A Mystic Dream of Four by Douglas Bundy

The interesting conversation is going on in Carlo's forum. The point of his essay is "that dynamics can be expressed as correlations between variables, and does not NEED a time to be specified," while it's the flow of time (Hamilton's "order in progression") that is emergent. Evidently, some commentators have construed this to mean that he intends to replace dynamics with the thermal time hypothesis.

But Carlo explains: "The thermal time is only the one needed to make sense of our sense of flowing time, it is not a time needed to compute how a simple physical system behaves. The last can be expressed in terms of correlations between a variable and a clock hand, without having to say which one is the time variable. Therefore the question about the flow of time defined by bodies at different temperature is a question about thermodynamics out of equilibrium. Unfortunately, like much of today's physics, I have not much to say on this. In any case, I am aware that the thermal time hypothesis is highly speculative. I would like the readers to keep it separate from the main idea defended in the essay, which is that mechanics can be formulated without having to say which variable is the time variable."

In his response to this statement, John Merryman writes: "My point is that time and temperature are both descriptions of motion. Temperature is the level of activity against a given scale. Time is the rate of change relative to a given reference frame, or point. If you change the level of activity, you affect the rate of change. The candle burns faster if it is hotter. As a person in space ages slower than a person in a stronger and more active gravity field. So there is the element of time in temperature and the element of temperature in time."

This is interesting from several points of view. First, the "motion" of temperature is scalar, just as John states. Like the prices of the stock market, temperature "moves" "up" or "down" relative to a given point. Its relative increase, or decrease, can be described as motion, but the motion is scalar; that is, it has no direction in space. Likewise, time is measured as a scalar change, but just as the motion of an object from location to location cannot be described without a change of time, so too the scalar change of temperature cannot be measured without a change of time.

In other words, there can be no motion, vectorial or scalar, without a change in time. Thus, to assert that "time and temperature are both descriptions of motion," as John does is not accurate. Motion, by definition, requires two, reciprocal, changes of scalar quantity. Time is one of these changing scalars, while the other may be distance, prices, or temperature.

In the case of Rovelli's timeless point of view, the motion of a clock is still a change of two, reciprocal, positions; that is, the hands move in one direction, while the face moves in the opposite direction, but, as he writes, "General relativity describes the relative evolution [i.e. relative change] of observable quantities, not the evolution of quantities as functions of a preferred one. To put it pictorially: with general relativity we have understood that the Newtonian "big clock" ticking away the 'true universal time' is not there."

This leads to the conclusion that evolving the wave equation in time, in a quantum theory of gravity, will not make sense; Indeed, it [would be] "quite unnatural in a general relativistic context," because, in this context, there is no way to determine which variable is the evolving variable, which variable is the preferred choice to be the independent variable that evolves the equation. It is in this sense that he urges us to "forget time" in our quantum gravity theory.

To emphasize his point, Carlo analyzes the moving hands of the clock to show that it's only an arbitrary choice of reference points, even in non-relativistic frames, that provides us with a measure of the reciprocal changes (like the pendulum and pulse example, which of the two "clocks" is the clock measuring time?)

What's interesting about this is how it doesn't contradict Hamilton's concept of "order in progression," which he proposed as an intuitive basis for algebra, to put it on an equal footing with geometry, which is grounded in the scientific intuition of space. That is, we can observe the properties of space. We can see that it's limited to three dimensions, that each dimension has two, opposed directions, and that its magnitudes, in certain cases, are incommensurable.

But this is not so with algebra, a fact that troubled Hamilton immensely (see my preliminary essay for more on this:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/storage/documents/Mystic%20Dream%20Prelim.pdf).

But given that one moment of time is either equal to, earlier than, or later than, another moment (the point John is trying to make in his discussion with Carlo, although I haven't quoted the relevant text of the discussion here,) it's possible to use this order in progression to put algebra on an equal, scientific, basis with geometry, as Hamilton was able to show for two dimensions, at least.

What Carlo has done is to show that you can't measure the order in just one of the two progressions; that is, since space and time are reciprocal aspects of the same thing, like two sides of the same coin, we cannot measure one without the other. It takes two, reciprocal, progressions to measure distance, and it takes two, reciprocal, progressions to measure time. Another way to say the same thing is that space cannot be measured without motion, just as time cannot. Space does not exist without time, anymore than time exists without space, because, again, they are two, reciprocal, aspects of one thing, motion.

We can easily prove that space, defined by a set of points, satisfying the postulates of geometry, is only a history of past, or contemplated, motion. The distance between the points can either be the result of an object's motion that occupies the locations at different times, or it can be the contemplated distance between calculated points. The fact that either of the two reciprocal variables entering into the calculation can be selected as the independent variable is not, however, the important point. The important point is that ONE of them must be selected.

In the space/time progression of my paper, the two, reciprocal, progressions are distinguished by their physical dimensions. Thus, time may be the zero-dimensional aspect, and space the nonzero-dimensional aspect, or vice versa. It makes, no difference, except in one you get a progressing spatial pseudoscalar, and in the other you get a progressing temporal pseudoscalar. With one, the motion creates expanding space coordinates, while with the other, expanding time coordinates. In each case, a time (space) s can be measured along their worldlines, which is not the time t of x(t).

Hence, I agree with Carlo, we can forget which variable we must designate as the "time" variable in quantum gravity, but the variable we choose must be zero-dimensional.

Regards,

Doug

I can tell that you are an intelligent, committed and driven person and this makes me feel like a bastard for writing arguments against you:

1)

In your essay you write, "...recognition that all forces are properties of motion." I suppose you could say force is a property of motion but that property is the rate of change in motion. This has been summarized by Newton in his second law as F = m * dV/dt.

2)

From what I am able to mathematically extract from the Jargon of your idea and that of RS theory (http://rstheory.org/) is the pivotal argument is centered around the kinematical equation X(t) = V*t. Your reciprocity argument hinges on this equation being rewritten as X(t) / t = V and t / X(t) = 1 / V. I should point out that all three of these equation are identical but you use X(t) / t and t / X(t) as if they represented distinct physical properties.

3)

Your derived values of discrete space and time as:

tn = 1.5198 x 10-16 seconds

sn = 4.5563 x 10-6 cm

are experimentally falsified. The shortest measured interval of time, that I am currently aware of, is the attosecond, 10^-18 s. Your space interval is in the nanometer range while atoms are in the angstrom range,

10^-10 M. Your large space interval would outright prohibit the existence of subatomic particles.

I think a study of the twin paradox and its resolution might persuade you against a classical theory based solely on motion. Although I disagree with your arguments I would still like to encourage you to keep an interest in physics.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your comments and your concern. I know it must sound awfully naïve to claim that force is a property of motion, at this late stage of physical science, when for centuries the prevailing attitude of the physics community has regarded force as an autonomous entity, but please bear with me, while I try to explain.

First, the fact is that, as you correctly point out, force is defined as a product of mass and acceleration, but it's important to recognize that the reason for this is because when a quantity of units of moving mass, momentum (or quantity of motion) is accelerated, the time rate of change in the velocity of that quantity, the acceleration, is an acceleration of each unit of mass on an individual unit basis, and we label the total, i.e. the product of the acceleration and all the mass units collectively, with the word "force."

The crucial point is that the label "force" is simply used to refer to the time rate of change in the quantity of motion, or in the momentum, of the set of mass units in the equation. Clearly, the label cannot be properly treated as an autonomous entity apart from motion, by definition. Therefore, every fundamental force must be the label of a fundamental motion, even if that motion appears impossible to identify.

Next, you conclude that I'm making a false distinction between identical physical properties. You wrote: "...the pivotal argument is centered around the kinematical equation X(t) = V*t. Your reciprocity argument hinges on this equation being rewritten as X(t) / t = V and t / X(t) = 1 / V. I should point out that all three of these equation are identical but you use X(t) / t and t / X(t) as if they represented distinct physical properties."

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that this equation you have written, as the pivotal "reciprocity argument," does not represent distinct physical properties. The pivotal reciprocity argument is that the true nature of time is found in its reciprocal relation to space, in the equation of motion. Hence, if we write X(t) = V*t = (s/t)*t = s, so that space, s, is a function of time, then rewriting it as X(t)/t = s/t and t/X(t) = t/s = 1/(s/t) clearly does represent distinct physical properties, lest we maintain that the dimensions of velocity, s/t, cannot be distinguished from the dimensions of energy, t/s, something we obviously don't want to do.

Next, you argue that deriving the natural units of space and time, by combining the constants c and Ry, as I have done, following Larson, is ruled out by empirical evidence. However, the claim is not that smaller intervals of space and time cannot be measured, but it is that these intervals are the intervals that enter into the fundamental physical equations such as E = mc^2 and E = hnu.

I must concede that the proof of this claim is yet to be provided. Certainly, it's the subject of ongoing investigation. In his work, Larson was able to obtain remarkable results with it, including the interatomic distances of many substances, and the clarification of many basic properties of matter (see Volume II of The Structure of the Physical Universe.)

However, his success was due to something he called the "inter-regional ratio," which was an empirically derived value that he explained, theoretically, as due to the statistical relationship between combinations of X(t) / t and t / X(t) units of motion, to put it in terms of your equation above.

This ratio, and the fact that space and time are reciprocals, leading to a concept of "equivalent space," together with the fact that the compounding of X(t) / t and t / X(t) units of motion, which constitute the theoretical atoms, actually result in net time structures, accounts for the apparent discrepancies in atomic and particle radii quite convincingly.

Finally, in applying the distinction between classical and relativistic theories, which clearly separates Newtonian mechanics in the limit of small potential and low velocity, from relativistic mechanics, to RST-based theories, you are mistakenly comparing apples and oranges. This distinction has to do with the physics of the one-dimensional velocities of the vector motions of mass, and is not properly applied to the n-dimensional scalar motion of RST-based theory, which takes a more fundamental position.

The best way to understand the regime of RST-based physics is to consider the dilemma of the charged point particle and its enigma, invoking Poincaré stresses, and the spectre of singularities, which string theory addresses so admirably.

Ok, I hope I have responded adequately to your criticisms, Brian. Please don't hesitate to continue the challenge. I really do appreciate your willingness to honestly engage in the discussion.

Doug,

I thought I should expand on my view a little;

"First, the "motion" of temperature is scalar, just as John states. Like the prices of the stock market, temperature "moves" "up" or "down" relative to a given point. Its relative increase, or decrease, can be described as motion, but the motion is scalar; that is, it has no direction in space. Likewise, time is measured as a scalar change, but just as the motion of an object from location to location cannot be described without a change of time, so too the scalar change of temperature cannot be measured without a change of time.

In other words, there can be no motion, vectorial or scalar, without a change in time. Thus, to assert that "time and temperature are both descriptions of motion," as John does is not accurate. Motion, by definition, requires two, reciprocal, changes of scalar quantity. Time is one of these changing scalars, while the other may be distance, prices, or temperature.

In the case of Rovelli's timeless point of view, the motion of a clock is still a change of two, reciprocal, positions; that is, the hands move in one direction, while the face moves in the opposite direction, but, as he writes, "General relativity describes the relative evolution [i.e. relative change] of observable quantities, not the evolution of quantities as functions of a preferred one. To put it pictorially: with general relativity we have understood that the Newtonian "big clock" ticking away the 'true universal time' is not there." "

Temperature is an average of a quantity of motion, not a specific motion. Time, on the other hand, is the duration of a specified process. The difference is that if the level of activity remains stable, temperature does not change. It can be defined as a specific point. On the other hand, time cannot be confined to a specific point, as that would imply the cessation of this particular motion. Just as the temperature of absolute zero would be the cessation of all motion. Think if you were to specify the exact location of the molecules of water which manifest the temperature; If they had an exact location, than they wouldn't have motion, the water would freeze and the temperature would drop. If you were then to specify the exact location of the sub-atomic particles of this ice, than it would effectively vanish, as there would be no relationship between what are nearly dimensionless points and than you would have a temperature of absolute zero. (In fact, there seems to be no base layer of substance, only emergent effects of more fundamental layers of motion. What are those 'dimensions' curled up inside strings, but the inner surfaces of smaller vortexes?) Any specified motion relative to its context creates the hands and face of its own clock and there is no 'true universal time.' So while temperature as an average can remain stable, time as a measure of specific motion cannot be defined as a exact point.

The problem with describing time as a dimension is that it implies specific points on a line, but if you describe time as a point, it is meaningless. Part of the problem has to do with describing space as three dimensional. Three dimensions are the coordinate system of the center point. The problem with this coordinate description of space is that the default state is assumed to be that dimensionless center point, thus if there is no energy and structure in space, it would shrink to this absolute zero point. While the point on a line between positive and negative numbers is zero, that doesn't mean zero is a point, but rather it is the absence of any numbers, or points. The real absolute for geometry is the blank sheet of paper, not the point at the center of it. The absolute is the vacuum. This means that energy and geometry define space, rather than create it, because there could well be any number of center points.

Also, space can be defined as volume as well as the distance implied by dimensionality. The same logic used to say time is the fourth dimension of space could be used to say that temperature is an additional parameter of volume, as they both relate properties of energy. Just as it takes a specific amount of time for light to travel a specific distance, therefore they are interchangeable, regulating the volume of a specific amount of energy causes its temperature to change accordingly. An useful example is the CMBR, which is described as decreasing in temperature as the volume of the universe expands.

Nature is a fluctuating vacuum, with distance and volume as description of the vacuum and time and temperature as description of the fluctuation. So space is the basis of motion, while time is a consequence of it.

Regards, John

sp: vortices

Larson has several other claims for instance his book Beyond Space and Time which describes the biological realm, and the unexplored third sector, referred to as the Metaphysical, or Ethical sector.

FQXI has a handful of members that include important theorists: Alan Guth, Dieter Zeh, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin, John Barrow and Brian Greene. Additionally high profile Nobel laureates, Frank Wilczek and Steven Weinberg are members. Some of these theorists may be remembered in the same regard as a Newton or Einstein. If your essay were to win a juried prize that would make you a member of FQXI giving Larson, and his more exotic ideas, powerful street credit. Your prose and compassion for your idea may warrant a community prize but I have focused on your mathematics because an expert jury would not be fooled.

I plan on submitting an essay that I have put a lot of work into and someone may punch it full of holes, but all is not lost. In the process of bringing it to fruition I learned a great deal more about the universe and being wrong can be the most humbling and character building of experiences.

This will be my last post so I would like to give you some parting advice. Your sole focus on Larson is creating group think and destroying your creativity. Also put down the physics books written for a general audience and study the textbooks. If you stay with RS theory without ever mastering the fundamentals of physics you stay frustrated. Your prose is there now we just need to get you up to speed on mathematical proofs!

Hi John,

Thanks for expanding on your ideas. In my case, however, I'm forced by the postulates of the RST to follow their logical consequences. The first postulate is:

The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.

The first challenge is to understand what this postulate means. The first question most people ask upon encountering it is "The motion of what?" The traditional cosmological premise was that space is a pre-existing container of matter. However, as we now know, with the advent of Einstein's general relativity theory (GR), Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory (BB) of cosmology, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" that posits that the universe is composed of space, time, and matter, but with a beginning, a starting point characterized as the beginning of motion, the outward motion of matter, but not the motion of matter into a pre-existing container of space over time, but rather the motion of matter together with the motion, as expansion, of space and time, as well.

As an application of GR, the BB arises from the spherically symmetric dust solution of Einstein's field equations. Thus, like the standard model (SM) of particles physics, the BB model of cosmology has free parameters. Of these, two are the cosmic time coordinate t and the comoving radial coordinate r, which Dr. E uses as the basis for his moving dimensions theory (MDT). We can say without contradiction that, in contrast to the time and space of the steady state theory cosmology, which it replaced, the time and space of BB cosmology expands, or increases, and it increases from a theroretical beginning point in the past.

In contrast to BB cosmology, then, cosmology based on the first fundamental RST postulate has nothing to say about a beginning, or an endlng, and upon reflection we can see that this is because it posits only the expansion of space and time, defined as motion, leaving out Lemaître's "hypothesis of the primeval atom" of matter. Instead, it posits that matter is composed of discrete, or quantum, units of space and time.

But how on earth is it possible to go from the continuum of a uniform expansion of space and time (as a dustless solution to Einstein's field equations we might say) to the units of a discretium of space and time? This question plaqued Einstein, who wrote to his friend Walter Dällenbach:

"The problem seems to me [to be] how one can formulate statements about a discontinuum without calling upon a continuum (space-time) as an aid; the latter should be banned from the theory as a supplementary construction, not justified by the essence of the problem, [a construction] which corresponds to nothing "real." But we still lack the mathematical structure unfortunately. How much have I already plagued myself in this way."

The solution to this problem is described in my essay. We can observe the expansion of time; We can observe the expansion of space, and we can observe that the relation of the two, as the reciprocal aspects of motion, is constant, the constant c. In light of the postulate, then, this leads us inexorably to the observation that, since we have learned that continuous waves and discrete particles are dual aspects of the same phenomena, the concept of vibration is key to the concept of quantization, which then leads us to look for a constant of vibration that might correspond to the constant of uniform motion.

The Rydberg constant may not be the correct one, but it's a likely one to start with. You might say it's a candidate for the "pulse" of the universe, with which we can measure the periodicity of the "swinging chandeliers" we see all around us, if you know what I mean.

Brian wrote:

"Your prose is there now we just need to get you up to speed on mathematical proofs!"

Sounds good to me Brian!

Doug,

To a certain extent we arrive at somewhat similar conclusions from vastly different foundations, in that I've come to doubt the central premise of an expanding universe.

I certainly didn't set out to disagree with the cosmological standard model when I first tried to make sense of it, but one particular observation has led me to where I am now. It is that, "Omega=1."

If, as tests by COBE and WMAP would seem to prove, the rate expansion of space is evenly balanced by gravitational contraction, Lemaitre's Big Bang theory doesn't make sense. If the expansion of intergalactic space is offset by the contraction of gravity, then there is no overall expansion, because these gravitational wells are effectively consuming the expanding space. When this first occurred to me, it seemed some sort of cycle would better explain the situation, where the mass falling inward, expands back out as energy, until it cools and starts to collapse again. This would logically explain why these opposing effects are in overall balance.

It seems quite likely that the cosmic redshift is evidence of Einstein's cosmological constant, which was originally proposed to balance the universe and prevent gravity from causing it to collapse. So I find it interesting that the effect attributed to dark energy has been found to fit the cosmological constant. If space, or the path light travels across it, expands at a constant rate, this would cause redshift to compound, so that the further light travels, the greater the multiplier effect and so the faster the source appears to recede, until it appears to be traveling away from us at the speed of light. Obviously this creates a horizon line over which visible light will not pass, though black body radiation would.

The original understanding of galaxies simply flying away from each other was modified to say that space itself has expanded from an initial point because it would otherwise appear that we are at the center of the universe, given that other, non local galaxies are redshifted so that they all appear to be moving directly away from us. It seems to me the flaw in this logic is that the speed of light should have to increase accordingly, since it is our constant measure of space, but this doesn't make sense. If two galaxies are x lightyears apart and the universe doubles in size, are they 2x lightyears apart? If so, that's not expanding space, but an increasing distance in stable space. If they still appear x lightyears apart, as the speed of light increases along with the expansion, by what measure are we saying the universe is expanding, since no matter how big it gets, everything still appears the same distance apart?

The question of what might cause light to redshift and thus our perception of space to expand is an open question. For one thing, I think that light must effectively travel as waves and it is only when it contacts some sufficiently opposing force that if effectively "condenses" out as a quanta of light, or photon. For one thing, this would explain why light remains so focused when it travels over billions of light years. If it were traveling as discrete particles it would seem the potential for scattering would be much greater and there would be enough instances of diffused light to measure this. It might explain redshift as well. The idea of "tired light" was dismissed for the very reason that light was so clear and if anything had interfered with the photons to slow them, the scattering would be apparent, but if light travels as a wave, the further it expands, the more area it has to cover and this increase in volume would reduce the energy of a wave, but not its focus, as that would quantize out as an individual photon.

I could offer some more points on this, if I go through my brain some more, but either you see my position or not, so I'll expand the context.

You propose something similar to Dr. E's theory of the expanding fourth dimension. As I pointed out to him, if, as he seems to suggest, this expanding wave is light, or represents light, than according to Einstein, light is the constant and gravity is actually shrinking the three dimensional geometric space, relative to this standing wave.

What if, as seems likely, there is both expansion of light and contraction of gravitational structure. Then add to that my observation of a cycle balancing these two sides out. So what you have is light/energy expanding out as continuous waves from all directions, in all directions, so that the space defined by these waves is effectively expanding. They then either reach a point where they connect with/ground out on something else, much like a lightning bolt quantizes its energy to a single connection point. Or they travel so far that they fall off the spectrum of visible light and end up as a sea of black body radiation, which would have a clear demarcation temperature of 2.7k, because that is the "dew point/phase transition" above which it isn't stable and starts to condense out as interstellar gases. These than start to collapse back down and start the gravitational process all over again. This gravitational collapse eventually reaches the point where it heats back up and ignites, radiating the energy back out as waves. So you have both an expanding continuum and a collapsing discontinuum.

Since, as I argued in my own entry, time is energy going past to future, while the information and structure are the effect of events which go from being in the future to being in the past, than these two sides of the cycle are effectively the two directions of time. As the energy goes from one event to the next, all this discontinuous structure amounts to information which is first in the future, be it our individual lives, or those of stars and galaxies, then ends up in the past. Even Big Bang theory posits the entire universe as a unit which is first in the future, then is present, then is past, as its internal narrative goes from beginning to end.

I realize this is all speculation and given personal experience, is for nought, since astrophysics dismisses any theory not founded on the Big Bang model. This is actually more a problem for them than me though, as I am not a scientist, only someone motivated by curiosity. Even the leading physicists admit physics has been spinning its wheels for a generation. The result has been that in an age when all the sciences have been advancing at warp speed, the next generation of visionaries have tended to go to those sciences which are making the most advances, because there is the ability to question and re-examine anything and everything, while physics has been taken over by the disciplinarians who can most closely hew to the central tenets that have been laid down, with the hope of someday reaching the top of the pile and adding a few more steps. The problem is they lack the vision to realize every step they have taken was originally wild speculation in its day and out of that coalesced a reasonably workable model, but one which any number of cracks might still run through the foundations and only be plastered over in time. Since only those who make it to the top of this ladder are allowed the prerogative of questioning it, it isn't questioned, as those at the top of the ladder are the ones most dependent on it. They speculate about such things as multiple universes to explain this one and "block time" rising out of the fact that narrative is modeled as a dimension, while those of us on the outside offering ideas are the cranks.

Regards, John

John,

I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand professional physicists are continuously deluged by the half-baked ideas of the public, and they understandably become inured to this kind of thing. Yet, my hope is similar to Lee Smolin's, which is that one of us non-professionals could help find the mountain in the landscape of possibilities that the professionals would then be able to scale. Did you happen to catch the Science Friday show with Brian Green and Lee Smolin? If you read my preliminary essay, you will find part of my original narrative on the show in there, but I'll repeat it here in its entirety, for the first time, just for you:

Begin narrative:

After discussing Smolin et al's criticism of string theory's failure to predict new physical phenomena, and the effective suppression of new ideas due to its thorough domination of academia, they turned to discussing the physics crisis itself.

As Green explained how tests of the consistency of string theory calculations, and comparisons with the established concepts of physics, show that the "theory comes through with flying colors every step of the way and keeps us thinking that things are at least headed in the right direction," Flatow turned to Smolin and asked, "Well, Lee, what would be wrong with that, if things are working like that?"

Smolin's answer was very telling, and it's well known in the community: In spite of these favorable things that one can say about string theory, there are some very important things that "it doesn't come close to doing," asserted Smolin. Then he hit the nail squarely on the head:

"If you really put quantum mechanics together with the description of space, then we know, from general considerations, that the notion of space should disappear. Just like the notion of the trajectory of a particle disappears in quantum mechanics, ...the same thing should happen to space and the geometry of space."

"So far, string theory doesn't address this very directly," Smolin said, "while other approaches do," referring, of course, to his own continuum-based theory of quantum gravity, called loop quantum gravity (LQG), but before he could explain this further, Flatow took a call from a listener who suggested that "thinking outside the box," is what's required, which momentarily distracted the conversation away from the idea that "the notion of space should disappear," in the union of quantum mechanics and the description of space (the spacetime of relativity theory).

Smolin replied to the listener's comment, stating that, while he agrees with her, he definitely feels that it has to be the trained minds of professional physicists that do the "out of the box" thinking, who "go back in the decision tree," looking for new answers to foundational questions, because only they are prepared to readily scale the true mountain of knowledge, once the location of the highest peak in the landscape is discovered. Whereupon Flatow interjected with the obvious conclusion, in the form of a penetrating question:

"Are we at a point now, where you just have to sit and scratch your head and think, "We need some revolution, don't we?" I mean, we need a revolution in physics; maybe, we need a new physics!"

However, Smolin's reply to this conclusion reveals just how difficult it is for the minds of professionals, trained from the start in what Thomas Kuhn termed "normal science," to think "outside of the box." Instead of agreeing with Flatow's conclusion that a "new physics" is required, he demurred. "Nothing can happen without experiments," he asserted laconically, deftly inferring a different meaning of the phrase "new physics," which is a phrase that today is commonly used to refer to new experimental anomalies, not a new foundation for theoretical physics, something that is nearly inconceivable to the professional physicist. Yet, the truth is, the trouble with physics is not due to a lack of available, inexplicable, empirical data, but to the fact that there is no satisfactory explanation of the existing data from many, many experiments, including the anomalous results behind the so-called dark energy and dark matter enigmas, and the famous Yang-Mills mass-gap problem, to name just a few.

Clearly, however, Smolin revealed his hand with his comment: While he's certainly dismayed with the emphasis on string theory research, which seeks to unify the discrete with the continuous through modification of the current discrete paradigm, with which the string theorists are most familiar, Smolin and company prefer to approach the problem from within the context of the current continuous paradigm, with which they are most familiar.

Smolin's argument is not that a new foundation for theoretical physics is required, but that a shift in academic research emphasis is required, from the "let's modify the existing discrete theory" to solve the problem (string theory), to the "let's modify the existing continuous theory" to solve the problem (loop quantum gravity). The pressing need, from Smolin's point of view, is to complete the "unfinished revolution," which Planck and Einstein started, by exploiting Einstein's concept of the continuum, in order to unite the disparate theories, instead of modifying Einstein's concept of the quantum, in order to unite them.

Yet, the most logical conclusion that naturally occurs to the non-professional, didn't escape Flatow: "We need a revolution in physics; maybe, we need a new physics!" he had interjected, implying the need for a completely new foundation for theoretical physics, which doesn't require the reconciliation of two, incompatible, theoretical concepts of space and time, one static and fixed, the other dynamic and changing, but finds a new concept of space and time that works as nature works; that is, a new concept that works as the dual properties of one component, where the discrete and continuous realities are simply two aspects of the same thing.

Truly, as unpalatable, as unlikely, and as inconceivable, as the prospect is to the many of the minds of today's practitioners of "normal science," the possibility that a totally new solution exists that would revolutionize existing discrete and continuous concepts, and that would explain the dual quantum and continuum nature of reality, as two aspects of the same entity, has to be regarded as a legitimate alternative that needs to be seriously considered, though it may seem iconoclastic to today's scientists.

Evidently, as the NPR interview continued, since Smolin had dismissed the possibility of a "new [theoretical] physics," which he had suggested, Flatow turned to Green to get his comments, and Green seemed more willing to admit that something truly revolutionary in physical concepts is needed in our conception of space and time:

"I full well believe that we will, when we do complete this revolution that Lee is referring to, have a completely different view of the universe. I totally agree with Lee, that everything we know points to space and time not even being fundamental entities...We think that space and time...rely upon more fundamental ideas...What those fundamental entities are...that make up space and time, we don't know yet, ...but, when we get there, I think that we will learn that space and time are not what we thought they are. They are going to morph into something completely unfamiliar, and we'll find that, in certain circumstances, space and time appear in the way we humans interpret those concepts, but fundamentally the universe is not built out of these familiar notions of space and time that we experience."

Flatow stumbled a little, trying to get his head around an idea of what this might mean in terms of changes to existing concepts, which prompted Green to add:

"It would change the very notion of reality...We all think about reality existing in a region of space and taking place through some duration of time, but we've learned that those basic ideas of the arena of space and the duration of time are not concepts that even apply, in certain realms, and if the notions of space and time evaporate, then our whole conception of reality, the whole container of reality will have evaporated, and we'll have to learn to think about physics and the universe completely differently."

End of narrative

Of course, I believe that this new notion of reality is that everything consists of nothing but motion, a reciprocal relationship of space and time. However, it took me two months of full-time effort to simply write a ten-page essay in 5000 words on it, because there is so much to say that it's easy to get off track, when trying to capture it succinctly.

Many of the things you mention are interesting, and I would love to discuss them with you sometime, but the challenge I face right now is to try to convince Green, Smolin and company, to take a serious look at this mountain that I'm writing about. I think it's worth scaling, but he's right - you and I are not prepared to do it. We can only try to get their attention. Sometimes I have wished that Steven Weinberg were my uncle. LOL!!

John,

I agree that it's easy to get cynical sometimes, but I also realized a long time ago that people do what they have to do and think what they have to think. You can't blame them for that, since we all do it.

Building an alternative, if it can be done, is the only course that will work. In my case, I found that there was no need to focus on trying to convince other people, which is something I learned from Larson's example.

Years ago, before I learned this lesson, I would write Steven Weinberg about once a year. He was kind enough to always reply, although it was usually a simple line or two, dismissing my comment or question, in the "not even wrong" sense. When I realized that he really had no other option and that I probably would have done the same thing, had I been in his position, I felt embarrassed, and I stopped writing him out of compassion. Can you imagine getting constantly flooded with messages appealing to ideas that are not even wrong?

So, the first task of an "uncommitted investigator" is to be sure his thinking can be wrong, and to gain a thorough understanding of how to tell if it can be wrong. I was fortunate, because I was starting with 1, 2, 3, and 4. It's pretty simple, something that surely could be wrong, but it gets complicated fast, so I wasn't always so sure.

Eventually, things began to work out. Now, I just take it one step at a time, hoping I can still tell if it's wrong, or not, but many times, it's not easy. The thing is, though, most of the time, I'm the one who is now in a position to judge whether or not it is possible that something is wrong. That's a good position to be in because it gives you confidence. Once in this position, you don't need the confirmation of experts in the same sense that you do when you are not in it. Does this make any sense?

For example, the idea that force, such as an electric charge, can be autonomous, a "fundamental" entity, is something that you can tell is wrong, without having to get anybody to agree with you. You do this by determining what the meaning of the word is. As I've already explained, the word force is only a label defined to express a product: It tells us how much of a quantity of motion is undergoing a time rate of change. It's like evaluating a currency that is undergoing a time rate of change in its exchange value. We could call it the force of inflation, but we wouldn't ever think that this force could be autonomous. How could you refer to a force of inflation without the notion of its exchange value?

It's the same with the electron. It appears to have a charge without any underlying motion, like an inflating currency that has no underlying exchange value. Huh? This just doesn't make any sense! It's not even wrong!

Yet, the entire modern physics community will look narrowly upon you, if you try to maintain it, because they long ago invoked an illegitimate alternative to motion produced force, when there seemed to be no other way out. But are you going to be able to convince them, at this point? If you think so, I have a bridge that you may be interested in as well.

The thing is, John, you don't need to convince them. You only need to know if it can be wrong or not. If it can't be wrong, then you follow the consequences, if you are able to do so. That's all there is to it. It keeps you from getting cynical.

I hope this helps.

P.S. This argument against autonomous force has been made moot now by the adoption of the concept of "exchange force," used in the standard model, but it still serves to illustrate the point, I think.

Doug,

I don't see myself as cynical. Knowledge, just like everything else, is evolutionarily bottom up. Occasionally it plateau's, either because it doesn't have the wherewithal to continue and needs to marshall the facts to do so, or because the facts have abandoned it and it hasn't the initiative to reset, assuming the facts will eventually support it. There is no real way to know which the case is, until history has fully judged the situation. This can take a long time sometimes. Ptolomy's epicycles wouldn't have lasted for 1500 years if western civilization hadn't gone into hibernation between the fall of Rome and the end of the Dark Ages. Currently we have a large and well funded academic establishment which views the foundation on which it rests as solid, since it has produced many stunning technological advances, so that the supporting society isn't going to question its current state too closely, but sometimes strengths obscure weaknesses. I may sound frustrated in the last post, but I'd be perfectly happy to find where and which points I'm making are wrong. It's not like events go from being in the future to being in the past falls in the category of 'not even wrong." Tomorrow becomes yesterday is a fact, not a theory. "Not even wrong" just means not coherent enough to make a clear statement, whether right, or wrong. I think a large part of the problem is the academic necessity of publishing, or perishing, so those who find themselves in the business have to say something, even if they are winging it.

As for the point you are making, it seems to be of the issue whether reality is fundamentally dynamic, or fundamentally static. Are what we consider 'nouns' just transient nodes in the network of activity and there are simply opposing energies, or is activity simply the consequence of some underlaying essence. Physics is determined to find this essence, be it a TOE, god particle or whatever. My argument is this either/or question is moot. It is essentially a dichotomy, like my point about energy and information. You can't have one without the other, as information defines the energy which manifests this information. So when you pursue one or the other, it just gets tangled up. If you view it from the perspective of the dynamic, as QM mostly does, the information breaks down and blurs into fuzziness. While if you view it from the static geometry of Relativity, the dynamic is lost and you end up with things like 'block time.'

Regards, John

Dear Doug and John,the comment poster,

May i introduce some lightness in your intimate , intensive discussions through the following points:-

1. The Universe was created or it has always existed! if Bigbang is right it has been created. If so, what existed before. If it is perfect vacuum or the non-physical 'consciousness', then how it gave rise to the Universe that we apparently observe now?

2. Let us always remember that we humans are a negligible part of this entire Universe, full of its mysteries. Cosmology and Astrophysics have only provided limited measurements and that too with more limited accuracy.

3. Our mind is the only source that may provide access to the non-physical entity called 'consciousness'. Have we done something to train and control our mind! Normal life that we live, indicates that it usually runs wildly. In my own essay, i have hinted at the techniques of meditation and Yoga, through my personal experience, to be relevant in such a matter.

4. Nothingness, thoughtlessneses and silence appear to contain all the chaos, randomness and various dualities that we note in the Universe and not the other way around!

5. Besides the western philosophers, there exist a number of eastern philosophers both in ancient and modern times, who have gone into the 'inner depths' and have provided some postulates that may be worth the consideration in order to understand " The nature of Time " and how to about seeking reality. I have quoted two verses from Patanjali, the founder of Yoga techniques some 4000 yrs. back. These are profound as the first quote goes well beyond what Quantum Mechanics gave us now in the form of the observer/observed relationship!

Let us all have fun with seriousness that the topic deserves, as i myself am enjoying the essays contributed and am posting my comments on many of them, no offance or criticism implied. Love is truly our unifying nature as humans and we shall win if we constantly remember it in practice.

I read your 'Mystic Number Four' theory with interest.

I do agree with you that the Superstring Model is a wrong mixture of dependent measurements taken as they were independent (through the dispersing prism of motion); and the result is to dig a ditch between theory and concretion*.

That's why I follow you when you try to put order (with geometry), when you are isolating the mistake as a virus in a body; and why not ask Euclide or Pythagore to help you for that? Is C. Rovelli's trial so different? I am not sure that he does not pull the 'subtle' Time and the cognition parameters over because of the disorder Time is introducing in the 'Quanta Theory'. But Temperature is as biological or chemical as Time is.

But in my opinion your method is spoiled as string theory ideograms on this point: your eight squares and symetry drives you to deduce the facts from the theory as SM theoricians do. For instance: where is the point in the middle of your two dimensional cross coming from? Space or Time? Yourself? It is not clear.

(*Einstein's intuition was that the Universe was not an expanding Universe.)

Doug,

I have another question or two. In figure 1, you show deuterium composed of a proton plus a neutron but the proton in the graphic must be protium (hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron). Is the upside down triangle with the reddish border and -3 in the center of the proton supposed to be the electron?

The second question has to do with your new definition of motion. On page 4 you write:

"What this means, in the final analysis, is that we are able to define a multi-dimensional type of motion, differing from, but not replacing, the familiar definition of 1-dimensional motion. The familiar vector motion requires the change in an object's actual, or probable, location, for the purpose of defining a change in space over time, but under the new definition, a moving object is not required to define this change. We call this newcomer to the theoretical scene, scalar motion, a 3D, massless, motion, taking its place, by virtue of the definition of motion, along side the familiar definition of 1D vector motion, the motion of mass in one direction at a time."

Since physics is all about potential and kinetic energy doesn't this mean that you must redefine those two things as well? How can you do so without mass?

Thanks to commentors Narendra Nath and F. Le Rouge. Your comments are appreciated.

F. Le Rouge says: "I read your 'Mystic Number Four' theory with interest...but in my opinion your method is spoiled as string theory ideograms on this point: your eight squares and symetry drives you to deduce the facts from the theory as SM theoricians do. For instance: where is the point in the middle of your two dimensional cross coming from? Space or Time? Yourself? It is not clear."

Interesting question. The two-dimensional cross is the cross section of the eightfold cube, and the point is where the corners of the eight cubes in the 2x2x2 stack of one-unit cubes meet.

In order to observe a given, ongoing, unit, space/time progression, P, where space is 3D and time is 0D, a 3 1 dimensional reference location, x, y, z, t, must be selected in P. This location is necessarily zero, with respect to time, or t0, since all locations that are in the order before it is selected are at t0 - tn, and all locations after it is selected in the order will be at t0 tn, in the infinite order of P.

This is not a fact; it is only a logical and mathematical consequence stemming from the assumption of an infinite, discrete, space/time progression in four dimensions. The fact is, however, that given the assumption of the progression, the mathematical consequences reproduce the tetraktys, and the four spaces of the associated Clifford algebra, at tn - t0, when n = 1.

It is immaterial "when," or "where," the reference location is selected, the eightfold cube, the 3D pseudoscalar, will always be the result. This means that "when" and "where" really have no meaning until the reference location in P is selected.

What we can deduce from this, as far as constructing a physical theory, can only be verified to some degree of certainty that will always be less than 100%, by comparing the results with observation. Since it is possible to deduce consequences that have not yet been observed, the system possesses the power of prediction, making it falsifiable, unlike string theory, which appears to lack this property.

Hi Larry,

The answer to your first question is yes. Unfortunately, the error in this graphic is misleading. The word "proton" should be "protium" instead. The electron, composed of three "negative" preons (three "red" S|T units), neutralizes the three net "positive" charges of the proton, composed of one down quark, with one net "negative" charge, and two up quarks, with four net "positive" charges, which balances the protium atom, with four "negative" and four "positive" charges, as shown

Your second question is more difficult to answer. It has to do with the fundamental duality of the two systems. In the system of vectorial motions, the fundamental duality is that of potential and kinetic energy, where the total energy of the system is conserved. This is best illustrated in the swinging mass of a pendulum. At the top of the swing on either side, there is a point where the mass is stationary, so the kinetic energy must be zero at those two points, but at the bottom of the swing, halfway between these two points, the kinetic energy is at its maximum, and the gravitational potential energy is zero.

Now, what I will have to say about this below is based on Peter Rowlands analysis of the factor of 2 in fundamental physics

(see: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0110/0110069v1.pdf).

We can compare this relationship between the potential and kinetic energy of the system, the symmetry of which incorporates the law of conservation of total energy, to geometry, because the area of a given right triangle is one-half the area of a corresponding rectangle:

A = (base x height)/2,

where two, dual, triangles are formed by bisecting a rectangle along a diagonal, each with area = A. The correspondence to kinetic energy is made by noticing that the diagonal, bisecting the rectangle, taken as the straight-line graph of velocity, v, multiplied by time, t, defining a uniform acceleration, determines the distance traveled, d, as the area underneath the line, or d = vt/2. When this accelerated motion is the acceleration of mass, the corresponding energy equation that applies has the dimensions of energy derived from the kinetic energy equation, E = ½ (mv)v, or momentum (mass time velocity) times velocity, or mass times velocity squared, divided by two (corresponding to ½ of the area of the rectangle, the area of the triangle.)

On the other hand, if the motion were unaccelerated, the area underneath the horizontal line of the rectangle (the top line of the rectangle), represents the distance traveled, or d = vt. When this unaccelerated motion is the velocity of mass, the corresponding energy equation that applies has the dimensions of energy derived from the potential energy equation, E = mv^2, or mass times velocity squared, not divided by two (corresponding to the total area of the rectangle, the area of both triangles combined.)

In general terms, then, there is a fundamental distinction being made here between continuous conditions (constant motion) and continuously changing conditions (accelerating motion,) and the distinction is made by a factor of two, because the continuously changing conditions invoke the Merton mean speed theorem, where the total distance traveled under uniform acceleration must equal the product of the mean speed and the time.

This reflects a very ancient foundational principle that incorporates what has been called the mediato/duplatio, or halving/doubling, basis for counting systems such, as the Mayan long count and other ancient counting systems, and there is much more to say about it than I can say here.

But briefly, recall that the fundamental duality in the new system, the scalar motion system, is the duality of spatial and temporal pseudoscalars, which also comes from a factor of 2, but the factor of 2 here is not related to the simple 1D geometric principle of the diagonal of the rectangle, which applies to the straight-line function of vt, or the space of 1D vector distance, but rather it is related to a much more complex 3D geometric principle of the diameter of the sphere, which applies to the function of v^3t, or the space of 3D pseudoscalar volume.

As Peter Rowlands shows in his paper, "...the factor 2 makes its appearance in molecular thermodynamics, quantum theory and relativity. It is, in a sense, the factor which relates the continuous aspect of physics to the discrete, and, as both these aspects are required in the description of any physical system, the factor acquires a universal relevance."

Hence, the relevance this factor has in the new system is the focus of our program of research. On this basis, we have been able to construct the toy model of the standard model illustrated in figure 1 of my essay, as well as the periodic table of elements, as shown here: http://www.lrcphysics.com/wheel

Our current goal, however, is the calculation of the atomic spectra. In this connection, it should be noted that the difference between the factor of 2 periods of the QM-based periodic table, and the factor of 2 periods of the RST-based periodic table, is a factor of 2! That is to say, in the QM-based theory, the periods are a 2n^2 cycle, while in the RST-based theory, the periods are a 4n^2 cycle.

The trouble is, in the QM-based theory, though the 1D motion concepts (electronic orbitals, angular momentum, electron spin, etc.), were conceived based on the experimental observations of energy transitions in spectroscopy, there are so many possible transitions, and the calculations get so complicated, that, to this day, the solutions of the wave equation can only be found "in principle," for most of the elements (see Tomonaga's "The Story of Spin").

We have similar problems in the new system, but the main difference between the two systems is in the treatment of mass. In the QM-based system, mass is a given, just like space and time, so the mystery remains, what is its origin? On the other hand, in the RST-based system, we know that the origin of mass has to be scalar motion, but how does this come about? Starting with space and time only, how does mass, energy and radiation emerge?

Well the factor of two introduced by the kinetic energy equation, where the potential energy term is twice the kinetic energy term, is found schematically in the toy model. The red circle of an S|T unit in the model represents the vibrating spatial pseudoscalar, while the blue circle at the opposite end of the black line that joins them, represents the vibrating temporal pseudoscalar, and since these two are inverses of one another, while the one expands, the other must contract, and vice-versa.

It is this inverse relationship, the redistribution of scalar motion, that is a striking analog of the redistribution of kinetic energy in an f = ma system, but since no mass is involved, only changing space and time, something else has to bind the two pseudoscalars together. It turns out that it is possible to show that this bond is a result of the continuous "flow" of space and time, thus completing the analogy of the relationship of potential and kinetic energy in the viral theorem. The scalar progression, t^0, of the spatial pseudoscalar oscillation, and the scalar progression, s^0, of the temporal pseudoscalar oscillation make it possible for them to combine, and, if two instances of them do combine, there is no event to separate them ever after.

I hope this is helpful Larry.

Hi Narendra,

Thanks for your wise counsel. You wrote:

"1. The Universe was created or it has always existed! if Bigbang is right it has been created. If so, what existed before. If it is perfect vacuum or the non-physical 'consciousness', then how it gave rise to the Universe that we apparently observe now?"

Good question. We are all familiar with the usual answers, but I assume that you ask the question here in the context of my essay. In the universe of nothing but motion, the space/time expansion does not require an extrapolation back in time to a singularity. Since in the new system of theory, matter is not introduced into the space/time structure independently, but consists of combinations of discrete units of scalar motion, it becomes clear that an entirely new cosmology emerges from the theory, which only requires that we apply the consequences of the system to deduce the physical structure of the universe.

(see Larson's The Structure of the Physical Universe, Vol III, The Universe of Motion)

Certainly, however, this does not solve the problem of the big bang, but only transforms it from the unanswerable question of what existed prior to the beginning of the big bang, to the unanswerable question of what, or who, initiated, or instituted, the motion of the space/time expansion. Then, instead of having to swallow a theory of inflation, we have to swallow a theory of "direction" reversals in space or time, which locally quantizes the spacetime continuum. The question then becomes, "By what mechanism does the expansion oscillate at certain locations, but not others?" The only answer is that whatever can happen, will happen, at some point in time or space.

These answers are hardly more satisfactory than the explanations of the hot big bang theory, but Godel's incompleteness theorem gets us every time. In the end, we seem to have to just choose our poison, I suppose. It's now clear to many that science cannot come up with anything but an approximation of the truth. How close the approximation of one approach is than another is something that is relative to what aspect of the truth one is partial to. The ancients were very good at some things that are still complete mysteries to us, even though the feats of our science and technology go far beyond theirs, in other aspects.

Thanks again for your comments. I liked your essay, by the way.

Thanks for the response. it is nice to like something but it is far more welcome to have queries/comments. I shall welcome the same from you on my essay, as i am an experimental nuclear physicist and a novice in cosmology! We acn all get to the depth of an issue even in modern times 'full of knowledge cum informatiom', provided we develop the capacity of 100 % living in the present moment. Mind requires some training of being 'kept quiet' in some of the moments. There is the role of meditation cum Yoga. Self experience is a must for grasping a problem at hand. External factors/opinions need self assimilation, otherwise these are mere words of little consequence. The longer the comments are the less significant these tend to become.