The Fundamental Nature of Time by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Klingman,

In nature, everything is interconnected and, of course, time is connected with energy. Besides, time is associated with inertia, momentum, movement and space. The question is what connections are short and direct, and which are indirect? Let us consider these connections on the example of an electron. If the internal energy of an electron is kinetic energy, then any point that is part of the electron has zero rest mass and moves at the speed of light. The zero mass of points in a closed volume forms a nonzero mass of the electron. Here the points are very conditional definition - these can be any structures with nonzero dimensions. The motion of points inside an electron is an internal process of an electron. This motion causes a continuous change in the state of the electron, since each point continuously changes its spatial coordinates. The change in the state of the electron forms the proper time of the electron. Now imagine that the gravitational field has one single property - the action on the speed of light, and the smaller the distance to the central mass, the speed of light is less. Let the electron be placed in a gravitational field. In this case, all processes inside the electron slow down in proportion to the decrease in the local speed of light and this leads to a dilation of the electron proper time. In the case of an electron moving relative to the central mass, the average rate of processes inside the electron is additionally slowed down and this leads to an additional expansion of the electron proper time. Both forms of time dilation are observed in the GPS satellite system. In reality, the gravitational field has not one but two fundamental properties, and the combined action of these properties causes various adventures for the electron, including its gravitational acceleration. More details are shown in the essay.

The length contraction caused by gravity can be discussed in the future. Here I note that the rate of time flow in different frames of reference can differ very much, but any two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are also simultaneous in any other reference frame. So, I give You a high rating.

Best wishes,

Robert Sadykov

Dear Edwin, time is not fundamental. Fundamental is the movement of physical space, which for Descartes is a matter. Time is a synonym of total movement space (ether, as you say). I appreciated highly your essay. You forgot to rate my essay. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko.

Edwin,

My work treats QCD color and QED charge and spin quanta as co-fundamental. The geometric-state algebra is an exact 1-1 with both existing taken together. I can easily write down a parallel to Dirac algebra, so I am not concerned about hypothetical ways of making QCD quanta appear 'derived'.

I think I should better illustrate what a geometric-state algebra is, starting from simple B&W spinning coins to the more complex geometry required for QCD. Anyway, I'm sure that your space-time diagram treats particles as point-like, which is a mistake. Singularitues are prohibited.

Wayne

Dear Edwin,

In your reply above to Markus Muller, you write that "Physicists have a way of sweeping problems under the rug. For example, Einstein's time dilation is symmetric in nature, but in reality (GPS) it is not."

You make it more explicit a few comments after that:

"Let me address your question about the failure of Einstein's 'space-time symmetry', in which "your clock runs slower than mine, while my clock runs more slowly than yours." This is supposed to be 'observer-dependent' as either can be the "rest frame". Thus, the GPS ground station will see the satellite clocks running slower, while the satellite should see the ground state clock as running slower. This does not happen! The ground state is always the fastest clock. This agrees with my energy-time interpretation of SR, in which clock rates are viewed as energy state dependent and are asymmetrical, but contradicts Einstein's 'space-time symmetry'."

It may well be that your interpretation does reproduce the observed results, but I would respectfully like to point out that Einstein's theory also does! In Einstein's theory, because of the relativity of simultaneity, it is true that two INTERTIAL observers moving at constant speed relative to each other will each consider that the other's clock is running slow --- what you call "space-time symmetry". But if one or both observers are accelerated, this is no longer true. You don't even have to consider General Relativity: in an accelerated frame, your definition of simultaneity changes constantly, and it is quite possible that you will consider the clock in another reference frame to be ticking faster.

A nice discussion of this often misunderstood effect can be found here:

Don Koks (2009) Do Moving Clocks always run slowly?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/movingClocks.html

All the best!

Marc

Edwin,

The bartender omits a crucial question in what is an argument about the nature of time. And that is; what physical form does light actually have in a modern tavern? In Ollie and Jim's day the luminiferous aether was seen as a real medium necessary for a warpage taking the form of a transverse wave to conduct a quantity of energy across space, even though it was calculable that it would physically have to be more rarefied than any known gas while having a rigidity comparable to steel. So in your conception that energy density is effectively the universal medium, and that density could be expected to vary in accord with 1/r^2 for gravity to be understood as an interaction of densities of energy; what is the physical form that EMR takes/ does it have a 3D shape/ how does it stay confined to a linear projection that would be necessary for e=hf to be consistently observed?/. If the nature of time is going to be argued on the back of light velocity, and how that can vary with energy density, then the other customers ought to know what light is.

An essay cannot convey all the mathematical arguments you work from, so could you give a wholistic panorama in least technical terminology, of how it all comes together? There has been a great deal of interest in your essay, but its gotten so dissected its like Hilbert space out here. best as always, jrc

Infinite mass is a misnomer for the induction reactance of energy density. In a co-variant domain of one inertial frame, what goes to infinity is the infinitesimal DIFFERENCE at light velocity of that reactance to induction from applied field strength. I've argued that all along. jrc

Helolo dearv Edwin,

I loved and enjoyed your essay, it was a real pleasure to read and I learn in the same time.I liked also your words about the ether, I consider personally a gravitational aether.Congratulations for this general work and this interpretation of time.

Good luck, you merit also a prize like cristi ,congratulations still.

Thanks Ed,

The in-phase scenario is something I have also thought was overlooked. At the slow as a stone speeds of Faradays experiments, A and B are laterally at 90* but also at 90* out of phase in the axis of direction of motion. But as velocity increases the phase difference creeps (a-la Lorentz) to nil at light velocity and the only thing that distinguishes between them is the lateral right angle orientation. That goes to density varying inversely to velocity and a photonic cyclic pulse. (That was the basis of my model years ago, and of course requires a c (v = cycle peak periodic velocity) And once one thinks about it, the electric and magnetic fields would need to become identical orthogonally at light velocity or an antenna would fry! At light velocity Lorentz zeroes out the difference, not physically compound it. jrc

Edwin Eugene Klingman,

At one point I played with idea of making my essay one paragraph long, because "What can one do with fundamental?"

For the most part, I have not seen authors that were inspired by this topic. You have found inspiration! As a work of friction there are minor things that could be worked on like setting of place by using the senses (sights, sounds, feel and even smells). Your Physics did not convince me, but you stated your points well. There are other story type essays for this topic, but this shows you have grown as a writer.

You should do well,

Jeff Schmitz

Ed,

In a post above, you and JRC discuss how to represent a photon. I suggest the following:

Psi = (c*t)i cos(theta)*[Ej Bk]

where i, j, and k are unit vectors, theta = 2*pi*c*t/lamda, and Psi, c, t, E, and B have the usual meanings.

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Ed,

Oops ... I should add that the photon is moving in the i direction.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

Glad to see you looking in. I think among the three of us we agree that gravitation to be realistically defined as a physical phenomenon, must be addressed in non-linear fashion. I personally go from an exponential 'stacking up', or 'deceleration', of energy into a self-gravitational spherical free rest mass. But that's not where Ed is coming from and I'm simply looking for a fit.

I agree with Ed that 1/r^2 is insufficient. It can be treated as a near approximation in a straight line measurement that operates as a time independent invariance theorem similar in form to the time derivative invariance of the LT.

Pardon the "A" in my previous post, I'm really bad about things like that. Poor discipline, and besides, who decided to denote "B" as the magnetic plane? I always think "F" for 'ferrous'. But that needs reserved for 'force'. I'm okay with "E" for the electrostatic, and elasticity. We just don't have enough glyphs to go around. Oh well.

I can vaguely discern in your waveform suggestion that the cosine of theta would produce an amplitude, I am not trained mathematically to readily see things like that. And its each to their own, and if two different methods define the same process then its corroborative. Ed has a function he says he has yet to chart, but one must assume that its derivative of his global scheme of things in equating gravitational behavior with time dependent energy density.

I personally think, an R4 model of EMR that is self-limiting to observed limits, and which would be directly transformative to to S3 would be essential to bridging Relativity and QM. And think where we can look for a theoretical absolute velocity is in the core values of a free rest mass. I won't tout my own thing, it has legs but ticklish spots on both Achille's Heels. But I will say that where my modeling fails in part is that I have never gone back and put the EMR waveform in motion. Realistically, a soliton with a 'Pinch Point' that Ed colloquially (I'm good with colloquial!) describes, should race along at c like when you shake the bends out of your good extension cord after dragging it around for an hour. You know, you look at which way the kinks are winding and walk it out straightish and start giving it circular little whips, and the uncoil loop snakes down the length to where it hits a carbuncle, and unlays it.

Where I'm fuzzy about a gravitational mass interacting in a field of lower energy density, is not that the non-linearity in the mass would seek a greater field density to match its own density center, but rather how that non-linear field of lower density propagates from another gravitational mass among others in continually changing positions melding into the global system locale. That's got to be a lot of work. Good Cheer, jrc

...probably because that is the traditional interpretation. Since I construct up from a reductionist algebraic basis, the finite particle representation geometry is crucial. Not seeing any particle goemetry I assumed the usual.

Anyway, I do hope we both benefit,

Wayne