No, not physicists leading a double life... A physicist speculates about two dimensions of time at the Quantum Level: http://phys.org/news98468776.html The premise is that an added Dimension of time may help reconcile problems with QM measurement and even a GUT. Hogwash or Plausible?
The Itzhak Bars 2T theory appears to be complex... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://physics1.usc.edu/~bars/research.html#2T
An interesting bit, the idea eliminates the need for an axion (which has not yet been 'discovered' although it is in the math of the standard model.)
I'm the Time Explained guy, and IMHO the time dimension is derived from motion through space. So I was tempted to say Hogwash and have done with it. But then I saw mention of phase space, and this: "You also need an additional dimension of space". See this in the article? "Extra space dimensions aren’t easy to imagine — in everyday life, nobody ever notices more than three. Any move you make can be described as the sum of movements in three directions — up-down, back and forth, or sideways". There is a way to imagine extra dimensions in space. You represent space with a three-dimensional lattice, each grid line being say 2.46 x 10¯¹² m from the other. You can move around this lattice up-down, back and forth, or sideways. But in addition, you can move the lattice elements. It's easier to think of this by starting with flatland, essentially a two-dimensional rubber sheet. A third dimension is usually introduced by bending the rubber sheet in a vertical direction. However you can also stretch it sideways. The flatlander can't measure this with his ruler, because that's stretched too. The distance from A to B can vary, and you need an extra dimension to measure it. Note though that it's a dimension of measure rather than a dimension in the sense of freedom of motion. I've also had a look at the list of Itzhak Bars' papers on arXiv. Some I don't like the looks of, but others look promising. Overall I'd say take some of this with a pinch of salt, but don't write it off totally.
Farsight, just like your "I'm John Duffield" do you really expect people to say "Wow, really? You've him! Amazing!". In your head when you say it is it like when Bruce Wayne in the Batman films says, in his ridiculously gravelly voice, "I'm Batman!". Unfortunately the operative initial there is O for opinion. You have nothing but opinion. Your views don't lead to some working model, some actual physics, it's just wordy arm waving. No one cares about opinion, especially from a no one like you, even if you are 'the Time Explained guy'. You need to be able to back it up with more than 'because I like the sound of my own opinions'. How many people, how many journals, have said that about your 'work' and yet here you are, calling yourself 'the Time Explained guy'. I'm wondering, are you deliberately making your posts as laughably hypocritical as you can or do you honestly not see it when you type them up?
