
Therefore, any successful Theory of Everything must not rely on either the continuum or discrete space-time. Rather, these two contrasting views must be the product of such theory, and they must become complementary in the microscopic and macroscopic scales. The only contestant that may fulfill this criterion is “Oneness”, because on the multiplicity level things are either discrete or continuous, there is no other way.
view post as summary
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 08:09 GMT
Sorry the link did not appear! here again:
The Cosmic Heart
Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 14:33 GMT
I am eagerly waiting to read this book.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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 in all, well done for your essay and your model.
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
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 you said. The best way to understand this is to take two points of view, or two refernces as in Relativity.
So with respect to someone moving at the speed of light, everything exits all at once (and this is obtained by Relativity itself; a photon encounters no space-time), so everything is known, but with respect to an inertial observer, he/she need to move through space and time in order to realize more potential information.
In my original model as described in my other articles/books, I explain how one could attain these high states of realization. In summary this has to be by giviing away or giving up mass. This can even be seen through the equations:
And then integrate from m to zero when dv=0:
I hope the latex equations work!
Best Regards
Mohamed
view post as summary
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
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 07:19 GMT
Dear Muder;
>>> But how could someone achieve these limits? You mentioned that one has to give up mass! How?
I am afraid this might lead us far away from the subject. But I can give you a short answer: Obviously it is not possible for the BODY to move with the speed of light, so this may only be achieved spiritually, for this reason the book you asked me about in the previous post is called "the cosmic heart". It is actually the heart which can accomplish full realization and not the body, and not even the mind. This is actually sometimes partially achieved in dreams, but the most known methods in this regards is Sufism and similar practices.
Best Regards
Mohamed
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 10:26 GMT
Hello allo, Mr Yousef,
Have you already thought to insert my equation E=mc²+ml² and the spherical volumes more their 3 motions ,linear ,orbital and spinal.The relevance is that is particles of gravitation, I have named them spherons are produced by something and that the dark cold matter is this matter not baryonic balancing our standard model.So we see that souls are linked with this...
view entire post
Hello allo, Mr Yousef,
Have you already thought to insert my equation E=mc²+ml² and the spherical volumes more their 3 motions ,linear ,orbital and spinal.The relevance is that is particles of gravitation, I have named them spherons are produced by something and that the dark cold matter is this matter not baryonic balancing our standard model.So we see that souls are linked with this gravitation.And also the linear speed of gravitation is not relativistic, we can pass c.I see only one solution for the production of these particles,the BHs.They are in logic not baryonic also and not relativistic.They turn these 3D sphères Inside the sphère.If the aether is gravitational from the main central BH the biggest spherical volume in logic ,the cosm singularity.So we can see that aether is from this center creating the speedest particles of gravitation.That is why the potential gravitational energy tends to infinity.The relevance is to correlate witht he mulspheres also perhaps of mr Tegmark about this potential and physical laws.If the zero absolute balances our standard model and that this gravity encircles our standard model, so we have an explaination for many things, the BHs, the dark matter and the quantum weakest force the gravity.If we insert quantum BHs ,we have a paradox towards the quant singularities.The quantum BHs and correlated waves fields and energy are stronger than nuclear forces.But we have also spherons encoded them weaker in forces than our electromagnetic forces and photons.If we analyse the number in harmonical recurrence series,we have a relevance about the spheronic sphere, the speed and the number.See that a BH supermassive is the number one and that all this must balance the photons and the photonic sphere with the number of stars.So the number of spherons of course is more important.The relevance at my humble opinion is to correlate with this cosm singularity the number one implyi,ng this aether.The mind body soul problem can be solved with this matter not baryonic.That is why in a spiritual and philosophical vueI beleive that we die electromagntically speaking not gravitationally considering our main singularity ,our central BH, our main gravitational code encoding informations of evolution.Photons are just like a fuel due to encodings.The spherons and BHS them are not baryonic and give us answers for this infinite entropy creating a physicality that we name God.They turn, they are coded, they evolve ,they encode, sort, synchronize,...these sphères in us, around us above us....Like a quiet road of optimisation and irmpovement of mind body matter soul on this irreversible Arrow ofr time .The fact that this aether is gravitation balances our actual standard model.The aether implies that with this weakest force, God is near us instantaneously and in the time due to our quantum BHs, our singularities, our souls.We can pass c ,if god has created a sphere with sphères,so there are reasons, the special relativity is just for our standard model.It is a kind of prison universally speaking,I am doubtin,g that God has created a prison where we cannot travel between galaxies,That has no sense,c is just for our standard model.We can pass c ,it is just that we know few still about these particles of gravitation checking all thermodynamical and electromagnetic systems.The main codes cannot be photonic.The spherons are more logic it seems to me humbly.I liked your work and I wish you all the best in this contest.Best Regards from Belgium
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 10:36 GMT
Hello dear Steve...
I would like to thank you for your positive comment. I read it quickly since I am at work now.
I wonder if you could post a link to your interesting work!
Best Regards
Mohamed
Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 15:19 GMT
I dont understand how did you get e=mc^2?
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Janice;
If you integrate the first equation above:
if you ingerate it in a regular way you will get the standard equation that gives us the kinetic energy:
that is if you assume dm=0 for normal velocities.
Now if you inegrate the same first equation from 0 to c but considering that this happens abrubtly 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 posible on the inner level of time which appear instantaneous on the outer level. So we get:
also you can get the same result if you integrate from m to zero or vice versa (and considering dv=0):
I hope this clarifies the problem.
Please tell me if you need more clarification, because this is really in the heart of the mathimatical formulation of the sngle monad model.
Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 15:59 GMT
Thank you Dr. Yousef, I can see your point but I am not convinced. How can you integrate when the time is not changing! What is changing then?
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 19:52 GMT
Janice, remember that the whole idea here is the concept of the inner level of time, in which space and matter are internally created and appear outside as one instance.
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 15:51 GMT
You are welcome.
I have not published still,I just learn and improve my theory of spherisation since several years here on FQXi.I will publish this years logically several pappers.I need help in fact, a team.I have a friend in belgium an engineer in Aerospace.We are going to, create a team in logic.Best regards and good luck still in this contest.Thanks also for your interest.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 15:58 GMT
I wish you all the best dear Steve, we can not know the reality with conventional methods. With hard work you will achieve your goals.
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 15:08 GMT
I am thanking you it is nice,there at this moment I have invented the spherical geomtrical algebras and I try to harmonise correctly the scalrs ,vectors, tensors ,domains, operators, utilisations of series, groups....with the spherical volumes and their 3 main motions ,linear, orbital and spinal.I try to find the good recurrent method to find this bridge for this quantum weakest force, the gravity.In my reasonings, I found that in fact this force is in the same time the strongest.What a big puzzle :) I must admit Dr Yousef that I have difficulties for some maths.I am just a nursery man studying all days things that I didn't know.I work hard since several years.Thanks still and good luck still in this contest,all the best.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 16:51 GMT
Regarding the hierarchy problem: why gravity is very weak? The answer to this essential question is related to dimensions, and in the SSM we have five levels or dimensions of time: 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D and T, where each level is nested inside the higher dimension, and all are nested inside the outward normal time dimension T.
Because of the various degrees of freedom, the interactions are different from one level to the other, so in total we have five different fundamental forces: magnetic, electric, strong, weak, and gravity, respectively corresponding to the above five levels of time. Although the metaphysical 0D, which is the quanta of space-time, is the building block of all subsequent dimensions, it does not exist alone on the multiplicity level where all the physical phenomena are eventually observed, so this is the magnetic monopole that exists everywhere, attributed to spin, but cannot be isolated because it is always coupled in higher dimensions. The first level of physical manifestation of the magnetic monopole is the electromagnetic force, then the strong nuclear force, then the weak nuclear force, and then gravity, which can potentially explain the relative strength of these forces and why gravity is very weak, since it is exhausted in the volume. Moreover, this can open the door for converting magnetism into other forces including gravity, which will be naturally quantized, because they all emerge from the actual discrete primary flow of time.
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 21:09 GMT
Hello Dr Yousef,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this weakest force this quantum gravity.Imagine that we have quantum BHs farer than our quarks gluons nuclear forces with forces stronger.And now imagine that we have particles encoded ,I named them the spherons produced by cosmol BHs.Imagine that they are weaker in forces than electromagnetism and photons.In fact if now we insert my...
view entire post
Hello Dr Yousef,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this weakest force this quantum gravity.Imagine that we have quantum BHs farer than our quarks gluons nuclear forces with forces stronger.And now imagine that we have particles encoded ,I named them the spherons produced by cosmol BHs.Imagine that they are weaker in forces than electromagnetism and photons.In fact if now we insert my équations E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant for all 3D sphères so we have l not constant.That implies a gravitational aether from the main central cosmological singularity, the biggest BH producing the speedest spherons.Now imagine that this matter not baryonic is correlated with this reasoning and that this matter so is these particles of gravitation.Now imagine that the zero absolute and a kind of fractalisation near this zero tending to infinty permits the thermodynamical equilibriums.See that at all scales, the standard model is encircled by this gravity.The spherons are more numerous and speeder than photons and the supermassive BH is the number 1 but x the number of stars to be simple,the spherons so and photons are balanced.This reasoning explainSsimply the quantumgravity which is paradoxally the weakest but the strongest in linking with BHs and dark matter,after all we need explainations.Now all this to explain you that I beleive strongly that our quantum gravity cannot be an emergent electromagnetic force in fact because the photons are not the main piece, primordial of puzzle but spherons yes.I consider that even the spherons have a finite serie with also this encircling of cold gravity.So a photon is a spheron coded simply.Hope I am clear :) This themro photonic electromagnetic standard model is just like a fuel.That is why I beleive that we die lectromagntically ,not gravitationally and that aether is gravitational.See the l the linear velo of spherons is not constant and is proportional with the spherical volume where they are produced.This matter not baryonic needs an explaination, I prefer the wordks of Zwicky instead of MONDs modifying this newtonian mechanic.o s and l are the 3 motions respecting the newtonian mechanic of 3D sphères.The dimensions can be superimposed with vectors and scalars for a better understanding of comportments of these spherical volumes,that said the S3 is essential.These dimensions are always rational after all.Let's take the lie works or them of Clifford or hopf or this or that,they are just Tools permitting to have some recuurences for the series and groups.It is a tool of ranking and understanding of some détails,that is all, we have not odd dimensionalities.Best regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 21:18 GMT
I say me even Dr Yousef that this number finite for a serie of uniquenss,primoridal(probably created at this zero instant ,a spherical expansion is more logic than this Big bang) if I can say is the same than this finite cosmological serie.The photon and the spheron are the same so when we see this finite number, not when they turn to be simple,and also it is the fact that this gravity encircles the foundamentl to take into account.The codes are gravitational.Intriguing when we correzlate with this infinite entropy,paradoxal in all ....God is near us Dr Yousef with these speedest spherons sent by this cosm singularity.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 11:33 GMT
Hello Mr Tonin and Mrs Murin,sorry to have not say hello and have writen on your post,it was an act of distraction,sorry so.:)
all the best
report post as inappropriate
Janice F. Murin replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 00:25 GMT
Thank you for replying, I have not seen this before, because it was not displayed.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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:
if you integrate it in a regular way you will get the standard equation that gives us the kinetic energy:
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:
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):
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
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear Moldier;
Einstein spent more than forty years trying to prove the mass-energy equivalence relation. To the best of my knowledge, neither Einstein nor anyone else did ever provide an exact derivation of this famous relation.
I would like to refer you to this paper: ["How Einstein confirmed E0=mc2", American Journal of Physics, 79 (6): 591–600, Bibcode:2011AmJPh..79..591H, doi:10.1119/1.3549223].
Best Regards
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:56 GMT
I searched over and over again to find a convincing derivation to this equation. I think your derivation is simple and straightforward, so easy and simple that it is difficult to believe.
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 09:42 GMT
This formula New Cartesian Physic deduces from the formula of the pressure of the Universe, which puts pressure on the corpuscle, and, on the contrary, the pressure of the Universe is derived from the formula of mass-energy equivalence.
This integration must be done in a corpuscle, where the rotation of the space in the center of the vortex reaches the speed of light. However, it provides no understanding of the fact that the corpuscle is a compression space from the pressure of the Universe.
All the best, Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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 dimensional structure, we can conceive of seven different instances of space: < up| right | front | here | down | left | back >. The observer who is at a particular instance of space, denoted as < here >, cannot realize any of the other six instances without moving through time. So, with regard to the observer, what actually exists of space at every instance of time is only < here >. Time, on the other hand, is made from three different instances: < future | now | past >. The future does not yet exist at the present moment, which is denoted by < now >, and the past has already ceased. Therefore, what exists "here" and "now" is all what exists at the real moment for any particular observer, and this is not physical because it has no extension in space or time, i.e. it has no dimensions. Dimensions and other physical properties are a consequence of the recurrence of this metaphysical reality that exists alone at every single instance of the real now of time, and is only multiplied with the now of the inner level of time, creating space and matter which then evolves over the outer time dimension.
view post as summary
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
Muder H. Moldier replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 11:04 GMT
I think Mr Yousef have already answered this question previously, because it is the same manner how everything could be predestined and yet we feel that we are in control. We must take the two points of views at the same time, just as Relativity does. The speed of light holds the key to all that.
Please read the reply to the post above.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Janice,,,
Thank you very much for asking this question.
Ohnestly, if I sleep without thinkig about it I wake up in the morning wondering again how on earth this could be true!
The key issue here is the "inner level of time". We are living in the outer level of time where multiplicity is, and all associated physical or natural phenomena, including: including limited velocity, acceleration, mass and even the dimensions of space. In the inner level there is only one single metaphysical monad which is multiplied only with the recurrence of this inner time, so multiplicity is a result of the temporal coupling between at least two metaphysical monads which are the temporal discrete images of the Single Monad that alone can be described with continuous existence.
I hope this make things more clear.
Mohamed
Janice F. Murin replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 12:19 GMT
Thank you Dr. Yousef, but I am still not able to understand the meaning and the role of the inner time!
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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 replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 12:47 GMT
All great ideas start crazy and look absurd in the beginning.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:43 GMT
Janice F. Murin replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 01:10 GMT
Your theory is interesting but it is very complicated, maybe it is a good idea if you make some videos describing it to interested people like us.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:42 GMT
According to the SMM, space is rigid time.
hide replies
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;
Thank you for your positive comments, and I am looking forward to answer your questions when you study the article and comments.
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 replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 14:49 GMT
I completely agree with Muder, it is the first time I see a model so simple and could solve many major problems so easily.
report post as inappropriate
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:54 GMT
This essay deserve the first prize for sure.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:44 GMT
hide replies
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 replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 13:00 GMT
John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 11:00 GMT
Reality is neither analogue nor digital, it is ONE.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 21:18 GMT
I agree with you John, 100%.
However, if reality remained in the oneness state the world would not appear.
So what happens is that the fluctuations between one and zero, or existence and nonexistence is what creates the multiplicity of things.
Janice F. Murin replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 01:08 GMT
Thank you for replying, I have not seen this before, because it was not displayed.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
Thank you Paulan, I will try to read your comments above, but please ask again if you do not find the answer because the post is becoming too long and it is very hard to follow the comments and the answers above because the posts are stubbed and not all comments are shown.
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
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 21:13 GMT
what prize are you talking about?
Janice F. Murin replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 12:23 GMT
I agree with John, this is the best article.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
Janice F. Murin replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 01:21 GMT
I wonder if the religious trinity is based on the trinity of nature, or vice versa?
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 21:21 GMT
Unfortunately Paulan I don't have anything published in this regard, but I can summarize to you my idea:
In reality, we can conceive of at least five levels or dimensions of time: 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D and T, where each level is nested inside the higher dimension, and all are nested inside the outward normal time dimension T. Because of the various degrees of freedom, the interactions are different from one level to the other, so in total we have five different fundamental forces: magnetic, electric, strong, weak, and gravity, respectively corresponding to the five levels of time. Although the metaphysical 0D is the building block, which is the quanta of space-time, it does not exist alone on the multiplicity level where all the physical phenomena are eventually observed, so this is the magnetic monopole that exists everywhere but cannot be isolated because it is always coupled in higher dimensions. Its first level of physical manifestation is the electromagnetic force, then the weak nuclear force, and so on. This can potentially explain the relative strength of these forces and why gravity is very weak, since it is exhausted in the volume. Moreover, this can open the door for converting magnetism into other forces including gravity, which will be naturally quantized, because they all emerge from the actual linear flow of time.
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 20:01 GMT
Thank you for the detailed answer, I am looking forward to seeing this deep thoughts and insights published in the future.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 20:14 GMT
Than you Paulan! I forgot to tell you that part of this research has been presented in FTAP2017 that was held in the American University of Sharjah last month and it will appear in the proceeding.
Janice F. Murin replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 01:12 GMT
Do you have a link to the paper/talk or FTAP2017 conference proceedings?
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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.
Hope this answer your question. Please tell me.
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:30 GMT
So as a shorter direct answer to your question:
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
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 20:18 GMT
In my opinion: quantum tunneling can not happen on the physical level, because it incorporates superluminal motion, thus the inner level of time is the solution here, as I also showed previously that this is also how EPR operates.
Janice F. Murin replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 01:18 GMT
What do you mean "quantum tunneling can not happen on the physical level"? I mean it has been widely observed and many reports show that it is superluminal!
report post as inappropriate
Muder H. Moldier replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 12:16 GMT
quantum tunneling occurs in nature but not on the physical level
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 17:14 GMT
Yes Muder you are right: quantum tunneling occurs in nature but not on the physical level, because physical objects must encounter time to move.
hide replies
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
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 concept of moving space-matter helped me:
- The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;
- Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter;
- Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz;
- Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe;
- To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in essay I risked give «The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural” - Is the name of my essay.
. Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space. Hope you rate my essay as high as I am yours. I am waiting your post.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
view post as summary
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
John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:54 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef;
I would like to tell you that I believe your article is by far the most promising research, and you should not be disappointed even if it does not score very well in this contest. The winner in this contest, like all elections in these days, is not really the best candidate.
Although I think the essays with the highest ratings are very nicely written, but yours is the only essay that introduce new innovative concepts. After all this forum is called: FQXI, so it should be focused on fundamental ideas. Most essays however are repetition of classical ideas.
I wish you all the best.
report post as inappropriate
Paulan A. Moldier replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 14:10 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!
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 15:39 GMT
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.
hide replies
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
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef
In New Cartesian Physic monad is irrational infinitesimal point of space-matter, which always have a length and width, so are the sources of life. These points exist only in the aggregate, the intervals of which depend on the impulse acting on them of electromagnetic waves on the principle of certainty of Heisenberg. Irrational point (monad) can not have a rectangular shape like a brick, so they are not able to create an absolutely crisp space that has no holes. Holes are formed always and monads always fill them, as you say, almost instantly the speed of light. The monad, which took a free hole, reserves his hole, which fills the second monad, etc. I Agree with you that instant picture space can be thought of as consisting of pixels. In General, is not a photograph, but a movie in which the parts of space are moving, creating pressure. The power flux through a closed space of the sphere is equal to the product of the speed of light on Planck's constant – I determined, based on the formula of mass-energy equivalence..
Time is a measure of the totality of the changes. New Cartesian Physic does not recognize time as existing independently. It is derived from movement of space.
I forgot to supply you with an estimate and now put it.
With respect. Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 17:13 GMT
Thank you again dear Dizhechko.
In my opinion, it is space that is defined by the inner moments of time, not the reverse. That is because space resembles physical multiplicity, while time is metaphysical, so time is the origin from which space and matter are constructed, or manipulated.
Moreover, being metaphysical, the monad does not have a "length and width" but it is geometrical point of space.
Best Regards
Mohamed
hide replies
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 dear Wilhelmus for your encouraging comments.
From the first reading, your essay is very interesting. I hope to read it again tonight.
Thank you once more!
John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:53 GMT
I believe that this article is by far the most promising research that could combine relativity and quantum theories.
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
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 example: Ptolemy's astronomical model of epicycles was able to explain the retrograde motion but it was wrong. Second, most of the times mathematics is based on approximations that could be legitimate in some domains but may lead to huge errors in other domains without being always able to tell what is wrong.
Therefore, if we were able to reach a philosophical model that explains the various puzzling phenomena, it would be easier to device the correct mathematical model later.
I believe that the Single Monad Model does solve almost all major problems in the current models of physics and cosmology, for example:
- why the speed of light is constant and invariant in all directions and all inertial reference frames?
- why the speed of light is the maximum cosmological speed limit?
- how nonlocal quantum mechanical phenomena can happen in nature without breaking the light speed limit?
- what is the real nature of the wave-particle duality?
- how the wave function collapses into the eigenstate?
- the SMM can prove the existence of the magnetic monopole and explains why it can not be observed.
- the SMM can prove the existence of the mass gap.
- the SMM can solve the vacuum catastrophe.
And others.
Due to the words limits of this contest I could not analyze all these problems. A more rigorous analysis is now being prepared for publication which includes preliminary mathematical formulation. I hope that this will develop further in the near future, and I am seeking to collaborate with interested researchers.
I would appreciate it if you have any suggestions in this regard.
Thank you again for reading and commenting.
Mohamed
view post as summary
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
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 10:01 GMT
The theory of everything has already been created – this New Cartesian Physicthat has the pressure formula of the Universe, indicating that all processes begin with the overcoming of this pressure – this creates the quantum effects. In addition, New Cartesian Physic proven link between the Lorentz factor with the squared modulus of the wave function, which indicates that the probability of detection depends on the speed of movement.
All the best, Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 16:27 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
John A. Murelle replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:40 GMT
Dear Dr. Yousef;
I would like to tell you that I believe your article is by far the most promising research, and you should not be disappointed even if it does not score very well in this contest. The winner in this contest, like all elections in these days, is not really the best candidate.
Although I think the essays with the highest ratings are very nicely written, but yours is the only essay that introduce new innovative concepts. After all this forum is called: FQXI, so it should be focused on fundamental ideas. Most essays however are repetition of classical ideas.
I wish you all the best.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:49 GMT
Thank you John for your kind opinion. I never loose hope. I am not really interested in winning the prize in the first place. My hope was that posting the article here would create positive interaction, which did happen, but I was hoping for more.
hide replies
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.
I am glad that
«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,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:30 GMT
Thank you dear Vladimir for your positive comment.
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:
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:
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.
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 19:08 GMT
I believe this is a conclusive evidence of the duality of time postulate.
Janice F. Murin replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 00:22 GMT
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
hide replies
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
Author Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 16:18 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.
hide replies
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
I just read your post above, and I think it AMAZING:
>>>>
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
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.