``NOTHING'' IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN TIME \ (The Duality of Time Theory and Creation ex-nihilo) by Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef

Dear Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef,

FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Mohamed,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

If you are in a room now, you will see the surface of the ceiling, and the surface of the walls, and the surface of the doors, and the surface of the floor. If you go outside, you will see the surface of the road, and the surface of the buildings, and the surface of any passing vehicles. You can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed flat varied colored surface no matter in which direction you look. It logically follows that there must be only one single infinite surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Dear Mohamed,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

If you are in a room now, you will see the surface of the ceiling, and the surface of the walls, and the surface of the doors, and the surface of the floor. If you go outside, you will see the surface of the road, and the surface of the buildings, and the surface of any passing vehicles. You can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed flat varied colored surface no matter in which direction you look. It logically follows that there must be only one single infinite surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef

Good idea ..."The Duality of Time Theory explains how all corporeal and incorporeal ``things'' emerged ex nihilo, through the perpetual creation and annihilation of two conjugate arrows of time, that are dynamically forming the nested dimensions of space, ...." I agree completly with you time one of the fundamental aspect.... By the way...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Greetings Mohamed,

I agree that this essay has been unfairly graded by those who went before me. I would guess that they ran into the metaphysical inferences, and concluded it was unscientific; but I disagree. This essay is well thought out, and it does address the assigned topic. It introduces a new twist on fundamental Physics too. Your points are well-argued, so it seems unlikely your score deserves to be so low.

I will comment that perhaps what is lacking is a valid reason why time should flow differently inwardly and outwardly. But as one approaches the Planck scale, it is well-known that geometry becomes first non-commutative and then non-associative. So first size/distance then interiority/exteriority become relative, in the extreme microscale.

Relativity is only well-defined down to about 10^-12 cm, because below this size or scale it is increasingly true that we do not have separable objects with well-defined boundaries. This is the reason why some variables must be separately accounted for in inward and outward facing directions. You have simply applied this generalization to time.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thank you Mohamed,

I'll follow the links and look at the book when there is time. I would advise also that you look for conferences where you might present your work. There too; it is sometimes easy to get lost in the crowd, but even a brief conversation with one or two top level researchers can help take one's work to the next level rapidly.

There were almost 700 scientists at GR21, for example, but a brief conversation with Tevian Dray makes me absolutely certain there is a profound change in the extreme microscale that alters the character of inward and outward facing directions - so that the two must be separately accounted for in the octonions, for example.

Therefore; you should continue to follow your thread, but look out for ways it will connect with a larger body of work that already exists. Even with the development of something like the calculus; we later discovered that Archimedes had worked out the theory of integrals in ancient times. I imagine the library at Alexandria contained gems of Math we would still find new today.

All the Best,

Jonathan

By the way...

Once upon a time; I learned many of the whirling dances and chants used by the Sufis. A book called "Toward the One" was also influential to my education at that time. There are some lessons that one never forgets.

All the Best, JJD

Dear Mohamed

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Quantum mechanics is not restricted to discrete spectrum, we have continuous spectra in quantum mechanics. Also fields aren't discrete objects.

The cosmological constant problem is unrelated to the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics. The problem is backed to incorrectly interpretting the lambda as a vaccum term and then using QFT to calculate it. A solution to this problem is available, but the fundamental incompatibilities between relativity and quantum mechanics remain, just as they remain between relativity and classical mechanics.

LQG community tries to quantize spacetime because it confounds physical gravity with geometrical gravity. There is no reason to quantize spacetime in a physical description of gravity, and so any theory that predicts "discretuum structure of space-time" is very far from a TOE.

Spacetime isn't needed to describe physics. Example? Newtonian theory, where spacetime doesn't exist. In fact, the concept of spacetime only arises on a superficial field-like description of Nature.

Eq. (2) is dimensionally and mathematically incorrect.

Things aren't being "created from nothing" in this model, but from pre-existent structures.

Imaginary time concepts helps to simplify some computations but makes other more complex. The trick is used only in the formulas where this simplification happens.

Time is the evolution parameter that synchronizes correlations. It has to be unique; otherwise this role is lost. So theories of dual time either are incorrect or are redundant. In fact theories of dual time usually differentiate both times according to the evolution criteria, with only one of them playing the role of evolution parameter whereas the other participates in some geometrical spacetime structure. Such theories are redundant; and moreover they have additional difficulties to make direct connection with experiments.

On the local level the arena for dynamics is the dual structure (r;tau). This structure can then be approximated by (r,ct). Dividing this last expression by c, will produce multiple time coordinates associated to the "time-time frame". However, no one of them is true time tau. Moreover, dividing by c to create a time coordinates doesn't introduce any new physics, since it is simply a change of labels.

Space and time aren't treated equally in Minkowski spacetime, as the metric shows.

The explanation of negative modulus for t_c and of the direction of time aren't convincing.

Inertial mass doesn't increase with speed. What increases with mass is the old and useless concept of relativistic mass.

The problem with the vacuum and the void concepts is not that both are abstract concepts not related to observation, and thus useless, but they have unwelcome properties such as infinite size.

It is possible to build a model of nature with "real flow of time" without requiring continuous re-creation of space and matter. What is more, what matter is not created or destroyed is a basic principle of science. No observation invalidates it. No, pair 'creation' doesn't invalidate the principle.

Motion is not discrete, but a result of infinitesimal change. Zeno paradoxes confounded his contemporaries, but they is not longer paradoxes.

Ancient expressions as E=mc2 are better forgotten and replaced by modern ones: E0=mc2.

Checked as well the external references. I find additional meaningless claims as such that photons move from rest to c in zero time in pair production or when emitted or absorbed. Besides the speed of photons being constrained to c due to being massless particles, the author seems to believe that photons are localized and at rest inside emitters before being emitted and then instantaneously accelerated to speed c during the emission process. Of course Nature doesn't behave in this way.