Elementary Time Cycles by Donatello Dolce

Hi Ben,

thank you for your comments on my essay. I present a new idea and it is not immediate to figure it out, though eventually it turns out to be extremely intuitive.

The theory indeed works spectacularly. So many mathematical results cannot be a coincidence, they point out a conceptually fascinating description of the quantum word. This description is different from our ordinary description but absolutely compatible.

I will reply to your question but for a more detailed description please refer to the section "comments and outlooks" of arXiv:1110.0316, in particular the one at the end of par.1.

1) Right! I am saying that our flow of time is a relational or effective description at "large scale" of the phases of the elementary time cycles, i.e. of the elementary particles. The vibrations of the space-time dimensions with characteristic periodicity describe through the Planck constant their kinematical state of what de Broglie called elementary parcel of energy and that we today simply call elementary particle. A free particle, i.e. constant energy, has persistence time periodicity. As a pendulum in the vacuum, every elementary particle can be used to define a time axis on which describe events. That is, as in an ordinary calendar or stopwatch, different presents or events are characterized by the combination of elementary time cycles of the elementary particles This is a very familiar description of time flow because in our in everyday life we use the cycles of the Moon and the Earth, or their approximation that we call years, months, weeks, days .... Every particle or observer, depending on its kinematical state, describes a different combination of phases, i.e. a different present (relativistic simultaneity). Interactions, i.e. events in time, are variations of energy and thus of periodic regimes of the elementary clocks, So that we can establish a before and an after and order event in time. The periodicity of the clocks and the energy of the corresponding particle are two faces of the same coin, as we known from ordinary undulatory mechanics. The retarded variations of the energy prescribed by the relativistic framework of the theory means that the periodicity varies with the retarded potentials and this yields a reinterpretation of causality as retarded and local modulation of periodicities. This formulation in which every particle is a reference clocks enforces the local nature of relativistic time, and solves some of the issues related to the problem of time symmetry. Since every particle is a reference clock, every particle can be used to define our external (and artificial) relativistic time axis, so that the inversion of the (arbitrary) helicity of a single clock does not imply to invert all the other clocks. We just invert the axis defined from that clock but the chain of events in time, i.e. the combination of the phases of the other clocks remains the same. Thus we describe the same flow of time. The difference in this case is that the inversion of a single clock corresponds to describe the corresponding antiparticle, i.e. antiparticles are clock with inverted helicity. I could continue for pages to describe the elegance and the naturalness of this description of the flow of time, please read my papers.

2) In undulatory mechanics, according to the wave-particle duality, we represent a particle as a phasor. This implicitly says that the (space-)time coordinates in elementary particles are angular (cyclic) variables. In our atomistic description of nature every system is in fact described in terms of a set of elementary particles, thus every system can be parametrized by a set of cyclic coordinates (whose minimal topology describing the quantization of the energy-momentum is S^1 if we neglect a possible spheric symmetry and the corresponding quantization of the angular momentum).

Thus a system of (non-quantized) free elementary particles is represented for example (considering only time periodicity) by sin[E_1 t_1 / hbar], sin[E_2 t_2 / hbar], sin[E_3 t_3 / hbar], ... , sin[E_n t_n / hbar] where t_1, t_1,... ,t_1 are independent cyclic coordinates of periodicity h/E_1, h/E_2, ... , h/E_n, respectively. Now, every phasor (persistent periodicity) is a reference clock that can be used to define an external time axis t \in R so that t = t_1. But we also can now use the external time t to parametrize every phasor so that the phasor are sin[E_1 t / hbar], sin[E_2 t / hbar], sin[E_3 t / hbar], ... , sin[E_n t / hbar] ... of periodicities h/E_1, h/E_2, ... , h/E_n. Thus, since we can compare the periodicities of the different clocks, every cyclic coordinate can be parametrized by a common coordinate t whose periodicity is related to the periodicity of that particle, and the description can be reduced to a single time. I hope this answers your question - with a little of imagination.

3) and 4) The dimension around the cylinder is the time dimension of an elementary particle (in case of interaction the cylinder should be deformed, see fig.5 to have an idea). In an intrinsically periodic phenomenon, such as that associated to an elementary particle, the evolution from a given initial configuration to a final configuration is described by the interference of all the possible paths with different windings numbers. It is possible to show that this sum over such classical paths associated to a cylindrical geometry reproduces the ordinary Feynman Path Integral. That is, by imposing periodic boundary conditions to a field, the field can self-interfer as it evolves. This means that in the Feynman path integral only the periodic paths are really relevant. Intuitively these are the only paths having positive interference, the others fade out for distructive interference as the anharmonic modes of a vibrating string where only the harmonic modes with frequency n/L remains.

5) This fits perfectly we relativity because the periodicity is relative as time. For instance consider a particle in a Gravitational potential. The energy of such a particle w.r.t. a free one differs as E' = E (1 - G M /r). By means of the Planck constant and undulatory mechanics this means that the periodicity of the internal clock of that particle differs as transformed periodicity T' = T (1 G M / r) w.r,t. a clock outside the gravitational well, that is time runs slower inside the gravitational well, as well-known. The mathematical reason for the consistency with relativity is because GR is about the metric but does not give any prescription about the boundary conditions, For instance, there are many action describing the Einstein equations as equations of motions, but all these actions differ by boundary terms. If we play with boundary conditions consistently with the variational principle it is possible to derive exactly QM from relativity. This is mathematically proven in my papers.

6) and 7) Experimental time resolution is too coarse to detect the internal clock at the time of the fathers of QM (but sufficient to determine the constancy of the speed of light a to give rise to relativity). Today we are reached the resolution in time sufficient to detect the internal clock. The internal clock of the electron has been already observed indirectly in 2008, see ref. [12] Search for the de Broglie Particle Internal Clock by Means of Electron Channeling, P. Catillon, et.al,

Found.Phys.38(2008)659 of my essay. Such an experimental resolution when reached will open a new frontier in physics. it will allow us to control the quantum dice with unimaginable applications. This is a prediction. I have some precise ideas on the possible predictions of the theory that I cannot anticipate here because, as you say, my essay is already too dense. I hope to find soon a job opportunity that will allow my to present this predictions in a scientific form.

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear all,

in these days I have not followed my blog because I have presented my theory at DICE2012 (Spacetime - Matter - Quantum Mechanics from the Planck scale to emergent phenomena), Castiglioncello, Italy, with extremely positive feedback. Tomorrow I will attend the conference Roberto Casalbuoni 70th Birthday.

Dear Hou Yau,

it must be clear the my theory is purely 4D. There are not real extra-dimensions, thought the theory inherits the mathematical beauty of extra dimensional theories 1110.0316. I have worked actively on my theory since 2004 and the first official track, containing all the aspects of the theory, is 2005. The analogies of some ideas (though not fully consistently developed) of your paper should deserve a citation to my works .

I try to answer to your questions

1) A cyclic variable is something that start at a particular point and travel "forward" to the same point after one cycle.

2) A cyclic variable can be represented as a compact variable with periodic boundary conditions in order to identify the ends points.

3) The manifestation of a cyclic time is quantum mechanics in all its aspects, see my papers.

4) In my theory there are no extra dimensions. The analogous of the Kaluza miracle in my theory is the fact that particular local isomorphisms generate gauge interactions as diffeomorphisms generate gravitational interaction in general relativity.

Thank you.

Donatello

Hi Yuri,

I had the pleasure to attend a Wilczek's talk in Vienna last winter. He introduced the description of physics in terms of the mathematics of vibrating string showing the same picture of Pythagorus that I was using publicly since the conferen FPP10, Perth. He also introduced fundamantel aspects of quantum mechanics using the analogy of sound theory citing Reyleigh and depicted the atomic orbitals as the harmonics modes of a spheric membrane times closed orbits.

I was so imprisoned by his talk and simple arguments. His interpretations was so close to mine, that at the end of the talk I decided to speak with him about my talk. We have just spoke for a minute, but I had the impression of open minded and friendly person. It is extremely conforming to know there are still this kind of people in physics.

His is the chief editor of Ann. Phys. and this is why I have decide to publish my paper there.

Regards,

Donatello

Dear all,

it seems to me that this FQXi contest "Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?" has become "Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions we would like to be Wrong?". From the community rating I don't see that the scientific criteria of evaluation have been considered. On the top of the list there are ideas that are pure conjectures. This contest suffers of the same problem of the modern academic debate: who creates more confusion and complicated problems are advantaged with respect to who try to simplify and solve problems, because this allow more people to speculate and to publish paper according to the philosophy (publish or parish). If FQXi wants to support researches on foundational physics, it should apply the scientific criteria rigorously. The objectiveness of the scientific criteria are the best guaranty for an independent researcher who want to "question the foundations" as Galileo has taught.

Best regards,

Donatello