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

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

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

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

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

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

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

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

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

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

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

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

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

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

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Mohamed Haj Yousef**: *on* 2/24/18 at 14:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Juan; Thank you for your detailed comments and appreciated criticism....

**Juan Ramón González Álvarez**: *on* 2/24/18 at 2:37am UTC, wrote Quantum mechanics is not restricted to discrete spectrum, we have...

**Mohamed Haj Yousef**: *on* 2/22/18 at 7:51am UTC, wrote Thank you Steven, but I am not interested in rating!

**Steven Andresen**: *on* 2/22/18 at 7:04am UTC, wrote Dear Mohamed If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 2/12/18 at 15:28pm UTC, wrote By the way... Once upon a time; I learned many of the whirling dances and...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 2/12/18 at 15:21pm UTC, wrote Thank you Mohamed, I'll follow the links and look at the book when there...

**Mohamed Haj Yousef**: *on* 2/12/18 at 12:58pm UTC, wrote As a follow up, I would like to mention that more detailed and rigorous...

**Mohamed Haj Yousef**: *on* 2/12/18 at 12:48pm UTC, wrote Thank you dear Jonathan for your kind comments and for taking the time on...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Jorma Seppaenen**: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Michael Jordan**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Anonymous**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Constructing a Theory of...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Hanvi jobs**: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

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

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

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

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

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

**Thermo-Demonics**

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

**Gravity's Residue**

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

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

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

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

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

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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

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

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

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

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

FQXi FORUM

May 23, 2019

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: ``NOTHING'' IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN TIME (The Duality of Time Theory and Creation ex-nihilo) by Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef [refresh]

TOPIC: ``NOTHING'' IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN TIME (The Duality of Time Theory and Creation ex-nihilo) by Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef [refresh]

The Duality of Time Theory explains how all corporeal and incorporeal ``things'' emerged ex nihilo, through the perpetual creation and annihilation of two conjugate arrows of time, that are dynamically forming the nested dimensions of space, which then eventually condense and evolve into the two complementary physical and psychical realms, just as virtual particles and anti-particles are generated from vacuum due to the uncertainty principle. Accordingly, everything, including the underlying space background, and all energy fields that may be present, are reduced into complementary instances of conjugate time arrows that together annihilate into ``nothing''. Therefore, as the literal meaning of the title of this article indicates, although ``time'' is the most fundamental ``thing'', ``nothing'' is even more fundamental, because it is the ultimate source of everything. It will be briefly shown how this theory can potentially explain many major problems in physics and cosmology, including super-symmetry, the hierarchy of fundamental interactions and the problem of homogeneity.

Mohemed Haj Yousef is a writer and researcher interested in physics, cosmology, philosophy and Islamic thought. He studied physics and philosophy in various universities including Cambridge and Exeter. His most notable work is the Single Monad Model of the Cosmos. The author has published numerous articles and books that combines science, philosophy and Islamic thought. Most of these articles are accessible online at: http://www.smonad.com.

Dear Joe Fisher;

Thank you for your comment, but I must say that I do not understand what do you mean by "one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension"?

Best Wishes

Mohamed

Thank you for your comment, but I must say that I do not understand what do you mean by "one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension"?

Best Wishes

Mohamed

Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef

Good idea ..."The Duality of Time Theory explains how all corporeal and incorporeal ``things'' emerged ex nihilo, through the perpetual creation and annihilation of two conjugate arrows of time, that are dynamically forming the nested dimensions of space, ...." I agree completly with you time one of the fundamental aspect.... By the way...

Here in my essay...

view entire post

Good idea ..."The Duality of Time Theory explains how all corporeal and incorporeal ``things'' emerged ex nihilo, through the perpetual creation and annihilation of two conjugate arrows of time, that are dynamically forming the nested dimensions of space, ...." I agree completly with you time one of the fundamental aspect.... By the way...

Here in my essay...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Satyavarapu;

Thank you for your comment.

Unfortunately, since I have clearly noticed from this and last year's contest that the evaluation and voting system in this forum is badly biased and corrupt, I decided not to waste my time on it.

I only posted my article here in case for some possible serious readers might find it.

best wishes

Mohamed

Thank you for your comment.

Unfortunately, since I have clearly noticed from this and last year's contest that the evaluation and voting system in this forum is badly biased and corrupt, I decided not to waste my time on it.

I only posted my article here in case for some possible serious readers might find it.

best wishes

Mohamed

Greetings Mohamed,

I agree that this essay has been unfairly graded by those who went before me. I would guess that they ran into the metaphysical inferences, and concluded it was unscientific; but I disagree. This essay is well thought out, and it does address the assigned topic. It introduces a new twist on fundamental Physics too. Your points are well-argued, so it seems unlikely your score deserves to be so low.

I will comment that perhaps what is lacking is a valid reason why time should flow differently inwardly and outwardly. But as one approaches the Planck scale, it is well-known that geometry becomes first non-commutative and then non-associative. So first size/distance then interiority/exteriority become relative, in the extreme microscale.

Relativity is only well-defined down to about 10^-12 cm, because below this size or scale it is increasingly true that we do not have separable objects with well-defined boundaries. This is the reason why some variables must be separately accounted for in inward and outward facing directions. You have simply applied this generalization to time.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I agree that this essay has been unfairly graded by those who went before me. I would guess that they ran into the metaphysical inferences, and concluded it was unscientific; but I disagree. This essay is well thought out, and it does address the assigned topic. It introduces a new twist on fundamental Physics too. Your points are well-argued, so it seems unlikely your score deserves to be so low.

I will comment that perhaps what is lacking is a valid reason why time should flow differently inwardly and outwardly. But as one approaches the Planck scale, it is well-known that geometry becomes first non-commutative and then non-associative. So first size/distance then interiority/exteriority become relative, in the extreme microscale.

Relativity is only well-defined down to about 10^-12 cm, because below this size or scale it is increasingly true that we do not have separable objects with well-defined boundaries. This is the reason why some variables must be separately accounted for in inward and outward facing directions. You have simply applied this generalization to time.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Thank you dear Jonathan for your kind comments and for taking the time on reading my article. The reason why I posted this article here is to expose my innovative ideas to critical readers and researchers like yourself (and I am enjoying reading your article!), but what happens is that, with the huge number of contesters, the community (and public) evaluators simply do not have the time to read all articles, so they tend to down-vote without any (serious) reading at all, not to mention other possible personal reasons.

Let me answer some of your highly appreciated comments:

>>I would guess that they ran into the metaphysical inferences, and concluded it was unscientific; but I disagree.

* Thank you for disagreeing! I would like to quote here David Hume: "If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must

rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never

to look beyond the present material world."

>> what is lacking is a valid reason why time should flow differently inwardly and outwardly.

Initially, the reason is drawn from mysticism which connects the corporeal with the incorporeal world. I know this is not a valid scientific reason, and that is why I call it a hypothesis or postulate, and then I have applied it successfully to obtain the three principles of (Special and General) Relativity.

Thank you again for your input.

Mohamed

Let me answer some of your highly appreciated comments:

>>I would guess that they ran into the metaphysical inferences, and concluded it was unscientific; but I disagree.

* Thank you for disagreeing! I would like to quote here David Hume: "If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must

rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never

to look beyond the present material world."

>> what is lacking is a valid reason why time should flow differently inwardly and outwardly.

Initially, the reason is drawn from mysticism which connects the corporeal with the incorporeal world. I know this is not a valid scientific reason, and that is why I call it a hypothesis or postulate, and then I have applied it successfully to obtain the three principles of (Special and General) Relativity.

Thank you again for your input.

Mohamed

As a follow up, I would like to mention that more detailed and rigorous version of this article is available here:

direct PDF download,

more articles,

Duality of Time Book

direct PDF download,

more articles,

Duality of Time Book

Thank you Mohamed,

I'll follow the links and look at the book when there is time. I would advise also that you look for conferences where you might present your work. There too; it is sometimes easy to get lost in the crowd, but even a brief conversation with one or two top level researchers can help take one's work to the next level rapidly.

There were almost 700 scientists at GR21, for example, but a brief conversation with Tevian Dray makes me absolutely certain there is a profound change in the extreme microscale that alters the character of inward and outward facing directions - so that the two must be separately accounted for in the octonions, for example.

Therefore; you should continue to follow your thread, but look out for ways it will connect with a larger body of work that already exists. Even with the development of something like the calculus; we later discovered that Archimedes had worked out the theory of integrals in ancient times. I imagine the library at Alexandria contained gems of Math we would still find new today.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I'll follow the links and look at the book when there is time. I would advise also that you look for conferences where you might present your work. There too; it is sometimes easy to get lost in the crowd, but even a brief conversation with one or two top level researchers can help take one's work to the next level rapidly.

There were almost 700 scientists at GR21, for example, but a brief conversation with Tevian Dray makes me absolutely certain there is a profound change in the extreme microscale that alters the character of inward and outward facing directions - so that the two must be separately accounted for in the octonions, for example.

Therefore; you should continue to follow your thread, but look out for ways it will connect with a larger body of work that already exists. Even with the development of something like the calculus; we later discovered that Archimedes had worked out the theory of integrals in ancient times. I imagine the library at Alexandria contained gems of Math we would still find new today.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mohamed

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Quantum mechanics is not restricted to discrete spectrum, we have continuous spectra in quantum mechanics. Also fields aren't discrete objects.

The cosmological constant problem is unrelated to the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics. The problem is backed to incorrectly interpretting the lambda as a vaccum term and then using QFT to calculate it. A solution to this...

view entire post

The cosmological constant problem is unrelated to the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics. The problem is backed to incorrectly interpretting the lambda as a vaccum term and then using QFT to calculate it. A solution to this...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Juan;

Thank you for your detailed comments and appreciated criticism. I am not surprised at all that the Duality of Time is extremely difficult to be digested and appreciated, even by experienced physicists such as yourself, although it would have been much easier if you look at the positive sides before criticizing the new concept that has never been introduced before. I have been studying physics and philosophy, at the most profound levels, for more than thirty years, and I spent the last decade on this new concept, yet if I leave it away for few days I find it again difficult to accept. Nevertheless, the theory has now become mature enough to be challenged. There is a dedicated website: http://smonad.com, and the Duality of Time book has been published recently and started to make excellent impressions.

Let me briefly answer your comments, especially those which are related to the main concept of the Duality of Time:

Your Comment>>Quantum mechanics is not restricted to discrete spectrum, we have continuous spectra in quantum mechanics. Also fields aren't discrete objects.

My Reply= QM and QFT are based on the quantization of energy and fields.

Your Comment>>The cosmological constant problem is unrelated to the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics. The problem is backed to incorrectly interpretting the lambda as a vaccum term and then using QFT to calculate it. A solution to this problem is available, but the fundamental incompatibilities between relativity and quantum mechanics remain, just as they remain between relativity and classical mechanics.

My Reply= The informativity between Relativity and Classical is well understood, and the correspondence principle is fulfilled here since CM is a special case of GR. This is not the case between QM and GR because they are conceptually incompatible in situations such as entanglement and tunneling. The Duality of Time solves this fundamental problem of nonlocality without breaking the speed of light limit. Moreover, the speed of light constancy and invariance, as well as the other two principles of relativity, are theoretical postulates or axioms, while they follow directly from the DoT postulate, or the re-creation in the inner levels of time.

Your Comment>>LQG community tries to quantize spacetime because it confounds physical gravity with geometrical gravity. There is no reason to quantize spacetime in a physical description of gravity, and so any theory that predicts "discretuum structure of space-time" is very far from a TOE.

My Reply= You have to distinguish between the physical space-time and the abstract one, the latter is that defined by classical mechanics as an absolute reference frame (of space-time continuum or Euclidean space), and the first is introduced by General Relativity which has to be quantized in order for gravity to be quantized. The Duality of Time combines between these two as vacuum and void respectively.

Your Comment>>Spacetime isn't needed to describe physics. Example? Newtonian theory, where spacetime doesn't exist. In fact, the concept of spacetime only arises on a superficial field-like description of Nature.

My Reply= See the previous answer.

Your Comment>>Eq. (2) is dimensionally and mathematically incorrect.

My Reply= This equation is correct, but there is a minor typo in the second line, which is corrected afterwards.

Your Comment>>Things aren't being "created from nothing" in this model, but from pre-existent structures.

My Reply= There are many details here about how to define “nothing” in philosophy. In physical terms, “nothing” is the lack of any objects or motion, which corresponds to a homogeneous flat space. This is the space that split into two time arrows in the Duality of Time Theory.

Your Comment>>Imaginary time concepts helps to simplify some computations but makes other more complex. The trick is used only in the formulas where this simplification happens.

My Reply= Here the outer time is genuinely imaginary, which is the first time in physics and mathematics that imaginary numbers have genuine reality. If imaginary numbers make some problems more complex, this is a minor issue not related to the fundamental realities we are discussing here.

Your Comment>>Time is the evolution parameter that synchronizes correlations. It has to be unique; otherwise this role is lost. So theories of dual time either are incorrect or are redundant. In fact theories of dual time usually differentiate both times according to the evolution criteria, with only one of them playing the role of evolution parameter whereas the other participates in some geometrical spacetime structure. Such theories are redundant; and moreover they have additional difficulties to make direct connection with experiments.

My Reply= Please note that in the Duality of Time Theory, there is only one unique time that is either flowing inwardly to (metaphysically) create space and matter, or outwardly in which the kinetic evolution of matter is observed. The quantization of space is a result of interrupting the inner flow of time, which makes a new dimension of space or direction of time that is the outer time. So time is still fundamental to the extent that everything else is a result of its unique flow and fluctuation between the inner and outer dimensions.

Your Comment>>On the local level the arena for dynamics is the dual structure (r;tau). This structure can then be approximated by (r,ct). Dividing this last expression by c, will produce multiple time coordinates associated to the "time-time frame". However, no one of them is true time tau. Moreover, dividing by c to create a time coordinates doesn't introduce any new physics, since it is simply a change of labels.

My Reply= Dividing by c to introduce the time-time frame, and treating the outer time as hyperbolic, lead to the same Lorentz transformations (when you calculate the complex time or velocity), which is so far nothing new, but equivalent to Minkowski space-time, or the principles of Special Relativity. However, when you apply the same logic to calculate the complex momentum or energy you arrive to the equivalence principle necessary for General Relativity, and also the equivalence between mass and energy (E=mc^2). These principles were introduced by Einstein in his famous elevator experiment but there is not rigorous derivation of this equivalence, as Einstein repeatedly admitted. This was the missing puzzle which the Duality of Time solved. Please refer to the Preprint: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201708.0050/v1 for details about this important issue, which is also explained further in the book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07645RMZG .

Your Comment>>Space and time aren't treated equally in Minkowski spacetime, as the metric shows.

My Reply= That was a general expression indicating that they are both treated as dimensions, but of course they are not equal.

Your Comment>>The explanation of negative modulus for t_c and of the direction of time aren't convincing.

My Reply= This is well known in hyperbolic numbers.

Your Comment>>Inertial mass doesn't increase with speed. What increases with mass is the old and useless concept of relativistic mass.

My Reply= Effectively it does.

Your Comment>>The problem with the vacuum and the void concepts is not that both are abstract concepts not related to observation, and thus useless, but they have unwelcome properties such as infinite size.

My Reply= It is true that vacuum and void are two extreme theoretical states, but the Duality of Time explains how everything is introduced by mixing these two states in the real and imaginary flow of time.

Your Comment>>It is possible to build a model of nature with "real flow of time" without requiring continuous re-creation of space and matter. What is more, what matter is not created or destroyed is a basic principle of science. No observation invalidates it. No, pair 'creation' doesn't invalidate the principle.

My Reply= The conservation of energy/matter is a correct universal observation, and it is not violated in the Duality of Time Theory. Actually, this observation is also equivalent to causality or also the equivalence principle of GR, and it is rigorously derived in the DoT theory as explained in the above sources. The re-creation referred to here is perfumed in the inner levels of time, so there is not creation or destruction on the outer normal level that we encounter.

Your Comment>>Motion is not discrete, but a result of infinitesimal change. Zeno paradoxes confounded his contemporaries, but they is not longer paradoxes.

My Reply= This is not correct, although physicists and many philosophers like to believe that axiomatic mathematics has habitually dispelled Zeno’s paradoxes. While the new mathematics can calculate where and when the moving Achilles will overtake the Tortoise, it does not really address the central point in Zeno’s infinity argument that is indispensable if we want to solve his paradoxes.

Your Comment>>Ancient expressions as E=mc2 are better forgotten and replaced by modern ones: E0=mc2.

My Reply= Please refer to my prolonged discussion the in the above sources (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201708.0050/v1 , https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07645RMZG) which clearly show that this famous equation cannot be rigorously derived without the Duality of Time postulate. Einstein had already admitted that this relation cannot be derived within the frame of Relativity.

Your Comment>>Checked as well the external references. I find additional meaningless claims as such that photons move from rest to c in zero time in pair production or when emitted or absorbed. Besides the speed of photons being constrained to c due to being massless particles, the author seems to believe that photons are localized and at rest inside emitters before being emitted and then instantaneously accelerated to speed c during the emission process. Of course Nature doesn't behave in this way.

My Reply= Well, I think it is enough to remind you that I have studying and teaching physics for decades. I would not say that photons (themselves) are localized at rest and that they move from zero to c.

I urge you to have a deeper thoughtful look at my essay and my other cited sources, and please try to look this time at the positive side, because it is going to open many doorways to whole new kinds of sciences.

Thank you for your detailed comments and appreciated criticism. I am not surprised at all that the Duality of Time is extremely difficult to be digested and appreciated, even by experienced physicists such as yourself, although it would have been much easier if you look at the positive sides before criticizing the new concept that has never been introduced before. I have been studying physics and philosophy, at the most profound levels, for more than thirty years, and I spent the last decade on this new concept, yet if I leave it away for few days I find it again difficult to accept. Nevertheless, the theory has now become mature enough to be challenged. There is a dedicated website: http://smonad.com, and the Duality of Time book has been published recently and started to make excellent impressions.

Let me briefly answer your comments, especially those which are related to the main concept of the Duality of Time:

Your Comment>>Quantum mechanics is not restricted to discrete spectrum, we have continuous spectra in quantum mechanics. Also fields aren't discrete objects.

My Reply= QM and QFT are based on the quantization of energy and fields.

Your Comment>>The cosmological constant problem is unrelated to the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics. The problem is backed to incorrectly interpretting the lambda as a vaccum term and then using QFT to calculate it. A solution to this problem is available, but the fundamental incompatibilities between relativity and quantum mechanics remain, just as they remain between relativity and classical mechanics.

My Reply= The informativity between Relativity and Classical is well understood, and the correspondence principle is fulfilled here since CM is a special case of GR. This is not the case between QM and GR because they are conceptually incompatible in situations such as entanglement and tunneling. The Duality of Time solves this fundamental problem of nonlocality without breaking the speed of light limit. Moreover, the speed of light constancy and invariance, as well as the other two principles of relativity, are theoretical postulates or axioms, while they follow directly from the DoT postulate, or the re-creation in the inner levels of time.

Your Comment>>LQG community tries to quantize spacetime because it confounds physical gravity with geometrical gravity. There is no reason to quantize spacetime in a physical description of gravity, and so any theory that predicts "discretuum structure of space-time" is very far from a TOE.

My Reply= You have to distinguish between the physical space-time and the abstract one, the latter is that defined by classical mechanics as an absolute reference frame (of space-time continuum or Euclidean space), and the first is introduced by General Relativity which has to be quantized in order for gravity to be quantized. The Duality of Time combines between these two as vacuum and void respectively.

Your Comment>>Spacetime isn't needed to describe physics. Example? Newtonian theory, where spacetime doesn't exist. In fact, the concept of spacetime only arises on a superficial field-like description of Nature.

My Reply= See the previous answer.

Your Comment>>Eq. (2) is dimensionally and mathematically incorrect.

My Reply= This equation is correct, but there is a minor typo in the second line, which is corrected afterwards.

Your Comment>>Things aren't being "created from nothing" in this model, but from pre-existent structures.

My Reply= There are many details here about how to define “nothing” in philosophy. In physical terms, “nothing” is the lack of any objects or motion, which corresponds to a homogeneous flat space. This is the space that split into two time arrows in the Duality of Time Theory.

Your Comment>>Imaginary time concepts helps to simplify some computations but makes other more complex. The trick is used only in the formulas where this simplification happens.

My Reply= Here the outer time is genuinely imaginary, which is the first time in physics and mathematics that imaginary numbers have genuine reality. If imaginary numbers make some problems more complex, this is a minor issue not related to the fundamental realities we are discussing here.

Your Comment>>Time is the evolution parameter that synchronizes correlations. It has to be unique; otherwise this role is lost. So theories of dual time either are incorrect or are redundant. In fact theories of dual time usually differentiate both times according to the evolution criteria, with only one of them playing the role of evolution parameter whereas the other participates in some geometrical spacetime structure. Such theories are redundant; and moreover they have additional difficulties to make direct connection with experiments.

My Reply= Please note that in the Duality of Time Theory, there is only one unique time that is either flowing inwardly to (metaphysically) create space and matter, or outwardly in which the kinetic evolution of matter is observed. The quantization of space is a result of interrupting the inner flow of time, which makes a new dimension of space or direction of time that is the outer time. So time is still fundamental to the extent that everything else is a result of its unique flow and fluctuation between the inner and outer dimensions.

Your Comment>>On the local level the arena for dynamics is the dual structure (r;tau). This structure can then be approximated by (r,ct). Dividing this last expression by c, will produce multiple time coordinates associated to the "time-time frame". However, no one of them is true time tau. Moreover, dividing by c to create a time coordinates doesn't introduce any new physics, since it is simply a change of labels.

My Reply= Dividing by c to introduce the time-time frame, and treating the outer time as hyperbolic, lead to the same Lorentz transformations (when you calculate the complex time or velocity), which is so far nothing new, but equivalent to Minkowski space-time, or the principles of Special Relativity. However, when you apply the same logic to calculate the complex momentum or energy you arrive to the equivalence principle necessary for General Relativity, and also the equivalence between mass and energy (E=mc^2). These principles were introduced by Einstein in his famous elevator experiment but there is not rigorous derivation of this equivalence, as Einstein repeatedly admitted. This was the missing puzzle which the Duality of Time solved. Please refer to the Preprint: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201708.0050/v1 for details about this important issue, which is also explained further in the book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07645RMZG .

Your Comment>>Space and time aren't treated equally in Minkowski spacetime, as the metric shows.

My Reply= That was a general expression indicating that they are both treated as dimensions, but of course they are not equal.

Your Comment>>The explanation of negative modulus for t_c and of the direction of time aren't convincing.

My Reply= This is well known in hyperbolic numbers.

Your Comment>>Inertial mass doesn't increase with speed. What increases with mass is the old and useless concept of relativistic mass.

My Reply= Effectively it does.

Your Comment>>The problem with the vacuum and the void concepts is not that both are abstract concepts not related to observation, and thus useless, but they have unwelcome properties such as infinite size.

My Reply= It is true that vacuum and void are two extreme theoretical states, but the Duality of Time explains how everything is introduced by mixing these two states in the real and imaginary flow of time.

Your Comment>>It is possible to build a model of nature with "real flow of time" without requiring continuous re-creation of space and matter. What is more, what matter is not created or destroyed is a basic principle of science. No observation invalidates it. No, pair 'creation' doesn't invalidate the principle.

My Reply= The conservation of energy/matter is a correct universal observation, and it is not violated in the Duality of Time Theory. Actually, this observation is also equivalent to causality or also the equivalence principle of GR, and it is rigorously derived in the DoT theory as explained in the above sources. The re-creation referred to here is perfumed in the inner levels of time, so there is not creation or destruction on the outer normal level that we encounter.

Your Comment>>Motion is not discrete, but a result of infinitesimal change. Zeno paradoxes confounded his contemporaries, but they is not longer paradoxes.

My Reply= This is not correct, although physicists and many philosophers like to believe that axiomatic mathematics has habitually dispelled Zeno’s paradoxes. While the new mathematics can calculate where and when the moving Achilles will overtake the Tortoise, it does not really address the central point in Zeno’s infinity argument that is indispensable if we want to solve his paradoxes.

Your Comment>>Ancient expressions as E=mc2 are better forgotten and replaced by modern ones: E0=mc2.

My Reply= Please refer to my prolonged discussion the in the above sources (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201708.0050/v1 , https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07645RMZG) which clearly show that this famous equation cannot be rigorously derived without the Duality of Time postulate. Einstein had already admitted that this relation cannot be derived within the frame of Relativity.

Your Comment>>Checked as well the external references. I find additional meaningless claims as such that photons move from rest to c in zero time in pair production or when emitted or absorbed. Besides the speed of photons being constrained to c due to being massless particles, the author seems to believe that photons are localized and at rest inside emitters before being emitted and then instantaneously accelerated to speed c during the emission process. Of course Nature doesn't behave in this way.

My Reply= Well, I think it is enough to remind you that I have studying and teaching physics for decades. I would not say that photons (themselves) are localized at rest and that they move from zero to c.

I urge you to have a deeper thoughtful look at my essay and my other cited sources, and please try to look this time at the positive side, because it is going to open many doorways to whole new kinds of sciences.

Login or create account to post reply or comment.