Space, Time, and Matter

[Nesti (Mark)]

This is very difficult to get across, so please be patient with my wording.

Just for a moment, try to picture Time as a composite trend in particle outcomes, like a casino has the odds stacked slightly in it's favour; it gradually wins-over, and space as a type of latency or impedance in dynamical change...so that a weak and tardy force gives the impression of being distant, whereas a strong and immediate force gives the impression of being close. Yes, this means we let go of time dilation, Lorentz contraction...the whole idea of a field actually!

But wait...

With that in mind, imagine if spatial and temporal separation (distance and time) are features/properties within matter itself...ie. internal properties of matter, not external features of a field?

O-oh...

This presents distance and time in a new way, a type of dynamic viscosity in a particle's interaction with other particles...with all particles actually being superimposed upon one-another...which would also imply a single particle universe.

It's a wild statement I know, but is there anything really stopping it from being this way?

I can see this has the potential to be heated.

[Karls48 (Karl)]

With that in mind, imagine if spatial and temporal separation (distance and time) are features/properties within matter itself...ie. internal properties of matter, not external features of a field?


I have for long time believed that time is property of the space and the space is one of many conversions of matter. It is implied by the Big Bang theory as it assumes that the time and the space were created in BB. I also see need for some kind of non-relativistic Universal time. How could BB happen without passage of time? We got effect without the cause.
I may just as well read book of Genesis, almost three thousand years old story gives me about same insight to beginning of Universe as modern cosmology. Basic requirement for accepting either is that you must believe. Actually, Genesis is more logical because in it the effect (beginning) got cause (God).
Until someone discovers something that can travel faster then c, we are going to be stuck with Cosmology analogous to Ptolemy’s Solar system model. New observations and measurements of Universe will lead to more and more convoluted explanations to make it fit to Einstein theories.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Got an experiment for this Mark?

Something testable, not neato paradox's

Until someone discovers something that can travel faster then c, we are going to be stuck with Cosmology analogous to Ptolemy’s Solar system model. New observations and measurements of Universe will lead to more and more convoluted explanations to make it fit to Einstein theories

uummm you mean re-discovers faster than C...
>C Information: Photons (Berkley), microwaves (Cologne), laser beams (Vienna)
>C Energy: Tesla (1900s) pi/2* C

But of course, thats impossible... as it wouldn't fit Einstein's theories...

I agree, we are stuck... relativistic mathematical physics is currently deciding what can be seen, analogies of BBT to religion are obvious.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Just for a moment, try to picture Time as a composite trend in particle outcomes, like a casino has the odds stacked slightly in it's favour; it gradually wins-over, and space as a type of latency or impedance in dynamical change...so that a weak and tardy force gives the impression of being distant, whereas a strong and immediate force gives the impression of being close. Yes, this means we let go of time dilation, Lorentz contraction...the whole idea of a field actually!

I like this line of thought. My own theory which is not too dissimilar goes like this:

Space and time are related in an "Ohm's law" kind of way (isn't just about everything in physics?). Space represents the potential that makes time flow. Positive space (the kind we're familiar with) makes time flow in a "forward" direction, i.e. the direction we're familiar with. I'm thinking that mass would play the role of impedance in this relationship, it both slows time given the same space and stretches space given the same flow of time. The Big Bang would have been a jolt of potential (space) that enabled time to flow.

If you want time to go backwards you need to reverse the polarity of space. To do that you first need to go extremely small (approaching zero space) and then pass over into negative space where time flows the other way. Quantum effects much?

So, in contrast to your theory, here mass is a feature of matter than enables and controls the relationship between space and time.

I'm currently modifying my Fluke multimeter, trying to coax it into showing flows of time and drops of space over a massive piece of matter. It's still early days…

Cheers
Steffen.

[sjastro]

uummm you mean re-discovers faster than C...
>C Information: Photons (Berkley), microwaves (Cologne), laser beams (Vienna)
>C Energy: Tesla (1900s) pi/2* C

And here is the standard refutation. Note the emphasis on the term "thing".
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/482

But of course, thats impossible... as it wouldn't fit Einstein's theories...

GR allows speed of light to be exceeded for example metric expansion of space....

Regards

Steven

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Steffen

Quantum effects much?

Cheers
Steffen.

You could never travel backward in time along the same event pathway from which you came...all particles, whether traveling forward or backward in time are subject to Freedom of Choice.

So to travel backwards in time is irrelevant. You need only rearrange all the particles in the universe to the same positions, states and values at an earlier epoch...which is impossible because of Freedom of Choice.

So Freedom of Choice is actually a safety in the preservation of a stable reality...yet it is also Freedom of Choice which creates the forward arrow of time as well (self fulfilling). We need only see that particle events (changing states and values), is the Dynamism of the universe at work, and it only arises because those freedoms exist and force the particle into action.

this is just my belief anyway.

[Steffen]

Freedom of Choice definitely sounds like something worth supporting. However, there are those that reckon it's an illusion (even harmful), and particles don't know what they want until you tell them what they want…

Cheers
Steffen.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Steffen

Freedom of Choice definitely sounds like something worth supporting. However, there are those that reckon it's an illusion (even harmful), and particles don't know what they want until you tell them what they want…

Cheers
Steffen.

Oh, I did say that particles are subject to Freedom of Choice, not that they actually have any freedom to choose in their own right. The freedoms may well be derived from someplace else...


***Please God, let nobody say the word God***

[Steffen]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/b...of_choice.html

Too much choice can lead to a lot of unhappy particles

Cheers
Steffen.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Further...

This of course means that Time might not exist at all, and the reason why I put it earlier that Time may simply be "a type of dynamic viscosity in a particle's interaction with other particles", in which it's direction (forward or backward) is an illusion, since the thing which defines forward and backward in Time is the same, Freedom of Choice.

This is why I found Aharanov's work on Time Symmetry so fascinating, especially the inconsistency between the destiny vector and history vector.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

And here is the standard refutation. Note the emphasis on the term "thing".
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/482

login?

GR allows speed of light to be exceeded for example metric expansion of space....

Thats nice... but this is not happening Toleman is failing:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0621v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2948
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2714v1



Regards

Steven

comments

But what of the answers to the juicy stuff? For Marks time's theories?
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...0/PP-23-05.PDF

New observations and measurements of Universe will lead to more and more convoluted explanations to make it fit to Einstein theories.

Bingo

[renormalised (Carl)]

The way I'm feeling at present, this is my thoughts on the subject...

Space is big
Time is irrelevant
Matter...not really



(Did anyone get the number of that truck??)

[Karls48 (Karl)]

So called crackpot ideas that forum members present from time to time on this and other forums are indications of intellectual dissatisfaction with current state of theoretical science. Current scientific paradigm is a biggest obstacle to progress in our understanding of the Universe we live in. Although it’s nothing new. Many times in the history any kind of progress has been stopped because of reputation of one great man. This is not fault of those exceptional thinkers (in our times of Einstein) but of those scientists who blindly follow the teachings that were reverent long time ago with the technology that was available at that time. Saying that I do not take anything from the genius of those men. They were humanity greatest thinkers using the technology and information’s that was available in their time. Our progress to (possible) ultimate knowledge is like never ending spiral star case. The landings are the times of paradigm change.
In other tread Carl (renormalised) talks about our current space exploration propulsion being seven hundred years old firework technology. True – but do you thing that this is going to change with current science paradigm?
There are mathematicians in this forum. Can someone please calculate probability of GR and SR being focal point of theoretical physics in the year 2500, related to the rise and the fall of the scientific theories in last 3000 years?
Every age of our civilisation has though that they reached pinnacle of knowledge and have answer for everything - and has been always proven wrong. Any good reason why our age is an exception?
In the end – 42 is just as good answer as any.

[Insane Climber (Jason)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Further...

This of course means that Time might not exist at all,

Thats what i have been thinking. you guys are giveing some interesting theories.
I,m starting to think that the reason we are stuck is because of our determination that time must exist and it must go in a direction. I have been going over Hawkings idea of imaginary time and i get the feeling he is sidetracked by the personal need to explain What time really is.

Cheers
Jas

[avandonk]

I am sure we had this discussion eons ago!

Bert

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

But what of the answers to the juicy stuff? For Marks time's theories?
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...0/PP-23-05.PDF

I don't believe in Time Travel...not one bit...I don't even believe that particles can either.

I view the dimension of Time as more of a variable Impedance or resistance to change...but for this to remain logical, I also must believe that particles carry the ability to exchange that Impedance when they interact...so they don't just interact, they exchange a latency value within the interaction. this is why i wrote "dynamic viscosity in a particle's interaction with other particles", and it also relates to the dimensional space around it. So tardiness is kind of a state and value. When tardiness is at it's minimum, we have minimal Impedance. Minimal Impedance of the dimensional space translates to movement at 'c'. In this way, 'c' tells us a bit about dimensional space and it's relationship to mass. It's kind of a Higgs field but without the need for a Higgs Boson.

In this way, this shared and transportable viscosity could affect the apperance of space, so we get Lorentz contraction with higher viscosity/latency, which also means slower interactions, or, Time Dilation.

If the information could be commuted across spacetime, in a type of metric, then it would not only adhere to SR, but it may tell us something about SR and the relationship between energy and dimensional space.

What would be the source of the viscosity or Impedance? Perhaps it's just a latency in the dynamism of specific particles (Fermions). Perhaps the value is shared within particle species...like String Theory claims.

All 100% hypothetical and impossible notions of course.

[sjastro]

GR allows speed of light to be exceeded for example metric expansion of space....

Thats nice... but this is not happening Toleman is failing:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0621v1http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2948
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2714v1

Alex,

Care to explain the relevance of this?

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Alex,

Care to explain the relevance of this?

Regards

Steven

Yes, I'll ask the same question??!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

I don't believe in Time Travel...not one bit...I don't even believe that particles can either.

What if that proves to be correct...that you can travel in time, both backwards and forwards, freely. You'll then have to factor that into your hypothesis or abandon it altogether. There's nothing within SR that prevents time travel, so for it to not be real, if you take your hypothesis as correct, then there must be something due to the impedance which counteracts time travel. It seems like your impedance is a one way effect. So, it could be described thermodynamically.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

re:
Toleman - > Surface brightness test are not 'obeying' the requirements of expansion, as those papers indicate.... add to this the redshift anomalies, quasars, wmap anomalies, quasar time-dilations..... etc.

My point is, the only example you gave was "oh well the expansion of the universe can be >c".

To me, thats just a mathematical thought experiment. I'd like something testable... the 'information' and 'energy' examples of >c have been provided with independent techniques and lab experiments. Of course once results hit the einstein theories it becomes 'impossible'.

Yes I know requested lab cosmological-time-space expansion tests are not available. I don't know where you will go from here. On the flipside, i've seen enough evidence on longitudinal transmission and entanglement experiments to be convinced c does not represent a limit, at which point sr has been violated and relativity time vanishes.

Re Mark: Thats cool... I don't believe in time travel either... alot of the paradoxes still relate to your relative theory though, how this 'interaction' is communicated. I'm happy to do away with time-dilation it'self... i don't consider it to be a 4th dimension of physics.

The longer we keep playing the relativity game... the longer nonsense like this will continue:
Hawkings: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...e-machine.html
LHC phantoms: http://www.news.com.au/technology/la...-1225788270808

I'm leaning towards c just being a ratio of energy and mass, not a limit as required by SR intern GR, and no need for an introduction of a 4th D time in to physics. Once we do away with this, we can do away with the paradoxes.
4d: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9IePuHut4
EPR paradox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WfydkWLIkk
Slit wave/packet/particle paradox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

I don't subscribe to the rope hypothesis mentioned, but the relativity summarizations in these videos outline some difficulties i have swallowing consensus when 'hand waving' is applied. I'm of the opinion the theory with variable time presented will be blasted away when the mentioned experiments that violate c are explained.

I best respectfully bow out, so that this conjecture can continue. Carl has some good points on direction of this dynamic impedance of the theory.

Best
Alex