Are Scientific Journals Passe? Has Peer Review Become Sneer Review? Do Scientists Steal From Submitted Papers? Is the Internet The New Way? MDT Rock On!!

Dimensions can too move!!

I too agree that Greene and Kakau are missing the point.

[Only registered users see links. ]

Philosophical and Physical Barriers to Moving Dimensions

Many trained physicists have a knee-jerk reaction that the time
dimension cannot be moving because "dimensions cannot move." First
off, since the universe is expanding, space-time is also expanding,
demonstrating that dimensions are moving and expanding. Secondly,
general relativity demonstrates that massive objects warp space-time,
meaning that as a massive object moves though space-time, it stretches
space-time, showing again that space-time in one area can move, or
deform, relative to space-time in another area. GR is a sound theory,
backed up with multiple high-profile experiments, including the
demonstration that starlight is bent by the sun and the verification
that orbiting stars radiate energy in the form of gravity waves. Thus
there exist neither philosophical nor physical barriers to the concept
of moving dimensions, but for artificial ones within lazy minds.



A curious sign of the times is that physicists will accept on blind
faith the existence of ten, twenty, or thirty dimensions, dimensions
that are curled up, or too small to measure, and yet they will reel in
shock and horror at a perfectly obvious postulate-the fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.



They are to be forgiven-it has been a long time since a simple
postulate has been offered in the realm of physics, and the foreign
nature of truth's simple beauty is seen as a violent affront to the
String Theorist's convoluted sensibilities.



The Mysterious Minus Sign in The Metric



Consider the metric for a space-time interval:



x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2



Consider the metric for a photon, which travels at the speed of light.



x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=0



Supposing that it is traveling along the x direction, we can write:



x^2-c^2t^2=0



x^2=c^2t^2



x=ct



Now let us ask a question, as we must certainly be free to ask
questions if we are to further physics. For a photon, how is the x
coordinate changing relative to the time coordinate? Would not the
answer just be the slope of the line in x=ct?



dx/dt=c



And so it is that for the photon-for all photons-the x coordinate
is changing at the rate of c relative to the t coordinate.



But no matter how far the photon travels in space, it will have moved
the same distance in space-time-0-not at all-the null vector.
This is because the time coordinate itself is moving, or more correctly
I should state that this is because the fourth dimension which carries
photons at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions is
expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions,
and the propagation of photons/energy gives rise to our notions of
time. Remember that all time is based on the transportation of energy,
or the propagation of photons, so that our notion of time and clocks is
inherently wed to the fact that photons propagate at the rate of c
relative to the three spatial dimensions, which is inherently wed to
the fact that a fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions. Thus it makes sense that time does not pass for the
photon, and too, it makes sense that the distance a photon travels
through space-time is defined as the null vector.



Rather than just accepting the minus sign in front of the c^2t^2 as
being there because it "just is there," MDT aims to look at the
deeper reality which gives rise to the minus sign. A physicist's job
is not to accept things on blind faith, nor only ask questions that are
allowed to be asked, but a physicist's job is to wonder freely-to
roam and range upon the frontiers of logic and reason. And that wonder,
which seems all but forgotten in the bureaucratization of modern
physics, with its billions of dollars for elegant fabrications woven
from string theories which yet leave the Emperor naked, leads to the
deeper beauty. "Imagination is more important than knowledge," was
how Einstein put it.



The Collapse of the Wave Function:



The collapse of the wave function is also known as an irreversible
process, or a measurement, akin to a photon blackening a grain in
photographic film, or a photon being measured in front of one slit or
the other in a double-slit experiment, whereupon the interference
pattern disappears because the slit is ascertained, the wave has
collapsed, and the matter exhibits particulate behavior. Before it was
measured, the photon expanded through space as a spherically-symmetric
wave front, as it was matter surfing the expanding fourth dimension,
which is expanding through space in a spherically-symmetric manner.
Until the photon interacts with matter, or a measurement device in the
lab, the photon has equal probability of existing anywhere upon the
crest of the spherically symmetric wavefront, and thus it appears to
travel all paths-a physical reality Feynman took advantage of his
"many paths" formulation of quantum mechanics.



As Huygen's principle states that each point on an expanding
spherical wavefront is itself an expanding spherical wavefront, the
photon also has a probability of appearing earlier along on its
journey, or somewhere upon a smaller sphere centered upon its point of
origination. But over time the probabilities average out such that the
photon surfs along with the crest of the expanding fourth dimension,
and it appears to travel at the constant rate of c.



The collapse of the wave function is what happens when matter changes
its rotation relative to the time dimension. All measurements entail a
transfer of energy, and all measurements thus entail photons leaving
the expanding fourth dimension and being trapped in matter that is
stationary in an inertial lab frame. Perhaps this is why photons exert
no gravity while propagating freely, but do add gravitational mass
after their wave functions have collapsed, when they are trapped by
electrons within lab measurement apparatuses or photographic film.



The EPR Effect & Nonlocality of Quantum Mechanics:



The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect (EPR) effect, which calls
instantaneous action at a distance "spooky," can be accounted for
by the intrinsic nonlocality of an expanding fourth dimension. As a
point expands into a tiny sphere in the fourth dimension, it is yet a
single locale in that dimension, and hence though two initially
interacting particles are separated in the spatial dimensions, they may
yet exist in the same place in the time dimension, and hence be
connected before they're measured-before the wave function
collapses. Quantum Mechanics exhibits nonlocal properties because the
fourth dimension exhibits nonlocal properties, as it is expanding
relative to the three spatial dimensions.



Please see the dialogue with Penrose later on.



The Photon's Null Vector



The null vector of the photon, which remains 0 no matter how far or
fast the photon travels in space-time, may be accounted for by the fact
that the fourth dimension is moving, and thus the only way to stay
still in the four dimensions with an effective null movement, is to
move along with, or "surf" the expanding fourth dimension.



The Ageless Photon



A photon does not age. No time passes for a photon. This is because
although a photon travels with the velocity c, it stays at the exact
same place in the fourth dimension as it surfs the expanding fourth
dimension. How else, other than with a moving fourth dimension, can we
explain that the only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is
to move at the velocity of c relative to the three spatial dimensions?
And how else, but with a moving fourth dimension, can we explain that
any object stationary in the three spatial dimensions is moving with a
velocity of c relative to the fourth dimension?



Time is an Emergent Phenomena of Moving Dimensions-It is Not a
Dimension

Einstein's, Penrose's (and many leading physicist's) mistaken view
of "the future being out there" in a block universe arises because
physicists misleadingly label "time" the fourth dimension, thus
implying that just as we can move anywhere in the three spatial
dimensions, such as up and down and back again, so too can we move
anywhere in the time dimension, to the past, the future, and back
again, implying that both the past and future must exist, as sure as
New York and Los Angeles.

But time is not so much the fourth dimension as it is an emergent
phenomena that arises because a fourth dimension is expanding at the
rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions in a spherically
symmetric manner in units of the Planck length.

Einstein was Right:

Einstein proclaimed that all objects travel through space-time at c.
Even though we perceive a ruler along the x axis to be stationary, it
is yet traveling through space-time at the fixed speed of c, implying
that it is moving through time at the rate of c. Rotate it towards the
y axis, and its projection upon the x axis shortens, yet it still
appears to be stationary, and it is still traveling through space-time
at the rate of c, meaning that it is still traveling at the rate of c
through time, as it is stationary in space. Rotate it into the time
dimension instead of into the y dimension, and its projection along the
x axis still shortens (Lorentz contraction), but now it begins to move
through the three spatial dimensions, while maintaining the fixed speed
of c through space-time. Again, we see it propagate faster through the
three spatial dimensions as it is rotated into the fourth "time"
dimension (via a boost) because the fourth dimension is moving relative
to the three spatial dimensions.

Simply put, it is not possible to rotate an object into the fourth
"time" dimension without that object's velocity through the three
stationary dimensions changing. Thus the time dimension itself must be
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Another way of
looking at this is asking, "Why must something always gain a greater
velocity through space when it is rotated into the fourth "time"
dimension?" If someone can conduct a Lorentz transformation on a
ruler, and rotate it into the fourth dimension without its velocity
augmenting through the three spatial dimensions, I would very much like
to hear about it.

Brian Greene's Treatment-The Time Dimension is Moving Relative to
the Spatial Dimension



As Brian Greene points out in the Appendix to Chapter 2 of The Elegant
Universe, we note that from the space-time position 4-vector
x=(ct,x1,x2,x3), we can create the velocity 4-vector u=dx/d(tau), where
tau is the proper time defined by
d(tau)^2=dt^2-c^-2(dx1^2+dx2^2+dx3^2). Then the "speed through
space-time" is the magnitude of the 4-vector u,
((c^2dt^2-dx^2)/(dt^2-c^-2dx^2))^(1/2), which is identically the speed
of light c. Now, we can rearrange the equation
c^2(dt/d(tau))^2-(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2 to be
c^2(d(tau)/dt))^2+(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2. This shows that an increase of an
object's speed through space, (dx/d(tau))^2)^(1/2)= dx/d(tau) must be
accompanied by a decrease in d(tau)/dt which is the object's speed
through time, which also may be considered the rate at which time
elapses on its own clock d(tau) or the proper time, as compared with
that on our stationary clock dt."



Here again we see that even a stationary object has the velocity of c
through space-time. How can a stationary object have such a high
velocity? This is because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to
the three spatial dimensions at all points. So a stationary object will
see photons being carried away upon the crests of the expanding
dimension, at the rate of c, and this will be interpreted that that
object is aging, or moving through time at the rate of c, although in
reality the object itself never goes much deeper than the Planck length
into the expanding fourth dimension. Again, time is not the fourth
dimension, but it is an emergent property of an expanding fourth
dimension.



The Movement of All Objects That Exist More in Time:



In Lorentzian Transformations, there is no way for an object to be
rotated into the time dimension without it moving-this can be
explained by the fact that the time dimension is expanding.



The Debate Over the Block Universe: MDT To the Rescue:



Again we see quantum mechanics and relativity at odds over the debate
of the block universe implied by relativity, which seems to imply a
definitive, real future, which seemingly contradicts quantum
mechanic's inherent randomness and free will. MDT resolves this
paradox by viewing time not as the fourth dimension, but as a phenomena
that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the
three spatial dimensions. Because all time is measured via the
propagation of photons, and because all photons propagate as matter
carried along by the expanding fourth dimension, time has oft been
ascribed properties of a fourth dimension similar to the three spatial
dimensions, resulting in paradoxical, misleading interpretations of the
universe. Suffice it to say MDT sees time not as a dimension, but as an
emergent property of a fourth dimension expanding relative to three
spatial dimensions.



In their paper concerning the paradoxes outlined above, "The Debate
over the Block Universe," Isham, C.J. and J.C. Polkinghorne write:



[Only registered users see links. ]

"Proponents of the block universe appeal to special and general
relativity to support a timeless view in which all spacetime events
have equal ontological status. The finite speed of light, the light
cone structure, and the downfall of universal simultaneity and with it
the physical status of "flowing time" in special relativity result
in a heightened tendency to ontologize spacetime. The additional
arbitrariness in the choice of time coordinates in general relativity
makes flowing time physically meaningless. Thus no fundamental meaning
can be ascribed to the "present" as the moving barrier with the
kind of unique and universal significance needed to unequivocally
distinguish "past" from "future." Instead the flowing present
is a mental construct, and four-dimensional spacetime is an
"eternally existing" structure. God may know the temporality of
events as experienced subjectively by creatures, but God cannot act
temporally, since flowing time has no fundamental meaning in nature.
Theologians must accept the Boethian and even gnostic implications of
the block universe."



[Only registered users see links. ]

Isham and Polkinghorne continue: "Opponents of the block universe
begin by distinguishing between kinematics and dynamics. Special
relativity imposes only kinematic constraints on the structure of
spacetime. The dynamics of quantum physics and chaos theory encourages
a view of nature as open and temporal, thus allowing for both human and
divine agency. The problem of the lack of universal simultaneity is
lessened since simultaneity is an a posteriori construct.
Philosophically disposed to critical realism, opponents are wary of the
incipient reductionism of the block view. They resist the Boethian
implications of relativity, and argue instead that divine omnipresence
must be redefined in terms of a special frame of reference, perhaps one
provided by the cosmic background radiation. God's knowledge of
spacetime events in terms of this frame of reference will be
constrained by both the world's causal sequence and the distinction
between past and future. Similarly God's actions will be consistent
with relativity theory."



[Only registered users see links. ]



In MDT, both quantum mechanics and relativity are in perfect harmony,
but the time in relativity is not a dimension on equal footing with the
three spatial dimensions. Rather, time is an emergent parameter arising
from matter (photons) being carried along with a fourth dimension that
is expanding at a constant rate relative to the three spatial
dimensions.





Time's Arrow / 2nd Law of Thermodyamics / Entropy



Entropy states that the universe tends towards disorder. This is
because the fourth dimension is expanding in a spherically symmetric
manner, constantly carrying all initially close photons and particles
away from one another-thus a drop of food coloring in a pool is
carried outward and evenly distributed as time evolves. Because the
fourth dimension is expanding as a spherically symmetric wavefront
through the three spatial dimensions, photons, as well as all matter
that interacts with photons, exhibits a probability to move in a
spherically symmetric manner. Thus, if we have a clump of atoms in the
middle of a room, a probability exists for the atoms to spread apart in
a spherically symmetrical manner, being carried along by the expanding
time dimension.

[Only registered users see links. ]

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1122672184.955564.172660@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

And you have not provided even one iota of empirical proof. Not one.Nor can
you
suggest an experiment that would test it.

The purple Tellytubby understands science better than you do.

sr

On 29 Jul 2005 15:38:32 -0700, [Only registered users see links. ] wrote:


Yeah. Right. Just hope your bowels can move, jackass.
Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]:


Neither. I would first spend as much time as required to insure that
(1) the idea had some value with respect to how I intended it to be
applied. For example, if my idea was supposed to have something to
do with physics, I'd make sure that it wasn't philosophical fluff.
(2) the idea wasn't seriously flawed once it was applied to physics
beyond the physics that motivated it. For example, if you plan to
discard relativity with some new idea, you ought to be able to use
it directly to do any physics that relies on relativity, which is a
lot. That doesn't mean asserting the idea and then using relativity
unless you are just talking about philosophical fluff. Only after that
would I consider writing it up and sending it to a journal.

By the way, if it takes you a year to write up your idea for a
journal, you clearly didn't have the idea developed well enough
to know if it was worth publishing. It doesn't take a year to
type it up so that the idea meets the stylistic guidelines and
expectations, unless you are an incredibly slow typist with little
or no knowledge of grammer or style.

What you should ask yourself is why you think it might take a
year to comply with journal guidelines if your idea is already
in a form that clearly illustrates its physical content and value
to physicists.

Stop cross posting this crap to zillions of newsgroups.
If there's anything worse than spam, it's kooky spam.

[Only registered users see links. ]:

You haven't offered any logical reason to consider it. Why should
anyone waste their time examining something in detail when the only
advocate spams usenet with lots of articles containing no logical
argument in favor of what he is advocating?

re: the accepting/rejecting of ideas

Thomas Kuhn, THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, and related others,
citca early 1960s, Univ of Chicago publications, continues to
enormously influence my perceptions about these phenomena.

Kuhn discusses rhe political-social aspects of the process of
literature professional journal publishing.

He apparently coined/popularized "paradigm"
norming/formulating/"shifting."

Kuhn's philosophical ideas were explicitly promoted by my southeastern
state university's college of arts & sciences as I recall in the
mid-1960s.

In fact his writing was the only "official" xerox/mimeograph handed-out
which (seemingly) every freshman was expected to read.

I wonder if he Is still so highly held/regarded ?

Who are the Thomas Kuhns of now?

In article <1122640046.467212.28060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

c) discuss it with your colleagues at the office, and enlist their help.

Most new science doesn't appear first on the internet (perhaps excluding
the preprint servers), and also isn't developed in isolation.


If anybody cared about it, there's still time for someone else's name to
become attached to the theory if they do more to develop it, use it, and
promote it.


I don't think you have anything to worry about in that regard.


We don't need science when science no longer needs to be tested and is
more for social gatherings at expensive resorts.

But for now science remains useful, and the journals are the primary
method of professional communication.



Maybe it escaped your attention that Einstein's and Max Planck's theories
were published in the journals, and that it's much easier to stand on the
shoulders of giants when you can look up their work and read it.

You wouldn't be the first to suggest that the standard scientific
institutions aren't capable of dealing with innovation, but aren't string
theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics examples to the contrary?
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin

I've published work in several scientific journals.

All I'm saying is that a lot of prominent journals have gone to the
dark side.

To improve the situation, they could stop publishing untestable
theories, self-referential theories that make no sense, or any paper
that does not advance science.

Until then, the internet is a fine place for logic and reason.

Moving Dimensions Theory: MDT

[Only registered users see links. ]

"Robert Cohen" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1122726468.086506.237330@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

When John Beaz regularly posted on sci.physics.relativity he mentioned a
number of modern philosophers of science he thought were doing good work -
one name I recall is Max Jammer - so if you are interested in that sort of
thing he may fit the bill. A philosopher I do like is Victor Stenger - but
he is also a physicist -
[Only registered users see links. ]

Personally, while I do not think philosophy is silly, irrelevant or anything
like that, (although some philosophers like Hegel make you wonder - but that
is another story) I believe some rather simple philosophical ideas are all
that is necessary to do good science - but to each his/her own. It is
interesting that while some great physicists like Einstein and Bohr were
heavily influenced by philosophy others such as Feynman, Dirac and Landau
(in fact Landau wanted to remove all tracers of what he called 'philology'
from physics - a worthwile but I beleive doomed undertaking) were not. In
fact it would seem an understanding of mathematics and its relation to
physics is of greater worth in making progress in physics -
[Only registered users see links. ]

Thanks
Bill

"Captain Ranger McCoy" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1122749028.059572.77680@g44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

Mind detialing them?


I would like to know what you consider an untestable theory. String and M
theory for example make specific predictions (such that the law of gravity
breaks down at small distances) that have been put to experimental
investigation. Speaking of untestable theories I have yet to see a single
prediction of moving dimensions theory - in fact I have yet to see even a
coherent presentation of it.

Bill