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

[deleted]

Doug,

All that really exists is an unstable field of energy. Vortices form in it and coalesce this energy, until they become unstable and break down, radiating the energy back out. In this relationship of gravitational collapse and radiant expansion, areas of relative stability arise where the potential for collapse and the potential for expansion settle into some degree of stability. We exist in that middle ground. so the notion of a seemingly static three dimensional coordinate system is an ideal that has its uses, but isn't the fundamental basis of reality.

Dr. E,

Sometimes your radiating energy overwhelms your contracting reductionist logic. Not that it's a bad thing, but it does singe the argument a little.

Your personality type rebelling against the constraints of the scientific status quo might explain why you view time/energy as the expanding fourth dimension from a stable three dimensional space. Remember the reality we think we know doesn't exist, as the energy recording it is a record of events already in the past by the time we perceive them, whether it's light from the computer you are looking at, or the light of a galaxy millions of lightyears away. So this three dimensional reality which we think of as static space is information of events which no longer exist, ie. have collapsed and the only constant is this field of energy manifesting various intensities and densities. That's why it's also logical to say the fourth dimension of this energy field is the constant and the three dimensions of space which collapse.

Then, since all is relative, it's a matter of perspective and they both are true. Expanding energy goes past to future, as the structure of events it records go from future to past.

[deleted]

Thanks John!

"Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God"--Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin

Yes--sometimes it might seem like I am rebelling, but only because I am riding with the Greats against the prevailing postmodern winds, as while Moving Dimensions Theory has no need for string theory nor any other quantum gravity empires, even those based on well-intentioned groupthink, MDT agrees with:

Relativity

Quantum Mechanics

Statistical Mechanics

Galileo

Newton

Einstein

Bohr

Gamow

Wheeler

Minkowski

Boltzman

Teller

Feynman

Quantum Entanglement

Quantum Nonlocality

Entropy

Quantum Time

Thermodynamic Time

Radiative Time

Psychological Time

All of time's arrows and assymetries across all realms.

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 his 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 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--a hitherto unsung universal invariant--with an equation: dx4/dt = ic, from which relativity is derived in my paper. And an added benefit are all the other *physical* entities dx4/dt=ic accounts for with a *physical* model, from Huygens' principle to entropy to quantum entanglement and nonlocality to time and all her arrows and assymetries.

"Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God"--Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin

[deleted]

Dr E.

Please don't recommend any more publications for to me to read. You asked for the 'exact quote' and the referenced publication that justified the issue I raised formerly, but then you completely ignored them, when supplied as requested.

So, now, without any response to Einstein's own words in relation to x4, as quoted by me, you focus on another aspect of the argument, switching from "ict is an imaginary time variable, substituting for the real time variable, in order to make Minkowski spacetime Euclidean space-like," to the meaning of the word "dimension."

So maybe I should assume from this that you agree that, as Einstein said, "We can regard the spacetime continuum...as a 'Euclidean' four-dimensional continuum," if we choose the imaginary variable, ict, as the time-variable.

Now that we have identified x4 = ict, as the imaginary time variable, we can inquire as to its dimensionality, which brings us to your latest comment posted above, which is a reply to the following statement I made. I wrote (with added caps for emphasis):

"For instance, what does the word dimension mean with respect to ORDINARY space? The three spatial dimensions are a means for identifying any location in a volume of space. AS SUCH, these orthogonal references serve as independent specifications, the minimum required to specify a location in space. To say they move is nonsensical."

The reason that I say this is due to the fact that they are abstractions. The axes of a 3D coordinate system are not real. They are abstract constructions, or imagined references, employed for specifying locations in ordinary space, using three numbers. When I say ordinary space, I don't mean Minkowski spacetime, but the space of a low speed environment such as the one we live and breathe in. Drivers use it, pilots use it, and animals of every kind use it, from the fish of the sea to the herds of the plains, to the flocks of the air.

Now, we can navigate in this 3D space quite well, and with the help of Einstein's 4D spacetime, we can navigate in it better than ever. But the reason this is so, is because distance between points in 3D cannot be measured without motion and when the motion used to measure distance is high enough, like the speed of the GPS satellites, the effect of the speed on our perception of time and distance is affected.

What it boils down to is that no force is required to maintain a straight course in flat spacetime, but a force is required to maintain the same course in curved spacetime, especially at high speed, but this has to do with the relative motion of mass, not the motion of dimensions. Dimensions are figments of our imaginations. They are useful for thinking about relative locations, but they are not real and cannot move, bend, fold, or mutilate, unless we do it for them.

Don't let the analogy of the rubber sheet fool you. Dimensions don't move, objects do.

Dr E.

Don't let the analogy of the rubber sheet fool you. In GR, dimensions don't move, only objects do.

[deleted]

"According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, mass and energy warp spacetime. The undulations then affect the trajectories of passing objects, producing the effects we call gravity. In Einstein's theory, spacetime is a stretchy, dynamical entity." --http://focus.aps.org/story/v14/st13

Spacetime is a dynamical entity in Einstein's theory. Ergo, dimensions move.

Hello Doug,

Yes--I am very familiar with your exact quote from Einstein's The Meaning of Relativity, but before addressing it, I wanted to make sure that you actually accepted Einstein's Relativity. Because if you don't accept Relativity, my job will be more difficult, if not impossible.

Dimensions move. Einstein's Relativity is founded upon dimensions that curve, warp, and move. Dimensions curve, warp, and move as masses pass through them.

You state, "Dimensions are figments of our imaginations. They are useful for thinking about relative locations, but they are not real and cannot move, bend, fold, or mutilate, unless we do it for them."

Actually, Einstein's genius was that he treated dimensions as very, very real--as *physical* entities with *physical* realities, and General Relativity was the result.

" ... We are now in a position to see how far the transition to the general theory of relativity modifies the concept of space. In accordance with classical mechanics and according to the special theory of relativity, space (space-time) has an existence independent of matter or field. ..." --Albert Einstein, "Relativity ..." Appendix 5, "Relativity and the problem of space.

Awesome! Einstein states that spacetime dimensions are real! Are you going still going to tell Einstein that, "Dimensions are figments of our imaginations. They are useful for thinking about relative locations, but they are not real and cannot move, bend, fold, or mutilate, unless we do it for them."

I challenge you to find any serious physicist who works with General Relativity who agrees with you. Dimensions move.

Here is an awesome video, starring David Duchovney playing Brian Greene, in which you can see the dimensions moving!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rocNtnD-yI

Start it at 6:15. When the sun is introduced onto the spacetime at approx 6:22, watch the dimensions move! This is produced by Columbia University, NSF, and one of the world's leading string theorists! Surely they would not mislead us about moving dimensions!

Then watch the Harvard physicist talk, and at around 6:35, you can see that as the earth moves through spacetime, it stretches the dimensions! Ergo dimensions can move!

Then, my favorite part--at 7:20 David Duchovney makes the sun dissapear! And how the dimensions move and then some! Look at the dimensions bending, warping, and moving!

And then, at about 0:36 into this next video, watch the dimensions themselves bend and move as the masses move through them!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxwjeg_r5Ug&feature=related

And if ths sun ceased to exist, watch what would happen to the dimensions--they would warp, bend, and move!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T884m5_QzWM&feature=related

And check out the movement of the dimensions around two oribiting stars!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUyrPDmh4rI&feature=related

As you might know, Joseph Taylor won the Nobel Prize for observing such orbiting stars and finding more experimental evidence supporting the fact that dimensions can bend, warp, and move! I had Taylor for experimental physics at Princeton, but did not know that his middle name is Hooton:

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

"Taylor has used this first binary pulsar to make high-precision tests of general relativity. Working with his colleague Joel Weisberg, Taylor has used observations of this pulsar to demonstrated the existence of gravitational radiation in the amount and with the properties first predicted by Albert Einstein. He and Hulse shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of this object."

Again, this is kindof boring after all the cool animations above with David Duchovney, but you can see how the earth would curve spacetime--how it would make the dimensions curve and move, as it revolved about the sun, tramping through spacetime.

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Eclipse-test-of-relativity.jpg

Please do not ignore this experimental evidence and all of Einstein's hard, grueling work in developing General Relativity, by stating that "dimensions" cannot bend, warp, and move. It is rather insulting, when you think about it, to Einstein. GR demonstrates irrefutably that dimensions are capabale of motion and that dimensions move.

If you really, really believe that "dimension is an adjective," I would encourage you to free your mind by reading about General Relativity, starting with Einstein's The Meaning of Relativity and progressing to:

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Physics-Charles-W-Misner/dp/0716703440/

http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Gravity-Spacetime-Scientific-American/dp/0716760347/ (I highly recommend this book Doug! It is writen for laymen and a more general audience & too, my name is in the acknowledgements--the only time I have ever shared a paragraph with Einstein--haha)

Einstein's GR is built upon dimensions that stretch, curve, and move.

Everybody supports this--even spcae.com: --http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060124_spacetime_dent.html :

"While devising his general theory of relativity, Einstein combined the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single useful concept he called spacetime.

Spacetime can be thought of as an elastic sheet that bends under the weight of objects placed upon it. The more massive the object, the more spacetime bends. If the massive object is also spinning, it causes spacetime to not only bend but to twist as well. Scientists call this effect "frame dragging."

Twisted spacetime will cause gas falling into a black hole to move in certain ways. The phenomenon can be roughly compared to the movement of a needle on a record player: as the needle moves along an etched groove on a record, it produces a sound, the exact nature of which is determined by physical deformations in the groove itself."

--http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060124_spacetime_dent.html

[deleted]

Dr. E and Doug,

You are both right in respect to real vs. projected dimensions. We only describe dimensions as curved relative to their potential. The light of a distant star is curved and bent passing through space affected by gravity fields, as well as by a potential cosmological constant. We say it is "curved" relative to that idealized flat space. When the distant star appears to move in the heavens, as the sun passes in front of it, that doesn't mean that star actually moved, only that the light traveling from it was bent in its passage. So presumably a straight line could be still drawn between the observer and the actual star, but the path of the light is curved away from that straight line. Thus we are in a position to say that "gravity curves space." If there was no idealized straight line, it would be meaningless to say that space is "curved."

[deleted]

Thanks John,

You practically took the words right out of my mouth, so-to-speak. Now, when we are talking about the dimension of time, real or imaginary, there is no bending, since there is no idealized straight line to compare it to. In fact, the one dimension of time is a scalar dimension, which means that it has no direction (2^0) in space.

Thus, to say that it is a moving dimension makes no sense, because it's not the dimension of time that is "moving," but time itself. That is to say, time is increasing, not its dimension. As a dimension of spacetime, x4 = ict, represents this increasing time, as a radius of an ever increasing sphere, and it happens that ct is the length of this radius, coinciding with the time t at unity.

When Einstein added the imaginary square root of -1 to ct, it enabled him to use it in the Pythagorean theorem-based equation of an "Euclidean" space-like version of Minkowski spacetime, because, when the term is squared, the requisite minus sign appears.

But when Elliot uses it, he takes it out of this context of Einstein's attempt to help out, and makes it something he will not identify, but calls it "a moving dimension," not a moving dimension of space, not a moving dimension of time, but just a moving dimension. He then makes this unidentified mathematical object (UMO), which as everyone can see is in reality Einstein's imaginary time variable, change with the real time variable, coming up with "ic," as a new elixir of physics.

But, even if time is regarded as a one-dimensional vector, not a zero-dimensional scalar, if i squared rotates a vector by 180 degrees, then i can only rotate it by 90 degrees. So, what is c rotated by ninety degrees?

With all due respect, it makes no sense to me.

[deleted]

Hello Doug,

First of all please stop ignoring General Relativity which is built upon dimensions that can bend, warp, and move. Just out of curiosity, do you have a degree in physics? Have you ever studied differential geometry? Even if you haven't, you must some day come to terms with the fact that differential geometry desribes how space-time--how dimensions themselves--can bend and move, and you also must realize that Einstein used such maths in formulating GR, which is built upon dimensions that can curve and move.

Dimensions are very, very real *physical* entities with dynamical properties. You will find no serious Ph.D. who studies relativity to disagree with this and Einstein's General Relativity, which has been experimentally supported, time, after time, after time. Doug--if the dimensions to not bend and move, how would you explain the anomoly in Mercury's Orbit? How would you explain the bending of light by massive objects, if dimensions did not bend and move? It is time for you to embrace dimensions as *physical* entities with a *reality.*

I can't believe you keep on ignoring all the books, words, and links, above, and all the physicists, including Einstein and J.A. Wheeler and Brian Greene, all who state that dimensions bend, curve, and move in General Relativity. You are making this far more difficult than it needs to be. :) It pains me to no end that you are ignoring the qonderfulwwork of Nobel Laureates including Einstein and Joseph Tayor, but I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Yes Doug--all the dimensions x1, x2, x3, x4 are the same, but for the fact that x4 is expanding at the rate of c. Now as x4 expands, it does so in a manner orthogonal to our 3D. And in our 3D, it manifests itself as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront. What you must realize Doug is that this explains both the agelessness of the photon and its velocity c, as well as its nonlocality! It explains why the photon remains in a *single* locality in the fourth dimension, while propagating through our three spatial dimensions at c. There is no other theory that does so much as this, embracing both quantum mechanical and relativistic phenomena.

Indeed, the fourth dimension itself is nonlocal via its expansion! How else, Doug, would you provide a *physical* model for quantum mechanics' nonlocality and entanglment, while also providing a simple postulate for a *physical* reality underlying time and all its arrows across all realms, as well as entropy, while also providing a foundation for all of relativity? What would your euqation and postulate be? Is not the point of physics to make everything as simple as possible but not moreso? Is not the point of physics to unify disparate *physical* phenomena with simple *physical* models and mathematics?

Consider a photon emitted from a source. Quantum mechanics describes the photon's propagation as a spherically-symmetric wavefront of probability expanding at c.

Relativity tells us that the photon does not age--it stays at the same place in the fourth dimension.

Ergo the fourth dimension is nonlocal--it is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. Ergo the spherically-symmetric wavefront of probability expanding at c, which describes the photon's propagation, yet represents a locality in the fourth dimension.

This fits perfectly with Einstein's 1912 paper, where he wrote x4 = ict, or dx4/dt = ic. As you can see, the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.

Now, in light of this (no pun intended), is it no wonder that two initially-interacting photons remain entangled? For even though they propagate in opposite directions, they yet remain ageless, and in the same place in the fourth expanding dimension!

Doug, how else would you explain entanglement and nonlocality?

And too, the photons remain in the same place in time, although time is an emergent parameter, that we can measure on watches and clocks, that arises because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, carrying matter in the fourth dimension at c, which manifests itself as photons. Hence you can see why E=mc^2--energy is but matter caught upon the fourth expanding dimension.

I have more to say, but gotta run!

Hope the above helps!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

[deleted]

Dr. E,

As you are critical of established theory when it seems to have been projected beyond logical support, I hope you won't mind me applying some critical logic to the premise of dynamic dimensionality. It is my conclusion that physical reality and the dimensions we use to reference it, define space, rather than create it.

Big Bang cosmology is based on the assumption that space is created by the expansion of the universe from the singularity. If this is so, why doesn't our most stable measure of space, the speed of light, increase proportional to the expansion of space? Like a rubber band on which units are marked off, our measure of space should grow as the space expands. Yet this doesn't seem to be the theory. It seems to be assumed that if the universe were to double in size, two points x lightyears apart would become 2x lightyears apart. This isn't expanding space! It is increasing distance in stable space.

What seems to have grown out of the three dimensional description of space is that the center point of this coordinate system is zero. While zero might be the point between -1 and 1 on a scale, it really isn't a point, but the absence of any such reference, since adding -1 and 1 would cancel out, leaving nothing. The real zero for geometry isn't the point at the center of the graph, but the blank page. It's the same for cosmology. The initial state isn't a point, LeMaitre's primordial atom, but the vacuum. This vacuum contains fluctuating energy that is collapsing and radiating back out. I can go into how this better explains the observed universe, with the inclusion of a cosmological constant to explain the expansion effect of radiation, but since I've gone into that in various postings already, I've leave the broad range of issues to further questioning.

How to explain entanglement and non-locality; As I've said before, it makes more sense to describe light propagating as a wave and only when it contacts some method of measurement does it coalesce as a quanta. So when two measurements are taken simultaneously and the quanta of light exhibit identical properties, you are essentially measuring the same wave.

Doug,

While I view space, the vacuum as mentioned above, as the basis of motion, I view time as a consequence of it, similar to temperature. While it is possible to describe temperature as a point on a scale, that is because it is an average of motion, not a unit of motion, as time is. This means time cannot be described as a point, since as a unit, that would be the cessation of motion. Such as the temperature of absolute zero would be the cessation of motion.

The unit of reference is that between two frames moving relative to one another. Classically this is between a point of reference and the context against which it moves. While the point goes from past to future frames, the context is a generalized state consisting of much other motion, so this frame is constantly being rearranged and each configuration is being constantly replaced by the next. Thus the arrow for these events go from being in the future to being in the past, like tomorrow becomes yesterday.

Since this motion is happening at the speed of light and there is much of it, our brains process it as units of perspective, much like a movie consists of separate frames, that create the illusion of motion by constantly changing. Otherwise our perceptions would be overwhelmed in a blur of energy. So it is logical that we think of time in terms of quantized units.

[deleted]

P.S.

Doug,

What is moving is the energy that is radiating outward and the structure/mass that is collapsing. The energy is constantly radiating from old structure to be eventually included in new structure. Much like the hand of the clock is constantly leaving old units of time and starting to measure new ones, thus going from past to future, as these units go from being in the future to being in the past. So from the perspective of structure, it is energy expanding out, going past to future, while from the perspective of the energy, it is structure that is receding into the past.

Since we exist in that state of relative stability where structure and energy maintain some equilibrium, much structure is carried into the future, as it maintains its energy content, or is replacing it at least as fast as it loses it. When structure loses energy faster then it is replaced, it fades away and recedes into the past. It dies.

[deleted]

Thanks for the comments John,

You write, "How to explain entanglement and non-locality; As I've said before, it makes more sense to describe light propagating as a wave and only when it contacts some method of measurement does it coalesce as a quanta. So when two measurements are taken simultaneously and the quanta of light exhibit identical properties, you are essentially measuring the same wave."

Yes--but *why* nonlocality and *why* entanglement? *Why* wave particle-duality?

All of these entities descend from the nonlocal expansion of the fourth dimension, which distributes locality.

Is it not curious that the maximum velocity of the distribution of locality is the velcoity of light? Ergo I would suspect that the same entity would be responsible for both the maximum velocity of the photon and the maximum velocity of the distribution of locality--a fourth expanding dimension.

And too, MDT's simple postulate provides a bedrock foundation for relativity, entropy, time and all its arrows, inertia, the gravitational slowing of light and time, Huygens' principle, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and other phenomena across all of physics.

All motion rests upon the fourth dimension's fundamental expansion relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Every object moves at but one speed through space-time--c. This is because space-time moves at but one speed through every obeject--c. Catch up with the fourth expanding dimension, and you'll be going close to c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions, and you'll be traveling at close to c relative to the fourth dimension. And isn't it cool that the faster an object moves, the shorter it is in the three spatial dimensions? This is because it is physically being rotated into the fourth dimension--the fundamental source of all motion by its never-ending motion, which sets the universe's maximum velcoity at c.

Relativity implies a frozen, timeless, block universe. But as Galileo said, "Yet it moves!" *Why* is this? Because dx4/dt = ic! And the spherically-symmetric expansion that the expanding fourth dimension manifests itself as--this smearing of locality--jives perfectly with the motion of a photon as well as its nonlocal properties, setting its velocity to c independent of the source and rendering it timeless and ageless--stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, which would also explain entanglement with other photons with which it once shared a common origin! And we also get a *physical* model for entropy and time.

You write, "Big Bang cosmology is based on the assumption that space is created by the expansion of the universe from the singularity. If this is so, why doesn't our most stable measure of space, the speed of light, increase proportional to the expansion of space? Like a rubber band on which units are marked off, our measure of space should grow as the space expands. Yet this doesn't seem to be the theory. It seems to be assumed that if the universe were to double in size, two points x lightyears apart would become 2x lightyears apart. This isn't expanding space! It is increasing distance in stable space."

Good question, but I would be careful, as one is not supposed to question the Big Bang Theory!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

[deleted]

Hello Doug,

Thanks so much for your Nov. 2, 2008 @ 00:08 GMT post in which you quote from Einstein's THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY.

It was great to see, as not only do modern physicists so often neglect foundational questions, but they also neglect foundational papers and works, while embracing and exalting multiverses, mysticism, m-theory, womholes, tiny little vibrating strings which are safe from experimental tests, and time machines which nobody ever seems to have the time to build.

I hope that you have had a chance to read Einstein's work and realize that General Relativity treats dimensions as *physical* entities with dynamical properties.

"CHAPTER XXXII: THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of matter as being something that is known." --Einstein's Meaning of Relativity

Particularly, I hope you get to read chapter XXVII: THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM

Also read CHAPTER XXVII, "In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity. The motion of clocks is also influenced by gravitational fields, and in such a way that a physical definition of time which is made with the aid of clocks has by no means the same degree of plausibility in as in the special tehory of relativity."

Well Doug, I hope that you no longer deny the fact that as matter moves through space, it bends and twists the dimensions--and thus the dimensions can and do move.

Einstein himself states, in the Meaning of Relativity: "CHAPTER XXXII: THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of matter as being something that is known." --Einstein

One of the fun things that MDT is doing is going on back to the foundational papers and showing how MDT agrees with all of them--with Einstein, Dirac, Newton, Teller, Galileo, Bohr, Schrodenger, Feynman--while so many modern physicists do not agree with the Greats, nor *physical* reality; as physical reality has a tendency to get in the way of fiat empires and postmodern groupthink tryannies.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

[deleted]

Dr. E,

I do get the sense your expanding wave is based on the Big Bang model. If that's so, I can understand you're not going to give much credence to my rejection of it, but that's the nature of the game. I certainly didn't set out to argue with it and fortunately I'm not trying to make a living at this, as I realize questioning it is tantamount to automatic rejection. If someone would provide a coherent explanation for what I've missed, I'd certainly drop the subject. It is hard for me to avoid the issue though, when discussing my observation that as a description of motion, the process of time is the events created and being replaced means it goes from future potential to past circumstance, since this understanding of time grew out of trying to understand how the expansion of space can be balanced by the contraction of gravity and still result in an overall expanding universe. Given the various patches required and questions raised by Big Bang theory, from Inflation Theory to Dark Energy, I just can't bring myself to buy it on faith. I think we both accept there are major bugs in modern physics, which current efforts to solve only seem to increase the level of confusion. I do think this does go back to some very basic assumptions, such as that time is some form of fundamental dimension, even if it is variable, along which physical reality travels from past to future. As well as that the geometric absolute is the initial point, rather than empty space. I didn't start with these ideas, only arrived at them after peeling away everything I didn't understand to see what it was based on.

If I may add an additional thought on space as a vacuum defined by its contents, not created by them;

The Michelson Morley experiment was predicated on the assumption that a wave must be transmitted in a medium, yet no evidence for the "aether" could be found. Is a medium really necessary for light to travel as a wave? If you drop a stone in water, it creates a cavity that pushes the water out and this creates the initial wave. The water pushes back into this cavity and collides, creating the next wave and cavity, thus repeating the process and a series of decreasing ripples form. So the actual wave action wasn't just by introducing a force on the medium, but the medium pushing back. Now if you were to release pressure, or energy into a vacuum, the assumption is that there is no medium to transmit this pressure, so it wouldn't travel very far. Take the rock you dropped in the water and throw it into a vacuum. There would be nothing to stop it and it would fly forever. That is presumably what photons do. What if light travels across the vacuum of space, not as individual particles, or as waves in a medium, but as an expanding, entangled sphere of energy? There could well be pulses to it, but they would be like the spectrum of the light, a function of the process of emission. That way, you would have what effectively appears as a wave, without needing a medium to transmit it. Only when it contacts a measuring device would quanta of light be "condensed" out of this unitary field.

While it doesn't make sense to consider empty space to have a rigid geometry, remember that the geometrical properties are determined by BOTH matter and energy. While matter gravitationally contracts, energy effectively expands. A overall sum of flat space exists if these two properties balance out. According to tests by COBE and WMAP, they do. Remember that Einstein first proposed the Cosmological Constant to balance gravity and current measurements of the expansion concur with a cosmological constant. Dark Energy was proposed because the Big Bang assumption was that a geometric reduction of redshift as gravity slowed the expansion from the singularity, yet there is an apparent outward curvature to space so that while its expansion is slowed, it still possesses an inherent expansion rate. Now consider what it would look like if there is only this inherent expansion. Not only would light be increasingly redshifted as it crossed more space, but this effect would be compounded, as already redshifted light would have this previous redshift further expanded, so that eventually the source seems to be flying away at the speed of light and this creates a horizon line. Now according to Big Bang theory, this is because those sources are moving faster, the further back in time you travel, yet according to a Cosmological Constant, this speed is only an illusion of the distance involved, just as gravity fields bending the light of other stars creates the illusion they move around.

[deleted]

"I am not myself apt to be alarmed at innovations recommended by reason. That dread belongs to those whose interests orprejudices shrink from the advance of truth and science." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1814.

Hello John,

You write, "I do get the sense your expanding wave is based on the Big Bang model. If that's so, I can understand you're not going to give much credence to my rejection of it, but that's the nature of the game."

I actually was joking above when I stated that one must never question the Big Bang Theory!

"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor totolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Roscoe, 1820.

"The fundamental fact about the Greek was that he had to use his mind. The ancient priests had said, "Thus far and no farther. We set the limits of thought." The Greek said, "All things are to be examined and called into question. There are no limits set on thought."" --Edith Hamilton

Here are some interesting books:

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Blasted-Lyndon-Ashmore/dp/1419639226

Against the Tide: A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics and Astronomy Get Done (Paperback)

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Tide-Critical-Scientists-Astronomy/dp/1599429934/

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." --Albert Einstein

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." --Einstein

I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo

Thomas Jefferson: Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.

Thomas Jefferson: Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

Thomas Jefferson: Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

We need more dialogue in physics!

"In every country where man is free to think and to speak,

differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene."

--Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801.

"Truth and reason are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail; however, in times and places they may be overborne for a while by violence, military, civil, or ecclesiastical." --Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Knox, 1810.

"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous such as tiny, vibrating strings, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind." --Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

[deleted]

We have a new president here in the US!

And is it not time for a new physics?

Imagine if presidents were elected for thirty years, instead of just four! Imagine if all curiosity and questioning of the establishment was squelched and opposed!

Imagine if simple, foundational questions were banned, along with simple, foundational papers of the Past Masters, along with new, simple theories with simple postulates and simple maths--theories which unified physical phenomenon across all realms by recognizing a new universal invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Science is a democratic endeavor! Imagine if progress in America were frozen for thirty years, and that mavericks were not allowed to change and improve society with new ideas, with courage and honor, with truth and fresh energy! Imagine if elections were canceled for thirty years, and empirical evidence was thrown out the window, along with dissenting voices! Imagine if even the proposition of new ideas was banned by hired mercenaries and postdocs! Then I imagine progress would be frozen in that realm too.

One of the great things about the internet is that it shines a light in dark places, and no longer can ideas be ignored and supressed by anonymous referees. And too, the internet immortalizes all these words and dialogues, as never before. And so it is that we are all now joined forever in MDT's liberation from frozen time and the block universe, as well as frozen progress in theoretical physics. For while the past is no longer real, these words shall always endure, and by our newly-granted free will, we ought choose them wisely.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

[deleted]

Dr. E.

I thought you might be joking, that's why I phrased it as a caveat. That said, "the expanding fourth dimension" does sound like an effort to rationalize a singularity based universe. The operative term is "relative to the three spatial dimensions." Which means they are contracting relative to this fourth dimension, so that neither effect is preponderant.

[deleted]

Can MDT also provide a *physical* interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Canonical Communitation relation in quantum mechanics?

From "Hidden Unity in Nature's Laws" by John Clayton Taylor, http://books.google.com/books?id=5niTiZAcS3gC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=born+commutation+relation&source=web&ots=HZsuRDtP6o&sig=vuNup97fItAHB9bvL89FZRQ1qnw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

"Max Born in Gottingen, with its great mathematical tradition (going back to Gauss), knew more mathematics than the young Heisenberg. He recognized these arrays as being things, called matrices, well known to mathemticians since their invention by Cayley in England in 1858." --John clayton Taylor

And again we see the ability to recognize a bunch of math as a "thing" with meaning, as a way to advance physics! For Max Born stated, "I personally like to regard a probability wave as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... how could we rely on probability predictions if we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born on Quantum Theory)"

"Hidden Unity in Nature's Laws" by John Clayton continues, "Heisenberg and Born and his assistant Jordan rewrote everything using the compact notation of matrix theory. I will write one of their equations. Let the symbol x stand for the matrix (a whole array, like the preceding one) connected with the psoition of an electron, and let the symbol p denote a similar matrix connected with the momentum. Then the equation is: (Born-Heisenberg Commutation Relation) xp - px = i*hbar. . . This equation is called a commutation relation because commutation means changing the order of factors multiplied together. It is perhaps the most revolutionary equation in the whole of physics. It is inscribed on Born's gravestone in Gottingen."

http://www.origin-life.gr.jp/3004/3004229/126.jpg (please find it attached)

Also check out Boltzman's gravestone, with S=klogw!

http://img.search.com/6/63/300px-Zentralfriedhof_Vienna_-_Boltzmann.JPG (please find it attached--did you know that the physicists of his day called Boltzman a crackpot, and that he committed suicide before ever knowing the vast and resounding influence of his theory?)

Sriram Ramaswamy writes in Ludwig Boltzmann and Entropy, (http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/resonance/Sept2001/Sept2001p3-5.html reports) "Boltzmann took his disputes with the energists very much to heart; after one such argument, with Ostwald, he was so upset that he attempted suicide. In general, these disagreements led to his moving around a great deal during his academic career. Until 1869 he remained in Vienna as a lecturer, then moved to a chair in Theoretical Physics at the University of Graz. He returned to Vienna as Professor of Mathematics in 1873, went back to Graz as Professor of Experimental Physics in 1876, where he married Henriette von Aigentler, whom he had met during his earlier stay there. He stayed at Graz until 1890, when he moved to the University of Munich as Professor of Theoretical Physics. He returned, however, to Vienna as Professor of Theoretical Physics in 1894, only to move once again, this time to Leipzig, in 1900. He left Leipzig for Vienna again, in 1902, where his position had been held for him." --http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/resonance/Sept2001/Sept2001p3-5.html

I always picture John Baez hopping on Michio Kaku's time machine with his grad students, reading his tax-funded crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) to Boltzman and laughing at him, and then hopping back on Kaku's time machine to make it back to some quantum gravity conference in Aspen or Hawaii.

Sriram Ramaswamy writes in "Ludwig Boltzmann and Entropy", "Boltzman took his own life in 1906 while on holiday with his wife and daughter at Duino (near Trieste, now in Italy). It is said that he was driven to suicide partly because of a fear that his ideas were not accepted by the community, that the battle against energism was lost. It is clear, though, that his genius was recognised even by those who disagreed with him: he couldn't otherwise have quit so many positions and still have managed to get new ones at will. I wonder whether our system would have dealt so kindly with him." --http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/resonance/Sept2001/Sept2001p3-5.html

Boltzman, we salute ye, and wish we were there to agree with ye, as the well-funded establishment can be a most cruel, arrogant beast, even while being wrong or not even wrong! I would give anything to see what Boltzman and Bruno say to Baez when they run into one-another in Hades, with the great Achilles and Odysseus watching on--with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Virgil, Dante, Copernicus, Born, and Einstein all watching on. Will Baez still laugh at Boltzman and the rest of the crackpots? Either way, I bet he won't find quantum grvaity--not even in Hades.

But back to explaining the commutation relation with MDT!

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

"In physics, the canonical commutation relation is the relation between canonical conjugate quantities (quantities which are related by definition such that one is the Fourier transform of another), for example: between the position x and momentum p in the x direction (p(x)) of a point particle in one dimension, where [x,p(x)] = xp(x) − p(x)x is the so-called commutator of x and p(x), i is the imaginary unit and is the reduced Planck's constant h / 2ð. This relation is attributed to Max Born, and it implies the Heisenberg uncertainty principle."

How amazing that xp - px = ih!

What can this mean?

Wikipedia writes, "The most striking property of Heisenberg's infinite matrices for the position and momentum is that they do not commute. His central result was the canonical commutation relation:

[X,P] = XP - PX = ih/2ð and this result does not have a clear physical interpretation." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Well, let us try to grant XP - PX = ih/2ð a physical interpretation via MDT!

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

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

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PositionOperator.html

Basically, xp represents a measurement of momentum followed by a measurement of position.

And px represents a measurement of position followed by a measurement of momentum.

And there are other interpretations too. . .

http://books.google.com/books?id=5niTiZAcS3gC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=born+commutation+relation&source=web&ots=HZsuRDtP6o&sig=vuNup97fItAHB9bvL89FZRQ1qnw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA228,M1 continues--Hidden Unity in Nature's Laws By John Clayton Taylor continues "This commutation relation is the real place where Planck's and Bohr's quantization rules. Nor is it in some modification of the classical laws of motion. It is at an even deeper level. It tells us something about the mathematical properties of the mathematical objects in terms of which everything is forumlated. No equation like this had appeared in science before. . . another remarkable thing about the Heisenberg-Born fomula is that it mentions the square root of minus one, i. All direct measurements, of lengths or times or masses whatever, are made in terms of ordinary real numbers. i was an invention of mathematicians, but here it is appearing in one of nature's most basic laws. . . It is ironic that Heisenberg's resolution to mention only observable things should have ended up with such an abstract mathematical equation, involving matrices and imaginary numbers . . . Trying to convince the sceptical Einstein of the correctness of his new quantum theory, Heisenberg pointed out that he had tried to remove the unobservable notion of absolute time in 1905. Einstein, irritatingly, replied, "A good trick should not be tried twice.""--Hidden Unity in Nature's Laws By John Clayton Taylor.

Haha! "A good trick should not be tried twice."

And is it not awesome that "i" shows up both in relativity and Heisenberg's/Born's communtation relation?

x4 = ict (relativity)

xp - px = i(hbar) (qm)

And c shows up in relativity, alongside i, while h shows up in quantum mechanics, alongside i!

Well, MDT accounts for the i in x4 = ict via the physical invariance of the expansion of the fourth dimension relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, which is perpendicular to the three spatial dimensions, so that dx4/dt = ic.

So how does MDT account for the i in xp - px = i(hbar)?

Tune in next time on the Dr. E show!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)Attachment #1: max_bornes_gravestone.jpg Attachment #2: Zentralfriedhof_Vienna__Boltzmann.jpg

[deleted]

Dr. E,

I would really appreciate it, if you wouldn't post, or copy, your defenses of MDT in my forum. The forum for discussing MDT is here, not in other forums.

As for your insistence that dimensions move, it still seems non-sensical to me, in spite of your attempts to leverage the concepts of geodesics in your argument. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

[deleted]

Hello Doug,

I wasn't posting a defense of MDT in your forum.

I was posting a defense of Einstein and General Relativity. I posted it there because I never heard back from you here.

It puzzles the will that your essay has garnered so many votes, when you don't even accept the foundations of Einsetin's General Relativity--one of the towering monuments of physics, which pervades and governs the very universe:

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

Are there really that many people who reject both the beauty of the theory of General Relativity, as well as physical reality?

If you are going to talk about time, space, and geometry, sooner or later you are going to have to accept the *physical* reality of General Relativity, which blends time, space, and geometry in a manner that has been empirically verfied over, over, and over.

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

Einstein's General Relativity is founded upon a physical reality in which the *physical* dimensions can bend, warp, and move.

Your essay begins with, "The only observed relationship of time to space is a reciprocal relation, in the equation of motion. However, it seems absurd to think of space, defined as a set of points satisfying the postulates of geometry, as the inverse of time."

Now, if you are going to talk about time, space, and *geometry*, it makes little sense to refute Einstein's General Relativity--a well-tested *physical* theory which is built upon the fact that dimenions bend, warp, and move.

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

I hope that you get a chance to read Einstein's work "The Meaning of Relativity" and realize that General Relativity treats dimensions as *physical* entities with dynamical properties.

Particularly, I hope you get to read chapter XXVII: THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM

Well Doug, I hope that you no longer deny the fact that as matter moves through space, it bends and twists the dimensions--and thus the dimensions can and do move.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

[deleted]

According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of matter as being something that is known." --Einstein

Dr. E,

Does that mean idealized flat space isn't a valid concept? Would that mean a perfect circle is equally invalid? So does that mean such ideas as pi are not valid? It seems the whole of mathematics is impossible without the platonic ideal.

[deleted]

Dr. E,

Please don't put your words into my mouth. I didn't say that I "don't even accept the foundations of Einsetin's (sic) General Relativity," you said that.

I'm just trying to make the point that it's not the dimensions of spacetime that "bend and move," as you say, because that concept fits into the category of "not even wrong," given the English language.

The warping, bending and moving of locations in spacetime are a result of the effects of acceleration, and the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. It does not posit the warping and bending and moving of dimensions, which, like direction, are only properties used to describe magnitudes.

In English, we can say that we bend, warp, and move, or in general, that we change, the "dimensions" of some physical object, but what we really mean is that we change the magnitudes of the units of length, width and height, which define the shape of the object. We don't warp, bend or move the three dimensions, x, y, z, which are established relative to some origin on the object and used to define the spatial extent of x, y and z magnitudes, defining the shape of the object.

In general relativity, Einstein uses Mach's principle, as he called it, defining mass in its interaction with other masses, leading to the conclusion that there is no privileged reference system. I completely concur with this conclusion: There is no privileged reference system that would enable us to measure the change of the locations of isolated objects. The only meaning of the measure of distance is the difference between locations that is occupied, or that is occupiable to some degree of probability, by some physical object.

However, this concept has nothing to do whatsoever with a claim that we can define a change of the "location" of dimensions. Dimensions don't have locations. They are an abstraction that enables us to give a name to the independent spaces, or degrees of freedom, in a physical system. To speak of their "motion" is not even wrong. It's intellectual confusion, in my opinion.

« Previous Page Next Page »