What Makes Matter Move? by Jerome Cantor

Jerome Cantor

Essay Abstract

The fundamental nature of motion remains a central issue in physics, as evidenced by the theoretical dichotomy between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Resolution of this discrepancy may require new approaches to understanding of the mechanics of motion. To this end, we propose a new model of motion that incorporates the properties of a random resistor network. The self-similar nature of such networks is particularly useful in extrapolating force interactions to different levels of scale. By modeling time as a fluid and space as a lattice composed of conducting bonds at the level of the Planck length, a simple equation for mass, time, and motion is derived that provides a novel mechanism for the displacement of matter.

Author Bio

Jerome Cantor is a professor at St John's University and co-founder of CoTherix, a biotech company recently acquired by Actelion Pharmaceuticals.

Download Essay PDF File

[deleted]

Prof. Cantor,

A good essay on the source of quantum source of the force of Motion, you are right to base QM on an electromagnetic footing as it can easily explain its properties and provide a foundation for the more detailed analysis of all physical phenomena.

But I would like to take the idea you present here just a little bit further through the use of Equilateral EM energy quanta [or Tetryonics as outlined in my essay of the same name]

This geometry facilitates the construction of a lattice of idea quantum INDUCTORS [as the quantum source of EM mass, inertia and Energy-momenta] similar to the resistive network you propose but offering a number of additional features and advantages.

Time is a measure of QAM/c^2 [equilateral geometries per spatial co-ordinate system]

Charge is then revealed as equilateral mass-Time with its geometry creating its measured divergent and ElectroMagnetic properties

Linear momentum can then be defined as the square root of these Energy geometries which in turn provides the QM foundation for motion you seek in your essay.

Time itself doesn't flow, as it is a measurement of changes to the energy quanta of a system, it results from the changing QAM geometry of the energy quanta which historically has been viewed as a rotational vector.

Its two 'directions' are really the two geometries formed on either side of the equilateral quantum inductor and result in positive and negative charge geometries.

EM mass can then be modelled as inductive Energy geometries and inertia is the inductive 'resistance' to changes in the energy content of any system made from these geometries, additionally Charge can be modelled as the 'directional flow' of energy within these loops [but it remains a geometric property of the equilateral energy quanta]

Finally, as you point out, while these points seem radical from the current spherical perspective of QM physics they really only change the geometric foundation on which the current Math is based. The Maths remains the same [save any formulation errors], but a new geometry for mass-ENERGY- Matter resultsAttachment #1: Figure_03.04__Charged_mass_geometry_800x600.jpg Attachment #2: 1_Figure_61.03__Time_800x600.jpg

[deleted]

Thank you for reading my essay and taking the time to formulate a thoughtful response.

Jerry Cantor

Vladimir Tamari

Dear Professor Cantor.

I enjoyed reading your essay. With the exception of your concept of 'time flow' and probabilistic resistance at the scale of the 'pores' I like your ideas of using the analogy of electricity coursing through as your electrophoretic motion. Similar ideas have been sadly neglected in the past - Fresnel's 'matter permeable to ether' and Hertz' electric ether have never been fully developed, no thanks to Einstein's banishing the ether by his constant speed of light.

Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves fqxi essay also about motion. Do read it and my detailed comments and attached illustrations there on his page.

With all best wishes,

Vladimir

pjackson

Jerome

What a wonderful novel view. I couldn't help wondering if it was tongue-in-cheek when it came to the colinder universe with time seeping out of the pores, then I compared it to current physics and realised how eminently sensible your is! Is that because everything is relative? Full also marks for originality and free thinking.

My essay is also about time and motion, if more mechanistic - but falsifiable. I hope you'll read it. I can relate to your incompressible time if from a different angle; the 'elasticity' we observe in Doppler shifts is only 'apparent' as wavelengths vary when entering a new medium co-moving with the old over a non compressible time span. The wave-function is then conserved on transformation. (formulae in end notes).

Mine is free thinking in a different way and kinetically, and I hope also fun. please do read and comment.

Many thanks and best of luck.

Peter

THOMAS GARCIA

From: Thomas Garcia,"On The Nature of Time"

Dear Professor Cantor,

I was pleased to read your essay about motion and time because my contest entry is about the time and motion relationship, based on Special Relativity's solution to the "time dilation" paradox. I invite you to read it and if possible, give me your comments on it, pro or con.

As a layperson, I was unable to understand the whole of your essay, which led me to wonder if you may have answered some questions I have about it, but which I may have missed.

I understand that motion is what gives weight to the Big Bang Theory as it explains initial motion due to the impetus of the BB explosion. Modern Physics agrees all objects are in motion because of that and the currently increasing rate of universal expansion, as well as the fact that motion is the result of local interactions of objects.

The classical Newtonian concepts of motion still stand pat and Relativity added additional concepts of motion to our knowledge about motion. I was unaware there are causes of motion still unsolved or that had not yet reached consensus. Of course, that only shows how little I know.

I like your idea that we may think of time as a fluid instead of simply something that is "elastic." I assume you refer to time dilation, so-called, as revealed in SR. To me, there is nothing elastic about time. SR explains there is no time dilation paradox, either, but only an irrefutable fact that time passes at rates inversely proportional to an object's speed. I say it is an irrefutable fact, with the hope someone can prove me wrong or else have to agree with SR and me.

That is my question of your essay: How well does your model reflect SR's contention that I give voice to above? To agree with SR, any model must clearly refute the claim that time is a "fabric" of the universe that is imposed equally on all objects as well as on space. Such a claim contradicts SR as well as my contention that time is a property of matter, but not of space. I will explain, "why not space?" in a later essay. Until we can agree on the above, or show it to be wrong, anything contrary to it is just another exercise in futility, I'm afraid.

[deleted]

Thank you for reading my essay. My main argument is that time is a fluid, and, as such, can flow at varying rates, dependent on matter and velocity, as summed up in the following equation:

MT - MT' = Mv

This is the key equation of my thesis, because it relates time, matter, and velocity. It is consistent with relativity theory, in that timeflow and velocity are interchangeable. Furthermore, the above equation implies the equivalence of acceleration and gravity, because momentum in both the inertial and gravitational frames is dependent on the same process - change in the potential of matter. Thus, my model is consistent with both SR and GR in terms of the effects of motion on time. However, my model posits that time, rather than space, is curved.

Jayakar Joseph

Dear Jerome Cantor,

In string dynamics, the environmental force acting on a matter of tetrahedral-brane in a locality is causal for its internal dynamics. Thus in a Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter model of universe, the frame of reference for dynamics also includes three dimensional volume of tetrahedral-brane that has an inherent clock in it, in that, time dilation is expressional only within the brane itself. In this scenario, as gravity is the tensor product of an eigen-rotational string, this reference frame also specifies gravitational reference for a collective gravitational effect. Thus universe has an inherent dynamics by the collective actions of its constituents; in that any equilibrium state of the universe is not expressional as this model describes a segmental universe with homeomorphism.

Disjunction and conjunction of strings that is expressional along the motion of macroscopic objects needs to be included in the Tribology, in that, number of such actions is proportional to friction.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

[deleted]

Jerome:

Physics focus on "motion" without considering "growth" bothers me. Light has motion. Growth of mass requires time. Cojoined as sphere and tetrahedral activities seems to imply coupled actions.

Perhaps you may consider point of my essay (vote high!, thanks) developed in End notes:

(1) Light "energy" seeks surface area of mass that mediates charge motions while

(2) Gravity is a content of mass phenomena that seeks time to exist by growth.

To Seek Unknown Shores

聽聽 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

And onward, ever onward,

[deleted]

One tenet of my thesis is that time can flow at varying rates. Initially, without mass to impede flow, fluid flux could be many orders of magnitude higher, so mass accumulation could be virtually instantaneous, consistent with rapid expansion of the universe. I am not sure if this addresses your concerns.

Avtar Singh

Dear Jerome

If you keep on drilling deeper and deeper into the root cause of motion or any change from status quo, the ultimate answer you will converge on would be "SPONTANEITY" or degree of freedom (free will) in the universe. Nothing inanimate can move until an animated or conscious entity moves it. A car will sit stationary until a conscious driver drives it at its own free will.

Based on arguments and results presented in my paper - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe", it is shown that the observed universe behavior can be predicted on the basis of spontaneous motion without any external cause.

My paper provides a new fundamental understanding of the Cosmological Constant and relativistic universe expansion based on spontaneous motion. The current paradoxes and inconsistencies are shown to be artifacts of the missing (hidden) physics of the well-known phenomenon of spontaneous decay. A new Gravity Nullification Model for Universe Expansion (GNMUE) is proposed that integrates the missing physics of the spontaneous mass-energy conversion into a simplified form of general relativity. The model predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies and other data. The model provides answers to key fundamental questions and resolves paradoxes among general relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. It also bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories via revealing relativistic understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics. The impact of the new understanding on widely-accepted fundamental assumptions is discussed and a new wholesome perspective on reality is provided.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

[deleted]

Jerome,

I have also examined the concept that everything in the universe (all particles, fields and forces) are made of the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. My model of spacetime is very different from yours, therefore the concepts diverge rather quickly. My spacetime model is a union of the quantum mechanical model of spacetime on the micro scale and general relativity model on the macro scale. The reason for writing is that this has been developed to the point that it not only yields a spacetime based model of particles and forces but there are also predictions. One of these predictions (the subject of my essay) takes a step towards the unification of forces. This model predicts a previously unknown mathematical relationship between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force between two electrically charged particles. For a fundamental set of conditions, the equations for the gravitational force only differ from the electrostatic force by a square term.

THOMAS GARCIA

From Thomas Garcia 08/30/12

Jerome Cantor replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT: "One tenet of my thesis is that time can flow at varying rates. Initially, without mass to impede flow, fluid flux could be many orders of magnitude higher, so mass accumulation could be virtually instantaneous, consistent with rapid expansion of the universe. I am not sure if this addresses your concerns."

Previously, you answered a question I had by saying your paper adheres to the principles of relativity, but your response above seems to conflict with SR's inferred premise that time is a property of matter. Thus, "...without mass to impede flow...." time cannot pass, initially or at any time thereafter.

[deleted]

Time is slowed by the presence of matter, an extreme example being a black hole, where time ceases to flow. However, matter is not an essential component of time. If it were, then time would not flow in a vacuum. In SR, changes in the movement of time are dependent on velocity. In GR, where gravity and inertial motion are made equivalent, mass can affect the movement of time, but only in so far as mass exerts gravitational force. In neither SR nor GR is time an inherent property of matter.

[deleted]

From: Thomas Garcia

Sir, I really aprreciate your responses to my queries, as they help me to better understand your meaning. You contend that time is slowed in the presence of matter, and that time does not exist in a Black Hole. Yet SR clearly indicates that time slows for an object when it increases its speed, but time for that same object passes faster when the object's speed drops. Its time rate cannot depend on just being near matter because that does not explain what causes time to speed up.

I cannot agree time does not pass in a BH, either, because if time is a property of matter, there is plenty of that within al BHs.

You state also that matter is not an essential part of time, because time flows in a vacuum. I do not agree time flows in vacuum, and as a property of matter, it is time which is an essential part of matter. Time accrues only to observable objects inversly proportional to each object's speed.

Again, I disagree changes in time rates depend on velocity. Time rates depend on the speed of individual objects, but not on their direction of travel. Please read my essay where I contend objects moving at the same speed however far apart they may be, will have the same time rate.

In GR, it is not mass that affects time rates directly; gravitation affects an object's speed, and that in turn affects that object's time rate.

I agree neither SR or GR state that time is a property of matter. I wonder why not, as it is a rather obvious conclusion which I drew from the so-called Twin Paradox thought experiment.

[deleted]

Jerome,

I agree the issue of time is not effectively addressed in current theory, but I think there is a very simple explanation. By treating time as a measure from one event to the next in the series, it only serves to re-enforce the sequence as foundational, rather than the dynamic cause of the sequence. The reality is what is present, not the events, which are ephemeral, so it is not the present which moves from past to future, but the changing configuration of what exists, that turns future possibility into current circumstance and then residual past. For example, the earth doesn't travel some narrative fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

This makes time an effect of action, rate of change. Just as temperature is an effect of action, level of activity. Time dilation is due to the fact that different contexts have different effects on the levels of activity, resulting in different rates of change. Specifically, gravity and velocity will slow the atomic activity of mass, because the combined internal quantum activity and external action cannot exceed C, so a clock in such a frame will run slower. A clock in a faster frame doesn't travel into the future faster, in fact, it actually moves into the past faster, because it ages more quickly.

Anton Vrba

Hi 聽Prof. 聽Jerome

I read your essay with interest; I too spent much time thinking what is motion and especially what is momentum.

My conclusion were somewhat different. Once 聽I realised that there is only one mathematical equation that describes motion, and that is the wave equation, I realised that everything breaks down to waves and Maxwell's equations.

Can you describe your idea in terms of Maxwell and wave equations?

Regards

Anton @ 聽( 聽/topic/1458 聽)

[deleted]

I don't see the relationship between wave functions and motion to which you refer. Please explain.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Jerome,

In accordance with the theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter which is a subject of my essay, the meaning of the Planck length was found. It is close to radius of particles (praons) which relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. It is supposed that in neutron as much praons as neutrons in the neutron star. So it is wonderful to hear about a lattice with the size of Planck length.

Sergey Fedosin

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Jerome,

This is an interesting idea. A couple of questions/remarks.

1. What is the relationship between time and causality in your model?

2. On a related note, I wonder if you have read about Sorkin's causal sets program; I believe he uses a version of percolation in his "sequential growth dynamics." However, your ideas seem significantly different than his; in particular, you have an additional time dimension.

3. I wonder if you might also get an explanation for the observed value of the cosmological constant out of this approach.

4. Have you thought about applying the theory of random graph dynamics to your model? In particular, you might have "phase transitions" in your "random resistor network" at critical values of the probability p, and this could have important physical consequences.

Thanks for the interesting read! Take care,

Ben Dribus