Search FQXi


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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Dr. Elliot McGucken: on 3/3/17 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote Hello Steve! So sad to hear about Cosmic Ray. :( Hopefully his Soul has...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/3/17 at 12:04pm UTC, wrote :) thanks I am better. Cool to read your works again on FQXi.It is sad...

Dr. Elliot McGucken: on 3/2/17 at 22:23pm UTC, wrote Hello Steve! Cheers! Hope all is cool! Yes! I have been busy writing...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/2/17 at 15:10pm UTC, wrote Hello Dr Elliot :)Happy to see you again on FQXI, Best

Dr. Elliot McGucken: on 3/2/17 at 3:06am UTC, wrote https://www.amazon.com/Light-Time-Dimension-Theory-Foundational-ebook/dp/B01...

Dr. Elliot McGucken: on 2/14/11 at 16:59pm UTC, wrote New paper on the foundational questions asked and answered by MDT! On the...



FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: High Energy Physics [back]
TOPIC: Dr. E's MDT Theory [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 10, 2009 @ 19:02 GMT
Thanks Anthony!

Of course I thank fqxi for the forum and the time and effort--and even the stated intent--but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

I am not "dissatisifed with the process and results" at all. They are what they are--entertaining. It would be like being dissatisfied when a two-headed coin comes up heads.

You write, "In terms of the results, we were pleased to see...

view entire post


attachments: 2_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg, 1_MDT_EINSTEINS_RELATIVTY_SCHRODENGERS_CHARACTERISTIC_TRAIT.pdf

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 11, 2009 @ 14:50 GMT
“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito—-Do not yield to the bad, but always oppose it with courage.” --Virgil

On page 66 of the attached document, please find a list of the fifty or so "foundational questions" MDT both asks and answers.

Long ago, Galileo accounted for the pre-ordained awards papers on string theory, LQG, and timelessnes in describing the character of the...

view entire post


attachments: 1_j.a._wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 13, 2009 @ 14:39 GMT
Hello Cristi,

You write, "Is it much $100,000K + for Lisi? Compared to the investments in ST and even LQG, I would say: “give the man the cash, and give him 4-5 good students (and good surfers) willing to explore this direction”. I mean, we can believe that string theory and quantum gravity are closer to the unification, so they receive much more founding and researchers, but we are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 13, 2009 @ 21:57 GMT
Thanks for all that Michael Sherbon,

Soon this post will be placed under review/edited/censored by anonymous FQXI judges and then it will be deleted by anonymous FQXI members. So enjoy it while you can. And yes, I am saving all these for the book; for while FQXI gets the millions of dollars to bolster antitheory bureaucracies, we get the Truth and new Physics. 'Tis a fair deal, so go...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 15, 2009 @ 16:36 GMT
Thanks Julian!

A great thing about MDT is that it shows that both Einstein's relativity and quantum entanglement derive from a common, deeper source; thusly solving the dilemma posed in the current Scientific American (Feb. 2009) cover story:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong
-about-relativity

Please see the attached paper which shows how MDT's simple...

view entire post


attachments: MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdf, 3_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 15, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
Hello Lawrence,

You write, "I couldn't help but concur with the dx4/ct = ic comment Aguirre made. All this tells us is that everthing is moving at the speed of light! Even while sitting down we are all moving along the 4th coordinate direction at the speed of light, times i = sqrt{-1}. Something I remember from undergraduate study."

Nowhere in any physics text does it state that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 15, 2009 @ 19:00 GMT
Yes Lawrence,

There is but one velocity for all entities through space-time, and that is c.

MDT takes us one step deeper and tell us *why* this is, providing a novel postulate of a fourth expanding dimension and simple equation reflecting this hitherto unsung universal invarinat: dx4/dt=ic. The very same postulate and simple equation provide a *physical* model for quantum...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Mar. 15, 2009 @ 21:38 GMT
Here are collected just some small fraction of Elliot McGucken's writings, providing a forum for their discussion to interested readers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Sherbon wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 00:17 GMT
Dr. E, I was about to post something like this on the forum:

Yessireee, by all means let's make some improvements so Dr. E can be "easily ignored"! Another example of the behavior demonstrated by the "Expert judges".

No wait... heck, we'll just delete his posts now... much easier.

Some deleted quotes from Dr. E, to be repeated:

"Do you think it is in Templeton's interest to associate their brand with inherently corrupt contests and systems which not only hand all the big prizes to their own members for reapporpriated decades-old failed research (the contest said that the research was supposed to be novel), but which also actively castigates and belittles independent Ph.D. physicists, while completely ignoring their novel physical theories and exiling the heroic spirit of Einstein, Maxwell, Faraday, Bohr, and Planck?"

Waiting for some of those deleted posts to reappear...

Lawrence may have missed the critique of Dr. Barbour.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 16:30 GMT
Welcome to our new forum!

And thanks to FQXI/Anthony for this honor!

To celebrate our liberation from the block universe and our newfound free will, everyone is invited to our First Annual "Einstein E Pur Si Muove dx4/dt=ic St. Patrick's Day Dance Party" tomorrow!

Einstein: "We dance for laughter, we dance for tears, we dance for madness, we dance for fears, we dance for...

view entire post


attachments: 1_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdf, 4_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Sherbon wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 18:53 GMT
Filling some gaps from the 14th:

Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 14, 2009 @ 14:59 GMT



Hello Anthony,

Thanks for the dx4/dt=ic reference! I feel we have made great progress today, as you are the first antitheorist insider to ever mention the MDT equation in public (at least in this universe). I hope they do not cut your funding and exile you from the quantum...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Sherbon wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 18:55 GMT
Filling some gaps (2 of 2) from the 14th:

Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 14, 2009 @ 15:42 GMT



Hello Anthony,

While you and the anti-theory FQXI insiders completely ignored MDT's simple postulate and elegant equation for seven+ months, forcing me to repeat myslef over and over, you readily hand top prizes to untestable non-theories.

At...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Duffield wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 19:08 GMT
Testing:

0. Why time? Why time’s arrows and asymmetries?

It's cofounded with motion. There is no arrow, it's an abstraction, like a counting direction. The apparent asymmetry is because negative motion can't exist.

0.1 Why relativity? Why the principle of relativity? What deeper physical reality underlies relativity?

We are made of light.

0.2 Why...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 19:23 GMT
Dr. E,

Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you are saying.The light itself is moving at c as a wave front because the 4th dimension is itself expanding, though the light itself could be considered as stationary at a fixed position along that dimension. I don't get why you say the dimension is expanding and not just that the wave front of the light light moves along the dimension. Is this a significant difference, that I'm just not getting? or just a different way of saying the same thing? Is it because you consider it to be at the boundary of the universe and nothing extends beyond the universe not even subjectively imposed dimensions?

In your model if I understand correctly, the whole of space is expanding along the 4th dimension, as that dimension stretches.However when waves are travelling forward through a medium, the medium itself is not travelling forward. So why is the 4th dimension expanding? It does not know that it must comply with relativity, what makes this happen? Do you propose that this is a result of the big bang and that there is expansion in both 3D space and 4th dimension? That would sound reasonable to most people I should think, but I can not agree.I will not try to convince you otherwise here, since this is your thread. Would be interested to know your reasoning.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 20:26 GMT
Hello Georgina,

Clues regarding the physical reality of the fourth expanding dimension come to us from all realms of physics.

Firstoff, in his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einstein writes x4=ict. This naturally implies dx4/dt=ic.

Remember that Einstein/Minkowski happened upon x4=ict because he started with his two postualtes of relativity. MDT starts with dx4/dt=ic and ends up with Einstein's two postulates of relativity as well as a physical model for time and all its arrows and assymetries, entanglement, nonlocality, and entropy. Einstein stated that we yet needed the "elementary foundations" of relativity, and lord knows that everyone has been trying to unify quantum mechanics and relativity with a common physical model.

You write, "I don't get why you say the dimension is expanding and not just that the wave front of the light light moves along the dimension." Again Einstein's x4=ict implies dx4/dt=ic which shows that the dimension itself is actually moving/exapanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Furthermore an expanding dimension provides us with a *physical* model for nonlocality and entanglement and thus quantum mechanics' probabilistic nature.

My small contribution to physics was to take x4=ict as a literal equation with phjysical meaning.

Einstein created realtivity when he took Maxwell's equations to have literal, physical meaning; and he created quantum mechanics when he took Planck's equation E=hv to have a literal meaning, as even after he came up with it, Planck never quite believed that energy was actually quantized.

When I see an equals sign, such as in x4=ict, I take it to mean something. Otherwise, why would the Creator put it tehre? It's amazing how many of our best and brightest spend entire lifetimes trying to navigate around the simple physical beauty and physical meaning of equations.

More clues for the expanding fourth dimension are discussed in my paper!

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

Hope all this helps!!

Best,

Elliot :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 21:03 GMT
Hello John,

You answer, "1. Why is light’s velocity a constant c? Why relativity's postulates? It isn't constant. Ask Einstein."

The velocity of light is indeed constant for all observers! 'Tis a very postulate of Einstein's relativity!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Duffield wrote on Mar. 17, 2009 @ 07:06 GMT
Dr. E: it's locally measured to be constant, but non-locally it isn't. Yes, when Einstein started out in 1905 with Special Relativity he defined his postulates, but later his view evolved. In 1916 in chapter 22 of Relativity: The Special and General Theory he said this:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position".

People who read this quote assume the word velocity here is a vector quantity, but actually the quote then doesn't make sense, and certainly doesn't allow for the use of mirrors in SR. You're left with Einstein telling you light curves because it changes direction, which is a useless tautology. Check out the translation of speed and velocity into German and you get gschwindigkeit in both cases. He approved the translation, but IMHO meant velocity as in the common usage, as in "high velocity bullet". He meant speed. The speed of light varies.

We define our seconds using the motion of light, so gravitational time dilation as evidenced by the GPS clock adjustment is nothing more than a reduced c in disguise. We always measure the speed of light to be the same because of the evidence of pair production: we are made of light, along with our rods and clocks.

See Dicke's (abandoned) VSL in this paper by Andrew Unzicker: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518

PS: apologies for butting into your thread here. I'm a little unfamiliar with this website.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 17, 2009 @ 13:57 GMT
Thanks John,

Yes--the speed of light varies in gravitational fields, but the local observer always measures it to be c. Light travels slower in stronger gravitational fields, but the local observer will always measure it to be c, as time, as measured on a ticking clock, also runs slower in stronger gravitational fields.

Why is this? Why does light fundamentally slow up in a gravitational field, and why is yet always measured to be c? Why does time slow in gravitaional fields? Why are light and time wedded at a fundamental level?

It is becasue of a more fundamental universal invariant: dx4/dt=ic. The fourth dimension is expanding realtive to the three spatial dimensions or dx4/dt=ic.

Please see the attached document which superimposes this invariant over a 3D space-like continuum that is bent, warped, and curved by mass. You will see how it naturally explains both the slowing of time and slowing of light.

The movement of a clock's hands depends on the emission and propagation of photons. Whether in an unwinding copper clock spring or in an oscillating quartz crystal or osciallating computer circuit, a clock's rate relies on the emission and propagation of photons. All such clocks are fundamentally light clocks, which are streated in the attached paper in the context of MDT.

Photons are but matter that surfs the fourth expanding dimension: dx4/dt=ic. And as the expansion of the fourth dimension is an invariant that is independent of the velocity of the source or clock, the faster an object/clock moves, the slower the period of any clock. Simple algebra and geometry demonstrates this for photons in moving frames of reference--time is slowed equally in light clocks that depend on both transverse and/or lateral motion of photons relative to the inertial frame. And as all clocks are fundamentally light clocks, moving clocks run slow, due to the fact that the light is carried by a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

So it is that nature is "capable of motion" and time because motion and change are fundamentally woven into the fabric of spacetime with dx4/dt=ic--the fourth dimension is epxanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.

All of relativity is derived from MDT, which also liberates us from the block universe while providing a common *physical* model for time and all its arrows and assymetries across all realms, as well as nonlocality and entanglement and Huygens' and Heisenbergs' principles.

dx4/dt=ic (underlying relativity) means the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c.

xp-px = ih (underlying quantum mechanics) means the fourth dimension is expanding in units/wavelengths of the Planck Length.

Note the i in both equations!! Note how the universe's fundamental change is perpendicular to our three spatial dimensions!!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

attachments: 2_MDT_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf, j_a_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 17, 2009 @ 15:59 GMT
Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Although FQXI received millions to further physics, perhaps they will end up making even greater contributions to the realm of anthropology that are even larger than the "giant void" into which they threw forty grand, as Carlos Rovelli stated that physics "needs wrong directions and wasted time and money."

A great opportunity exists for anthropologists...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Duffield wrote on Mar. 18, 2009 @ 00:10 GMT
Doc: you've got it back to front. Light doesn't go slower because of a gravitational field. The gravitational field is because the light goes slower. And the light goes slower because action is balanced by reaction. The action h in E-hf is matched by a reaction which is a gradient in the iompedance of space Z0 = ã(ƒÊ0/ƒÃ0), and of course c = ã(1/ƒÃ0ƒÊ0). It's basically just stress balanced by tension. Like a knot in a rubber sheet, only it's a bulk. I note your comments re motion. We share much common ground. I am the author of RELATIVITY+. I could tell you about the quantum of quantum mechanics, but this is your thread, so I'll button it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Duffield wrote on Mar. 18, 2009 @ 00:14 GMT
Yeuww, where's the edit button? Sorry, the above didn't come out right. That was E=hf and the impedance and the c is all about permittivity and permeability.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 18, 2009 @ 07:59 GMT
Thanks for the reply Dr.E,

I'm not yet convinced that it is the answer.

Einstein and Godel spent their later years consumed by the problem of understanding time and whether or not it was "real".

Why do you suppose that Einstein did not just take his own formula literally, as you have done, and so put an end to the matter?

That's a rhetorical question. I think I already know.

Good luck.

Georgina.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 18, 2009 @ 14:26 GMT
Hello Georgina,

Yes! Einstein and Godel realized that relativity froze us in a block universe! MDT's simple equation dx4/dt=ic liberates us from that block universe while also providing the "elementary foundations" for relativity that Einstein sought! How cool is that? And too, it provides us with a *physical* model for quantum entanglement and nonlocality. And for the first time in...

view entire post


attachments: 2_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdf, 5_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 18, 2009 @ 14:55 GMT
As I knew that MDT would first be violently rejected in our postmodern, antiphysics agae, and then ultimately claimed to be self-evident and obvious by the conscienceless, mere mathematicians, I made sure to keep a track record of its development, posting in immutable usenet groups. While anonymous antitheorists can play around with, delete, and edit my posts (preseting physical potsualtes and...

view entire post


attachments: 3_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdf, 1_j_a_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 18, 2009 @ 22:01 GMT
To Elliot: You never answered my question to you on relativity which was:

You have said several times that MDT agrees 100% with all of relativity. Does this mean that MDT hinges on relativity being 100% correct? If the answer to that is yes - then sorry, but If you remember my essay you know I will have to reject MDT on that basis. I will post this on your blog as well so you can answer there and not here. That way we can adhere to the FQXI rules of not discussing your theory here. Thanks. Oh, and I completely agree with your take about time travel, strings and all of the other "beam me up, Scotty" stuff that physicists are putting in their books to sell to the wanabees. They have become heroes to the stupid and laughing stocks to those who know better. What an empty reward!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 19, 2009 @ 13:52 GMT
Hello Chris,

Yes--MDT fully supports Einstein's relativity as all of relativity may be derived from its simple principle: dx4/dt=ic.

Give me a universe wherein we have four dimensions x1, x2, x3, x4 and the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt=ic, and all of relativity arises.

Relativity has so far passed experimental test, after test, after test; and all theories must conform to experimental reality, unless one is raising FQXI funds for "giant voids" and proof of "imprints of other universes" just beyond our own.

MDT offers a simple, beautiful postulate, equation, and principle--indeed, Einstein's principle of relativity descends from MDT's postulate. And MDT is more succinct than relativity, for from MDT's single postulate and equation comes both of relativity's postulates.

Also from MDT's simple postulate and equation comes a natural *physical* model for time and all its arrows and assymetries, as well as entropy, quantum nonlocality and entanglement, all the dualities--space/time, mass/energy, wave/particle--and both Heisenbergs' and Huygens' principles.

dx4/dt=ic (MDT's equation underlying relativity) suggests that the fourth dimension is expandingh at c.

xp-px = ih (underlying quantum mechanics) suggests that the wavelength of this expansion is Planck's length.

So it is that MDT sets both Planck's constant and the velocity of light, while also maintaining the constancy of the velocity of light by giving rise to all of relativity.

In the attached paper (which I attach yet again so as to demontrate how FQXI members constitently refuse to disucss Scientific American and the MDT theory which unifies Einstein/Entanglement), please see how the latest cover story in Scientfic American is resolved via MDT!!!

Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity. Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates some of our deepest intuitions about the world. It may also undermine Einstein's special theory of relativity. By David Z Albert and Rivka Galchen

--http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-abo
ut-relativity

Both entanglement and relativity walk hand-in-hand in MDT, just as they do in our physical reality. See the attached paper. Finally qm and relativity are unified in our theories and physical philosophies with MDT's simple model.

MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY SOLVES THE STATED DILEMMA IN FEB. 2009’s SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COVER STORY. MDT: UNITING EINSTEIN’S ELEMENTARY FOUNDATIONS OF RELATIVITY & SCHRODENGER’S CHARACTERISTIC TRAIT OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

attachments: 4_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdf, 2_j_a_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 20, 2009 @ 17:01 GMT
Elliot,

I will start by quoting you in your above post:

"Relativity has so far passed experimental test, after test, after test; and all theories must conform to experimental reality"

Actually, that is completely untrue. What has passed many tests is verification of some of Einstein's predictions contained within his theory of relativity. The one I will focus on is relative time since that was the crux of my essay in describing its relation to the "Nature of Time." Einstein predicted (correctly) that relative motion and gravity will both cause time dilation. His explanation for why time dilates however (which he describes in combination in his famous 1905 paper, his 1911 paper on the influence of gravity on light and his 1918 twin paradox article) is not self-consistent and can not be possible. So we can all continue to pat uorselves on the back by refering to experiment after experiment that verifies time dilation - but NO experiment ever has, nor could it possibly now, verify "Einstein's Theory of Relativity." And The fact that Einstein's specific description of why time dilates in those two cases is faulty has profound consequences on how we should be investigating the time question. I need to know if you are even aware of what I am talking about before I can continue. If you understand what I am saying and it turns out that this has no negative impact on your theory, then so be it. If this major flaw in Einstein's thinking brings down some of MDT but a portion of it can still be possible - then it may have some value anyway.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 20, 2009 @ 18:56 GMT
Hello Chris!

Yes--I share your sentiments! It always bothered me that some physicists would insist there is a frame in which a photon experiences time. No. Photons are timeless and ageless. Time depends not just on relative measurements, but upon the absolute reality of the motion of an object.

Yes--MDT provides a physical mechanism for why only the twin in the frame that is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 21, 2009 @ 18:40 GMT
Elliot,

At this point, I don't disagree with you about a photon itslef being ageless. It is possible that I could use photons to measure my time while the photons themselves do not engage in any fundamental behaviors that mark any "time" of their own during their lifetimes. To be honest - I'm not sure. I guess I would have to look closely at what Feynman's probability amplitudes mean for a photon on a physical level before I could commit one way or the other. That's not where Einstein went wrong anyway.

Thank you for the links. I, like you am familiar with Hafele Keating experiment. Unless you have it already - I will have to dig out my Carrol O. Alley paper: Proper Time Experiments - which is one of the more comprehensive accounts of H-K experiment and gravity & velocity's effects on time. I also have numerous articles on muon half lives, falling rockets and of course, modern day GPS technology. They all have one thing in common. They verify Einstein's predictions - but they, in no way, verify Einstein's reasoning for why time is relative in those two cases. If you understand the contradiction in Einstein's relativity - you would see why there is no way that they could.

It's interesting that if you take a sample of scientist's explamnations for why time is relative and why a moving clock that experienced acceleration is running behind one that didn't, you won't even get a standard answer. Some will tell you that the clock descrepancies are explained entirely within the confines of Special Relativity (Taylor & Wheeler, Spacetime Physics and Ronald Lasky, Scientific American 2003).

www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-relativity-theor

just to name a couple.



Meanwhile folks like Max Born, David Mermin and oh yeah - Albert Einstein himself say that the paradox exists due to a misapplication of SR and CANNOT be solved without using GR.

Kinda funny that a theory that is supposedly so iron clad (that its critics are labeled cranks and crackpots) doesn't even have a consensus on what it even is - don't you think? That alone should give one pause. But it usually doesn't and the beat goes on......

So when you say: Yes - relativity is right! - I say: Which one?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 21, 2009 @ 20:23 GMT
Yes Chris--your paper/sentiments should have won a prize! For you are showing how relativity is yet interpreted differently by great minds and its very founder!

You would enjoy the book "Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius" by Hans C. Ohanian! There is a great story in it on how a glaring discrepancy ion Eisntein's work--which everyone took for granted--literally helped...

view entire post


attachments: 1_2_MDT_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 22, 2009 @ 20:43 GMT
Elliot,

First I will elaborate on my bold relativity statements. If you research the references from the Einstein papers listed at the end of my essay - and compare what Einstein says in 1905, 1911, and 1918 - there is no way all of it can be true. Essentially what Einstein does in 1918 to address the paradox issue, is place the traveler in the lower position of a gravitational field during the turnaround portion of the trip so that the symmetry would be broken and the traveling clock would be behind the Earth clock when they reunite to compare times. It seems innocent enough on the surface - especially since it became generally accepted that gravity slows time and the closer you are to the source - the slower you will go. This seemed to fit pictorally without conflict since one could argue that the ship was experiencing for all practical purposes "gravity" during a state of acceleration. Fair enough. But if you examine the birth of the equivalence principle and follow it all the way to the proposed effects of gravity on light (and time) from the effects observed between 2 fixed points in an accelerating frame in space, you will see that Einstein erroneously applies this concept to comparing clock rates between two clocks in frames moving with respect to one another. One might wonder why he chose to resolve the paradox by limiting his description to "gravitational positions" even though it was acceleration? Could it be that he knew that the 2 frames in his resolution didn't match the conditions of his 1 frame in his 1911 paper that outlined the need for time dilation in an accelerating frame to begin with??? That's not for me to judge but if you read everything he wrote after that about relativity - he is mysteriously silent on this issue! I have to go now but more tomorrow. Anyway - this is why I'm interested to see how much of this you are aware of and how it may impact MDT.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 23, 2009 @ 10:31 GMT
Hello dear Eliot and dear Chris,

Eliot ,you say ....Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c.

I like that because it's in relation with my Spherization Theory .

I think personnally the equation is misunderstood about relativity .

The time is not the fourth dimension in fact but three dimensiosn +time constant ,it's totally different .

If we extrapolate with maths this point of vue ,of course we stay in the mathematical imaginary like complex ,quartenions ....

But the reality of our physical laws is foundamental .

The relativity it's that ,we must consider all parameters in relativity and thus with our limits of perception .

There are many paradox but not with time I think ,it's simply a constant of building in complementarity with space ,mass and thus energy ....in correlation with spherical evolution .All centers of interest must be studied to accept a theory I think .Math ..........towards philosophy.

Kinds Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 23, 2009 @ 16:28 GMT
Hello All!

I will be on the road the next couple days, but will look forward to responding more in depth later this week!

Chris--what books might you recommend? That is cool research! Where else have you come close to seeing similar things? Would love to read more about it. Might you have links to those papers of Einstein's? Please do advise. Thanks!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 24, 2009 @ 15:04 GMT
Elliot,

I have pasted in a bunch of references at the bottom. You may already have the first three Einstein papers. If you don't, I think all of them can be found in a Dover book called "The Principle of Relativity."

The fourth, which is the 1918 article, I know is not in there but you can google it and find a translated wiki copy. The last time I looked, there was a spot or two in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 27, 2009 @ 18:39 GMT
Hello Chris!

Thanks for the references. I have some homework. :)

Yes--the funny thing is that the very name relativity suggests that measurements of time and space are all "relative." Thus one twin states that the other's clock is the one going slower and vice versa, and both are right.

This is funny when you think about it. If you want to stay forever young just put a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 27, 2009 @ 22:02 GMT
Hello Chris,

Loved your review of the Ohanian book!

Everyone should read: http://www.cheely.com/BookReview.pdf

Loved the quote, "Ohanian's chapter on the E=mc2 saga provides an eye-opening experience for any who may have become acquainted with the Einstein story through the science entertainment industry."

Yes--so many people just crunch the numbers and never worry...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 28, 2009 @ 17:29 GMT
Elliot,

Thanks for the kind words about my research and my book review. And regarding your travel and slumber schedule - I hope all is well.

You said:

Ergo the clock on the moving spaceship *physically* ran slower. You could actually send him the results of the measurements, and while he will yet argue that your clock was running slower as he is receding from it, he will be able to agree with your setup and experiment--less time elapsed for him in a *physical* manner.

I say: I couldn't agree more! But what you just described is not possible within the framework of Einstein's relativity.

You said:

Now while it is true that the two could disagree as to who is length contracted and whose time is dilated while the inertial frames pass one another, time is going slower in one frame than the other.This is because teh fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, and there is thus an absolute rest and absolut motion, though it is impossible to measure due to the tautological link between space, time, and light.

I say: I don't have the luxury of assuming that. The observance of one, in itself, doesn't verify the other.

In your next post you said:

Take a twin traveling at .999999999999c away from me. He will see my clock ticking slower and I will see his clock ticking slower. Now one of us, in order to get up to that speed, had to have undergone acceleration. And whoever that is will be the one who is truly aging more slowly, not because of the effects only during the acceleration, but because the acceleration increased one's velocity relative to the stationary three spatial dimensions

I say:

Again - I agree with your analysis (except for the part of the reason being a velocity increase relative to the 3 spatial dimensions - I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying I can't possibly commit to that conclusion based on the evidence) But again, your analysis does not agree with Einstein's relativity. Any preferential time dilation during interial travel is in direct conflict with Einstein. Personally, I think this is a good thing. Because, although I haven't meditated deeply on your theory yet- I can say, at least on the surface, it increases the chances of at least some of MDT being possible.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 28, 2009 @ 18:54 GMT
Thanks Chris!

Firstoff, some twitter proofs of MDT (limited to 140 characters)!

SR: photon is stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding @ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic

http://twitter.com/45surf

Yes--you write, "But again, your analysis does not agree with Einstein's relativity. Any preferential time dilation during...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 29, 2009 @ 15:33 GMT
wikipedia.org reports: "Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by about 7.2 ìs per day." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps#Relativity There we have it folks! Every day the "twins paradox" experiment is carried out, and it is shown that the moving clocks *physically* run slower! And finally MDT shows why...

view entire post


attachments: 3_MDT_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf, 5_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 29, 2009 @ 16:43 GMT
RE: ON THE PARADOCIXAL ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & MDT'S RESOLUTION OF THE PARADOX OF THE TWINS PARADOX

Henceforth all physicists who do not agree with MDT ought not use GPS systems.

"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." --Niels Bohr

In his 1905 paper on relativity, Einsetin wrote, "If there are two stationary clocks at point...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 29, 2009 @ 20:39 GMT
Elliot,

Thanks for taking the time to read "the monster" and thank you for posting some of the finer points of my arguement. It seems that what we have in common is our recognition that the general direction mainstream physics has been going in has not been very productive lately. Years ago, I became so disgusted with physicists trying to pile fantasy on top of fiction and sell it as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 29, 2009 @ 21:24 GMT
Hello Chris!

Yes--MDT agrees with all experimental results in quantum mechanics and relativity, while providing a common physical model for phenomena in both realms.

From MDT's simple postulate and equation dx4/dt=ic, all of relativity's maths may be derived, and too, MDT shows there is a frame of absolute rest (the three spatial dimensions) and absolute motion (the fourth expanding dimension. A benefit of MDT is the natural explanation of the GPS satellite's clocks' time dilation--the time on the satellite's clock runs slower by 7000 ns than the earth's clock each and every day. This is because the earth's clock exists closer to the frame of rest defined by the three stationary spatial dimensions. (More on this later in the week!)

Here is another simple proof of MDT's 4th expanding dimension:

a) In order to observe the nature of the fourth dimension, let us examine mass that exists entirely in the fourth dimension. Such a mass would be the photon, which has zero rest mass. A photon's mass exists entirely in the fourth dimension. Now, in its simplest case a photon is described by a nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c through the three spatial dimensions, while remaining stationary in the fourth dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. QED: "Quod Erat Demonstrandum"

The expansion of the fourth dimension naturally distributes locality and fathers time.

Moving Dimensions Theory’s simple postulate, physical model, and equation account for both “relativity’s elementary foundations,” which Einstein stated we yet needed, and Schrödinger’s “characteristic trait” of quantum mechanics—entanglement, while also providing a *physical* model for entropy and time and all its arrows, while also showing why the GPS satellite's clocks' time is dilated while the earth-bound clocks isn't (more on this later in the week--I need to absorb all the references you cited!).

Thanks again, Chris, for highlighting the discrepancies in various prominent physicists' treatment of the twin paradox. Surely it is more important to resolve this than spend foundation monies devising and maintaining crackpot indexes to protect the antitheorists' vacationing far off in multiverses, parallel universes, Aspen, Hawaii, and "giant voids" which represent the "unmistakable imprint of a universe just beyond our own."

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 30, 2009 @ 00:48 GMT
P.S. The link to the paper worked for me!

Twin Paradox Experiment of Transverse Doppler Shift

using Global Positioning System Satellites

Masanori Sato

Honda Electronics Co., Ltd.,

20 Oyamazuka, Oiwa-cho, Toyohashi, Aichi 441-3193, Japan

E-mail: msato@honda-el.co.jp

http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/vc/phy
sics/papers/0502/0502007v2.pdf

If you want me to email it to you, shoot me an email at drelliot@gmail.com .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 30, 2009 @ 04:05 GMT
Hello Chris,

Regarding the fourth dimension, it is simply that which is orthogonal to all three spatial dimensions.

Just as the third dimension is orthogonal to the first two dimensions in the x=x1, y=x2, z=x3 coordinate system, the fourth dimension is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions.

Each new dimension must be orthogonal to all previous dimensions, in order for it to be a dimension.

Einstein and Minkowski wrote x1=x, x2=y, x3=z, x4=ict.

Well look! The x4 is very differnt from x1, x3, and x3! Not only is it orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions, but as t progresses it progresses! None of the other dimensions depend on t! dx4/dt=ic.

No wonder two interacting photons can remain entangled! They are stationary in the fourth dimension whose expansion defines a nonlocality! No wonder a photon, which moves at the vecloity of light, does not move in the fourth dimension, as the ofurth dimension is moving right with it. :) Photons are but matter surfing the fourth expanding dimension.

Talk soon!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


AndyM wrote on Mar. 31, 2009 @ 02:15 GMT
Hi Dr E.,

I'm not a physicist, but I am recently learning special relativity out of curiosity. I came across this forum and read your very interesting theory.

I have some relatively simplistic questions to help understand the theory. You say both that x4 expands and that x4 moves. These don't seem to be the same thing to me. Is x4 an axis, but a apparently a bounded one?

For example, if X4 just *expands* at any one "time" say t=10, it could represent a set of points from 0 to say 10ci (ict where t=10). Then at a later "time" t-11, it could represent points from 0 to 11ci (t=11). Or if it just *moves* then maybe just one point exists 10ci when t=10 (or perhaps a small bounded interval like 10ci +- planck-time, if I understood some of the more advanced parts of your theory). Only that point or interval would exist along the x4 axis and physically in the universe. At a later time, t=11, x4=11ci. And then only that point or interval exists in the universe (and all matter would have to have that value for X4 at that moment). Which one (if any) of these do you mean?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Mar. 31, 2009 @ 03:34 GMT
Hello Andy,

Here is the simplest way to explain MDT's dx4/dt=ic.

Relativity tells us: A photon never ages. A photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum Mechanics tells us: A photon is a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c.

Hence to remain in one place in the fourth dimension means to also expand as a probabilistic wavefront at c. Ergo the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, manifesting itself as a spherically-symmetric, nonlocal wavefront.

This agrees perfectly with both relativity and quantum mechanics, and it is the first theory to provide a *physical* model for both the elementary foundations of Einstein's relativity and Schrodenger's charactertistic trait of quantum mechanics--entanglement, while also weaving change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity.

People asked similar questions early on here:

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

And here are some figures which may help!

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/MDT_PERVADES_NAT
UREIMAGINARY_NUMBERS_IMPLY_PERPENDICULARITY.pdf

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


AndyM wrote on Mar. 31, 2009 @ 23:14 GMT
Hi Dr. E,

Thanks for the links. I looked at /MDT_PERVADES_NATUREIMAGINARY_NUMBERS_IMPLY_PERPENDICULARITY
.pdf

and it is a bit complex. So I tried to simplify the first figure to 2 dimensions, X1 and X4. I am attaching it. I think I get the idea. In my figure, the circumference of the circle is the 4th dimension with radius ict. Only the circumference really exists at any one moment, and it has a thickness related to the Planck time. If a photon leaves the origin at T=0, it will have a probability of being anywhere on the circumference of the circle, but classically you can depict it where I put the small yellow circle, since it has moved entirely in X1, it did not move at all in X4. However, a resting particle x, moves completely in X4 and not X1. Are my diagram and interpretations correct? If so, I will try to use it think some more about MDT.

Andy

attachments: photons2.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 1, 2009 @ 01:38 GMT
Thanks Andy,

Thanks for the figure!

Yes--relativity tells us that a photon remains stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, and yes--quantum mechanics tells us that a photon can be found anywhere upon a nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c. I yet prefer my diagrams as it seems you suddenly create a particle at t=2 out of nothing and place it on the imaginary axis. This is more confusing and misleading than my simple diagrams:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/ MDT_PERVADES_NATUREIMAGINARY_NUMBERS_IMPLY_PERPENDICULARITY.
pdf

A stationary particle in the three spatial dimensions does not move through the fourth dimension so much as the fourth dimension moves/exapnds through it. We interpret this as time flowing for the stationary particle/system, as the transistions in energy that demarcate time are all carried upon the expansion of the fourth dimension.

To illustrate this, consider a light clock in which a photon bounces back and forth between two mirrors separated by one meter. If the light clock is at rest in the three spatial dimensions, it will regsiter 3x10^8 tics/bounces per second. If the light clock starts moving close to the speed of light, it will take far longer from the standpoint of the orginal rest frame, for the photon to reach the receding mirror. Hence it will be seen to tick slower by the stationary light clock from the stationary lab frame. But in its own frame, it will not notice the change, as the velocity of light determines the tic rate, and in its own frame the velocity of light will yet be c as time slows, as time is measured based on how long it takes for the photon to reach the mirror.

The light clock in the context of MDT illustrates the tautological relationship between time and the velocity of light, which Einstein was the first to recognize with, “My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light] velocity.” –Einstein

Please see:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/

2_MDT_MOVING_DIME
NSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF
_CLOCKS.pdf

"Consider a light clock represented by separated by one meter. A photon bounces back and fourth between the mirrors. A photon travels at 3.0 x 108 m/s, so each time a photon hits a mirror, .333 x 10-8 s have elapsed. Suppose we want to measure the velocity of light with this light clock. We set up an experimental apparatus as pictured below, with a photon source and a photon detector separated by one meter. This tautological definition of time and the velocity of light, which rests upon MDT’s fundamental invariant of dx4/dt=ic, is what ensures that c is constant. MDT’s invariance underlies Einstein’s observation, “My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light] velocity.”

attachments: 2_2_MDT_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf, 4_MDT_PERVADES_NATUREIMAGINARY_NUMBERS_IMPLY_PERPENDICULARITY.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


AndyM wrote on Apr. 1, 2009 @ 02:53 GMT
I'm attaching a revised version of the figure I made that separates the particle at rest from the photon. Please feel free to use it in any way you like.

Your figure conveys the spherical nature (or is some kind of 4D sphere) of the expanding 4th dimension. Mine was made to help me understand your idea. Thinking of the circumference of a circle or the surface of a sphere as state of the 4th dimension is a very interesting idea.

I also made my figure in 2Ds so I could compare it more easily to Minkowski diagrams, and try to understand the relationship between Einstein's time and your time.



Before I can appreciate the way your idea fits in with physics such as gravitation, I first have to understand the basic idea.

attachments: photons3.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 1, 2009 @ 03:21 GMT
Thanks Andy,

Try keeping the particle at rest at the orgin. The fourth dimension is expanding way from it while it stays in one place!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 03:29 GMT
Dr. E said "Ergo the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions," I do not think that the expanding dimension idea is a necessary conclusion nor the only possible explanation. (I have explained relevant aspects of my own model elsewhere on this site and therefore do not feel it appropriate to repeat it yet again here.)

I can see why the expanding dimension may seem a good solution if one is trying to fit the new model to expansion of the universe and theory of entropy.These 2 assumptions are not correct, in my opinion.Therefore although the model appears to answer many fundamental questions and is neat,it is still not the best solution,in my opinion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 13:21 GMT
Dear Dr. E,

I agree that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

In Section 6.2 of my book (free partial preview available at http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=1296633), I introduced my version of Variable Coupling Theory.

Combining Variable Coupling Theory with your Expansion concepts may lead to two interesting consequences: 1) Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis was valid in the early Universe, but has since decoupled (becuase time is expanding faster than space), and 2) this may also explain the apparent deceleration and successive acceleratiion of cosmological expansion normally attributed to Dark Energy.

Dear Georgina,

I have read some of your blogs regarding Prime Quaternion Theory. I am not opposed to your theory because I think it could be a component of my 12-dimensional Octonion-Quaternion E12 TOE. Your concepts regarding time echo many of Stephen Hawking's ideas in his book "A Brief History of Time". Certainly, we have several types of time, with at least the following examples: 1) that measured by an atomic clock, 2) that measured by entropic change, and 3) that measured by human experiences. Are these truly three different dimensions? Or are they simply the same dimension, but related via linear, non-linear, or quantum relations? Personally, IF there was another time dimension, I would expect it to involve complex numbers (imaginary time). Also, a true Quaternion is four dimensional, and is not large enough to contain extra time dimensions - if you have manipulated equations to say something different, then those equations defy common sense.

Have Fun!

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 17:27 GMT
Thanks Dr. Ray!

I will check out the book. Is MDT incorporated into it?

I prefer to state that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, instead of time expanding relative to the spatial dimensions. This comes directly from Minkowski & Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on Relativity where he writes x4=ict, implying:

dx4/dt=ic

Time is not the fourth dimension but rather a parameter (oft measured by the ticking seconds on our watches) that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. As our ticking watches rely on the propagation of photons which surf the fourth expanding dimension, time inherits properties of the fourth dimension in relativity, but again, time is not the fourth dimension.

Hello Georgina!

You write, "I do not think that the expanding dimension idea is a necessary conclusion nor the only possible explanation. (I have explained relevant aspects of my own model elsewhere on this site and therefore do not feel it appropriate to repeat it yet again here.)"

Please do share your physical model and physical theory that accounts for both Eisntein's "elementary foundations of relativity" which he stated we yet needed and Shrodenger's "characteristic trait" of quantum mechanics--nonlocality and entanglement. Or at least please provide a link or two. MDT also provides a physical model for time and all its arrows, entropy, all the dualities, quantum nonlocality, Huygens' Principle and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Please do share your theory or link to it. Thanks!

I stand by my logic and can find no more succinct way, nor complete way, to account for the appearance of x4=ict in Einstein's manuscript, the constancy of the velocity of light, entropy, time and all its arrows, quantum nonlocality, and quantum entanglement than MDT.

Here is the simplest way to explain MDT's dx4/dt=ic:

Relativity tells us: A photon never ages. A photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum Mechanics tells us: A photon is a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c.

Hence to remain in one place in the fourth dimension means to also expand as a probabilistic wavefront at c. Ergo the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, manifesting itself as a spherically-symmetric, nonlocal wavefront.

This agrees perfectly with both relativity and quantum mechanics, and it is the first theory to provide a *physical* model for both the elementary foundations of Einstein's relativity and Schrodenger's charactertistic trait of quantum mechanics--entanglement, while also weaving change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity.

twitter proofs of moving dimensions theory!

SR: photon is stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding @ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 18:03 GMT
Dear Dr. E,

Thanks for the explanation. I have been isolated from the main Physics community, and was unaware of MDT until this blog started three weeks ago. It is an interesting concept. Does 4 spatial dimensions plus the "ticking time" effect of the fourth dimension expanding faster than the other three imply an equivalent effect as Kaluza's fifth dimension?

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 18:25 GMT
Hello Dr. Cosmic Ray,

Hello! Yes--Kaluza's fifth diemnsion! I wrote something on that and will add below, but first:

What "main Physics community" have you been isolated from? The one that embraces and exalts parallel universes, tiny, little loops and virbating strings, baby black hole creation and tests of string theory and higher dimensions in the LHC, time machines, the anthropic principle, multiverses, untesable antitheories, violations of Einstein's relativity, bouncing universes, nonconstant constants, mutable laws of physics, a new physics which needs no longer be tested, frozen time, block universes, time's unreality, and giant voids providing "unmistakable evidence" and imprints of universes just beyond the edge of our own? Is this the main physics community of which you speak, which pays non-phds to call Ph.D. physicists crackpots (based on the antitheorist's state-funded crackpot indexes) so as to protect their antitheory regimes and magazine covers?

Haha! Some "main" physics community!

Peter Woit is following their party today:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=1777#comment
s

Is seems Joey Ramone will be playing later tonight!

Joey Ramone says:

April 2, 2009 at 10:29 am

If we can get Paul Davies’ time machine working on time, the Ramones will be headlinig the big bash at the Origins Initiative!

We have a new song :

Rock-rock-rock-rock’n'roll cosmology center!

“Rock N Roll Cosmology Center”

Well I don’t care about string theory

Rock, rock, rock’n'roll high school

‘Cause that’s not where I wanna be

Rock, rock, rock’n'roll high school

I just wanna have some multiverse kicks

I just wanna get some multiverse chicks

Rock, rock, rock, rock, rock’n'roll high school

Well the girls out there knock me out, you know

Rock, rock, rock’n'roll landscape

Cruisin’ around in my time machine GTO

Rock, rock, rock’n'roll high school

I hate all predictions and old principles

Don’t wanna be taught to be no fool

Rock, rock, rock, rock, rock’n'roll high school

Fun fun rock’n'roll cosmology center

Fun fun rock’n'roll cosmology center

Fun fun rock’n'roll cosmology center

Fun fun, oh baby

The album is called “A Cosmology Center in every Multiverse.”

Hope to see you at the conference!

Towards the end of the video, the LHC is turned on and it

1) proves string theory

2) finds seven multiverses

3) locates 17 higher dimensions

4) proves the anthropic principle

5) creates baby black holes which become bouncing universes

6) explodes before any of this can be recorded

Joey

Joey Ramone says:

April 2, 2009 at 10:30 am

P.S. Here is the video for Rock’n'Roll Cosmology Center: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhRALq8IsL4

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 18:36 GMT
RE: MDT & Kaluza Klein Theory:

MDT & Kaluza Klein Theory

The illustrations of Kaluza Klein Theory immediately bring MDT’s fourth expanding dimension to mind. Imagine if every point of the fourth dimension is continually expanding, underlying all manifestations of Huygens' Principle throughout all of nature, as well as Kaluza Klein's extra dimension. A frozen snapshot of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 19:49 GMT
Dear Dr. E,

Hmm... A punk-rocker and a maverick Physicist. I can relate, but in Texas we wore cowboy boots when we slam-danced.

Currently, I am trying to fix Lisi's idea. I am convinced his E8 TOE is flawed. Third-generation fermions should not be in the same SO(16) as bosons. I have defined a new, non-Kac-Moody E12 to contain the TOE. Whereas I am starting with 12 dimensions and trying to collapse down to four, you are trying to fix the four, and thereby imply extra dimensions. I am years away from deriving any sort of Lagranian or dynamics that could reinforce MDT.

You and I have both seen the kissing spheres/ crystalline nature of Hyperspace (your prior blog and Section 7.2 of my book). This same feature ties into the properties of Exceptional Lie Algebras.

Good Luck in your endeavors! MDT is certainly interesting.

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 20:30 GMT
Yeah - I was going to read Lisi's paper. Then I saw that he wrote:

"I think this essay contest was very successful. Personally, as a restricted voter, I found the visible popular vote useful in pre-selecting the essays I read."

And I decided not to based on that frightening comment he made. I know - kind of shallow on my part but oh, well.

Now if Ray has a son - Ray Jr. - would we call him Secondary Cosmic Ray??

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear Chris,

Actually, I am a Jr., but don't usually use it professionally. My HEP publications on Spires are under Ray B. Munroe. One of my NASA publications fell under "Jr.". If you want to call me Secondary Cosmic Ray, that would be OK. Somedays I'm not energetic enough to be a primary. LOL

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 21:24 GMT
Hello Ray!

Yes--cowboy boots are a must.

I always wear them, and I watermark all my photography with a small dx4/dt=ic on the lefthand side. (please see the attached)

Did you know that James Clerk Maxwell invented color photography?

"

Maxwell's many interests included colour.

He analysed the phenomenon of colour perception, which led him to invent the trichromatic process.

Using red, green and blue filters, he produced the first colour photography - of a Scottish tartan ribbon. This process was the forerunner of today's modern colour photography"

--http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/html/maxwell_s_impac
t_.html

Please see some of my self-portraits attached--I had a remote under my jacket.

Shot on a Nikon D300. Out of respect, they are not in color as FQXI does not like us acknowledging foundational physics and physicists. The wisdom of foundational physicists gets in the way of mere mathemetical handwaving, multiverses, bouncing universes, timelessness, and decades-old, foundationless antitheories.

Even though you cannot hear it in the picture, this Ennino Morricone song was playing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwVqAnySjVY

As I read Maxwell's words:

"Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite found their way out of the equations into their minds." –James Clerk Maxwell

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

Happy Friday!!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

attachments: cowboyboots1.jpg, cowboyboots2.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 23:30 GMT
Thank you for your reply. I do appreciate that you must be very busy reading all of the posts on your thread.

I should explain a misunderstanding of the Prime Quaternion model.

Dr. E said "Are these truly three different dimensions? Or are they simply the same dimension, but related via linear, non-linear, or quantum relations? Personally, IF there was another time dimension, I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 6, 2009 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I was the one who misunderstood your ideas, not Dr. E.

You and Dr. E are both proposing ways to fix the fourth dimension. As an outsider to both theories, your theories seem to have general similarities, but specific differences. Does your theory have anything to say about a fifth dimension or hyperspace? Or is it truly a four-dimensional Quaternion?

Dear Dr. E,

A good scientist needs to be able to show what he did mathematically, and explain what he did verbally. Certainly, Lisi can "cram" all of the known particles into a Gosset E8 lattice, but do his sub-symmetries make sense? Can he write down the Feynman diagrams for these new particles and their interactions? Is an eight dimensional space large enough to represent reality? The original hypothesis seems logical, but the details seem lacking.

We wore cowboy boots for two reasons: 1) "When in Rome, do as Romans" (I'm a Floridian, but enjoyed acting Texan when I was in Texas), and 2) it protected our feet when the other drunks started smashing their empty beer bottles on the cement dance floor.

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 6, 2009 @ 18:54 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Ray ,in fact you search the hyperspace to check the micro pression and the temperature ,and that for the fusion of H .In fact dear Ray do you think these hyperspaces can check the pression ,the temperature ....the comportments in this local system .

lol It could be better to go in the sun dynamics .It's there we shall check H and the fusion .

I agree too ,The E8 is not complete ,like others Lie groups it's just an extrapolation in algebras ......,its so far of the wall.

In fact there are many many superimposings of fields and spheres .

About the infinity ,it s a mathematical fractal, like pi or others infinities.The infinity is only mathematical .The lattices and the ultim spheres are specifics ,personnally there isn't infinity there .

If we insert particles in a system ,all must be studied .

Let's take for exemple a collision (LHC,ILC...) it's impossible to be sure because each particle is specific .Thus the division of mass if I can say will be difficult to encircle ,

There is no sense in this optic .In fact we are going to have a impossible system to class....the weak interactions are too complex .And the collision is not the best solution ,in fact I don't understand why this solution .

All must be thought again .You know Ray I think one thing if we divide a system ...like during a collision ...in my theory ,the velocity of rotation of the ultimate spheres system is directly proportional with mass .

Thus when we collide particles ,we divide mass ,thus we extract some spheres and their rotations ...it's there it's important ,perhaps the collision implies an other mass of the sphere which has been extracted.Thus datas are not corrects .When we collide ,we change the system thus the sphere(the particle) (this weak interaction) is under different laws after the collision ....

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 6, 2009 @ 21:58 GMT
Ray,

You pose an interesting question.

5 dimensional hyperspace still contains a time dimension. The model I am proposing says that time is a mental construct and not objective physical reality. This dimension is therefore not time.(Even in the 5D model it is allowed for particles to move either way along the time dimension, so it is not time as we "know" it.)

According to the Prime Quaternion Model the 4th dimension is a scalar spatio-energetic dimension. It is not an additional vector spatio-energetic dimension. Its relationship to the 3 vector dimensions is of the greatest importance.The matter of the objective, material universe within the other 3 dimensions (which can be visualised as a spherical slice of 4D space) moves along the 4th dimension as the sphere of matter in space contracts.

This model therefore now already has 4 spatio-energetic dimensions, so it is not necessary to add another extra spatial dimension (number 5) to the existing 3 vector dimensions. The scalar spatio-energetic dimension provides the additional freedom for sub atomic particles to weave their paths through space beyond visible 3D space.

So yes, it is a quaternion structure, but with lots more space and no time.So very different from the current space-time continuum structure.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 6, 2009 @ 22:00 GMT
RE: The Greatest Puzzles in Physics

1. Nonlocality & Entanglement: Why Nonlocality? Schrodenger called "entanglement" the "characteristic trait" of quantum mechanics. Regarding the double-slit experiment which manifest' QM's nonlocality, Richard Feynman oft stated that all quantum mechanics was represented by the single experiment. What physical reality powers quantum mechanics? From where does its nonlocality and entanglement arise?

2. Why relativity? Why time dilation and length contraction? Why the Minkoswki spacetime metric? Einstein himself said that relativity yet needed its "elementary foundations." What are relativity's elementary foundations? From where does relativity's two postulates arise? Why is the velocity of light c a constant?

3. Entropy: Why entropy? Why the tendency towards disorder?

4. Time's Arrows & Assymetries: Why time? Why does it flow but one way? From where does it arise?

MDT answers all these questions with a simple *physical* model, postulate, and mathemetical equation which weaves change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c: dx4/dt=ic.

PHYSICS' GREATEST PARADOXES:

1. THE EPR PARADOX? How can one measurement influence a distant particle instantaneoulsy? Why the nonlocality in Bell's Inequality?

2. WHY TIME IN GODEL'S BLOCK UNIVERSE/BLOCK TIME? Godel realized that if we lived in a block universe--if time travel were possible and if time were a fourth dimension-- then time as we know it could not exist. Relativity suggested that we live in a block universe, so why doesn time flow? What is special about this instant?

MDT resolves both these paradoxes with a simple *physical* postulate and mathemetical euqation which weave change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity while celebrating a hitherto unsung universal invariant: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, distributing locality and fathering time: dx4/dt=ic.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 7, 2009 @ 01:24 GMT
Dear Dr. E,

It’s good that MDT answers some important questions. In my book, I answered different relevant questions with my theories.

Combining MDT with some of my ideas, I envision a hierarchy of expansion coefficients: 1) one dimension of spatio-time expanding the fastest, 2) three dimensions of spatio-space expanding the second fastest, and 3) multiple (pick a number: 6, 7 or 8?) hyperspace dimensions expanding slower yet.

Dear Spheric Steve,

I was interested in Fusion Physics in the past – although it would be cool if Pamela Mosier-Boss’s research resurrects Cold Fusion. Otherwise, we will need huge lasers or huge Tokamaks. Then it becomes more of an engineering problem than a physics problem. But please don’t confuse my interest in Fusion with my interest in a TOE – I am not trying to “fuse” those two fields together. I am strictly working on Exceptional TOE’s (E8, E10 and E12) at the present.

Dear Georgina,

Why are your books all out of print? Even the Prime Quaternion book dated January of this year is out of print? Dr. E’s MDT seems to fit with my ideas better than your Prime Quaternion model. I’m still not sure if your theory is a sub-set or a special case of one or both of our theories. Keep doing what you’re doing. Every idea counts.

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 7, 2009 @ 03:52 GMT
Ray,

I was not aware that the books were listed as unavailable.Where did you spot it? I will look into the problem. I will be a distribution difficulty rather than the books themselves being out of print. Thank you for letting me know.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 7, 2009 @ 09:13 GMT
Hello to all ,Georgina,Dr cosmic Ray, Dr E ,Chris,

Your extrapolations are very interestings .

Dear Dr cosmic Ray ,sorry ,I am unsderstanding of course .

The TOE is evidently the research of many people .

I think that the ulniversal links is this spherization and these quantum spheres .

Of course the ultim architecture is difficult to extrapolate because the numbers of centers are important in correlation with the cosmological numbers.

I see the quantum architecture like a code for the ultim architecture in balance of our ultim sphere.But I have some questions in my theory .The time evolution and its sequences of architectural spherical system .In resume ,the space between spheres is important because we can't know the real sequence of time space .

I think that the best solution is to insert the numbers of stars and thus we shall have a concrete quantum architecture and its fields .

The numbers of spheres ,fields and volumes more the space between more the velocity of rotation of spheres directly proportional with mass .This system can be compute to have interesting extrapolations I think because the constant and the correlation quantum/cosmo is important thus a specific number and specific volumes of spheres.

This system can be in correlation with all systems ,it's foundamental ,rational and basic I think .

If we superimpose concrete systems ,we are on the good way I think .

Friendly ,

Steve ,the spheric man lol eureka lol.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 7, 2009 @ 12:19 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Amazon says "Out of print - Limited availability". Perhaps the problem is that it is an import, but Amazon has access to many books.

Dear Spheric Steve,

I still like fractal kissing spheres. It is simple and fundamental. Your study of cosmology is getting closer to Len Malinowski. Do not e-mail Len - someone hijacked his e-mail account.

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 7, 2009 @ 17:10 GMT
Hello Dr Cosmic Ray ,

You know Ray ,I prefer when people contacts me .I wait nothing of people you know.But I d like Some collaborations to improve my theory but in my optic of course ,I can accept some extrapolations or works but I insist on one thing ,my research is my research in complementarity of course but it's my theory .I am conscious that many people are going to be jealous and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Apr. 8, 2009 @ 15:35 GMT
Elliot,

I must admit that I have been neglecting entanglement. I am in the process of enhancing my understanding of the whole EPR - Bohm hidden variables - Bell - QM - spooky akshunaata distance thing. I think this is key to understanding how MDT will stand up. In addition to some technical stuff, I am also reading "The Age of Entanglement" by Louisa Gilder. Awesome book. It is the story behind the story. Interesting, entertaining and educational.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Apr. 8, 2009 @ 21:23 GMT
Hi Steve - welcome to the party.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 9, 2009 @ 00:49 GMT
Hello Chris. Yes! I saw that book and started reaidng it. Cool work!

The EPR Paradox embodies both entanglement and nonlocality.

Shrodenger stated that entanglement was quantum mechanics'"characteristic trait."

The double-slit experiment embodies nonlocality. Feynman stated that the double-slit experiment is representitive of all quantum mechanics.

But what causes nonlocality? What causes entanglement?

dx4/dt=ic --> the fourth dimension is expanding realtive to the three spatial dimensions, distributing locality and fathering time.

And what if the same physical model was reponsible for relativity?

Einstein stated that we yet needed relativity's fundamental foundations, as he proposed the principle of relativity without ever providing for its "elementary foundations."

The principle of relativity, as well as its two postulates, naaturally arises from dx4/dt=ic.

Consider a 4D universe wherin the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions or dx4/dt=ic. All of relativity ntaurally arises from this, as well as quantum mechanics' nonlocality.

Over the past seven months, not one, single "best and brightest" FQXI "master of the multiverse millionaire" has refuted any of the most natural, simple and logical proofs of MDT, nor even stopped by to say "hello!":

Simple proofs of MDT:

PROOF#1:

Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c.

Ergo, the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, in a spherically-symmetric manner.

The expansion of the fourth dimension is the source of nonlocality, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made without change.

For the first time in the history of relativity, change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.

PROOF#2:

Einstein and Minkowski wrote x4=ict

Ergo dx4/dt=ic.

PROOF#3:

The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 9, 2009 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Dr. E,

Suppose we have three different rates of expansion? Such as the spatio-time and spatio-space that you have suggested plus a slower rate of expansion for hyperspace? Would this lead to three different measurements for time? According to MDT, what we normally call "time" is an effect caused by the difference between the expansion of spatio-time and spatio-space. According to my estimates based on Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis and "Dark Energy" cosmological observations, spatio-time and spatio-space may have decoupled about 10 Billion Years ago. But we would also have "ticking time" measured between the expansion of spatio-time vs. hyperspace, and that measured between spatio-space vs. hyperspace.

Would these three different types of time lead to three different types of "Scaling" observations? Is there a relationship to Scale Relativity?

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 9, 2009 @ 16:18 GMT
Thanks Dr. Cosmic Ray!

I am trying to keep MDT as simple as possible, for as Einstein stated, "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not moreso."

MDT proposes absolute rest--the three spatial dimensions; and absolute motion--the expansion of the fourth dimension at c. dx4/dt=ic. As light and time are inextricably linked, and as measurement relies on light, it is thus impossible to measure this absolute rest and motion; but to observe photons, which are in absolute motion, having zero rest mass.

From MDT's simple, elegant equation, we immediately get all of relativity, as MDT provides the "elementary foundations" for relativity that Einsetin sought. And too, we get a *physical* model for quantum mechanics' entanglement, probabilistic nature, and nonlocality (its characteristc, definitive traits), as well as entropy and time and all its arrows and assymetries. MDT provides the physical reality underlying Huygens' Principle and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

I am sure there are many more applications for MDT's fundamental, novel, simple concepts of dimensions moving relative to one-another, but before I go there, I am hoping to get the following for MDT:

1) Three Scientific American cover stories on MDT (which would replace stories on bouncing universes, baby black holes, tiny, little vibrating strings and loops which nobody will ever see, and time travel races through mutiverses on Michio Kaku's/Paul Davies' time machines)

2) A Nobel Prize

3) A comment from Lee Smolin/Brian Greene/Ed Witten/some multi-millioanaire (M-theory) antitheorist on MDT's simple, elegant, triumphant beauty.

I imagine #3 will probably be the hardest to get.

Talk soon & thanks!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 9, 2009 @ 17:38 GMT
Dear Dr. E,

I appreciate your more minimalist approach in the tradition of Einstein. I also like KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) and PhD (Push here, Dummy!). Because of that conservative approach, you will get the approval of "mainstream"/ "anti-theorist" Physicists before I do (if either of us does).

Admittedly, for years, I was skeptical of extra dimensions. Extra dimensions make for good science fiction stories, but how do they tie into Spacetime as we know it? You explained how they might tie into MDT.

But now that I am convinced that extra dimensions exist, I must pursue them. Maybe I’m crazy. My friend, “Spherical” Steve Dufourny has tried to convince me that a 12-dimensional E12 TOE is overkill. Is it more appropriate to pursue a simplified “dummied-down” version of Hyperspace such as Kaluza’s fifth dimension, or a “fractal” effective piece of a dimension? Or is it more appropriate to pursue an “overkill” 12-dimensional theory that explains all of the known Hierarchies and Naturalness problems of Modern Physics?

Occam’s razor has been stated as “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. And although the “simplicity” factor that Einstein spoke of is part of that wisdom, there is also a “necessity” factor. I am convinced that Hyperspace is a necessity.

My original conflict with Lisi’s E8 is that it is 8-dimensional. And I am convinced that 8 dimensions are not enough to properly represent Spacetime, the Weak-brane and the Gravity-brane. Without a proper representation of the Gravity-brane, it should be impossible to reproduce Dirac’s Large Number and the present value of the Gravitational Coupling. Without the Gravitational Coupling, how can Lisi call it a TOE? Necessity was omitted for sake of simplicity.

I still like MDT – even if we disagree on the importance of balance between simplicity and necessity.

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 9, 2009 @ 20:38 GMT
Hello All,

There is a wonderful book entitled Entanglement by Amir D. Aczel: Entanglement: The Unlikely Story of How Scientists, Mathematicians, and Philosphers Proved Einstein's Spookiest Theory.

At the beginning of each chapter he has quotes which all remind me of MDT's simple beauty, prfound contribution, novel utility, and deep significance:

"Alas, to wear the mantle of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 00:47 GMT
Dimensions, dimensions everywhere! Call me crazy, but I would like to stick with the three we've got. I rather like them. I think "dimension" is a psychological construct anyway. One could argue that there is only one dimension to anything that physically exists and has depth, but we have constructed an x,y,z coordinate system in order to be more specific regarding an objects physical space or direction of motion. We have three because our magic angle # is 90 degrees. Where are these other dimensions??? Is there truly something invisible that is leaving shadows or imprints in our 3D world? Maybe things are happening in the void - in the land of the invisible and are poping in and out of our 3D world but without existing extra dimensions in order for that to happen. Is there some behavior or particle that exists that can only be explained with extra dimensions? Have we ruled out all possible 3D explanations??? How would we know if we did? I think Bohr started a dangerous trend by thinking that the "enlightened" state itself was accepting that we can't completely understand what really is. Since then we have become too comfortable accepting theories that can't be completely understood and marveling at the fact that we realize that we can't.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 01:36 GMT
Dear Chris,

If you have read the free preview of my book, you would see that I am proceeding under the hypothesis that there are as many dimensions as the rank of the TOE group. My two favorite TOE candidates are E10 and E12 - thus 10 or 12 dimensions.

Is this crazy? Maybe it is. Even if my hypothesis is correct, this one problem will consume much time, and carries no guarantee that my peers will even read it.

A few years ago, I was where you are (except I at least believed in 4 dimensions). I was aware of String Theory, but saw no need for it. But I have since learned how (and why) to incorporate these Hyperspace dimensions into my theories, and I am not willing to go back to a merely 4-D world.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 03:32 GMT
The mathematics of relativity, which has been verified quite extensivesly via experiments, demonstrates that there are four dimensions.

x1=x, x2=y, x3=z, x4=ict

Ergo dx4/dt=ic .

I agree that there is no need for higher dimensions.

Math can be very pretty, but Einstein reminds us that physicists ought pursue *physics,* founded in a physical reality--”Mathematics are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 13:04 GMT
LOL!

Dear Dr. E,

It will be this year's E12 TOE (not E9 - Nine dimensions are not large enough). I am a physicist, not a mathematician - some days I wish I had half of the mathematical ability of a Dirac. I do not claim to be special, but I have presented at least two ideas (specifically, Quantum Statistical Grand Unification, QSGUT, and Hyperflavor-ElectroWeak, but I have more ideas coming...) in my book that I think may have Nobel potential.

I consider myself a "generalist" and not a "specialist". Many of the tenured "specialists" of our industry have advanced the industry a nanometer at a time. Occasionally, one makes a real breakthrough. As a "generalist", I have found applications of Thermodynamics in GUT's, and applications of Solid State Physics in GUT's.

Four dimensional Spacetime is very important, as is the rank-4 Georgi-Glashow SU(5) GUT (4 dimensions = 4 rank). Any believable TOE MUST reduce to these primary elements via symmetry-breaking and dimensional collapse.

I have never seen a fifth dimension. I have a difficult time even imagining some of these concepts in my head. It is easy to question. But a rank-4 Georgi-Glashow SU(5) does not contain Gravity, and therefore, we need a larger rank GUT/ TOE and more dimensions.

I still like MDT as the four-dimensional end-product of a broken multi-dimensional TOE. If you choose to disgree with my ideas that is OK. I will agree to disagree, but I still like MDT. Personally, I would push it to the next logical multi-dimensional step.

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 13:46 GMT
Thanks Dr. Cosmic Ray!

Yes--I actually wrote that Galileo piece back in October. :) Glad you got a kick out of it.

Sure--extra dimensions may come in handy, but after reading WARPED PASSSAGES, studying STRING THEORY, and looking at Lisi's E8, I'm not sure what they are necessary for.

An ironic aspect of all this is because MDT is simple, because it has a simple postulate: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions; because it has a simple equation: dx4/dt=ic; and because both relativity and quantum mechanics arise from this simple, elegant, beauty, it is ignored by all the aging antitheorists who have brought forth no meaningful equations nor postulates during their antitheory reign of terror.

Well, rock on! Talk soon!

And of course I encourage everyone to pursue the truth they see in their souls, as often it is that it is found out there. And I think this is what life is about--following the quest we were born to follow--blazing our own paths.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 18:14 GMT
Hello to all ,

Thanks Chris .

Dear Dr cosmic Ray

you say "But now that I am convinced that extra dimensions exist, I must pursue them. Maybe I’m crazy. My friend, “Spherical” Steve Dufourny has tried to convince me that a 12-dimensional E12 TOE is overkill."

I am going to arrive to convince you I hope .You are not crazy ,me yes .I see spheres everywhere .

Dear Ray

Could you explain me the system without gravity ,I have difficulties to understand because it's foundamental in my model ,the velocity of rotation around themself of spheres implies the mass ,the gravity .....That's why I see a system without gravity for dark matter for exemple where the mass is 0 due a non rotation thus any mass ,an other kind of zero mass is the photon but it's different than dark matter because the linear velocity but the gravity is not there .

Do you imagine an other kind of 0 gravity .The foundamentals aren't there in this logic ,the gravity is essential is the physical universe ,it's the mass ,the energy ,the basic reality .

Dear Ray could you develop a little, d like a small explaination about extradimensions and the zero gravity ,what is in resume the foundamentals of these extrapolations? ,why extradimensions ,what shall be their rules ,how shall be the dynamic .Our physical laws are still logics there in your ideas ?

Is it in correlation with pure imaginaries? ,or with the physical reality...it's there it's difficult for me to understand .I can't imagine extradimensions .Perhaps could you convince me .For exemple these 12 dimensions ,what are these 12 dimensions.

Dear Dr E

Yao say



"Well, rock on! Talk soon!

And of course I encourage everyone to pursue the truth they see in their souls"

It's well said that .Rock on around the clock .

I am going to play guitar a little with this idea .I like so much rock .Do mi sol do sol si ré sol Ré Fa La Ré ...

Friendly

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 19:58 GMT
Dear Steve,

I think that 4 dimensions of Spacetime and the rank-4 Georgi-Glashow SU(5) GUT are so evident because this is the "zero field approximation" of Gravity. If we take the artificial limit as Dirac's Large Number goes to infinity, then the gravitational coupling strength tends towards zero, and becomes negligible. To our great machines such as the LHC, gravity becomes negligible. Thus, any extra-dimensional effects from gravity also seem negligible to our physical senses and our best experiments.

In Section 5.5 of my book, "New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory" (free partial preview available at http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=1296633), I proposed that an SO(5) 10-plet of the tensor components of an 8 dimensional Octonion mix with the SO(4) 6-plet tensor components of a 4 dimensional Quaternion to form an SU(4)-> SO(5,1)-> U(1) Graviton + 5-plet of WIMP-Gravitons + 10-plet of Graviton-WIMP-Graviton Clifford bivectors.

Thus, an effort to better understand the fundamental particle (spin-2 boson) nature of the Graviton leads to a more complicated scenario for Gravity. Gravity now has a weaker "sister force" WIMP-Gravity that is mediated by Weakly-Interacting Massive Intermediate Tensor Bosons.

Because SU(4) and SO(5,1) have a rank of three, this mandates that the Gravity-brane must contain three dimensions. These three dimensions are in addition to the four dimensions of Spacetime. (Remember, Spacetime is the zero-field approximation of Gravity). Thus, we have a minimum of 7 dimensions. Lisi probably just thought I was going to cut him a break and say that an 8-dimensional E8 is OK, but we have not yet analyzed the effect of the Weak force.

If you read Section 7.2 of my book about Hyperflavor-ElectroWeak, you will see that I am proposing a 3-dimensional Hyperflavor-Weak Isospin charge space (Figure 3). Thus effects from the Weak-brane add another 3 dimensions, bringing 7 dimensions up to 10.

You have heard me talking about 12 dimensions more than 10. I would prefer not to talk about these two new special dimensions and their p-brane until my next paper (that is currently 21 pages long). I think 12 dimensions are required to complete the logic that started with the union of an Octonion and a Quaternion.

I am glad to see that your g-mail is back up. It concerns me that your g-mail and Len Malinowski's e-mail were both infiltrated. I wonder where Georgina has been? I hope they did not attack her computer as well. Either I am lucky, have good spy-ware, or they have not yet tried to infiltrate my computer...

Rock On, Friends!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 10:29 GMT
Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,

Thanks for these explainations.

I encircle better the whole of your ideas .

It's a beautiful methodology ,with hypercomplexs and imaginaries of course ,a beautiful superimposing of theories.

When I will can ,I will read your book .Like that I will understand still better .

We could insert a balance between the rationality and imaginaries .

In correlation with spherization ,some systems can be extrapolated with pragmatism I think .

Dear Ray ,have you already seen these numbers,this serie somewhere before .

0 0 1 2 63 56 27 13

and an other link with these numbers in trigonometry

0 2 23.4 24 3.1 26.7 97.9 29.6

What do you think ?

friendly

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 12:41 GMT
Dear Spherical Steve,

I was a little sloppy Friday night after nine hours of work and Good Friday church service. It should have been SO(5) Octonion X SO(4) Quaternion -> U(1) Gravity X SU(4) WIMP-Gravity -> U(1) X SO(5,1) -> U(1) Graviton + 5-plet of WIMP-Gravitons + 10-plet of Graviton-WIMP-Graviton Clifford bivectors, with 16 degrees of freedom at each step of the equation (I omitted U(1) in a couple of places previously, but the U(1) of Gravity is all we observe). This 3-brane "Gravity-brane" contains the SO(5,1) of WIMP-Gravity, but not Gravity.

Also, I said that the Weak-brane contributed another 3 dimensions. Technically, the Weak force is included in the Georgi-Glashow SU(5) GUT and the four dimensions of Spacetime. It is actually a Gravi-Hyperflavor U(1) X SU(3) "union" (somewhat like Lisi's Gravi-Weak) that yields these other 3 dimensions. Hyperflavor is related to the Weak force, therefore I think of this as the "Weak-brane".

But enough of my ideas. This is Dr. E's site...

I do not recognize these series. As you know, I have used the SO(N) and SU(N) series heavily. And I have suggested the Fibonacci series to your study. Mathematicians have defined many series - these might exist without my knowledge.

Your Friend, Ray Munroe (aka Dr. Cosmic Ray)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 15:46 GMT
Hello dr cosmic Ray ,

It's the number of moons in our solar system and the slopes of planets ,simply ,I just say that to see if these numbers are in an other side of our physical reality.

but of course it's just a simple serie .it could be interseting to do the link with the mass ans the volumes and with our star too.

The Fibonacci series are towards infinity .Difficult for my model with limits .

Oh yes sorry Dr E ,really ,I forget always .

Friendly

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 16:28 GMT
A taxonomy is essential .

But we admit it's difficult to insert the ultim system .

So much questions to link all ....Photon,tachyon ,molecule,neutron star,gravitational wave,neutron,spin,model standard,boson,particles,muon,phonom ,maths,electromagnetism,proton,muon,space time,spherization and spheres,atomic nucleus ,higgs boson,QFT,electron...ucd....quantum gravity,foundamental interactions,M theory and strings,fermions ,weak and strong int ,electromagnetism ,....and so many secrets still to discover .

So much questions to unify this splendid universe in evolution towards this ultim sphere.

We shall arrive .

Friendly

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Apr. 14, 2009 @ 18:02 GMT
Hello All!

GREAT NEWS!!!

I have recently hired two grad students to help out with MDT, and they have helped with this presentation:

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=1
1232#post11232

Yes--I guess this is the MDT forum, though I do welcome a bit on other theories too! There are enough electrons to go around for everyone.

To make room for discussing other theories, I would like to invite you all to discuss them here: http://physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=71

Or in any of the other forums there. Or I could create a new forum one there--let me know!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 14, 2009 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Dr. E,

That site

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=11232#post
11232

is somewhat difficult to read. LOL

I have a beach nearby. Should I hire a couple of grad students to help present my theories?

Sorry if I have occupied too much of your blog site...

Sincerely, Ray Munroe (aka Dr. Cosmic Ray)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on May. 5, 2009 @ 17:08 GMT
Regarding the effects of special relativity on GPS systems, has anyone really eplained why it is that only the orbiting satellites' clocks experience time dilation, but not the earth-bound clock? Are not all inertial frames equivalent?

MDT explains this--to be posted soon!

But first, everyone should read Chris Kennedy's awesome paper and discuss! http://www.cheely.com/second_T.pdf

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on May. 9, 2009 @ 13:54 GMT
In the latest Star Trek movie which just hit the theaters, Scotty (the navigator/engineer) who figures out how to teleport people onto spaceships traveling at warp speed explains what allowed him to do it: "I hadn't realized dimensions move!"

I need to see it again to get the correct words; but if you watch it, see if you can catch them!

Good to see MDT making progress in having practical applications!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on May. 11, 2009 @ 14:16 GMT
Elliot,

Thanks for the promo!! Many people have read it but you are one of only a handful of people who truly get it.

I have made some progress in my entanglement research but still have a way to go. I will resume it after I complete something I started writing. I will post the link when I'm done. I am looking forward to reading your observations that you will be posting soon.

I am spending time on entanglement to see where MDT can fit in the whole grand scheme of things. If some or all of MDT will make it into the physics books someday - I thought entanglement would be a good place to see if that is possible. I have a feeling that for MDT, entanglement is where the rubber will meet the road. I wonder if I'm hung up on the word dimension?? I wonder if we could explore the possibility that something is expanding but call it something other than a dimension? I wonder if that will give me a little more psychological freedom to see how your theory fits in with existing evidence?

I saw the Star Trek movie last night. I think Scotty said "space" moving but since there are dimensions in space the two of you would probably be in agreement. I don't know the actor's name but I thought the "Bones" character (the other real McCoy) did a great job too.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on May. 13, 2009 @ 13:06 GMT
Yes! He said that space is moving! And MDT stipulates that the fourth dimension is just like the three spatial dimensions, but it's moving/expanding!

Check out the figures starting around page 38 of the attached document. They account for/explain entanglement and nonlocality via MDT.

Entanglement arises because of the nonlocality of the fourth dimension's expansion:

Simple proofs of MDT:

PROOF#1:

Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c.

Ergo, the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate

of c, in a spherically-symmetric manner.

The expansion of the fourth dimension is the source of nonlocality, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made without change.

For the first time in the history of relativity, change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of

spacetime in MDT.

PROOF#2:

Einstein and Minkowski wrote x4=ict

Ergo dx4/dt=ic.

PROOF#3:

The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c relative to the three spatial

dimensions.

attachments: 5_MDT_PERVADES_NATUREIMAGINARY_NUMBERS_IMPLY_PERPENDICULARITY.pdf, 6_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dr. e (the real mccoy) wrote on May. 13, 2009 @ 13:09 GMT
chris--the thing i love about your paper is how it points out the paradoxes of relativity/gps--paradoxes which different prominent physicists have supposedly resolved in different ways, but they can't all be right! how come this seems to bother nobody?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on May. 17, 2009 @ 20:26 GMT
My guess is that - to most theorists who spend time on strings, wormholes, time machines and other really important stuff - devoting enough time to relativity to realize the inconsistencies would be a step backward. Who's got time for an already proven, 105 year old theory - when there is gold in them thar hills.

"They have eyes, yet they cannot see." (Lord Garth)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on May. 22, 2009 @ 20:15 GMT
Hello!

The new essay contest "What is possible and impossible in physics?" suggests an essay titled:

"What is possible in physics? Physics!"

Or "Physics is possible in physics."

Or "Physics: The New Frontier of Physics!"

Right away the essay, by devoting itself to physics and physical reality, would debunk strings, lqg, wormholes, time machines, multiverses, the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. E :) wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 19:39 GMT
Can anyone find any faults in these proofs of MDT?

Simple, logical proofs of MDT:

MDT PROOF#1: Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon

remains in one place in the fourth dimension. Quantum mechanics tells

us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding

wavefront at the velocity of c. Ergo, the fourth dimension must be

expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c,

in a spherically-symmetric manner. The expansion of the fourth

dimension is the source of nonlocality, entanglement, time and all its

arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all

motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made

without change. For the first time in the history of relativity,

change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.

MDT PROOF#2: Einstein (1912 Man. on Rel.) and Minkowski wrote x4=ict.

Ergo dx4/dt=ic.

MDT PROOF#3: The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial

dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way

to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the

three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c

relative to the three spatial dimensions.

MDT twitter proof (limited to 140 characters): SR: photon is

stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding

@ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic -from [url]

http://twitter.com/45surf[/url]

Can anyone find any faults in these proofs of MDT?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 21:25 GMT
Please see attached paper!

“More intellectual curiosity, versatility and yen for physics than Elliot McGucken’s I have never seen in any senior or graduate student. . . .” –John Archibald Wheeler, Princeton University

On Deriving Relativity & Entanglement from MDT’s Fundamental Physical Reality: dx4/dt=ic

What is Ultimately Possible in Physics? Physics! A Hero’s...

view entire post


attachments: 4_1_2_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium.jpg, 2_On_Deriving_Relativity_Entanglement_from_MDTs_Fundamental_Physical_Reality_small.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 14:56 GMT
Hello Dr E ,

Happy new year ,You begin well this year ,waww .

"cyclotron group on time reversal asymmetry" Could you tell me more please ?

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 26, 2010 @ 10:30 GMT
Hi Dr. Elliot McGucken,

I ask me some questions about this time.

In logic indeed more we go speedly more our clocks run less.

In this line of reasoning about the velocity of light, It is only possible to go in the future, the problem we can't return at home.

About the past we can't go there but we can see all there.Thus how can we interpret our evolution and its deepest understanding.

I read the work of Peter about the supermuminal phenomenology, I think it is an optic perception of our past with its evolutive parameters seen.

But that seems relevant about a kind of sortings about our laws in the physicality but I doubt about these not coherences and reversibilities if we take our actual moment.Furthermore, let's imagine the law of Einstein about the mass and speed, thus when we accelerate we increase our mass ,thus the quantity of energy is correlated thus that seems a little impossible about the necessary energy. On the other side it is a good road for the checking of energy for the humanity in fact, the velocity increase the mass thus the energy.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 25, 2010 @ 11:33 GMT
Hello dear SAI varun REDDY,

Thanks for your answer, my theory is the Theory of Spherisation, a GUT of Rotating Spheres in 3D .....

For the math methods, it is evident that is an important piece for the best extrapolations if and only if the ultim referential and its pure coherent intrinsic laws are harmonized with a big rationality about the serie and its divisibility more the rotation of all around the universal center, the number takes all its sense, this number is finite and the same for 1 quantic system and for our universal spheres inside the universal sphere.

The inconsistency and the incompletness are relevants indeed but we are youngs at the universal scale and thus we have limits.It is not what the problem is not resolvable, not but impossible to resolve.It is totally different and relevant about the difference between the physical universe and its finite system in evolution and on the other side this unknown, behind this walls of perception.

The entropy is bad understood because the utilisations of tools are not harmonized in a sphere and its correct topologic referential.

True or false is not the real question in fact , but true or false about the phyicality is more interesting for a deterministic correlation.

The paradoxs appear when the confusions about the globality and the locality are inserted without realism .

The fact to want to find always contradictions is different than a real doubt about the physicality.

The -, the 0, the infinity in our physicality needs rationality because they doesn't exist simply.

The axiomatization in maths are totally differents than an axiom in physics or natural sciences.There I return about the incompletness due to the evolution, the mass increase, the gravity modulates the rotating spheres and evolves,all that is under the same relativistic laws.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 27, 2010 @ 10:41 GMT
Hello ,

I thank you too.

You know I am young, 34 years old you can say Steve, it is the first time,somebody says sir hihihi

About the maths, it is indeed frustrating.

I don't understand why the sciences community interprets the maths like that.

We can extrapolate but we can't see.But of course for a good extrapolation, the physicality needs a pure respect with the "foundamental laws".

It is the reason I think for all these actual confusions.

It is relevant what you say, I have thought too about these points, the spheres and their perfect balance are essential in my model.The singularity is in this equation with these spheres.

The numbers are fascinatings, the irrationalities evolve towards the rationality in my humble opinion, thus the spherical referential permits the distribution, harmonic.

The infinities, the irrationalities are for me constants of evolution, the best thus is to utilize them and not to calculate them.

It is in fact a real universal question, spiritual.

We are catalyzers inside this physical sphere with incredible tools around us.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 27, 2010 @ 17:17 GMT
Hello ,

I am impressed by your age.You speak about very relevant things.

Very interesting.

The quest of the trut is everywhere, in a flower, a bee, a wind, a brain, a star, a water drop, a photon....and more we search , more we find in fact.

All has a cause and thus effects, but the cause of the mass is intrinsic , that's why I have invented the rotating spheres implying proportionally mass.

The time in this line of reasoning since the begining is a pure duration of building.The evolution takes all its sense where the gravity polarises the light.The velocities and the volumes thus permit the different synchronizations between this gravity and this electro magnetism.The gravity in this case is like a modulator of evolution.

If the space time is linked ,thus it is at the Planck scale I think.

Friendly

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 2, 2010 @ 10:11 GMT
Hi M.SAI VARUN REDDY,

It is very interesting all that.Thanks dear M.SAI VARUN REDDY

It is likeable.

You are on the good road, you desire to find , it is the most important.

The GUT is rational when a theory is correct.All is linked since the begining.

The better is to find the good equations.

About the higgs bosons, it is just a synchronization due to the gravitational coded spherical mass.Thus these bosons are just light with a different velocity of rotation, spinal, orbital more the linearity.

The standard model needs improvement and the synchronization between gravity and electro magnetism is just an evolutive polarisation.

The secret is in the gravity, it is the gravity which modulated the light.The cause is the mass, an internal cause.

Friendly

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 16:59 GMT
New paper on the foundational questions asked and answered by MDT!

On the Emergence of QM, Relativity, Entropy, Time, iħ, and ic from the Foundational, Physical Reality of a Fourth Dimension x4 Expanding with a Discrete (Digital) Wavelength lp at c Relative to Three Continuous (Analog) Spatial Dimensions

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/873

The photon is used to physically probe and trace the discrete, digital, dynamic nature of x4 as the quantum nature of physical measurement is examined, while the foundational papers of Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, et al. are exalted, lead by Einstein’s statement that physics “starts from experience and ends in it.” In its simplest case, a photon oscillates while propagating at c as a probabilistic wave-front expanding through the three spatial dimensions in a spherically-symmetric manner, as demonstrated by the classic double-slit experiment, leading to the natural conclusion that x4, in which the photon remains stationary according to relativity, must thusly be oscillating and propagating at c as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront. Relativity informs us that all of a photon’s motion is through the three spatial dimensions, thusly dictating that the timeless, ageless photon remains stationary in the fourth dimension x4. As electromagnetic radiation (the photon) is quantized, while there is no evidence for quantum gravity, we may conclude that x4 is quantized and digital in nature, while the three spatial dimensions are continuous and analog in nature. qp-pq=iħ (Born & Heisenberg) and x4=ict or dx4/dt=ic (Einstein & Minkowski) are fundamental relationships of QM and relativity. Both equations have differentials on the left and an i on the right, as Bohr noted, suggesting that a foundational change is occurring in a “perpendicular” manner, implying a fourth moving dimension. qp-pq = iħ reflects the discrete increment and quantum action—ħ —that emerges from the dynamic, discretely parceled space-time geometry born by the discrete wavelength of x4’s expansion; while dx4/dt=ic, from which relativity and its postulates derive, sets the velocity of the expansion of x4 to c. A physical model encompassing both Einstein’s “elementary foundations” of relativity and Schrodinger’s “characteristic trait” of QM—entanglement—is presented.

Read them all!

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=t
rue&srcid=0B_8RHWGbDHkRYzY1MDU1MTMtNTIzMi00MzJiLTgwMDMtNTUyZ
DhlYzRhZDhi&hl=en&authkey=CO7ysLYI

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

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/873

Rock on! :)

attachments: 2_j.a.wheeler_recommendation_for_dr._elliot_mcgucken.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 03:06 GMT
https://www.amazon.com/Light-Time-Dimension-Theory-Foundatio
nal-ebook/dp/B01KP8XGQ6/

Light Time Dimension Theory: The Foundational Physics Unifying Einstein's Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: A Simple, Illustrated Introduction to the Physical ... Hero's Odyssey Mythology Physics Book 1)...

view entire post


attachments: 16992073_264469633977281_7860052258686985747_o.jpg, 17021835_264470727310505_6441031296795011938_n.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 15:10 GMT
Hello Dr Elliot :)Happy to see you again on FQXI,

Best

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Elliot McGucken replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 22:23 GMT
Hello Steve!

Cheers! Hope all is cool!

Yes! I have been busy writing several books on LIGHT TIME DIMENSION THEORY which grew largely out of MDT THEORY. :)

Greetings FQXI!

LTD Theory's Postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding at c relative to the three spatial dimensions.: dx4/dt=ic

I would love to pen an article for you based on my four books pertaining to...

view entire post


attachments: 1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2-XL.jpg, popular_science.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 12:04 GMT
:) thanks I am better.

Cool to read your works again on FQXi.It is sad that dr cosmic ray is not there.He was our friend.Peace to his soul.

friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 19:50 GMT
Hello Steve!

So sad to hear about Cosmic Ray. :( Hopefully his Soul has found that eternity we can only dream of. :)

Hope you are doing well.

Would love to send you a free review copy of my new books:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06X93RKSY/ref=serie
s_rw_dp_sw

Email me at astrophysicsmath@gmail.com and I will send you a free review copy. Thanks &...

view entire post


attachments: 1_17021835_264470727310505_6441031296795011938_n.jpg, 1_16992073_264469633977281_7860052258686985747_o.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.