Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Elliot McGucken

Hello all--this is again the real Dr. E speaking.

I would like to grab the opportunity to bring to everybody's attention that the posts in this forum have exceeded in number all the posts of all the other forums combined! It seems we have quite a crowd following here, don't you think so? We're making quite a splash in the scientific community. People, finally, have started paying attention!

dx4/dt = ic

The one and only truth, that answers all questions in physics and the universe. I'll never cease defending the truth, sticking by my guns against all anonymous dwarves, all snarky "physicists" who wish to imprison us in block universes, deprive us of our free will, crucify us, and make our voices hush. They will not succeed! The truth will shine above all, all of you pilgrims, who mock and ridicule the one and only truth: x4 = ict. I'll say it, and I'll keep saying it again and again, until you (the dwarves, not the gentle readers who follow this discussion) get it deep in your little minds: "E pur si muove!"

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

You can stand him up at the gates of hell, but he won't back down. Bruno, Socrates, Galileo, Dante, Einstein, Gamow, and Bohr--they all walked and spoke freely in plain sight, and stuck by their guns when the chips were down.

Did you know that Bohr loved Westerns? Perhaps we ought make a list of Bohr's and Gamow's favorite Westerns. Niels Bohr had a lot to say about the Cowboy Code, and therein we can find insights as to why your behavior ultimately loses both on the cultural and scientific levels:

From: http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-niels-bohr.html

Well, cheers to every gentle soul, celebrating more than 60 posts in this forum, the most popular forum in fqxi!

Best,

Dr. E

(I repeat, this is the real Dr. E -- fqxi can verify the ip address of this post)

Hello all, once again. This is Dr. E here. (fqxi can verify my ip address)

I did not make the above two posts.

The above two posts (supposedly) by Dr. E dated on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 23:09 GMT and on Oct. 7, 2008 @ 07:36 GMT were posted by someone other than me. FQXI could check the ip addresses to see who posted it. I would not be surprised if it is the anonymous coward who keeps engaging in childish, libellious defamations, and general snark, instead of contributing positively to the otherwise great atmosphere and discourses that are evolving here.

If fqxi sent me the offenders' ip address, I would be happy to contact their institution.

Thanks again to fqxi and all the participants for the great forum and opportunity to share ideas in an exalted manner.

Best,

Dr. E

(the real Dr. E, as can be verified by the ip address of this post)

This is the real Dr. E as can be verified by my ip address.

Two more posts were made by someone forging my identity--

The Oct. 7, 2008 @ 07:36 GMT and the Oct. 7, 2008 @ 10:50 GMT posts were made by someone forging the "Dr. E" identity. FQXI can easily tell the difference between the real and fake Dr. E's by looking at the IP addresses. That would be cool if someone could change the fake Dr. E's name to "Fake Dr. E," or simply remove the fake posts.

So there you have it. Ad-hominem attacks, anonimity, forged identities, snarky games, libel, and defamation are the tactics some players in the postmodern physics establishment must employ.

Forging my identity, libel, snark, and slander, cannot stop the fourth dimension from expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions (dx4/dt=ic), just as the Inquisition was unable to stop the earth from revolving about the sun by placing Galileo under house arrest and burning Bruno alive. E pur si muove!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!

The glaring question is, why all the anonimity and negative energy? With all the unanswered questions out there, with all the mysterious beauty that surrounds us, why do some choose ad-hominem attacks, anonimity, forged identities, libel, snark, and defamation, over simple logic, reason, and physics?

Luckily such players are in the minority, but yet, the modern technologies present them with a vehicle by which they may amplify their debauched noise and distract and deform an online community in manners far greater than their name and stature would allow in the real world.

Everyone should get a copy of Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and read the two chapters, "The End of Truth," and "Why The Worst Get on Top."

Again, everyone should check out Peter Woit's blog and Lee Smolin's lecture on this: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=894

Peter blogs,

"Many of the talks are now available on-line here. I've only had time to watch a couple of them, but one that I found worth paying attention to was Lee Smolin's. He covered some of the same issues discussed in his book, including the question of what science is, the ethics of how it is pursued, and the difficulties of encouraging new ideas. The discussion with the audience was also quite fascinating, including an exchange about differences between the American and British academic systems, with a British participant describing his shock at seeing how much the "American academic system is a training in sycophancy".

Peter continues,

"The topic of blogs came up mainly in a section where Smolin discussed the ethical importance of scientists putting their name and reputation behind what they have to say about their science. He characterized anonymous criticism as one of the main reasons for the low signal/noise ratio and nasty environment of the comment sections of many blogs, describing this as far worse than anything he had encountered in his professional career, and something that is giving science a bad name. The theoretical physics group at Harvard in the 1970s was given as an example of about the worst it could get in academia. At the end of the discussion session, Paul Ginsparg took him to task about this, saying that he had been there too and it wasn't that bad. I was there at the same time as both of them, and remember it as a rather unfriendly environment with a quite high arrogance level. But, with faculty like Coleman, Weinberg, Glashow, and postdocs like Witten, the talent and accomplishments of the people involved seemed to justify quite a bit of arrogance.

Ginsparg went on to agree with Smolin about anonymity on blogs, comparing trying to have a serious discussion in such an environment to trying to do so in a Fellini movie, being attacked by dwarves wearing masks." --from http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=894

And I also highly recommend Lee's lecture:

http://pirsa.org/08090035/

"Science as an ethical community

Speaker(s): Lee Smolin

Abstract: I develop the idea that science works because scientists form communities defined by a set of ethical principles which, even if imperfectly applied, tend to lead to progress in our understanding of nature. While these communities have long been international, the combination of the internet with cheap airfare and easy migration of educated people makes scientists into 'global souls', in Pico Iyer's phrase. This opens up new opportunities and also new challenges for the thriving of scientific communities."

Best,

Dr. E

(the real, real Dr. E, as can be verified by the ip address of this post)

Dear Dr. E,

(Actually I don't know which Dr. E I'm writing to now, the "real" or the "forger", no matter how many "real" you put before "Dr E". I've lost track of who's saying what, but I'll try to communicate anyway--with all of you.)

Dr. E, the real one, I don't think you have some exclusive right in using the "Dr. E" as a signature. Am I right? Why, did you buy any rights of use, paid any money for using it? Anybody can sign as "Dr. E", that's not forbidden by any rules. At least, that's my view. So, asking fqxi to change the "fake" one's signature does not make sense. He/she has every right to sign as "Dr. E" as you have.

Take, for example, my signature. Who can guarantee that that's my real name? (As a matter of fact it is, but I'm just trying to make a point here.) I could be another one of those who you call "anonymous cowards," and so on.

And asking fqxi to remove the "fake" posts is not right either. The "forger" is using exactly your language, it seems, so if you make some points in your posts, so does he or she, since your posts are identical in meaning to his/hers. So if his/her posts should be removed on the basis of meaning, so should yours, on the same basis.

Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx/dt=ic, if I may ask?

Kind regards,

Kyle

Thanks Kyle,

I agree a lot of the faking of "Dr. E" above is in good fun, but too, there's been some malice, libel, and defamation from the source. The forger has used my words, but too, they have also interjected their own--imagine if we all did that!

Sticking with our own names, as opposed to appropriating other folks', is more likely to further the quailty of the conversation and thus any ultimate insights into physics. If fqxi wants to remove the fake posts, cool. If not, relabeling the posts as coming from the "fake Dr. E" would seem to be more in line of what they're trying to accomplish in this community. Imagine going to faculty meetings/conferences where some people were wearing masks so that they looked like other people! Then you might hear a Lubos Motl singing the praises of LQG, which would cause confusion, and might stop the earth from turning and even the fourth dimension from expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions! Maybe this happens in the parralel universes people are always talking about, but I have never been to a conference in a parallel universe where scholars wear the masks of people whose ideas they disagree with, as I hear such universes disappear as soon as they are created, or something--they exist just long enough for theoretical physicists to get tenure, I suppose, but not for the experimentalists. :)

Well, I don't know for sure if it *is* you when I see someone using your name in this forum, but I do know it is *not* me when I see someone using *my* name--Dr. E. :) And I'm assuming its you, of course.

You write, "And asking fqxi to remove the "fake" posts is not right either. The "forger" is using exactly your language, it seems, so if you make some points in your posts, so does he or she, since your posts are identical in meaning to his/hers. So if his/her posts should be removed on the basis of meaning, so should yours, on the same basis."

Again, the forger is actually changing some words around. And finally, to make a long story short, would not life be easier if we just posted under our own names?

Thanks for the post--have to run! Will return to answer your final question, "Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx/dt=ic, if I may ask?" in which there's a typo--it's dx4/dt = ic.

Best,

Dr. E :) (The Real McCoy)

Hello Kyle,

I'm back to answer your question from ealrier--you wrote: "Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx4/dt=ic, if I may ask?"

Well, I guess it all goes back to asking "why?"

That deeper "why" about foundational questions, that needs a *physical* answer--an answer I finally found in the *physical* reality MDT presents. I was asking questions like:

*Why* time, I wondered my freshman year at Princeton, when I still believed in the block universe I had read about. Why does it move, and why is now "now?" if relativity makes all nows equal? Why can't I get back to yesterday's now and that 1989 summertime when the days were long?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7T8CRC4TI

Well, MDT answeres this. Alas, they, like the block universe, do not exist. But, we do get free will!

*Why* does time stop at the speed of light? "Because relativity says so," is how physicists are generally trained to respond. Yes, I would answer, but "why? Why are photons ageless, and why do two initially interacting photons remain entangled? What secret, deeper reality of our universe dictates that this must be so?"

I think all the questions started back in the late eighties/early nineties with "Why length contraction?" "Because relativity says so," is how physicists are generally trained to respond. Yes, I would answer, but "*why?*"

And in 1990, I remember standing in P.J. Peebles office, who I had for Quantum Mechanics, asking him how it could be that an ageless photon was ultimately defined by a spherically-symmetric wave-front expanding at c through our three spatial dimensions. This struck me as odd. That same year I worked on projects pertaining to relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (EPR/delayed choice/spooky entanglement) with John Archibald Wheeler. And it struck me that both were ultimately founded upon curiosities that rested upon measurement, and measurement always somehow rests upon light, which is wed to time.

"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

So maybe, maybe, if we could find the primal force that powers light--if we could perceive the deeper reality which renders photons ageless and bestows upon them the unchanging, constant velocity of c--which is both independent of the observer and the source--if we could catch up with a light beam and find out exactly what it was that ordinary matter was surfing on when it became light propagating at c--perhaps we could unify a helluva lot in quantum mechanics, relativity, and statistical mechanics, as MDT does.

What is the *physical* reason for length contraction? What *physical* entities of this universe give rise to length contraction? What deeper *physical* reality dictates that any moving object must be foreshortened in the direction of its motion? What is *physically* going on on a deeper level? There must be some *primary* cause--some universal invariant--for length contraction, time dilation, entropy, entanglement, nonlocality, and time and all its arrows and assymetries, and all the dualities--space/time, mass/energy, and wave/particle.

And then, as time went on, I found I was able to answer a wide array of foundational questions with: "Because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimension: dx4/dt = ic." And I went back to Einstein's original words and found that he had never quite provided a deeper motivation for setting x4 = ict, other than that it works! Well, x4 = ict because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

And this small recognition of a primary universal invariant answered an abundance of questions with a *physical* model. When when diverse questions spanning all realms of physics are answered by a common *physical* model, surely that points the way to unification!

Here are some of the questions that are answered with "because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions."

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

1. Why is light's velocity a constant c?

2. Why is light's velocity c independent of its source?

3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?

4. Why does a photon, which travels at c, not age?

5. Why does a photon's spherically symmetric path define simultaneity--a locality in the fourth dimension?

6. Why are energy and mass equivalent? Why E=mc^2?

7. Why do all of time's arrows point in the same direction--towards dissipation, decoherence, and entropy?

8. Why do so many physicists say time is the fourth dimension, when Einstein never said x4 is time, but instead said x4 = ict?

9. Why can matter can appear as energy or mass?

10. Why is it that when matter appears as pure energy, it propagates at c through space?

11. Why does all matter have particle--local--and wave--nonlocal--properties?

12. Why does all energy have particle--local--and wave--nonlocal--properties?

13. Why is it that when matter appears as stationary mass it propagates at c through the fourth dimension?

14. Why is it that when matter appears as energy, it propagates at c through the three spatial dimensions?

15. Why is it that to move at c through space is to stand still in the fourth dimension?

16. Why is it that to move at c through the fourth dimension is to stand still in space?

17. Why is it that all objects move at but one speed through space-time--c?

18. Why is the universe expanding?

19. Why does radiation expand outwards, but not inwards?

20. Why do we see retarded waves, but not advanced?

21. Why is it that entropy imitates the general motion of all radiation and the universe's expansion--a spherically-symmetric expanding wave?

22. Why is it that Huygens' Principle, which underlies all reality ranging from QED to Feynman's many-paths, to classical physics, state that every point of a spherically-expanding wavefront is in turn a spherically-expanding wavefront?

23. Why are all photons described by a spherically-expanding wavefront propagating at c?

24. Why is it that two initially-interacting photons remain entangled, no matter how far they travel apart?

25. Why is it that two initially-interacting photons remain the exact same age, no matter how far they travel apart?

26. Why is it that Young's double-slit experiments show that both mass and energy have nonlocal wave properties?

27. Why is it that the collapse of the wave function is immediate in the photoelectric effect?

28. Why is there no way for an object to gain velocity without being reduced in length via relativistic length contraction?

29. Why does a photon trace out a null vector through space-time? How can movement across teh universe describe a path of zero length

30. Why does time's arrow point in a definitive direction?

21. Why does entropy increase?

32. Why do moving clocks run slow?

33. Why is time travel into the past impossible?

34. Why does free will exist?

35. Why is it that time is not frozen---how come the block universe does not exist? Why do we have free will?

36. Why does a photon's probabilistic wavefront travel at c?

37. Why is the velocity of quantum entanglement c? Why is it that only initially interacting particles can yet be entangled? Why is it that they must first share a common locality or origin, in order to share an entangled nonlocality when tehy are separated?

38. Why is it that in Schroedinger's equation, the first derivative with respect to the fourth dimension is proportional to the second derivative with the respect to the three spatial dimensions? Any change in position in the fourth expanding dimension is an acceleration in the three spatial dimensions.

39. Why is it that a photon emitted from the sun is red-shifted as it travels away? It's wavelength appears longer as it is measured against space that is less-stretched. A photon inherits the local geometry of the space-time where it was emitted.

40. Why do clocks in gravitational fields run slow?

41. Why are photons red-shifted as they move away from massive objects, and blue-shifted as they move towards them?

42. Why the conservation laws? Why does an object maintain its rotation in space time, unless acted upon by an exterior force?

43. Why is the velocity of every object through space-time c?

44. Why is it that the only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions?

45. Why is it that the only way to remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c relative to the fourth dimension?

46. Why does a photon have zero rest mass, and how does zero rest mass imply the velocity of light? None of the object's matter exists in the three spatial dimensions, but only in the fourth expanding dimension.

47. Why time's arrows?

48. Why time's assymetries?

49. Why entropy?

50. Why is there an i in x4=ict?

51. Why is the velocity of light both independent of the velocity of the source and the velocity of the observer?

52. Why are light, time, and measurement so fundamentally related?

And over the years, MDT has provided a *physical* model that answered these and other questions, unifying diverse fields and physical phenomena in a common, simple principle.

As I said, I think all the questions started back in the late eighties/early nineties with "why length contraction?"

Why does an object become foreshortened in the direction of its motion? Why is it that the only way for something to move is to become shorter in the direction of its motion?

Consider a ruler--it gets shorter as it moves due to length contraction.

But wait, does not a ruler also appear shorter as it rotates? Consider a ruler at the end of a football field, parallel to the field goals. As it rotates, it will appear shorter and shorter to us, standing at the other end of the field. Have you ever noticed this illusion, as a rotating radar on a distant ship looks like something that keeps contracting and expanding? It is hard for us to tell it is rotating--rather we might actually guess that it is actually getting physically shorter and longer.

And I saw that relativistic length contraction is a rotation of sorts. The ruler is rotated out of our three spatial dimensions. But what is it rotated into? It is rotated into the fourth dimension. But why, when this happens, does the ruler always, always propagate in the direction of its foreshortening? Well, it is because the fourth dimension--the dimension which the ruler is being rotated into--is moving. Thus relativistic length contraction is always, always accompanied by a change in velocity.

Then, the - sign in the spacetime metric puzzled me. Why does x4 have a - sign infront of it? What is a photon telling us by defining a null vector? It can cross the universe, and yet not travel at all? Ahaha! For in the fourth dimension, it has not moved, as the fourth dimension has been moving with it, just as a surfer stays with the wave they ride. This brings de Broglies' pilot waves to mind...

Well, that's some of the story behind MDT. An early version of it appeared in my dissertation:

http://elliotmcgucken.com/dissertation.html

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dear Dr. E,

You wrote: "And I'm assuming its you, of course." Yes, it's me, Kyle Gallahue, the physicist--thanks!

I take it as a given that the previous post (Oct 7, 19:00) is by you, the real one. There's something in it that makes me think the forger wouldn't write it. In any case, let's leave forgers and fakers aside, and concentrate on physics, shall we? :-)

I asked how you came up with dx4/dt=ic in my previous post (sorry about the typo), and you answered partially, but not fully to my satisfaction. I thank you for the detailed description of how you felt as a freshman at Princeton, and about your questioning of the deepest roots of physics, but what I wanted to learn was how you came up with the idea that dx4/dt=ic. Just that. How did it occur to you? Did you first come across Einstein's 1912 paper and thought "What if I differentiate x4=ict?" or did you first think that the 4th dimension must be expanding, therefore with some speed dv/dt, which might be the maximum known speed, c, and then came across Einstein's x4=ict, and put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together? Or was it some third possibility that took place?

I would appreciate very much if, in answering the above question, you could confine your post simply to answering the above question. It is really not very nice to have to see again, and again, and yet again, tons of material that you have already written. If you feel you should make this material known, you could consider publishing it at your web site--you do have a web site, as I learned. Otherwise, I'm not sure people have the patience to scroll through amazing loads of text to fish out the new and non-repeating posts. Just friendly advice.

Thanks very much--I'll be waiting for your reply.

Kyle

Hello Kyle,

I just spent two hours revising my post from yesterday, as I felt I could better answer your question! It is far more detailed, but unfortunately it is also longer! Wish I could merely log in and edit the previous answer/post. I have taken your advice and posted it elsewhere, on a blog I set up today:

http://movingdimensionstheory.blogspot.com/

Let me focus on your above question.

I actually had the idea for Moving Dimensions Theory long before I laid eyes on Einstein's 1912 Manuscript a few years back--I bought the 1912 Manuscript in 2005 in Durham, NC, I think. Seeing his manuscript was when it all came together, as I saw that Einstein did not quite tell us *why* x4 = ict. Nor does he provide any justification for x4 = ict, other than that it works!

Einstein treated the principle of relativity as a fundamental law--MDT derives realtivity from a deeper invariance--a hitherto unsung aspect of our universe--the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial diemnsions: dx4/dt=ic.

But years before 2005, I was saying that time is a moving dimension, as shown in the below usenet/forum posts--this of course was an inaccurate version of the present theory, which sees time not as a dimension, but as a parameter that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions--here is a 2001 post (I only agree with parts of this usenet post today, but I agree with the conclusion! "The underlying fabric of all reality, the dimensions themselves, are moving relative to one another." ):

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/39a42b0afbe3dc2e/efdf36bd57015666?hl=en&lnk=st&q=%22Moving+Dimensions%22#efdf36bd57015666

And here is another 2001 post:

http://jollyroger.com/physics/htm/Forum1/HTML/000007.html

(I only agree with parts of this post today, as time is not a dimension)

However, I agree with the final conclusion! "The underlying fabric of all reality, the dimensions themselves, are moving relative to one-another."

I hope these 2001 posts, which echo the appendix of my 1998 physics PH.D. dissertation, help shed light on how MDT came to me.

You can see in those 2001 posts that I did not quite grasp that dx4/dt = ic. But yet, you can tell what I'm getting at. I had not yet realized that time is not the fourth dimension. It had been pounded into our heads over and over again, in all books and popular treatments of relativity, that time is the fourth dimension and we live in a block universe. But I was rebelling against this. Something is different about the coordinate x4--something is moving! Motion and time seem to be embedded in all realms of physical reality, and thus we needed an equation that embedded motion and change in the fundamental fabric of spacetime, which MDT does. I think that treating time as a fourth dimension has lead to vast confusion as to the true physical nature of time, as I say so in the abstract of my paper.

And so I was quite surprised to find that in Einstein's 1912 Manuscript, he never explicity states time is the fourth dimension! Einstein does not state that time is the fourth dimension, but rather he writes x4 = ict, which naturally implies dx4/dt = ic.

The following, which is on the new blog post, is interesting:

http://movingdimensionstheory.blogspot.com/

It is interesting that Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a primary law not deduced from anything else.

Well, I guess I was dumb enough to even ask, "why relativity?"

And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. Change is fundamentally embedded in space-time. And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we had a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement. MDT accounts for the the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing it as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a *physical* basis for E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

On page 37 of "Einstein's Mistakes, The Failings of Human Genius," by Hans Ochanian, we read,

"Einstein acknowledged hid debt to Newton and to Maxwell, but he was not fully aware of the extent of Galileo's fatherhood. In an introduction he wrote for Galileo's celebrated fatherhood. In an introduction he frote for Galileo's celebrated Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he faults Galileo for failing to produce a general mathematical proof. Galileo regarded relativity as an empirical, observational fact, that is, a law of nature, and Einstein's own formulation of the Principle of Relativity three hundred years later imitated Galileo's in treating this principle as a law of nature and not as a mathematical deduction from anything else."

Well, MDT provides a more fundamental law with an equation: dx4/dt = ic, from which relativity is derived in my paper. And an added benefit are all the other entities dx4/dt=ic accounts for with a *physical* model.

What I need to do for you is to dig out my 1998 dissertation and look at the appendix, where I set an early version down formally--I'm pretty sure it's pretty much the same thing as the 2001 posts, and I'm pretty sure I stated, "As physics concerns itself at all levels with changes relative to both space and time, it makes sense that all physics, time, motion, reality, life, and consciousness itself are founded upon a stage which is endowed with intrinsic motion."--I'm pretty sure this exact sentence is in my 1998 dissertation--I will try to dig it up and scan it in!

Hope this helps & thanks for the questions!

I know even my short responses are long. :)

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dear Dr. E,

Well, looks like my initial hunch was right: first you came up with the idea that there is a fourth moving dimension, and then (relatively recently, as you wrote, in 2005) you came across Einstein's 1912 paper. Thanks for your reply, although I'd really appreciate if your replies are not only shorter, but also to the point. What is the relevance to my question of a quotation that you include, which in fact you misquoted, repeating a phrase twice? (Check near Galileo's "fatherhood.") It only makes me tired, unwilling to keep the discussion going on, because I feel I waste my precious time. Sorry about telling you how things are perceived on this side of your blog, but I suppose you'd want to know how things really are, rather than how you'd wish they were. Don't you agree?

If you agree on these discussion terms, then I'd propose to set aside Einstein's (actually Lorenz's) x4=ict, only for a short while, since you see it as a _conclusion_ of your basic premise, and concentrate on your basic premise: "The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the other three dimensions at a constant speed, the speed of light." This, you express as: dx4/dt=ict. You've said the physical meaning of "i" is that the fourth is an "imaginary dimension," whatever that means. Very well. Now, I'd be delighted to know, if you'd care to explain--but in as short and to-the-point way as possible, no quotations please if you don't mind, but in your own words--any of the following four conclusions of the assumption dx4/dt=ict.

1. Why is light's velocity a constant c?

or

2. Why is light's velocity c independent of its source?

or

3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?

or

4. Why does a photon, which travels at c, not age?

Please pick one--but only one--of the above four, and explain how it follows from "The fourth dimension is expanding..." etc. (dx4/dt=ic). I tried hard to find explanations in your essay, but couldn't. Don't direct me to another site, don't quote even yourself, if you don't mind, but explain in your own words, one and only one of the above. I want just one of them because, as you see, I like to focus on things. Not ten things at a time, but one thing at a time. That's my modus operandi, and that's how I'd like our discussion to proceed. I don't care about math at this stage, just a verbal explanation would suffice.

Well, thanks again for your contributions to physics, Dr. E! :-)

Kyle

Thanks for the specific questions, Kyle--it is a great opportunity to better hone MDT and practice communicating its basic tenets.

Please forgive me for answering two of your questions--feel free to read the two different answers at your convenience. :)

2. Why is light's velocity c independent of its source?

No matter how fast an object is moving, when it emits a photon, that photon is carried by the fourth expanding dimension. Now dx4/dt = ic is an invariant of the universe, independent of the motion of an object, so no matter how fast a flashlight is moving when it is turned on, it is the invariant expansion of the fourth dimension (dx4/dt=ic) that carries the photon away from the flashlight, and the invariant expansion does not care about the flashlight's velocity. So it is that c is independent of the velocity of the source!

3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c? All motion in the entire universe arises from the fundamental invariant dx4/dt = ic--the fourth dimension's expansion relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. Did you know, Kyle, that there is but one velocity for every single entity through space-time? That is c. Brian Greene has an excellent treatment of this in The Elegant Universe. Both a book sitting on a table and a photon are moving at c through space-time. So it is that nothing can travel slower than c through space-time either. Components of an object's velocity, may vary across the four dimensions--but the singular net velocity through 4D space-time is always c for all objects and entities. A photon moves at c through the three spatial dimensions (while remaining stationary in the fourth dimension), while a "stationary" object in the lab moves through the fourth dimension at c. This alone is enough to prove that the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. c is the one, unique velocity through space-time because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. A photon surfs this expanding dimension, and thus while it remains stationary in the fourth dimension (ageless and timeless), it moves at c through the three spatial dimensions. A photon cannot go any faster than c, as it has already caught up with the wavefront of the source of all motion in the universe--the expanding fourth dimension.

Basically all your questions can be readily answered by relativity, and as relativity can be derived from MDT, all your questions can be answered by MDT in a more fundamental manner, as MDT presents a *physical* model appealing to the deeper *why*. Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a law of nature not deduced from anything else, and well, I guess I was dumb enough to ask, 'why relativity?' And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. Change is fundamentally embedded in space-time.

You write, "You've said the physical meaning of "i" is that the fourth is an "imaginary dimension," whatever that means."

What do you mean, "whatever that means?" I explain in the above posts and in my paper that Einstein stated thus, and I explain also what it means. As a physicist you should never be content with "whatever that means." :) From an above post: "the only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c relative to the three spatial dimensions. more clues are discussed in the paper, where towards the bottom of page 6, i write: "Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and ict are very different entities. Einstein states, "One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u (which Einstein sometimes writes as x4) is always purely imaginary." It is imaginary because the expansion of the fourth dimension is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions in every direction . . ."

I encourage you to read the above posts that pertain to this further.

Thanks again Kyle,

I think you will be pleased that this post, while probably not short enough, is shorter!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dr. E,

I have to agree with Kyle that you need to edit yourself more effectively and I say this as someone who is in basic agreement with your understanding of time as the relationship between light expanding relative to structure/mass/the three dimensions contracting, as opposed to a dimensional block time.

Look at it this way, rather then presenting your theory as an expanding wave to fill every possible function, think of it as the wave of potentials collapsing into the most concise possible exposition/structure. From the perspective of the structure, light expands, but from the perspective of the light, structure contracts and it's the structure of your argument you want to present.

Dear Dr. E,

You don't like to play by my rules, right? :-)

But, you know what? We must agree to the rules of the game. Otherwise, we can't talk. And I take it that you encourage people to converse with you in this forum. :-)

Look, I have a colleague here whom I try to convince that there's something interesting in what you're saying. But I can't show him the contents of this blog, because the moment I do he'll run away on all four, reasoning there's loads of irrelevant stuff here. And I wouldn't blame him. People in our business want to be concise, focused, accurate, and to the point. We're physicists, Dr. E, not lawyers!

Anyway, I read your explanation of "2. Why is light's velocity c independent of its source?", and I have a further question as a result of your answer, which I'll express in a moment. But first, I must tell you that I skipped your answer to "3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?", feeling that again you're giving me more than one thing at a time. I skipped it consciously, refusing to read it, and only got a glimpse of your last sentence, just above your signature: "I think you will be pleased that this post, while probably not short enough, is shorter!" Yes, shorter, but not short enough. No offense, but you really need to try harder.

So, here is the preamble to my question. You say "when [a flashlight] emits a photon, that photon is carried by the fourth expanding dimension." And "the invariant expansion does not care about the flashlight's velocity." Ergo, the photon's velocity is constant.

Question: What happens to the flashlight? Isn't it also carried by the fourth expanding dimension?

I would really appreciate it if your answer is as short as "No, it's not," or "Yes, it is."

Thanks in advance,

Kyle

Thanks Kyle,

Feel free to have your colleauge contact me at drelliot@gmail.com -- I'll be happy to converse with them and even speak to them or anyone by phone too about MDT.

Also, the MDT paper is about ten pages--it is fairly concice. Has your colleague read it? What did they think?

Einstein stated that everything must be made as simple as possible, but not moreso, as oversimplifying something can lead to greater complexity and confusion.

So your question, "What happens to the flashlight? Isn't it also carried by the fourth expanding dimension?"

In order for a flashlight to move it must somehow find itself rotated into the fourth expanding dimension. So yes, I would argue that ultimately a flashlight gains velocity by existence in the fourth expanding dimension.

Instead of a flashlight, consider a ruler--feel free to place a light at one end of the ruler so that it effectively becomes a flashlight.

Consider the ruler--it gets shorter as it moves due to relativistic length contraction.

But wait, does not a ruler also appear shorter as it rotates? Consider a ruler at the end of a football field, parallel to the field goals. As it rotates, it will appear shorter and shorter to us, as we stand at the other end of the field, looking on. Have you ever noticed this illusion, as a rotating radar on a distant ship looks like something that keeps contracting and expanding? It is hard for us to tell the object is rotating--rather we might actually guess that it is actually getting physically shorter and longer.

These youtube videos almost illustrate this rotating radar effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd6ZxHk2-zA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlsmqWSo8A&feature=related

And I saw that relativistic length contraction is a rotation of sorts. The ruler/flashlight is rotated out of our three spatial dimensions as it gains velocity, so it appears shorter. But what is it rotated into? It is rotated into the fourth dimension as energy and momentum are added to it, as its growing energy component exists in teh ofurth dimension. But why, when this happens, does the ruler always, always propagate in the direction of its foreshortening? Well, it is because the fourth dimension--the dimension which the ruler is being rotated into--is moving! Thus relativistic length contraction is always, always accompanied by a change in velocity.

Rotate something into the fourth dimension, and it gains a translational velocity. Give something a translational velocity, and it will appear foreshortened in our three spatial dimensions. All because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions or dx4/dt = ic.

Then, right after I pondered length contraction, the - sign in the space-time metric puzzled me. Why does x4 have a - sign in-front of it? How is x4 different from the three spatial dimensions? What is a photon telling us by defining a null vector? A photon can cross the universe, and yet not travel at all? Ahaha! For in the fourth dimension, it has not moved, as the fourth dimension has been moving with it, just as a surfer stays with the wave they ride. This brings de Broglies' pilot waves to mind...

So, yes, the ruler gains any motion via the fourth expanding dimension.

Dear Dr. E,

Thanks for your address, I'll give it to my colleague as soon as I feel confident that I can convince him to consider your ideas.

From your response, I'll quote the following (which would suffice, without the rest): "So yes, I would argue that ultimately a flashlight gains velocity by existence in the fourth expanding dimension."

Let's summarize what you're saying (I'm trying to understand):

1. The speed of a photon is constant because "that photon is carried by the fourth expanding dimension", which expands (according to dx4/dt=ic) at the speed of light, "so no matter how fast a flashlight is moving when it is turned on" the "expansion does not care about the flashlight's velocity."

2. "[U]ltimately a flashlight gains velocity by existence in the fourth expanding dimension."

But if the flashlight also exists in the fourth dimension when it moves at speed v, together with the photon that moves at speed c, then how is it that the speed of the photon WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT (I'm not shouting, just that I have no better way of emphasizing a whole phrase) is not c - v?

See what I'm saying? The photon is carried by the 4th dimension, and has speed c relative to us, who don't move relative to the flashlight. But the moving flashlight (at speed v relative to us) is also slightly into the 4th dimension. So, although the photon has speed c relative to us, shouldn't it have speed c-v relative to the flashlight, since they are both in the 4th dimension (the photon fully, the flashlight slightly)? If not, why not? Am I missing something?

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

Kyle

Oops, sorry, please delete the phrase "who don't move relative to the flashlight" from my paragraph above. Of course we move, at speed v.

Waiting for your response,

Kyle.

Hello Kyle,

Thanks for the question--you write, "But if the flashlight also exists in the fourth dimension when it moves at speed v, together with the photon that moves at speed c, then how is it that the speed of the photon WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT (I'm not shouting, just that I have no better way of emphasizing a whole phrase) is not c - v?"

This is a basic relativity question. The addition of velocities in Einstein's relativity are different from the addition of velocities in Galileo's relativity, which you seem to be invoking. An excellent book describing all this is: Spacetime Physics by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler. I highly recommend it!

I could cover the relativistic addition of velocities here, but it would take pages to cover thoroughly, and I would do no better than Taylor & Wheeler.

The *reason* our universe obeys Einstein's relativity is that we reside in a 4D universe wherein the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

Einstein's Relativity may be derived from dx4/dt= ic, which represents a more fundamental invariance of this universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a law of nature not deduced from anything else, and well, I guess I was dumb enough to ask, 'why relativity?' And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we are liberated from the block universe and time and progress in theoretical physics are unfrozen. And change is seen in a most fundamental equation that weaves change into the very fabric of space-time, where it needs to be, as change pervades every realm of physics and all acts of *physical* measurement. And suddenly we have a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum mechanics' nonlocality, entanglement, and wave-particle duality. The fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time. MDT accounts for the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing c as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a physical basis for the dualities--for space/time, wave/matter, and energy/mass or E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

Well, I would call all of this a massive unification--all based on a simple *physical* model and equation. I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg of everything implied by this new physical model--this hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic.

Please let me know if you get your hands on Taylor & Wheeler! I lent one of my copies out, but if it comes back, I would be happy to send it your way.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Dear Elliot (if you don't mind),

Oh, but I thought your claim is that special relativity _follows_ from your assumption that there is a fourth dimension that expands at the speed of light (actually at a speed of ic). What you wrote in your last answer amounts to _assuming_ that relativity holds. I thought you were about to show why the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source, which is an _axiom_ in relativity, and leads to practically everything else in relativity. You wanted to prove it. So you can't assume that which you want to prove, am I missing something?

That's why I used Galilean kinematics, because I can't assume the Einsteinian one, since the latter is what we want to derive.

Note please, I've read your essay, but didn't see the derivation of special relativity anywhere. Can you help me to see how you derive it, please?

By the way, let's agree on what exactly the fundamental claim that you make is, so we're sure we discuss having the same assumptions in our minds, OK? When you say that the fourth dimension expands at a speed of ic, my understanding is that the other three dimensions of space do _not_ expand along as well, am I right? Expansion happens only along the 4th dimension, correct?

Thanks as always,

Kyle

PS: I feel no need to review elementary relativity concepts, I think my memory is pretty good on the subject. ;-)

"The main purpose of science is simplicity, and as we understand more things, everything is becoming simpler."

--Edward Teller

Consider a 4D universe (x1, x2, x3, x4) in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity.

It really is this simple. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" --Albert Einstein

"Physics is, hopefully, simple. Physicists are not."

--Edward Teller

Have you gotten your hands on Einstein's 1912 Manuscript of Relativity? It sometimes seems that you have not read it. I would encourage you to read Einsetin's 1912 Manuscript! I am taking Galileo's advice here in recommending this, "You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself." --Galileo Galilei

""In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

--Galileo Galilei

Read my paper and Einstein's 1912 Manuscipt of Relativity and you will see that it really is that simple--relativity rests upon the fundamental invariance of this universe: dx4/dt = ic: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, distributing locality and fathering time.

"The only real valuable thing is intuition." --Albert Einstein. And intuition is from where MDT came over ten years back. I will be scanning in the pages of the appendix of my 1998 dissertation on this! "Multiple unit artificial retina chipset to aid the visually impaired and enhanced holed-emitter CMOS phototransistors"

"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler."--Einstein. MDT provides a physical model that unifies diverse physical phenomena.

Consider a 4D universe in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity. And not only does Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) give us all of relativity, but it also liberates us from the block universe and unfreezes time (as well as progress in theoretical physics), while acknowledging free will. MDT also provides a *physical* model for time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, entropy, and quantum mechanical features such as entanglement, nonlocality, and qm's probabilistic nature. MDT provides a *physical* model for the distribution of locality, and the subsequent nonlocal behavior observed throught quantum mechanics.

MDT is a most powerful unifying force. Shakespeare said that brevity is the soul of wit, and MDT is brief: The fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic.

Once again, consider a 4D universe (x1, x2, x3, x4) in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity.

You can see a very brief treatment of this on page 7 of my manuscript (which was kept short due to the fact that the papers are limited to < 5000 words, and I needed space to cover MDT and time and all its arrrows, thermodynamics, the universe's expansion, quantum mechanics, nonlocality, entropy, entanglement, the dualities (space/time, wave/particle, energy,mass), Einstein's Annus Miraiblis, the photoeletric effect, Brownian Motion, Huygens' principle, Bell's Inequalities, relativity, and other physical phenomena), where I write, "Armed with this simple result (x4=ict which was implied by dx4/dt=ic), we are ready to return to Einstein's 1912 manuscript and provide the motivation for a four-dimensional coordinate system where the fourth dimension is written as x4 = ict. When Einstein wrote x4 = ict, inspired by Minkowski's work, he never qualified the fundamental motivation for this--the fact that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. When Einstein penned his 1912 manuscript, he did not perceive that relativity's equivalence of mass and energy and QM's wave-particle duality--time dilation and the EPR paradox--entropy and length contraction--E=mc^2 and the double slit experiment--could all be accounted for with a fourth expanding dimension. Nor did he recognize that while relativity considers instantaneous frozen snapshots of the universe, quantum mechanics acknowledges the fundamental flux of the expanding fourth dimension, and is thus based on differential operators and probabilistic wavefronts, which acknowledge the perpetual smearing of locality into non-locality, and the emergence of time."

It really is this simple: Consider a 4D universe (x1, x2, x3, x4) in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. All of Einstein's relativity descends from this. Ergo relativity.

I would encourage you to get your hands on Einstein's 1912 Manuscipt, and work through the detailed math.

Einstein's Relativity may be derived from dx4/dt= ic, which represents a more fundamental invariance of this universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a law of nature not deduced from anything else, and well, I guess I was dumb enough to ask, 'why relativity?' And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we are liberated from the block universe and time and progress in theoretical physics are unfrozen. And change is seen in a most fundamental equation that weaves change into the very fabric of space-time, where it needs to be, as change pervades every realm of physics and all acts of *physical* measurement. And suddenly we have a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum mechanics' nonlocality, entanglement, and wave-particle duality. The fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time. MDT accounts for the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing c as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a *physical* basis for the dualities--for space/time, wave/matter, and energy/mass or E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

Well, I would call all of this a massive unification in teh relam of physics--all based on a simple *physical* model and equation. I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg of everything implied by this new physical model that rests upon a hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic.

Today is a great day for celebration, as after 100 years or so, we have been liberated from the block universe, and time has been unfrozen.

A more fundamental universal invariant has been discovered--one which weaves change into the fundamental fabric of spcaetime, while granting us free will and the flow of time we perceive and observe in the very act of measurement, liberating us from the block universe, and providing a fundamental, bedrock principle from which all of relativity arises, along with time and its arrows. And too, we get a *physical* model for entropy, entanglement, and nonlocality.

And even moreso, we return to teh heroic age of physics. A lone individual arises to exalt entities, such as simple posutlates and equations, that were the hallmark of that nobler age of physics. Behold MDT's simple postulate and equation which unify diverse physical phenomena in a common principle.

Moving Dimensions Theory--which regards time as an emergent phenomena--was inspired in part by Einstein's words pertaining to the higher purpose of physical theories--words which ought be nailed above the door of every physics department, so as to liberate us from frozen time and frozen physics: "Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial."

MDT meets, manifests, and exalts all of Einsteine's criterion, enumerated above.

"The purpose of science is not to analyse or describe but to make useful models of the world. A model is useful if it allows us to get use out of it." --Edward De Bono, (b. 1933) Psychologist & Author

MDT allows us to get relativity, entropy, entanglement, nonlocality, time and all its arrows and assymetries, Huygens' principle and other physical phenomena. I would imagine that this is just the tip of the iceberg. If QM and GR are to be unified, perhaps MDT points the way, a sit already shows that phenonema in both QM and relativity can be accounted for with a common principle--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

And too the EPR Paradox is resolved via a simple scientific principle: "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."

--Galileo Galilei

dx4/dt=ic is a fact of the universe. The fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions. "Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty." --Galileo Galilei

"To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them not to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover." --Galileo Galilei. Today we are commanded to "forget time," forget free will, forget entanglement and nonlocality, forget the EPR paradox and Godel's problems with the block universe and time, forget the higher purpose of physics, forget both the foundational questions and foundational papers, and forget Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on Relativity--today we are so often commanded to forget reason, brevity, clarity, and beauty--to forget simple, elegant, unifying postulates and equations. We are told to forget The Great Books, honor, simplicity, Galileo, Newton, and the giants whose shoulders they stood upon.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." --Isaac Newton

MDT represents a changing of the guard--the Greats are coming on back, beginning with Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on Relativity and Homer's Odyssey, in which we see the first showdown in all of Western literature. And as we know, Bohr loved Westerns:

--http://www.timelinetheatre.com/copenhagen/cpn_study_guide.pdf

"Bohr fathered many scientific 'children'. Almost every country in the world has physicists who proudly say, 'I used to work with Bohr.'" - George Gamow. Movie Westerns: A Thought ExperimentFor Bohr, any event could become a thought problem. George Gamow, in his book, Thirty Years that Shook Physics, says that Bohr loved movie Westerns. He always took his students along to the movies with him to have them explain the plot complications. After one Western, he began to argue with Gamow and some other students about why the good cowboy always shoots the bad guy even though the bad guy always draws his gun first. Bohr theorized that the hero was quicker because he responded on instinct and was not delayed by having to decide when to shoot. To test the hypothesis Gamow bought cap pistols and Bohr spent an afternoon at the Institute shooting his students." --from http://www.timelinetheatre.com/copenhagen/cpn_study_guide.pdf

Maybe Lubos/Witten/Smolin/Woit need to watch Westerns together and buy some toy guns/water pistols. Fistful of Dollars should be shown before all String Theory/LQG conferences, as it's a story about lone The Man With No Name riding into a town dominated by two warring gangs/bureaucracies--the Baxters and the Rohos--the String Theorists and LQGers. Directed by the Italian genius Sergio Leone, based on the Japanese Samurai film Yojimbo, and shot for less than $200,000 in Spain, the "Spaghetti Western" film launched Clint Eastwood into international stardom. And watching the movie, one realizes something--when the smoke clears, MDT will yet be standing.

Like all classic Westerns, and stories of scientific advancement, Fistful of Dollars exalts the moral individual over the corrupt bureuacracy. This is communicated in the dialogue:

"When a man with a .45 meets a man with a rifle, the man with a pistol is a dead man." -"Ramon" from A Fistful of Dollars --http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Fistful_of_Dollars

"I'll stick with my forty-fives." -"The man with no name" from A Fistful of Dollars

And later, Eastwood states, "When the man with a 45 meets the man with a rifle, you said the man with a pistol is a dead man. Let's see if it's true."

The translation of this is "When the lone scientist with an original idea meets the man with the millions in funding and a posse of graduate students and postocs, the man with the original idea is a dead man."

Now Ramone can wield the rifle like no other. Ramone always shoots for the heart, and never misses, just like String Theory and LQG never fail, as they attract all the greatest postmodern physicists. And Eastwood uses Ramone's arrogance and pride in his marksmanship--the fact that he never misses the heart, to defeat him. Watch and learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeo52VfDfkU

Western science, philosophy, literature, film, all have a common soul--the exaltation of truth, justice, and the humble, heroic indivdiual, from Homer on down; and without that soul--without that lone cowboy--all is for naught.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."" --Max Planck

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

But all too often these days, the science bureuacracies encourage the young mercenaries who join them to laugh at, snark, and mock the man with no name's mule:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADzFve-tKnU

All scientists ought read Homer's Odyssey, from where Leone's Masterpieces descends, as well as Thomas Jeffersons' masterpiece--that Declaration of Independence:

"But as we advance in life these things fall off one by one, and I suspect we are left at last with only Homer and Virgil, perhaps with Homer alone." --Thomas Jefferson

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek wrote an excellent book called the Road to Serfdom, in which he detailed how central-planning and bureaucracy lead not too the advancement of science, truth, and freedom; but to the very opposite. Two awesome chapeters, whose titles tell half the story, are "The End of Truth" and "Why The Worst Get on Top."

"What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?" A wise prophet once asked, and so it is that those with lesser souls are the first to sell out the Truth en route to climbing the bureaucratic ladder to the top. Those bureaucrats who are not the true parents of the child/physics/innovation/truth are more content to see it cut in half and thusly destroyed.

Hayek writes, "The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for "conscious" control or "conscious" planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme--while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." -F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

Max Planck agreed:

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

And again we see the primacy of the honest individual in the classic, epic hero's journey!

"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man." --Joseph Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

It is so often the lone individual--or the few--standing up against the many. Bertrand Russell talked about how "commonly accepted wisdom" is so often wrong, and how, in fact, the more people that beleived something, the more likely it was often wrong! And Galileo held the individual's reason over the rule of the "authorities," who must preserve the bureaurcacy at all costs--even truth and freedom.

Another historical film that exalts the classical Western ideals of Truth, Science, and Freedom--the few standing herocially against the many for classical ideals--is 300:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/quotes

"Xerxes: There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories! Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned. Every Greek historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta, or Leonidas, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!

King Leonidas: The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many, and before this battle was over, even a god-king can bleed."

--from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/quotes

watch it at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZBMFX-Yt68&feature=related

The film is based on the true story about how 300 Sparatns faced down a much-larger force, and thusly preserved the Western ideals of freedom, which so many seem to be forgetting these days across all realm, where all too many say one thing while holding in their hearts another.

"As I detest the doorways of Death, I detest that man who hides one thing. in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another." Achilles, The Ilaid

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen." --R.P. Feynman, http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

Nobel Laureate (for literature) William Golding wrote, "A little of Leonidas lies in the fact that I can go where I like and write what I like. He contributed to set us free."

One can almost hear the modern god-kings/administrators, who so often over-hype their own theories to raise funding, as Feynman suggests, "For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision." --http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

Yes, one can hear modern Xerxes/god-kings/administrators:

Modern god-kings/administrators/Xerxes: "There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Moving Dimensions Theory from the histories! Every piece of Einstein's 1912 Manscript shall be burned. Every physicist who references foundational papers, and every scribe who asks foundational questions shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Galileo, or MDT, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!"

Well, it's not quite that severe, but there are a lot of humorous parallels!

In addition to being about the hitherto unsung reality of the fourth expanding dimension (dx4/dt=ic)--and the fundamental invariant's wide-ranging implications and unifications across all realms of physics, the final book about MDT is going to be about the classic, epic "Hero's Journey" that defines the Western soul, film, literature, and science--how we lost it, and how we can get it back by rendering classical ideals real on our own hero's journeys.

For what doe sit profit a man to gain the world--to gain knowledge and science--and lose his soul? As has been seen over the past several decades, without that classic, epic soul, theoretical science comes to a standstill.

Perhaps the most heroic Socrates--the mentor to Plato who inscribed "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter" above his Academy--was right about the importances of putting the horse before cart, "For this is the command of God, as I would have you know; and I believe that to this day no greater good has ever happened in the state than my service to the God. For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, my influence is ruinous indeed. But if anyone says that this is not my teaching, he is speaking an untruth. Wherefore, O men of Athens, I say to you, do as Anytus bids or not as Anytus bids, and either acquit me or not; but whatever you do, know that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times."

And again, Socrates exalts Achilles' courage, for all the Greeks reveled in Homer, inclduing those original physicists--Plato and Aristotle:

"Someone will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part of a good man or of a bad. Whereas, according to your view, the heroes who fell at Troy were not good for much, and the son of Thetis above all, who altogether despised danger in comparison with disgrace; and when his goddess mother said to him, in his eagerness to slay Hector, that if he avenged his companion Patroclus, and slew Hector, he would die himself - "Fate," as she said, "waits upon you next after Hector"; he, hearing this, utterly despised danger and death, and instead of fearing them, feared rather to live in dishonor, and not to avenge his friend. "Let me die next," he replies, "and be avenged of my enemy, rather than abide here by the beaked ships, a scorn and a burden of the earth." Had Achilles any thought of death and danger? For wherever a man's place is, whether the place which he has chosen or that in which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think of death or of anything, but of disgrace. And this, O men of Athens, is a true saying." --Socrates, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

And I guess that My Commander has placed me at the helm of MDT, and "For wherever a man's place is, whether the place which he has chosen or that in which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think of death or grants or funding or tenure or anything, but of disgrace. And this, O men of Athens, is a true saying."

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)