what makes a 'dimension' to the scientific community?

Time at its beginning (if any) doesn't really interest me very much. I'm more interested in the way time, space, energy and matter behave in the current state of the universe, where at least a few conservation laws seem to work and we can make predictions. Understanding this cannot help but lead to a better understanding of any initial states of matter, energy, time, or the quantum fields of which they derive or interact, the reason for time's arrow and where all of this is ultimately going.

Energy cannot 'precede time', as energy itself is an excitation of a quantum field. The existence of entanglement strongly suggests at least two quantum fields; one moving at c with respect to all points wherever energy can propagate and in all directions. The other, quantum field, the source of quantum entanglement and the instant "now" of time is at rest relative to the other field, and as experienced by any particles or energy that are entangled. The relative interaction of these fields strictly determine c, which is much more than the rate at which energy propagates in a vacuum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think that what you are saying here is much different from what I am saying, instead of what I said using energy ,can you not replace that with your field theory and substitute all of the field potentials combined as the total quantity of energy in existence which would equal an infinite amount anyways. The fields already move at c, at least the gravitational and emf for sure. So they technicaly can exist before time started as well as space. So you could say once time and space begins the fields are no longer uniform and they now start to interact creating particles especially particles of matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should be careful about consistency, because that's a hallmark of how nature and the best science works. If relativity works the way it does for dimensions, matter and energy, why should it stop working abruptly at the level of a quantum field?

If a quantum field is inertialess and stationary (and remember, that must be relative to something else), and does not operate like an aether but supports instant entanglement everywhere, then there must be a corresponding quantum field that supports energy propagation at c because the field itself moves in every direction energy can propagate. These two fields set the limits (at rest for matter or at c for energy). Everything about motion that is possible between these two extremes is the result of the mechanism through which these two fields interact.

The most basic activity going on in the vacuum everywhere is the continuous creation of virtual particle PAIRS. This sets the stage for where they are created (the stationary, inertialess quantum field) and also how they propagate (the field moving in every direction at c) Entanglement depends on the field that is at rest. Propagation depends on the field that moves.

We used the cruder concepts of time and space since Euclid simply because of our inertia. It's time to move on to a model that is closer to physical reality than a geometry conceived in the absence of time.

The whole reason relativity works is because any motion in the second field always happens in pairs, like the observer and the observed. Energy and Matter. Time and space. You may view a meter stick as something with a left end and a right end, or you could view it as a point coupled with the time it takes a pair of entangled photons to traverse half a meter in opposite directions in a time we formerly referred to as distance. Defining a meter in this way is the only means for assuring that the measurement includes the rest frame of what we have measured.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In a universe in which the rate of time flow is different everywhere, Newton's calculus makes sense only in regions where the variation is minimal, NOT in the region of, say, a black hole. Your math will not avail you there, nor does it go any further to explain the mechanism by which entanglement derives.

The Standard Model's success in eliminating time and replacing it with probabilities is ludicrous in view of the fact that it attempts to describe the dynamics of a universe comprised fundamentally of only time and energy. That it works at all is a tribute to what just a pinch of the veracity of relativity can accomplish.

I wasn't joking about demolishing the foundations of those monuments. All except for Einstein's monument, which stands firm.

 

Now you should also understand why for a while I had an issue with Minkowsky. Since calculus, like geometry, only works in the idealized world of solid geometry where nothing changes as it moves, it really made no sense to consult such a person about the dynamics of a universe that behaves in accordance with the law of relativity (yes, I'm elevating its status from that of a theory).

dt is different everywhere, so whenever you do differential calculus, in a sense you are making yourself an ideal Euclidean geometry for a universe that only exists in your own mind. Asking your calculus professor about physics will therefore always yield answers that have lost what few bindings that way of reasoning has to reality, and along with them, any accuracy such ideas pretend to convey. They may be precise (the same answer each time), but they are flawed by their very aspiration to mathematical perfection. There are no absolutes in this universe, other than the speed of light and the instant that is the absolute origin of "now", which defines the speed of entanglement. Count all of the others again if you wish.

Everyone here helped with the development of this idea. Please take it for free and use it to find out more.

 

"

Here is why I think time is relative Danshawen distance or length is constant, but your perception of it is not, your perspective is relative. Your perception, your awareness is governed by space-time, the kind of consiousness humans and animals posses is not possible with out space time.

 

These to me look like mostly all the same thing.

 

Geometry is for a more advanced universe than the one we know I even believe that universe geometry describes is an absolute. You see Newton didn't read inbetween the spectral lines like Einstein did, that is because Newton was viewing space and not space time, and he did that from a unified position, "his own".

 

All of relativity was based on a single assumption, that the speed of light was invariant to any observer in an inertial reference frame. If lengths contracted and time dilated, it would always do so in a manner that meant this was the case, and no experiment could ever be performed that could demonstrate a velocity with respect to the medium through which light travels.

The same result holds true with respect to gravity waves. If they are ever detected, it requires a differential measurement of time dilation effects between very distant points with no relative red or blue Doppler shifts, or in other words, the same inertial reference frame.

The null result of the Michaelson Morley experiment is what needed to be explained, and Einstein's explanation won the day because of all the other things it explained.

Einstein didn't do this for vanity or in competition with any other theories. He did it simply because he loved physics. It was not, and still is not (yet) a 'unified' position. In fact, his GR theory was corrupted by the same absolute space and time mindset that has afflicted every mathematician since Euclid. He knew as well as they do, it doesn't really work Newton's way, but it's close enough for most slugs and other things that move and also think very slowly.

Over 100 years later, relativity is still the best explanation for many new phenomena, and the only way the math has changed is to simplify the mathematical crank used to apply transforms between moving and stationary coordinate systems with something called 'boost matrices'. This is not an improvement to much of anything so much as a response to thinking that is more prone to ADHD. Think about it. For more than a few seconds at a time, if you are able. The method is as simple as it is wrong.

 

An interesting observation about GR, space-time and space-time reference is, if we start with mass M, spread over distance D, changes within the mass and/or distance, will alter local space-time reference or the local space-time well, per General Relativity.

If you look closely, the final space-time reference or the final space-time well, due to changes in mass and/or distance, is not dependent on time, even though the time aspect within space-time changes. Whether we add or subtract mass and/or distance, do this fast or slow in time, or whether we do this in quantum steps, where we skip time, or we do it continuously or even discontinuously in time, none of these will change the final steady state space-time reference or well. This final space-time reference for time is only dependent on mass and distance.

My interpretation is, mass contains the potential in time; 0-D time, that defines the time reference within space-time. As such, changes in mass and/or mass geometry impact how the time potential, within mass, is distributed over distance, which defines how time relates to distance in space-time.

 

This is the same dead end reasoning that abruptly dropped relativity from being a candidate for part of a unified field theory when Einstein died in 1955. c is much more than the frame invariant rate at which energy propagates. Time itself must be infinitely subdivisible or else the "speed" of entanglement with respect to c makes no sense. It does make sense. I am trying to explain why that must be.

The only speed which is the same dx/dt everywhere is the speed of light. "At rest" or the absence of motion in any direction exists only for the quantum field that is at rest and is responsible for entanglement, and in which virtual particles or energy pairs are continuously created. No matter in this universe can ever be at rest as much this quantum field. Whole galaxies fly away from each other at relativistic speeds. Even galaxies propagate away from each other in pairs, just like virtual particles do. It's no accident it works this way, even and especially on larger scales. Matter IS bound energy. Energy is conserved on average (direction as well as magnitude), even in bulk. If the energy bound as matter started out as energy that was entangled and propagating in opposite directions, it will continue to do so. And it does. A tiny unbalanced force pushing things apart for a very long time cannot help but behave in this manner. Creating matter from propagating energy may slow the expansion down somewhat, but it will not halt the process. The universe remembers inertia and the direction of propagation.

dx/dt AT ALL OTHER RATES between 0 and c, including and especially any processes related to atomic structure, will be dependent on local time dilation. That's because dt is variable everywhere, and this is something that happens independent of any length contraction in the direction of motion. Calculus does not consider dt to be a variable quantity throughout what it refers to as space because its theoretical space is as timeless as it is Euclidean. In the real relativistic space that comprises this universe, the rate at which time proceeds for anything traveling slower than c is variable everywhere, even if the instant of 'now' is the same everywhere. Integral and differential calculus could certainly miss predicting a lot of physics that is hiding in those last few decimal places as a result of that small but significant error.

I realize, a "steady state" universe like I am describing is not currently mainstream cosmology. I couldn't care any less about this than I do about any other fad or fashion. It is what it is, and frankly, it really doesn't matter to anyone who can't exit this ride. Lately we've been learning more for certain about where the universe is going, and that's a good thing. It is consistent with the view I have advocated.

 

At some point I will do the math to verify my assumptions if it addresses quantum flux, uncertainty, refraction , entanglement, mass and gravity as well as infinite regression, all at once then I will let you know, until then at the moment my intuition tells me it does because the pictures in my head lines up with a perfect logicall order.

 

Quit posting unscientific bullshit in the physics threads. You should start a thread in the Alternative section of the forum if you want to talk about pretend bullshit theories based on your lack of scholarship and overactive imagination.

 

Ok question for you brucep why does relativity break down at the singularity? And please explain how quantum gravity is addressed? And while you are at it please explain why entanglement is a fact even thought it violates the light speed barrier?

The parts you do not see makes all the difference.

 

We all have contributions to make, what I noticed here is most are speaking about the same thing but semantics seem to play too important of a role.

 

"Time itself must be infinitely subdivisible or else the "speed" of entanglement with respect to c makes no sense. It does make sense. I am trying to explain why that must be."
-Danshawen

Yes this is correct but zero just means undefined, or undefined within the parameters of time and space. It may not be time used as the independent variable but I believe the singularity itself is a medium that contains its minimum measurable parts at c, while t=o as well as d= 0, once the speed of c appears to be transcended something special happens. Think of the singularity as the total field potentials of all the fields combined. Relativity must break down here because it was only describing behaviours within the parameters of time and space. I personally don't think the singularity is an error or a defect of relativity I believe it's perfect and it's even compatible with QM and allows a perfect logical explaination for entanglement. Most of the reason causing the full stop of advancement here has to do with semantics as all of most our problems here on earth.

 

Entanglement doesn't break the light speed barrier. Your problem is going to be lack of scholarship on these subjects. Relativity doesn't break down at r=0. It doesn't address the domain of r=0. IE r=0 is not in the GR domain of applicability. It's in the quantum gravity domain of applicability. Domain of applicability is something every theoretical model must define for it's scientific predictions. You should try to do some research so you don't have to resort to juvenile challenges after somebody tells you to quit posting nonsense in the physics threads. For the analysis of natural paths, using GR, the natural path geodesic ends at r=0. That's how it was treated when physics was writing a singularity theorem.

 

I wasn't challenging you I wanted your perspective, so at the domain r=0 why is GR not applicable? And how would you merge it into a comprehensible theory of quantum gravity?

Again time wasted on semantics; what is the medium that connects particles at a speed FTL when it comes to entanglement? Does entanglement not imply that a tranfer of information is taking place FTL??

The parts you do not see makes all the difference in the calculations.

 

So I guess the final thoughts to your inquiry is since gravity is a field that moves at c, and energy (heat) as different frequencies that make up the emf and the emf moves at c, then logically they cannot be considered dimensions.

Because the emf and gravity fields moves at c, they can be considered to exist outside space-time at any domain in space. They incapsulate all coordinates and create the prerequisite conditions for a singularity. So a dimension can only be defined beyond the point of a singularity in which dimensions can emerge to express the contextual parts of space-time.

 

There's a lot more work to be done, but much is explained by this approach. It's all new from this point on. What to call it? Bifurcated field theory? It's not unified, because there is more than one field.

You have all inspired me. If all of my former physics and math professors were't already dead, I should very much have enjoyed discussing these ideas with them. I've considered going back to school for this, but most likely not. I'm 62, and it took most of my life to come up with this.

The discovery of Higgs was the trigger. Like a photon with mass, if it does what Peter thinks it does, it offers a way for the two fields to interact. It's a boson that imparts mass. Can occupy the same space at the same time, yet imparts mass to matter (bound energy) and to itself. It cannot exceed the speed of light, but it must travel at close to that or somehow break that rule. Definitely a missing piece of the puzzle, if it has really been found. Gravity? I have no idea, but it feels right. It would have no trouble interacting with the centers of black holes, and changing vacuum energy as a result.