daerengD Time Paradigm by Brian Beverly

When I think of dimensions I think of a linear combination of basis vectors that represent every vector in some vector space. The bases states I refer to in my paper are the imaginary Hilbert ones. I do not want anyone to confuse my conclusion as having rid my idea of dimensions. In fact I believe derangements may explain dimensions. For one object (x) there is no possible derangement. Add y, a second object, and the two could interact creating a change (xy). However, the (xy) derangement is (yx), and there is no new relative change. The minimum number of objects required to produce continuous change is three: (xyz), (yzx), (zxy)...repeat. I suppose that would make the fourth dimension the derangement, suach as (xyz) to (yzx). I could be wrong, but at least it is simple.

Hello Brian,

Thanks for the interesting essay!

You never mention the radiative arrow of time in your paper. This is puzzling, as the emission and propagation of photons powers so many clocks, including the clocks in your cell phone and computer, as well as on your wrist. And too, the emission and propagation of photons is ultimately responsible for your very own aging, as your body undergoes irreversible transformations.

Nor do you ever talk about the philosophical problems of frozen time and the blcok universe we live in. How does your theory provide a *physical* model that unfreezes time and liberates us from teh block universe? Also, your theory provides no mechanism for the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox, nor quantum entanglement, nor nonlocality. Einstein tells us that, "My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light] velocity," and yet your theory provides no physical mechanism from which the velcoity of light arises, nor time, for that matter.

You write, "The arrow of time is the result of entropy that is derived from microstates, macrostates

and multiplicities." Well, we all know what entropy is by now, long after Boltzman killed himself because his peers rejected s=klogw, but what is the *physical* source of entropy? What *physical* reality underlies entropy?

I think it is fairly obvious to everyone that entropy and irreversable processes define an arrow of time. This isn't exactly new physics.

You write, "Everything in the universe is in constant interaction with everything else, and these interactions

increase the overall multiplicity of the universe." Does this mean that we are interacting even with galaxies we have never observed, nor seen? Are you sure of this? Right now, for instance, am I interacting with galaxies nobody has ever seen?

You write, "The Copenhagen interpretation postulates the unsquared wavefunction as a mathematical

object with no physical significance."

Max Born wrote, "The question of whether the waves are something 'real' or a function to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... Quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born, Dover publ., 1964, 'Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance', p. 107)"

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

I understand that one get a physics degree these days without reading the Foundational Papers of Nobel Laureates, nor even believing that physics is about *physical* reality, but the fact is that those heroic men who advanced physics the most *did* believe that physics is about *physical* reality.

Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

Perhaps contemperary physics education, whcih emphaizes the unreal, politics, and snarky mathematical handwaving, explains why your theory is a non-theory which completely neglects the need for a *physical* model.

You conclude with "Derangements provide a derivation for the time evolution of the wavefunction and the mechanism of collapse. Fundamentally, time is a derangement, and the

temporal arrow is a phenomenon of derangements and entropy."

I think you are confusing math with physics. A "derangement" offers no *physical* model, nor physical "mechanism" of collapse.

Do you not long for a more heroic age of physics, Brian, where we approached the world as if it were *physically* real? It is not enough, in this brief life, to play number and word games, but a man has got to meet *physical* reality like a big-wave surfer meets a wave, and in this case the big wave is that of the fourth dimension which exapnds relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. And photons are but matter that ride that wave, just as Laird Hamilton rides a wave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Pw7vKtqpo

And too, I think it is fairly obvious to all physicists that entropy and irreversable processes define time's arrows. This isn't exactly new physics. It was new physics back when Boltman killed himself after his peers rejected it, but that was 102 years ago:

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

But what underlies entropy? You will enjoy my paper and Moving Dimensiosn Theory which offers a *physical* model underlying entropy, as well as time and all its arrows across all realms and Einstein's relativity, as well all the dualities and quantum entanglement and nonlocality. MDT also unfreezes time and liberates us from the block universe:

Time's Arrows and Asymmetries Unified:

Time's arrows are time's messengers, manifesters, and definers. Time, as measured by the ticking seconds on a clock, the melting of a snowman, the propagation of an electromagnetic wave, or the dissipation of a drop of food coloring throughout a pool, is an emergent phenomenon, which results because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, carrying energy in the form of matter rotated into the fourth expanding dimension.

This principle, which naturally suggests time's radiative and entropic asymmetries, may also account for the preponderance of matter over anti-matter. The vast majority of matter sees the fourth dimension as expanding. While a central point that receives shrinking spherical waves from a spherically-symmetric emitter consisting of numerous point emitters can be imagined, such central points, or positrons, are unstable, and adversely-susceptible to small imperfections, perturbations, and asymmetries in the incoming waves of the fourth dimension.

The Radiative Arrow of Time: As photons surf the fourth expanding dimension, radiation is fundamentally denoted by expanding spherical wave-fronts, and not shrinking spherical wavefronts.

Two photons originating from a common origin will harbor a vast probability of being found at great distances from one-another one second later--distances far greater than the

distance that separates them at their emission. Hence entropy.

Entropy--Time's Thermodynamic Arrow: Consider two or more particles in close proximity. The fourth dimension is expanding as a spherical wave-front relative to the three spatial dimensions. Two particles in close initial proximity have a greater chance of moving further apart as opposed to closer together. All particles will have a probability of being caught in the fourth expanding dimension in proportion to their energy, and thus increased energy correlates with increased motion. Hence a drop of food coloring dropped in a swimming pool will dissipate and effectively never converge.

The Cosmological Arrow of Time: As all motion derives from the fundamental motion dx4/dt=ic, the universe's general motion is expansion. If the absolute rate of c changes, the rate of expansion of the universe will appear to change. Hence an accelerating/decelerating universe.

The Causal Arrow of Time: The causal and psychological arrows of time are related to the capability of our minds to record events, as well as imagine future events, based on the cause and effect logic learned via our empirical existence. However, neither the past nor the future exist out there. There is but one present, though observers may disagree on its nature, due to the inextricable, tautological relationship between measurement and light, light and time, and time and measurement.

The Quantum Arrow of Time: The Copenhagen interpretation sees quantum evolution to be governed both by the Schrödinger equation, which is time-symmetric, and by the timeirreversible collapse of the wave function. Up until now, the mechanism of wave function collapse was philosophically obscure, but the current theory proposes that the wave function collapses as momenergy is removed from the fourth expanding dimension and localized, as when

a photon is measured or localized as a blackened grain on a photographic plate. At quantum, microscopic distances, and as t approaches zero, there is still a probability that an emitted photon can yet be found at its origin--that it has not moved--and thus entropy's thermodynamic arrow is

not as apparent, and time symmetry can appear intact in the quantum world in the realm of Planck times and distances. But as the fourth dimension expands at the rate of c, as t grows, so does entropy, thusly dominating time's arrows and our concept of time in the macroscopic world. Time travel to any significant degree is impossible because the fourth dimension never reaches

deeper than Planck's length. One could only go back in time by Planck's time.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

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

Hello Brian,

Your theory seems like it was written to please the antitheory elders and John Baez, instead of to adavance physics. I don't know how much longer the antitheory/quantum gravity regimes are going to last, so you may wish to focus more on physics and *physical* reality, than pleasing elders who spend their time devising crackpot indexes, instead of following their curiosities and contemplating *physical* reality, in this brief life. Sure, it might be harder to find employment with Baez et al right this momemnt, but at least you'll have the clear conscience that true, heroic physics survives and thrives by.

"Follow your bliss and don't be afraid, and doors will open where you didn't know they were going to be" -- Joseph Campbell

In Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson writes, "Dick [Richard Feynman] fought back against my skepticism, arguing that Einstein had failed because he stopped thinking in concrete physical images and became a manipulator of equations. I had to admit that was true. The great discoveries of Einstein's earlier years were all based on direct physical intuition. Einstein's later unified theories failed because they were only sets of equations without physical meaning. Dick's sum-over-histories theory was in the spirit of the young Einstein, not of the old Einsetin. It was solidly rooted in physical reality." --Freeman Dyson

So you see, Brian, you would be wise to root your theory in *physical* reality, no matter what the elder snarkers tell you. Life is fleeting, so you ought ride with the Greats--not the groupthinkers.

Below you will see a list of the *physical* questions asked and answered by the *physical* theory of MDT. Moving Dimensions Theory proposes a new universal physical invariant--a most powerful force of unification across all realms--the fourth dimension is exapnding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. From this simple postulate, and its equatin dx4/dt=ic, all of relativity may be derived; and motion, change, and time and all its arrows and assymetries naturally emerge, while we are offered a *physical* model for entropy, quantum nonlocality and entanglement, Huygens' principle, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

I would suggest that you come up with a theory that asks and answers the *physical* questions below, instead of merely trying to please the *Baez elders," even though they will be judging these essays. Earlier you wrote, "If everything I have spent precious time and money learning is wrong, then should I drop physics and go to law school? I'd be sad, the laws of man are not as cool as the laws of nature."

Yes Brian, I am sorry that you are now becoming liberated from the block universe and frozen time. You will have to finally cowboy up now and leave wormholes, tiny little vibrating strings, multiverses, time travel fantasies, and parallel universes behind. It is time to read the foundational papers--Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Dirac. You will have to find your own way now, independent of spacetime atoms, bouncing universes, time machines, and quantum gravity youth camps. Yes indeed--you write, "the laws of man are not as cool as the laws of nature," and that is exactly why physics has ground to a halt--for it has replaced the laws of nature, such as MDT, with the laws of man and their snarky bureuacracies which pen millions of indecipherable papers so as to drown out the lone voices of *physical* curiosity and reason. String theory, loop quantum gravity, multiverses, the landscape, hamsters, geometric mysticism, E8, and snarky quantum grvaity regimes, which have made a most profitable religion out of consistent, hand-waving failure, are on their way out, as they are all based on pseudo-laws made by men who placed the bottom line over the higher ideals and cash over curiosity.

If we are to go forward, Brian, we must go back to that heoric age of physics, where brave, honorable physicists met on the battlefield of *physical* reality, instead of snarking and sniping physicists from high up in their ivory towers of fiat groupthink, counting their grant money and planning trips to Tahoe and Hawaii.

"If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control." --Martin Luther King Jr.

In Dark Matters, Dr. Percy Seymour writes, "Albert Einstein was a great admirer of Newton, Farady, and Maxwell. In his office he had framed copies of portrtais of these scientists. He had this to say about Farady and Maxwell, in "Maxwell's Influence on the Development of the Concept of Physical Reality": "The greatest change in the axiamatic basis of physics--in other words, of our conception of the structure--since Newton laid the foundation of theoretical physics was brought about by Faraday's and Maxwell's work on electromagenetic phenomena" --p. 33-34, DARK MATTERS

In his book Einstein, Banesh Hoffman tells us: "Meanwhile, however, the English experimenter Michael Farady was making outstanding experimental discoveries in electricity and magnetism. Being largely self-taught and lacking mathemtical facility, he could not interpret his results in the manner of Ampere. And this was fortunate, since it led to a revolution in science. . . Ampere and others had conentrated their attention on the visible hardware--magnets, current-carrying wires, and the like--and on the numbers of centimeters separating the pieces of hardware. In so doing they were following the action-at-a-distance tradition that had devloped from teh enormous success of the Newtonian system of mechanics and law of gravitation. . .But Faraday regarded the hardware as secondary. For him the important physical events took place in the surrounding space--the filed. This, in his mind, he filled with tentacles that by their pulls and thrusts and motions gave rise to the electromagnetic effects observed. Although he could thus interpret his electromagnetic experiments with excellent precision and surprising simplicity, most physicists adept at methematics thought his concepts mathematically naive."--BANESH HOFFMAN, EINSTEIN

I can just picture John Baez hopping on String Theory Founder Michio Kaku's time machine and traveling on back to read his crackpot index to Farady! But then, Einstein had a picture of Farady in his office, and not Baez, even though Baez hop on Kaku's time machine and go back and replace Faradya's picture with his own, at any moment!.

"The trouble with physics" today is that it has placed snarky math and ad hominem attacks ahead of physics and *physical* reality. Countless anti-physicists look at postmodern patterns that they claim to be pretty, but which have little, if anything to do with *physical* reality, nor *physical* mechanisms; and they then set about to destroy the careers and condemn the curiosities of anyone who doesn't see the non-beauty of their anti-theories. The conforming, weak-minded, obedient grad students who agree that the unwieldy, postmodern, anti-theory math is beautiful are further trained to never ask questions regarding physical reality, and to actively castigate and impugn true physicists. So it is that physics grinds to a halt as physicists are exiled from the postmodern groupthink academy, and replaced by the "John Baez's" and their state-funded crackpot indexes, which are used as sledgehammers to destroy natural curiosity and true physicists; and keep the unprecedented cash (Maxwell and Faraday and Einstein never saw such massive funding!) flowing towards the antitheorists for their postmodern math projects, which of course rank extremely high on Baez's very own crackpot index:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

One of the sociological phenomena that is occurring here, is that when one is a crackpot with tenure and funding for crackpottery (by one's own definition and index), one's major concern becomes to destroy the higher competition--those with natural curiosity and a love of *physical* reality. The *real*--physics and Moving Dimensions Theory--is cast as unreal by the rich regime, while the *unreal*--quantum gravity and snarky math games--is cast as real physics. Well, of course progress in physics grinds to a halt, but this only compounds the problem, as their private failure must be projected onto others, and the cult of failure snowballs, attracting more and more weak-minded grad students and postdocs, who get free trips to Aspen and Hawaii for conferences, for merely going along with the hoax of the week, and proving their worth to the wealthy Regime by launching ad hominem attacks against true physicists and physics. Having no natural curiosity of their own, nor penchant for physics, they readily take up the job of hired mercenary, swearing allegiance to the orders shouted down from the top of the groupthink regime.

I always picture John Baez hopping on String Theory Founder Michio Kaku's time machine with his best/snarkiest grad students, traveleing on back in time to read his state-funded crackpot index to Boltzman and Bruno and Farady and Maxwell and Galileo and Einstein, laughing at them, and then hopping back on the time machine, high-fiving his grad students as Boltzman commits suicide, and making it back just on time for their quantum gravity conference in Aspen or Hawaii, where they surf and ski with glee--where they dance and sing and make youtube videos. You can see why progress in theoretical physics has ground to a halt. More federal/foundation money was spent on Baez's plane tickets last year than has ever been applied to Moving Dimensions Theory in all of time. And that is the way the antitheorists want it.

Neither Einsetein, nor Bohr, nor Wheeler, nor Feynman, nor Dirac, nor Weinberg, nor even Pauli ever had crackpot indexes, but then again, they were all physicists who contributed to physics. What we have today, instead, is institutionalized failure and groupthink, bolstered by Baez's crackpot index. As quantum gravity and computing are on tehir way out, leaving the index as Baez's most famous contribution to physics, I would not be surprised if he soon offers a class on it, "Advancing One's Career by Ad Hominem Attacks and Destroying the Heroic, Honorable Spirit of Physics 101."

Basically, Baez et al.'s crackpot index is used by today's antitheorists to keep physics and physicists out of the academy, as *physical* reality has no need for their groupthink. And so we have all their quantum gravity regimes, populated by useful idiots who were hand-picked by being those who never rose above Baez and his snarky, unheroic methods. When history is written, it will be noted antiphysicists such as Baez used state funding to support their crackpot indexes and their snarky, jetsetting ways, instead of the simple logic and beauty of Moving Dimensions Theory.

In Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson writes, "Dick [Richard Feynman] fought back against my skepticism, arguing that Einstein had fialed because he stopped thinking in concrete physical images and became a manipulator of equations. I had to admit that was true. The great discoveries of Einstein's earlier years were all based on direct physical intuition. Einstein's later unified theories failed because they were only sets of equations without physical meaning. Dick's sum-over-histories tehory was in the spirit of the young Einstein, not of the old Einsetin. It was solidly rooted in physical reality." --Freeman Dyson

Smolin writes in TTWP that Bohr was not a Feynman "shut up and calculate" physicist, and from the above Dyson quote, it appears that Feynam wasn't either:

"Mara Beller, a historian who has studied his [Bohr's] work in detail, points out tha there was not a single calculation in his research notebooks, which were all verbal argumen and pictures." --Smolin's The Trouble With Physics

Despite the fact that physics was advanced by physicists focusing on *physical* reality, as opposed to playing with snarky equations, here is how John Baez rules via ad hominem attacks and namecalling: "For people who think they can do fundamental physics without much math, the correct answer is not "no!" so much as "I doubt it, but go ahead and try". Most such people are crackpots and will produce nothing but nonsense, but someone might succeed, and only time will tell." --http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=615

"Most such people are crackpots," Baez writes. Well, what does he call all the people who contributed to the failure of his quantum gravity regime?

Then, later on in teh blog, Cool Hand Luke rides in, like a Cowboy, to set Baez straight:

"I would like to ask Baez to please refrain from saying things such as, "Most such people are crackpots and will produce nothing but nonsense, but someone might succeed, and only time will tell."

Saying things such as "Most such people are crackpots," just because they might value logic, reason, and truth over math, does not advance the culture nor physics.

Arxiv.org is filled with papers that are in turn filled with math-math that has never born any fruit. Reading Woit's and Smolin's books, a strong case could be made that today's crackpots prefer math. Why is it that government-funded mathematical nonesense is deemed superior to truth, logic, physics, and reason?

I hope that Baez someday has an opportunity to read the original papers of Faraday, Boltzman, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Newton, Wheeler, DeBroglie, and Einstein.

You will notice that the simple logic, reason, and motivation are all contained in beautiful words which far eclipse the presence of math. Read Penrose's THE ROAD TO REALITY, and you will find far more math, but Penrose hasn't done much in the realm of physics, other than The Emporer's New Mind.

Indeed, Faraday's notebooks and papers barely contain any math-he lead with logic, reason, and physics, as did Einstein, and then they both sought out the math that captured the physical reality. Same with Ludwig Von Boltzman, who many called a "crackpot" in his day.

At any rate, none of the Great's papers nor notebooks nor books spent that much time talking about who were and who weren't the crackpots of their age. In fact, I have found no mention of the word "crackpot" throughout all their noble, lasting work. And all of their eras produced far more noble and enduring advancements in the realm of physics than has the last thirty years of our era.

Perhaps the time Baez invests in his crackpot contemplations could be better spent advancing physics. There is no need for ad hominem attacks and name-calling, and we should all be humble with regards to the mysterious nature of science. We do not know where tomorrow's revolution will come from-curiosity cannot be dictated nor legislated; and thus it should never be castigated nor impugned with snarky namecalling. Curiosity must remain free.

And while Baez's cataloging of "big questions" is fun, all great scientists have ever asked their own questions, following their own curiosity; from Kepler, to Newton, to Einstein, to Feynman.

One certainity is this-those who find the big answers get to ask the big questions. And the questions are ultimately asked in words-not in numbers." --http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=615

Not only does Baez lack humility, but it is a lack of humility that is born by a complete misundertsanding of how physics and science and art and philosophy and freedom advance--via hard work, humility, and an exaltation of teh Truth over snark. One gets the sense that Baez was 1) trained to worship antitheories and postmodern maths and 2) snark those with *physical* curiosities as crackpots. And after no progress is made in physics, he was given funding to create more grad students in his own image. And hence, frozen progress in physics is institutionalized, and the riches, wealthiest physics establishment in all of history contributes the very least, while flying its Czars of groupthink to fancy conferences in lush locales.

But I have faith that FQXI will help change all this!

And I have fiath that we will soon be able to ask *physical* questions regarding *physical* reality in the academy, free from fear and intimidtation!

The late professor J.A. Wheeler--"the last notable figure from the heroic age of physics lingering among us -- a man who could claim to be the student of Bohr, teacher of Feynman, and close colleague of Einstein"--was a very, very humble man, considering his massive accomplishments; and very kind to give me the time of day, with that eternal twinkle in his eye, which shines on, even though he has departed this world. So often it is that the

Greats have Great Humility, and Benjamin Franklin's thirteenth, and most important precept, was "Humility: Imitate Scorates and Jesus."

I remember Wheeler clenching his fist one day while looking out the window of his Jadwin Hall office, and stating that "today's world lacks the noble," and then turning and smiling and saying, "and it's your generation's job to bring it back." I was just a twenty-year-old junior, nodding silently and anxiously in agreement, and those words have stayed with me and meant more and more over the years, as they seem to explain so much about postmodern life--our disregard for the classical eternities and Einstein's 1912 Manuscript (which I get the feeling nbody here has yet read, or is going to read), and our arrogance that has lead to the current financial crisis/wealth transfer to the top, the breakdown of the family, and the resounding lack of progress in physics, other than the progress that has been made by deconstructing the classics, which tends to work better in realms that do not require empirical evidence.

I also remember standing in PJ Peebles' office that year, when I had him for quantum mechanics, and asking him, "when a photon is emitted from a light bulb, do we really not know where it's headed? Is it really just a probabilistic wave expanding at the rate of c?" "Yes," he said. And that stuck with me, because this is what quantum mechanics telles us. And relativity tells us that the ageless photon stays in the exact same place in the fourth expanding dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. dx4/dt = ic. It really is that simple, and yet the world yet refuses to see. But the world shall.

It was many years later that I wrote that equation down, but somehow I sensed it that year, walking between Peebles' and Wheelers' offices. Somehow I sensed the block universe did not exist, and I knew that someday I would rise to free time and liberate us from frozen time and frozen theoretical physics.

Legend has it that Einstein eventually came up with relativity because he so often contemplated what it would be like to catch up with light--a pursuit which began in his childhood. I often wonder, had Einstein known that light actually propagates as a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront at the rate of c--had he actually known quantum mechanics--would he have seen that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt=ic?

What's really funny to me is not that people try to refute MDT, but that they try to refute the timeless, ageless photon, free will, quantum entanglement, nonlocality, entropy, time and all its arrows and assymetries, simple math, elegance, relativity, and novel physical theories that come with a postulate and equation.

MDT: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic

What's even funnier to me is that while refuting the obvious, profound, and simple, people stubbornly want to hold onto the block universe, time travel into the past, wormholes, tiny little vibrating strings and loops that make different colors of light travel at different c's, hyperspace, and other complete and unadalturated mythologies which don't make logical sense, and which have no empirical basis whatsoever. I have often made the joke that parallel universes, which are supposedly always popping in and out of existence, exist just long enough for theoretical physicists to get tenure, but disappear before the experimentalists can get tenure.

And yet, I maintain that physics ought be about *physics.*

Hundreds of years from now someone will read these words and know that one lone cowboy stoop apart the madding crowd to state what he sees, to state what he saw.

Both Einstein and Minkowski wrote x4 = ict, but they never saw that this naturally implied dx4/dt = ic. All of relativity is right--it's just that change is now forever wedded into the fundamental fabric of spacetime with dx4/dt = ic. I know they will ignore this and continue to raise tens of millions for mytholgies, while training grad students in the art of sycophancy, thuggery, and anonimity, and picking the best to reward with a few pennies now and then from their millions, as senior citizen physicists dictate the questions, banning those who wer eborn with their own curiosities, like Einstein, Newton, Bruno, Galileo, and every other scientist and artist who has ever contributed to art and science.

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

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

The biggest tragedy of postmodern physics is not that it doesn't accomplish anything, but that it has banned the asking of foundational questions, without which, nothing can be accomplished.

MDT asks, and *answers*, the following, all with its simple postulate and equation:

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

And then, as time went on, I found I was able to answer a wide array of foundational questions with: "Because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimension: dx4/dt = ic." And I went back to Einstein's original words in his 1912 Manuscript and found that he had never quite provided a deeper motivation for setting x4 = ict, other than that it works! Well, x4 = ict because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

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

One reason I think String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity have not made much progress is because they have not been asking the fundamental questions I enumerate below. Rather, a system is set up where grad students and postdocs apply for grants to work on questions asked by the people with the funding, who while not ebing successful at physics, have been quite successful at science fiction and raising funds. Max Planck, Joseph Campbell, and F.A. Hayek all tell us why this does not work:

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

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

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

In King Arthur's Court, is was dishonorable for a knight to follow another knight into the woods, but rather they had to find their *own* path, like Dante did.

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

And the Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek agrees!

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

So it is that in asking my own questions, I had to find my own way through the woods. And in Arthurian Legend, which Joseph Campbell oft talks about, it is dishonorable to follow someone else's path through the forest, but instead, one must blaze one's own trail. Dante starts off alone in this dark woods in the Divine Comedy, and Morpheus tells Neo, "there is a difference between knowing the path and walking it." "I can tell you of the way, but you must find it and walk it on your own."

Could you ever imagine Eisenstein working on something he wasn't naturally curious about? The Greats were never sycophants, but that is exactly who today's funders surround themselves with. Pete Woit blogged aboutthe sycophancy in American academia.

Here are some of the questions that are answered with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple postulate and equation: "because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic."

I know it is a crime to ask such questions, another crime to answer them, and yet another crime to answer them with a simple postualte and equation, as postualtes and equations represeting hitherto unsung *physical* realties have been outlawed, and the top grad students and postdocs are regularly sent forth to detroy them, while wearing masks, in the dark of night, for all sycophants must eventually transform into anonymous cowards,as the Nobel laureate economist hints at in his two chapters "The End of Truth," and "Why The Worst Get on Top."

But, yet, the fourth dimension moves. "E pur si muove!" as Galileo atated. We have been liberated from frozen time and the block universe! Ergo I have free will, and I shall use it to both ask and answer foundational questions in physics via MDT's simple elgance and beauty.

Below are some of the questions that are answered with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple postulate and equation: "because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic."

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

0.1 Why relativity? Why the principle of relativity? What deeper physical reality underlies relativity?

0.2 Why entanglement and nonlocality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Why is the universe expanding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27. Why is it that the collapse of the wave function is immediate in the photoelectric effect, and all other experiments?

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

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

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

21. Why does entropy increase?

32. Why do moving clocks run slow?

33. Why is time travel into the past impossible?

34. Why does free will exist?

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

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

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

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

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

40. Why do clocks in gravitational fields run slow?

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

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

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

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

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

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

47. Why time's arrows?

48. Why time's asymmetries?

49. Why entropy?

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

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

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

53. Why the - sign in-front of x4 in the space-time metric? What is different about x4?

Well, MDT answers all theses questions, and more, with a simple physical postulate and equation: "The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions or dx4/dt = ic."

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

Now as MDT unfreezes both time and progress in theoretical physics, it will be opposed by many. Furthmore, as MDT explains away wormholes and time travel into the past, which have never been seen but yet form the foundations of many modern religions adhered to by geometric mystics and soothsayers, it will be opposed even more. As MDT provides a simple equation and postulate that hearken on back to the heroic age of physics, instead of presenting indecipherable math that can be used to raise massive funding for some groupthink Matrix/corporate-state/MTV show, it will be opposed even more, by those in The Matrix who have nothing to gain by simple truth and beauty, and so much to lose--their illusions of grandeur.

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

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

When I wondered about this, as when I pondered all the above questions MDT answers, I tried to envision the *physical* structure of space-time and reality that would account for the behavior. For ultimately physics is about physics, and sometimes, a mathematical equation comes forth which supports the physical reality--in this case of a ofurth expanding dimension: dx4/dt= ic.

And here is how it worked out while contemplating the physical reality underlying relativistic length contraction.

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

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

These youtube videos almost illustrate this rotating radar effect:

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that's some of the story behind MDT. A very early version of it appeared in my 1998 dissertation:

http://elliotmcgucken.com/dissertation.html

And I am forever indebted to J.A. Wheeler, through whom I first encountered not only these questions, but the courage to ask them. Wheeler always used to say, "I want to know what the show is all about, before it's out." And not only were foundational questions allowed and encouraged in his office, but one could not enter nor leave without naturally asking them. His Great Spirit has moved on, and while the past is no longer real, the immortal soul is, as Socrates concludes:

"I think Socrates, said Cebes, that even the dullest person would agree, from this line of reasoning, that the soul is in every possible way more like the invariable than the variable.

And the body?

To the other.

Look at it in this way too. When soul and body are both in the same place, nature teaches the one to serve and be subject, the other to rule and govern. In this relation which do you think resembles the divine and which the mortal part? Don't you think that it is the nature of the divine to rule and direct, and that of the mortal to be subject and serve?

I do.

Then which does the soul resemble?

Obviously, Socrates, soul resembles the divine, and body the mortal." --The Phaedo

For some reasons I wrote a lot of sonnets that first year in grad school--often during quantum mechanics. At the end of the semester, when the professor was passing out the exams, he looked at me and said, "You will do very well on this! You took many notes!" I guess he thought I was taking notes the whole time. I've never been much of a class learner, but I made up for it by staying up late, reading the quantum texts. It wasn't always efficient, but here're some of the poems I wrote in quantum mechanics--I sent them to Wheeler during that first year of grad school:"

"cxl.

Now suppose we have a hole in a slate,

A photon from a source passes on through,

And it darkens a grain on a film plate,

To say it went through the hole would be true.

Several photons pass through, we wait a bit,

And quite a simple pattern we do see,

A bright spot directly behind the slit,

Fading away as you move outwardly.

We choose to add an additional slit,

The photon seems to have a decision,

It must choose one of them through which to fit,

For photons are not allowed to fission.

But now there are fringes, common to waves!

In this manner, can particles behave?

cxli.

What's seen is an interference pattern,

Which is common to every type of wave,

On the vast ocean or from a lantern,

This is the way every wave does behave.

Though you think particles blacken the spot,

Between the source and plate light is a wave,

As to its whereabouts we can say not,

Such is the way reality behaves.

These ghostly facts are true of all matter,

Electrons and protons and you and me,

We're but empty waves that somehow matter,

Striving to comprehend reality.

Wavy winds blow, our consciousness is lit.

It makes up our mind, our minds make up it.

cxlii.

"The question is to be or not to be,

Whether it is nobler within the mind,

To believe in indeterminacy,

Or refute that God plays dice in the wind.

Are there many worlds, or only just this one?

And is Schrodinger's cat alive or dead?

Of p and x, can we only know one?

And of Wigner's good friend, what can be said?"

He smiled and said, "no question, no answer,

This above all, science holds to be true,

Love is in the mind of the romancer,

And the kind of love determines the view."

He looked up to the sky, a sky few see,

A sky filled with a child's curiosity."

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

"Dr" E wrote:

"Then, later on in teh blog, Cool Hand Luke rides in, like a Cowboy, to set Baez straight:"

Perhaps you should take responsibility for your own actions and admit that was you posting that message (as Dr Woit remarked later in the replies in that particular post)?

"I hope that Baez someday has an opportunity to read the original papers of Faraday, Boltzman, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Newton, Wheeler, DeBroglie, and Einstein.

"You will notice that the simple logic, reason, and motivation are all contained in beautiful words which far eclipse the presence of math."

Yeah! Like the in the Principia! Oh, wait...that was entirely math.

No, perhaps like Einstein's "Relativity: The Special and General Theory"...oh wait, he devoted half of the book to math.

Or perhaps Heaviside? No, perhaps not, although he did a lot of the important work that Maxwell got credit for, he also invented a number of new mathematical tools that are used in signal processing.

Now, Lagrange, he was a real...wait, no, not Lagrange he just did math.

Or perhaps "Dr" E can stop blowing smoke out of his...?

Hello Alex,

Now I love math and harbor a vast respect for it, as without math the attached figure for the artificial retina for the blind, from my dissertation, would not work.

Also in that dissertation in an appendix was the first treatment of Moving Dimenisons Theory. In many ways Moving Dimensions Theory respects math far more than quantum gravity and string theory, as while MDT has a fundamental equation representing a hitherto unsung universal invariant, the latter have no equations. Isn't that amazing? Hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into String Theory and Quantum Gravity, and still not one equation, as they teach students to snark equations representing physical realities and universal invariants such as dx4/dt=ic and revel in meaningles math.

"Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose." --Albert Einstein

"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, Hidden Unity in Nature's Laws

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)"

Well, MDT's equation didn't come from snarky quantum gravity groupthink, nor a need for funding, but rather it came from seeking out a fundamental *physical* model that could account for diverse *physical* phenomena.

It also saw Einstein's x4=ict as an equation with *physical* significance. And too, it saw the fourth dimension--which was once fairly stationary--as something that moves and expands at c. And just as Galileo was snarked by the Iquisition for stating that the earth moved, I understand that I will receive the same violent treatment, as Quantum Gravity/String theory regimes are religions, not science.

Below are some of the questions that are answered with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple postulate and equation which reflect a hitherto unsung universal invariant: "because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic."

Alex--without MDT, how would you answer the following questions, in a simple, unified manner? Sure, it is fun to run around with Baez's crackpot index and laugh at true physicists to shore up funding, but the funny thing is that Baez's crackpot index, while receiving more funding than MDT, has resulted in no equations nor postulates, but just a lot of laughs for the well-funded postmodern regimes, as physics died.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

But as curiosity is more important than knowledge, as well as anti-theories, MDT has journeyed onward, answering the following and more with a simple postulate and equation:

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

0.1 Why relativity? Why the principle of relativity? What deeper physical reality underlies relativity?

0.2 Why entanglement and nonlocality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Why is the universe expanding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27. Why is it that the collapse of the wave function is immediate in the photoelectric effect, and all other experiments?

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

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

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

21. Why does entropy increase?

32. Why do moving clocks run slow?

33. Why is time travel into the past impossible?

34. Why does free will exist?

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

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

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

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

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

40. Why do clocks in gravitational fields run slow?

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

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

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

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

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

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

47. Why time's arrows?

48. Why time's asymmetries?

49. Why entropy?

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

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

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

53. Why the - sign in-front of x4 in the space-time metric? What is different about x4?

Well, MDT answers all theses questions, and more, with a simple physical postulate and equation: "The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions or dx4/dt = ic."

How would you answer all these questions, Alex, without MDT? Are do you believe, like Baez, that it is not polite to ask questions which cannot be answered by anti-theories such as those surrounding quantum gravity?

Yes--I am Cool Hand Luke as it says on Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong" blog. By now pretty much everyone knows who the lone cowboy is around these parts.

Of course math is vastly important to physics--it's just that snarky, postmodern math shouldn't be allowed to trump physics, as when that happens, you get thirty years of frozen progress in physics and burgeoning hundred-million-dollar groupthink regimes that excel in snark and intimidation, while rendering actual progress in theoretical physics uncool and unfashionable.

It seems like you and Baez are arguing not with me, but with reality and far greater physicists including Freeman Dyson, Bohr, Faraday, and Einstein, as well as Max Born.

"Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose." --Albert Einstein

In Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson writes, "Dick [Richard Feynman] fought back against my skepticism, arguing that Einstein had failed because he stopped thinking in concrete physical images and became a manipulator of equations. I had to admit that was true. The great discoveries of Einstein's earlier years were all based on direct physical intuition. Einstein's later unified theories failed because they were only sets of equations without physical meaning. Dick's sum-over-histories theory was in the spirit of the young Einstein, not of the old Einsetin. It was solidly rooted in physical reality." --Freeman Dyson

Smolin writes in TTWP that Bohr was not a Feynman "shut up and calculate" physicist, and from the above Dyson quote, it appears that Feynam wasn't either:

"Mara Beller, a historian who has studied his [Bohr's] work in detail, points out tha there was not a single calculation in his research notebooks, which were all verbal argumen and pictures." --Smolin's The Trouble With Physics

In Dark Matters, Dr. Percy Seymour writes, "Albert Einstein was a great admirer of Newton, Farady, and Maxwell. In his office he had framed copies of portrtais of these scientists. He had this to say about Farady and Maxwell, in "Maxwell's Influence on the Development of the Concept of Physical Reality": "The greatest change in the axiamatic basis of physics--in other words, of our conception of the structure--since Newton laid the foundation of theoretical physics was brought about by Faraday's and Maxwell's work on electromagenetic phenomena" --p. 33-34, DARK MATTERS

In his book Einstein, Banesh Hoffman tells us: "Meanwhile, however, the English experimenter Michael Farady was making outstanding experimental discoveries in electricity and magnetism. Being largely self-taught and lacking mathemtical facility, he could not interpret his results in the manner of Ampere. And this was fortunate, since it led to a revolution in science. . . Ampere and others had conentrated their attention on the visible hardware--magnets, current-carrying wires, and the like--and on the numbers of centimeters separating the pieces of hardware. In so doing they were following the action-at-a-distance tradition that had devloped from teh enormous success of the Newtonian system of mechanics and law of gravitation. . .But Faraday regarded the hardware as secondary. For him the important physical events took place in the surrounding space--the filed. This, in his mind, he filled with tentacles that by their pulls and thrusts and motions gave rise to the electromagnetic effects observed. Although he could thus interpret his electromagnetic experiments with excellent precision and surprising simplicity, most physicists adept at methematics thought his concepts mathematically naive."--BANESH HOFFMAN, EINSTEIN

MDT is more akin to the theories of those heroic days--a simple postulate and equation representing a *physical* reality of a fourth expanding dimension, which unifies *physical* phenomena across all realms, while providing a foundational framework for time and all its arrows, as well as entropy, relativity, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement.

Alex--without MDT, how would your explain all this unified beauty? Surely it is time to come ride with us.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)Attachment #1: artificial_retina.jpg

"Of course math is vastly important to physics--it's just that snarky, postmodern math shouldn't be allowed to trump physics, as when that happens, you get thirty years of frozen progress in physics and burgeoning hundred-million-dollar groupthink regimes that excel in snark and intimidation, while rendering actual progress in theoretical physics uncool and unfashionable."

You do realize the glaringly obvious flaw with this argument is that everything that Newton used in his physics, as well as everything Einstein used in his theory of General Relativity, was thought of at the time as nothing more than a mathematical toy that would have no application to reality.

Hell, this is true with Heisenberg's work as well. Matrices were thought of as useless in physics and applied math until Einstein and Heisenberg used them in the two pioneering theories of the twentieth century.

Newton invented the math necessary to deal with Classical Mechanics effectively and in doing so united the motion of heavenly bodies and normal bodies.

Archimedes effectively used infinitesimals in his static analysis, which he ironically did not believe in.

I can go on and on with counter-examples in history where these "postmodern maths" were used to come up with new approaches to problems.

Your Luddite fear of mathematics approach to physics is no more going forward than an ostrich digging its head in the sand avoids a Lion.

Of course, your approach is unconvincing due to its lack of rigor. You *assert* but yield no proof of success in unification, which is most unsatisfying. Worse, you constantly use appeals to authority while ignoring the contradictions in doing so; the beauty of science and math is *it doesn't matter what anyone says, what matters is the proof!*

But sadly none is provided in your approach...

Hello Alex,

do not take my word for it--hear Einstein, "But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts form experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics -- indeed, of modern science altogether. (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions)"

Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

When you lead by math alone for thirty years, the end result is one big snarkfest. And as the Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek noted, when the Truth ends, the Worst get on top.

You write, "everything Einstein used in his theory of General Relativity, was thought of at the time as nothing more than a mathematical toy that would have no application to reality."

What you meant to write was that all the math that Einstein brought in to develop general relativity, to give it a formal mathematical expression, was "thought of at the time as nothing more than a mathematical toy that would have no application to reality."

But the thing is, Einstein didn't *lead* with the math. He lead with the *physics* and then went forth to find the math for the *physical* reality that can be traced back to that painter falling off the roof, and Einstein's *physical* realization that the painter would feel *physically* weightless. Einstein hired mathematicians to help out with GR, but they followed his *physical* intuitions, which were the guiding beacon of Einstein's genius.

The problem we have today is that the groupthink regimes/Baez lead with math alone, and then bolster the thirty-year failure with crackpot indexes which are applied to anyone who calls their bluff. I think some of them are starting to back off a bit, as it's kindof embarrassing for grown men to be acting like that.

Newton was of course a great and vast, and most unique. genius who did it all--inventing/discovering calculus and classical mechanics and his theory of gravitation.

But physics has generally been lead by *physical* intuition, and the math is brought in as needed.

String Thoerists have represented thousands of the smartest people over the last forty years, and this proves that when even the smartest people lead with mathematical prejudices alone, unguided by physical intuition grounded in a *physical,* soulful reality, they end up kludging up the system with groupthink and mercenaries.

Have you read Smolin's THE TROUBLE WITH PHYISCS? He has an excellent section in there (several actually) pertaining to all this.

Do not take my word for it--that physics ought first and foremost be lead by physical intuition and physical reality--but listen to the Greats:

"Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose." --Albert Einstein

In Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson writes, "Dick [Richard Feynman] fought back against my skepticism, arguing that Einstein had failed because he stopped thinking in concrete physical images and became a manipulator of equations. I had to admit that was true. The great discoveries of Einstein's earlier years were all based on direct physical intuition. Einstein's later unified theories failed because they were only sets of equations without physical meaning. Dick's sum-over-histories theory was in the spirit of the young Einstein, not of the old Einsetin. It was solidly rooted in physical reality." --Freeman Dyson

Smolin writes in TTWP that Bohr was not a Feynman "shut up and calculate" physicist, and from the above Dyson quote, it appears that Feynam wasn't either:

"Mara Beller, a historian who has studied his [Bohr's] work in detail, points out tha there was not a single calculation in his research notebooks, which were all verbal argumen and pictures." --Smolin's The Trouble With Physics

In Dark Matters, Dr. Percy Seymour writes, "Albert Einstein was a great admirer of Newton, Farady, and Maxwell. In his office he had framed copies of portrtais of these scientists. He had this to say about Farady and Maxwell, in "Maxwell's Influence on the Development of the Concept of Physical Reality": "The greatest change in the axiamatic basis of physics--in other words, of our conception of the structure--since Newton laid the foundation of theoretical physics was brought about by Faraday's and Maxwell's work on electromagenetic phenomena" --p. 33-34, DARK MATTERS

In his book Einstein, Banesh Hoffman tells us: "Meanwhile, however, the English experimenter Michael Farady was making outstanding experimental discoveries in electricity and magnetism. Being largely self-taught and lacking mathemtical facility, he could not interpret his results in the manner of Ampere. And this was fortunate, since it led to a revolution in science. . . Ampere and others had conentrated their attention on the visible hardware--magnets, current-carrying wires, and the like--and on the numbers of centimeters separating the pieces of hardware. In so doing they were following the action-at-a-distance tradition that had devloped from teh enormous success of the Newtonian system of mechanics and law of gravitation. . .But Faraday regarded the hardware as secondary. For him the important physical events took place in the surrounding space--the filed. This, in his mind, he filled with tentacles that by their pulls and thrusts and motions gave rise to the electromagnetic effects observed. Although he could thus interpret his electromagnetic experiments with excellent precision and surprising simplicity, most physicists adept at methematics thought his concepts mathematically naive."--BANESH HOFFMAN, EINSTEIN

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 have a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement. MDT accounts for the the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing it as the fastest, slowest, and *only* velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a *physical* basis for E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

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

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

Well, MDT provides a more fundamental law with an equation: dx4/dt = ic, from which relativity is derived in my paper. And an added benefit are all the other entities dx4/dt=ic accounts for with a *physical* model, from entropy, to qm's entanglement and nonlocality, to time and all its arrows.

MDT accomplishes several things right off the bat:

1) unfreezes time & liberates us from the block universe, shwoing that we have free will

2) weaves change into the fundamental frabirc of spacetime

3) derives relativity from a more fundamental universal invariant

4) provides a *physical* model for entropy

5) provides a *physical model for quantum entanglement

6) provides a *physical* mechanism for nonlocality--the fourth expanding dimension distributes nonlocality

7) provides a physical model unifying the dualities--space/time, energy/mass, wave/particle

8) provides a *physical* model for the invariance of c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the observer

9) provides a *physical* model for the shperically-symmetric expanding wavefront of proabability that defines a photon's path

10) offers a resolution for both the EPR Paradox and Godel's problems with the block universe relativity implied

11) offers a physical model for why nothing can move faster than c.

12) offers an intuitive model for the length-contraction can accompanies all motion

13) accounts for both the agelessness (from relativity) and the nonlocality (from quantum mechanics) of the photon

14) accounts for the gravitational slowing of time and light, as well as the gravitational redshift

15) provides a unique physical model underlying wide-ranging phenomena in quantum mecahnics, relativity, statistical mechanics

Surely MDT offers a brand new way and a new day!

And when you factor in how little MDT has cost so far, compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars which have gone into quantum gravity/string theory religions/regimes, surely MDT is worth pursuing!

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

Best,

Dr. E

Alex thank you for your comments. Mr. E. please avoid extremely long non sequitur posts. Useful feedback is worth more to me than any contest prize. Let me define what I consider useful feedback:

1) A mathematical error.

Showing where there is a division by zero or something axiomatically unacceptable.

2) An error in scientific reasoning

Violation of the thermodynamic laws, an argument showing a violation of energy conservation or the uncertainty principle... etc.

3) A physical paradox

E.g. Grandfather, twin etc.

4) Experimental evidence

evidence that supports my ideas or destroys them are the most useful posts.

I consider useless feedback to be:

1) Tangents.

e.g. You have not explained this and that....I have not submitted a theory of everything. I am working on entanglement but it is still in its infancy.

2) Long Posts.

Do not torture me with prose but finish me quickly with sweet, short and elegant mathematics.

3) Self Promotion

e.g. Ignore this paper because my ideas are better follow this URL link....

4) Impatient Posts

I will not quickly respond because I will spend the time to understand the counter arguments. I will not respond if I believe the person submitting the post does not have an elementary understanding of math or physics.

Thank you,

B^2

Hello Brian,

You write, "Do not torture me with prose but finish me quickly with sweet, short and elegant mathematics."

Have you ever read the foundational papers of quantum mechanics in: "http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-Physics/dp/0691083169/ "

You will find that they are by and large written in prose.

I understand that postmodern physicists over the last thirty years have been taught to snark first and read later, but then, that is why progress in physics has ground to a halt.

"Mara Beller, a historian who has studied his [Bohr's] work in detail, points out tha there was not a single calculation in his research notebooks, which were all verbal argumen and pictures." --Smolin's The Trouble With Physics

I could see you writing to Nobel Laureate Niels Bohr--a founder of quantuym theory: "Mr. Bohr--Do not torture me with prose but finish me quickly with sweet, short and elegant mathematics."

Another thing to point out is that while Moving Dimensions Theory has sweet, short, and elegant mathematics: dx4/dt=ic , representing a hitherto unsung universal invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, your paper doesn't seem to have any euqations representing *physical* features of the universe, just like those tens of thousands of papers produced by the quantum gravity regimes, ahich are also "in their infancy" after thirty years and hundreds of millions of dollars.

A common strategy is:

a) write papers with snarky math and no physics

b) accuse people who use logic and reason pertaining to physical relaity expressed in prose (like Bohr/Farady/Einstein) to express thoughts regarding physical reality of being crackpots (as John Baez does)

c) ignore all the prose based on b, along with the mathematical equations in the prose

d) form a groupthink regime around the snarky math in (a) and write crackpot indexes to exile the new Bohrs/Faradys

e) outlaw prose and the techniques of Bohr/Farady/Einstein by which physics has ever advanced.

f) while not reading physical theories because they use prose to express logic and reason pertaining to p*physical* reality, and while not advancing a *physical* theory of one's own, claim that the snarky math one is performing is in its infancy.

But this doesn't lead to progress in the realm of physics. As strange as it might seem, I would guess that reading prose and writing prose--that thinking, questioning, and pondering *physical* reality--will lead to greater advances in physics than the snarky math games promoted by Baez et al., and your snarky commentary above, which like Baez, dismisses a mathematical equation with *physical* meaning--dx4/dt=ic--because it is accompanied by words--by prose. Is this what it takes to get tenure these days? A complete and utter rejection of words that mean things? What next? Thoughts and ideas? And then physics?

In Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson writes, "Dick [Richard Feynman] fought back against my skepticism, arguing that Einstein had failed because he stopped thinking in concrete physical images and became a manipulator of equations. I had to admit that was true. The great discoveries of Einstein's earlier years were all based on direct physical intuition. Einstein's later unified theories failed because they were only sets of equations without physical meaning. Dick's sum-over-histories theory was in the spirit of the young Einstein, not of the old Einsetin. It was solidly rooted in physical reality." --Freeman Dyson

But at any rate, I was wondering if I might have your permission to print the following on a t-shirt: "Mr. Bohr, do not torture me with prose but finish me quickly with sweet, short and elegant mathematics."

On the cover of Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics) (Paperback)by John Archibald Wheeler (Author), Wojciech Hubert Zurek (Author) is a picture of Bohr and Einstein engaged in their famous, collegial dialogues, wherin they used words. The words, expressing ideas which rocked the foundations of physics, are in turn captured in beautiful prose within the book.

Something has gone tragically wrong in the realm of physics, as simple math, logic, reason, words, and dialogue have been rejected in favor of mere snark.

I would suggest that is we are to go forward, we must set aside the snark that is the hallmark of the elder anti-theorists/anti-prose-anti-dialogue-anti-physicists, and go back to that classical, epic, heroic, exalted age--where a deeper fellowship was born by a more exalted spirit.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

P.S. Is is sad to think that Einstein's prose might now be considered off-limits in a forum devoted to foundational questions in physics--Einstein reminded us of those entities greater than physics, which exhort us to share ideas in prose and dialogue--Einstein wrote, "The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.

There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any other way." --Albert Einstein, Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49."

Mr. E, I have written a paper using combinatorics (it comes from the Latin word to count) if combinatorics is "snarky" then I apologize. The physics I discuss requires an understanding of entropy and wavefunctions. I use combinatorics a.k.a. microstates, macrostates, multiplicity (entropy) and derangements to resolve the measurement problem. Now, please stop being a forum troll and stop spamming me with nonsensical psychobabble (this includes the youtube surfing videos). Leave me alone.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16765_5-ways-stop-trolls-from-killing-internet.html

Forum moderator please help me....

Hello Brian,

In a hit-and-run, you posted a list of snarky, off-topic, red-herring questions and commentary in my forum, while completely ignoring MDT's novel *physical* concepts: "Brian Beverly wrote on Nov. 8, 2008 @ 11:12 GMT. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238"

Even though your questions reminded me of the anti-theory elders and their snarky grad studnets, I took the time to answer them at:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

and never heard from you again. Your actions sadden me as it seems you are following in the footsteps of the elder anti-theorists, mimmicking their actions and snarky ways which lead not to enlightenment, but to groupthink regimes and frozen progress in physics.

Where you crossed the line was mixing the late J.A. Wheeler's name with your cheeky snark--in your snarky tone that reminds me of all too many anti-theorists these days, who couldn't hold a candle to the Heroic Spirits who furthered physics by good-will, humility, cheerfullness, and a genuine, shared sense of a common, exalted journey, where we were all going after the truth of

*physical* reality together.

And then, you criticized the use of words and prose, and demanded only math, like an antitheory string theorist might. Well, you will find no better mechanism for expressing ideas than words and prose, and it saddens me that your generation is being taught to ignore the prose of the foundational papers (Bohr, Faraday, Einstein), while exalting in snark-a-lark and cheeky games--like all too many of the antitheory elders, who have brought progress in physics to a halt, replacing it with anti-theories founded upon snarky, indecipherable math and handwaving, which neglects the *physical* reality, *physical* models, and physics that MDT exalts.

The great irony, which you must admit, is that while String Theory and LQG and your theory don't have any actual equations representing *physical* concepts, MDT does: dx4/dt=ic.

Above I quote Bohr, Einstein, Planck, Born, Feynman, Dyson; and it saddens me that you want fqxi to erase the Greats, but I guess it is what you have been taught by the anti-theory elders--that snarky math rules all in our postmodern, progressless, physicless vacuum.

You wrote, "Dr. E, I have nothing but respect for someone who has gained a lifetime's worth of knowledge and wisdom. I am sorry for the recent loss of Dr. Wheeler. Please excuse my young naivete but I have some questions:"

Please do not involve the late J.A. Wheeler in your snarky, little games, just to show the anti-theory elders how "cool" you are.

Your off-topic, non-sequitur, red-herring, irrelevant questions included things such as, "Why do you never mention the derivation of the speed of light using the electric and magnetic constants?" Must I in a 5,000 word essay? What's this got to do with the greater concepts in my paper?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

"Why do you never mention pure states, eigenvalues or entropy when discussing entanglement?" Must I in a 5,000 word essay? I'm not writing a textbook here--it's an essay. And what's this got to do with MDT's greater concepts?

"If a part of the universe is expanding at c how do you explain non-locality? I thought this would just create event horizons." I have no idea what you're asking, nor what this has to do with my paper.

"Why do you mention that light has a probability of being found in some large circle? I thought QED showed these probabilities cancel each other out." I never say this.

The late professor J.A. Wheeler--"the last notable figure from the heroic age of physics lingering among us -- a man who could claim to be the student of Bohr, teacher of Feynman, and close colleague of Einstein"--was a very, very humble man, considering his massive accomplishments; and very kind to give me the time of day, with that eternal twinkle in his eye, which shines on, even though he has departed this world. So often it is that the Greats have Great Humility, and Benjamin Franklin's thirteenth, and most important precept, was "Humility: Imitate Scorates and Jesus."

I remember Wheeler clenching his fist one day while looking out the window of his Jadwin Hall office, and stating that "today's world lacks the noble," and then turning and smiling and saying, "and it's your generation's job to bring it back." I was just a twenty-year-old junior, nodding silently and anxiously in agreement, and those words have stayed with me and meant more and more over the years, as they seem to explain so much about postmodern life--our disregard for the classical eternities and Einstein's 1912 Manuscript (which I get the feeling nbody here has yet read, or is going to read), and our arrogance that has lead to the current financial crisis/wealth transfer to the top, the breakdown of the family, and the resounding lack of progress in physics, other than the progress that has been made by deconstructing the classics, which tends to work better in realms that do not require empirical evidence.

I also remember standing in PJ Peebles' office that year, when I had him for quantum mechanics, and asking him, "when a photon is emitted from a light bulb, do we really not know where it's headed? Is it really just a probabilistic wave expanding at the rate of c?" "Yes," he said. And that stuck with me, because this is what quantum mechanics telles us. And relativity tells us that the ageless photon stays in the exact same place in the fourth expanding dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. dx4/dt = ic. It really is that simple, and yet the world yet refuses to see. But the world shall.

It was many years later that I wrote that equation down, but somehow I sensed it that year, walking between Peebles' and Wheelers' offices. Somehow I sensed the block universe did not exist, and I knew that someday I would rise to free time and liberate us from frozen time and frozen theoretical physics.

Legend has it that Einstein eventually came up with relativity because he so often contemplated what it would be like to catch up with light--a pursuit which began in his childhood. I often wonder, had Einstein known that light actually propagates as a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront at the rate of c--had he actually known quantum mechanics--would he have seen that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt=ic?

What's really funny to me is not that people try to refute MDT, but that they try to refute the timeless, ageless photon, free will, quantum entanglement, nonlocality, entropy, time and all its arrows and assymetries, simple math, elegance, relativity, and novel physical theories that come with a postulate and equation, which unify all the above physical phenomena.

MDT: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic

What's even funnier to me is that while refuting the obvious, profound, and simple, people stubbornly want to hold onto the block universe, time travel into the past, wormholes, tiny little vibrating strings and loops that make different colors of light travel at different c's, hyperspace, and other complete and unadalturated mythologies which don't make logical sense, and which have no empirical basis whatsoever. I have often made the joke that parallel universes, which are supposedly always popping in and out of existence, exist just long enough for theoretical physicists to get tenure, but disappear before the experimentalists can get tenure.

And yet, I maintain that physics ought be about *physics.*

Brian--you write, "Why do you assume a continuous theory when quantum mechanics is discrete?" I never assume a continuous theory--MDT jives perfectly with Quantum Mechanics.

You write, "How did you derive a continuous theory of everything without the mathematics of Cantor?" I never assume a continuous theory--MDT jives perfectly with Quantum Mechanics.

Then, you end your list of snarky, off-topic, irrelevant questions with more cute snark, "If everything I have spent precious time and money learning is wrong, then should I drop physics and go to law school? I'd be sad, the laws of man are not as cool as the laws of nature."

To which I answer at:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

Yes Brian, I am sorry that you are now becoming liberated from the block universe and frozen time. You will have to finally cowboy up now and leave wormholes, tiny little vibrating strings, multiverses, time travel fantasies, and parallel universes behind. It is time to read the foundational papers--Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Dirac. You will have to find your own way now, independent of spacetime atoms, bouncing universes, time machines, and quantum gravity youth camps. Yes indeed--you write, "the laws of man are not as cool as the laws of nature," and that is exactly why physics has ground to a halt--for it has replaced the laws of nature, such as MDT, with the laws of man and their snarky bureuacracies which pen millions of indecipherable papers so as to drown out the lone voices of reason. String theory, loop quantum gravity, multiverses, the landscape, hamsters, geometric mysticism, E8, and snarky quantum grvaity regimes, which have made a most profitable religion out of consistent, hand-waving failure, are on their way out, as they are all based on pseudo-laws made by men who placed the bottom line over the higher ideals.

Moving Dimensiosn Theory liberates us from both frozen time and the block universe.

Brian, were it not for MDT's *physical* model, how would you explain time and all its arrows and assyemtries across all realms, entropy, quantum mechanics' nonlocality and entanglement, all of Einstein's relativity, and the universal appearance of Huygens' Principle across all realms? What model do you, Brian Beverly, propose, that would *physically* unify all these entities?

Or have you come here not to create, but to destroy, so as to please your elders/funders/God-Kings of coffeee table phsysics books which make the unreal--wormholes, time travel--tiny, little, vibrating strings--real, while exiling the real--MDT's hitherto unsung universal invariant--the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimenions?

I would be more than happy to not post in this forum.

But please do not post irrelevant, off-topic questions in my forum; and never, never, never incorporate the late Greats in your snarky-little games. That was just too much to see.

You called down the thunder in my forum. I answered all your questions and asked you more, but by then you had run away.

Sure, these posts can be deleted, but either way, the exalted, foundational spirit of physics is coming on back.

I hope you join us on a higher road, Brian; as the frozen progress in physics over the last thirty years testifies as to where snarky-little games, groupthink regimes, and mean-spiritedness lead. The empirical evidence is irreuftable--snark kills the spirit by which physics advances.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

E, if I am going to discuss your idea I will discuss it in your forum so lets take our discussion there. I would like to save my forum for my essay, is that selfish of me?

If you are going to post make sure you have read my essay many of your comments show you have not bothered to.

Please note that insulting and/or excessively long postings will be removed as per the forum guidlines.

Thanks,

K Rajanna

FQXi

Please note that insulting and/or excessively long postings will be removed as per the forum guidlines.

Thanks,

K Rajanna

Hi Brian,

Great essay, as promised! Congratulations. I want to comment on several aspects, but have to make time for it. I really look forward to discussing it with you.

Regards,

Doug

Hey Doug,

I look forward to your comments. I know you have put a lot of work into your idea and I know how difficult it can be to find people who are willing to listen. If you give me your email address I will give you some feedback on your ideas even after the contest has ended.

Thanks Brian. I'll do that. In the meantime, I'm trying to correlate the ideas in your essay with those in two new essays, one by Sean Carroll and the other by Chen Tze. Have you had a chance to read either of them yet?

I would really, really, be interested in your comments on them, in view of your own essay.

Dear Brain,

somehow the first word of the title made me feel avoid studying your essay. After reading it i have sensed the originality in your 'young' ideas that i admire.I enjoyed your describing time as a step between the two and its significance tied to entropy. it is also nice to say that a macrostate as destination while the microstate as one path to destination. Philosophically, i see closeness between your essay and that of Kyle Miller's Here and Now!

With this summary may i put some queries to you so late in the contest:-

The order contains disorder but not the other way round. Silence contains noise but not the other way round. In sciences, we work out probability for a process by averaging over a large number of individual events. Can all physical processes happening in the Universe follow no order? Where the order hides as probabilities describe the process?

Entropy tends to increase with passage of time if a system is confined without external interference.What happens if events within start to feel some interaction with one another? Why such internal interactions are ruled out?

Time and space are just concepts generated by the human mind. Can we not have alternate concepts and still understand the nature of physical processes?

We hold Physical Constants as holy? Also, we talk of more or less fixed relative strengths for the four force-fields.

In my own essay in the contest, i have discussed such possibilities. May i have your comments on such aspects?

The last query i have concerns the State of the Universe prior to the Big Bang. Do you visualize that before the Physical world came into being, there was/is/will remain the presence of a non-physical entity called 'consciousness'?