A theory of three dimensional spacetime

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Uclock, Mar 16, 2007.

  1. Uclock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    I post this theory of three dimensional spacetime in order to discuss its merits and any pitfalls that you may wish to highlight but first I will tell you a little bit about it.

    True Relativity is a theory of three dimensional spacetime that can mathematically match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true without the use of Newton’s gravitational constant, which I believe has never been achieved by any professional or institution.

    Gravity is not a force that works over an infinite distance and is time dependant in this theory which explains observations such as the almost fixed rotation of stars in spiral galaxies without the need to include dark matter.

    Time dilation is accounted for by acceleration (displacement) and gravity not velocity in this concept, also space itself is not viewed as a metric as it is in GR.

    The premiss of this theory is that space and time are exactly the same entity therefore time is not a separate dimension as physics has always maintained.
    This theory is testable and one of the biggest tests is the gravity probe ‘B’ experiment whose results are due in April.

    Here is the abstract:

    This theory is based on the constancy of speed of light in a vacuum no matter what inertial frame of reference it is viewed from and the generation of space and time in the presence of energy. The theory mathematically shows gravity to be localised and is also the first theory of gravity to give an explanation for the arrow of time. Overall this theory represents a paradigm shift in the way space and time is viewed yet it can match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be accurate. If every object or body is generating a spacetime field around itself then every body or object will be truly relative to every other object or body, thus the name given to this theory is True Relativity.

    This is my theory of True Relativity.

    If you have problems with math, there is an article that explains the concept, including an explanation for inertia without using any math.

    Article on True Relativity.


    The mathematics of time dilation is explained in this separate paper.

    Three dimensional time dilation inside and outside gravitational fields.

    I hope you find this theory interesting and I will be pleased to here your comments.

    Tony
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I think your theory is incorrect. I think you put too much emphasis on Einstein's early words:

    "Einstein’s own words show that he never had a real understanding of space therefore it follows that he never truly understood the arrow of time.

    and you haven't looked at his later thoughts:

    In his response to Godel's paper in the Schilpp volume, Einstein acknowledged that "the problem here disturbed me at the time of the building up of the general theory of relativity." This problem he described as follows: "Is what remains of temporal connection between world-points in the theory of relativity an asymmetrical relation (like time, intuitively understood, and unlike space), or would one be just as much justified to assert A is before B as to assert that A is after B? The issue could also be put this way: is relativistic space-time in essence a space or a time."

    I think he did understand the arrow of time, though not when he was formulating Special relativity. What he understood was that in truth, there isn't one. Please try to find out more about this, and see how your True Relativity then stands up. I rather think "True" relativity is something else, where the postulates are explained in line with Einstein's sentiment that "time is suspect" but in a different direction to the one you're taking.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Uclock---two comments.

    First, thank you for writing a paper with equations. Go over to Zanket's thread and teach him how to do this.

    Second, I think this approach is bound to fail for the following reason. In nature, we have chiral particles of spin 1/2 and particles of spin 1. This we know for sure. We're also pretty certain that we have particles of spin 0, spin 3/2 and spin 2. But these are not essential.

    Now, if one takes the symmetry of space-time to be SO(4) or SO(3,1), called the Lorentz Gourp. Cartan tells us that that SO(4) is has left and right handed pieces:
    \(SO(4) \sim SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R\).
    It turns out that the lowest irreducible representations of the Lorentz Group give us chiral particles with spin 1/2 and particles with spin 1. We can also get spin 0 and spin 3/2 and spin 2. The Lorentz group SO(4) describes space-time as being four dimensional.

    If one wanted to make three space-time dimensions, then the Lorentz group would have to be something like SO(3). But SO(3) cannot be decomposed into left and right handed pieces, as above. If this is true, then one cannot make left and right handed fermions---that is, the theory is not chiral.

    But we know from observation that the fermions (i.e. spin 1/2 particles) are chiral---they have left and right handed pieces. So your theory doesn't reproduce chirality in the standard way. I even think that the theory you propose would only give spin 1 particles, though I cannot be sure that this is correct.

    If you reproduce any results from Newton's gravity, then it is purey coincidence. The theory you have presented will not have chiral fermions, and thus cannot describe our universe.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I should clarify: when I said that spin 3/2, spin 2, and spin 0 particles are "not essential" I meant that they were not essential to my argument.
     
  8. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    SO SPACE is gravity....

    what if mass began as one mass... and exploded.

    the act of seperation could then generate the initial force as gravity between masses..

    i liked your thoughts..

    but i could not reach your links...
    ??

    -MT
     
  9. Uclock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    post #2

    Farsight


    If you think my theory is incorrect then I have no problem with that, everyone is entitled to there own opinion. I have always said that Einstein considered the arrow of time to be a psychological phenomenon but I disagree with him. We do not grow younger, we age. We also have a past that we cannot revisit and a future that is not set in stone.
    IMHO the arrow of time is real and therefore it has to have a physical reason for its existence. Einstein had a great mind but his failure to bring the arrow of time into physics is the reason he fruitlessly searched for an answer that would unite the quantum world with the macro world. The arrow of time is real and TR is the first theory of spacetime to recognise this and the first theory to match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effects of gravity to be true without using Newton’s universal gravitational constant.

    Tony
     
  10. Uclock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    posts #3 & #4

    BenTheMan

    The atomic world has only ever been studied from the point of view of four dimensional physics and I have yet to study it from the point of view of TR but if this is part of your expertise then try looking at the ratios between the Neutron proton and electron using the STC with a value of 4.192775*10^-10 and tell me if you find the same thing I did.
    I realise if TR is to be studied properly then it will take more than the facilities I have available to me but I have included experiments that can test the concept so making it a testable theory is a step in the right direction.
    The biggest test of GR and therefore TR is going to be the results from the GP’B experiment so if TR holds merit then the value for frame dragging will be high and I only have roughly a month to wait.


    I think it is more than coincidence and until the atomic world is studied using TR it is not possible to say how it will fare. If the experiments I have described are ever undertaken and the results are in favour of TR then perhaps I may gain the type of facilities required but that is pie in the sky at the moment.

    Tony
     
  11. Uclock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    post #5

    Mosheh Thezion

    Not quite. Gravity is a distortion (the retardation) of the flow of spacetime from massive objects such as the Earth or Sun according to the concept of TR.


    I have done a crude investigation into the events surrounding the big bang using TR and just the ideal gas law and found it can model not just the big bang but events leading up to the big bang itself. TR does not break down and can model time and space even inside black holes which is something four dimensional physics cannot do.

    If you are using a dial up connection then that may be the reason. I have tested the links and they seem fine so give it another try.

    Tony
     
  12. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    You can take chiral fermions as a prediction of 4-dimensional space-time. That is, if we had not known that there were chiral fermions, we could look at the math and realize that this should be the case. (The actual word is post-diction.)

    Sorry Uclock. Three dimensional physics doesn't have chiral fermions and can NEVER describe our universe.
     
  13. Uclock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    BenTheMan

    Physics uses math to describe this universe and math can also be abstract but the Universe is born out of simplicity not complexity. Chiral fermions are just a mathematical concept used to explain one aspect of four dimensional physics and as the property of spin has never been studied using this concept of three dimensional spacetime so no one can say what it might turn up.
    I did not know if this three dimensional view of spacetime would be able to match Newtonian gravity when I first thought of it but with a lot of hard work and many mind games I was able match Newtonian gravity. All I can say to you is never say NEVER.
    Seeing as your so convinced that four dimensional spacetime is the correct view of this Universe then explain something simple like inertia?

    Tony
     
  14. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    But the theory we have explains it all. Why do we need another theory? Chiral fermions are a natural consequence of four dimensional space time. They are not natural in three dimensions.

    Tony---I am telling you...it doesn't work. You don't get chiral fermions. And chiral fermions are, without a doubt, an essential ingredient of the universe.
     
  15. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    First tell me how to get chiral fermions.

    You (and your theory) are the one on trial here.
     
  16. Uclock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    BenTheMan

    Chiral fermions are just an abstract mathematical concept to explain experimental results, four dimensional physics has not proven it self to be correct. If it cannot explain inertia, which is something we all experience when travelling in a car or plane then there is a problem with it. It also breaks down at the extremes of this Universe and cannot explain what space and time are doing inside a black hole or the events surrounding the big bang which should be reason enough to suspect physics may be viewing space and time incorrectly.

    Einstein’s relativity is completely incompatible with the quantum world and cannot explain quantum entanglement, what Einstein called spooky at a distance, it also cannot explain the experimental evidence of the inflow of space in towards the Sun as detected by Flinders University in Australia.

    You can bang on all you like about chiral fermions but if physics cannot explain the simple things we as humans experience every day then there is something fundamentally wrong with the physics we are using. Until I get the right facilities to study three dimensional spacetime in the realm of the atomic structure I cannot tell you what I may turn up.

    I am not on trail, this is not a witch hunt. All I have done is present a concept of three dimensional spacetime to this site which you may or may not agree with. My theory of TR is completely testable by the experiments given in my paper. We will shortly see what GP’B turns up because if I am correct the results for frame dragging will be higher than expected using GR. If you want a trial then that will be a true test of both GR and TR.

    Tony
     
  17. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Fair enough---you would fix it by taking away dimensions, and I would fix it by adding them

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The problem is, adding dimensions a la string theory is done in a consistent manner, and can reproduce (even EXPLAIN) some generic features of four dimensional space time, i.e. the appearance of chiral fermions.

    This is very true. Does your theory offer an explanation that is consistent with observation? You should know, the modern way to quantize field theory (which gives remarkably accurate results) depends on four dimensional space-time. If space-time is no longer four dimensional, then the way we do physics is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it is spectacularly wrong, AND it somehow still gives the correct answers.

    So...we don't experience chiral fermions everyday?

    And all I have done is show you why it doesn't work.
     
  18. Uclock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    BenTheMan

    String theory is an abstract mathematical concept that requires dimensions to be curled up. The extra dimensions are needed to dump infinities yet no infinities exist in three dimensional spacetime, except for the big bang, and three dimensional spacetime works either side of that event.

    This concept is very consistent with observations, including the almost fixed rotation of stars inside spiral galaxies without the need to include dark matter. I realise that if this concept is backed up by experimentation then physics is in for a big shock but the rewards could far outweigh the problems this may bring. I cannot deny that four dimensional spacetime has been successful in certain areas but the failure to explain some simple things that we experience every day and the extremes of the Universe means something is fundamentally wrong with it.

    As I have stated using four dimensional spacetime to explain chiral fermions is just a mathematically abstract way of explaining them. I do not say we don’t experience something we now call chiral fermions but they may have a completely different explanation in three dimensional spacetime but I won’t know that for sure until the micro world is studied using three dimensional spacetime.

    No, you have pointed to one aspect of the micro world that has yet to be studied using three dimensional spacetime. If you really want to show me where three dimensional spacetime is wrong then study my papers, try the math and see how it relates to the concept and you may find something I have missed but I am confident once you get the hang of how three dimensional spacetime works, you will find no fault with the concept.

    Tony
     
  19. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Having studied string theory for many years I can say definitively that no, the extra dimensions are not "required to dump infinities into". They are a requirement for the theory to be free from anomalies. In this sense, string theory predicts the number of dimensions, whereas you just put them in by hand.

    But the argument that matter lives in irreducible representaitons of the Lorentz Group isn't just a "mathematical abstraction". It has deep physical significance about the way that matter and space are related. In your theory, there exists no correlation, of this I can be sure. Specifically, there isn't enough freedom in the rotation group if three dimensional space time, presumably SO(3). You cannot get chirality out of this theory, at least not in the usual way. In this sense, you will have to "put in" chirality, as opposed to "getting it out". In four dimensions, the idea of chirality automatically follows from looking at the isomorphisms of the underlying rotation group, and its irreducible representations.

    Sorry if I don't have time to read your papers, so you can perhaps take all of my comments as research questions that are left to be answered.
     
  20. Uclock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    BenTheMan

    Where do the infinities go? Not into the other dimensions by any chance. We live and exist in three dimensions of space and we experience a flow or arrow of time. What ever string theory thinks may be more dimensions are purely hypothetical. What has string theory ever predicted that has turned up in experimentation? Nothing! Three dimensional spacetime gives an answer to the arrow of time and the inertia we experience in our everyday lives which is something four dimensional physics cannot do.

    But it is just an abstract mathematical construction to allow physicists to make sense of their experiments. It is by no means certain that that construction is the correct view of the atomic world. How can you claim any significance when you cannot claim physics has any real idea what causes mass?

    How can you be sure of anything until it has been studied using this concept of spacetime? Three dimensional spacetime may just describe the atomic world in a different way to explain experimental results. Nobody can know for sure what this theory may turn up.

    Now you have hit the nail on the head, ‘at least not in the usual way’.

    Absolute chirality is dependant on the speed of light which cannot be exceeded in four dimensional physics but this is not the case in three dimensional physics. In this concept the speed of light is not a barrier because it is not mass that increases with relative velocity. Yes the math may show isomorphic relationships but if physics really has the micro world correct then where is the so called ‘graviton’ and the ‘Higgs boson’? Neither of which have ever been detected and I believe will never be detected, the same as gravitational radiation.


    Now that statement shows how hypocritical physicists can be. You expect anyone how has any doubts about physics to learn what the mainstream physics is about yet when a different theory comes along you cannot be bothered to even read it before you criticise it. This about sums up the state of physics community today, you are treating physics like a religion, never to be questioned which in my opinion is sad.

    Tony


    ____________________________
    This is the theory of True Relativity

    ____________________________________
    Time dilation inside and outside gravity fields

    ____________________
    Article on True Relativity
     
  21. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    String Theory has chiral fermions. The arrow of time, to my knowledge, is explained using the second law of thermodynamics.

    And I really have no clue as to what infinities you are talking about.

    But it is an abstraction that has never been disproven, in 100 years of testing.

    And we know what causes mass---do a wikipedia search for "Higgs Boson" and read the article. The higgs is the only way to give gauge invariant mass terms to the W and Z bosons.

    1. If you excede the speed of light there is no chirality. Period. There is no way to understand the weak nuclear force (to which Glashow, Weinberg and Salaam were awarded the Nobel Prize in the 1970's) which is one of the most accurately tested theories in the history of man kind.

    2. The experiments involved are multi billion dollar international collaborations. The LHC will turn on in a few years and prove you wrong.

    3. No one expects to see gravitons as they live at the Plank scale, and we are doing experiments at the weak scale, some 17 orders of magnitude away. This is like saying "Electrons don't exist because I can't see them with my magnifying glass."

    Aww well I'm awful sorry that you have shown me absolutely no reason to give your papers a read. Things like "inertia" and "arrow of time" don't interest me. But I can tell you without a doubt that the fact that your theory doesn't give chirality is enough for me to write it off as wrong. Just because "mainstream physics" doesn't listen to you doesn't suddenly give your ideas any merit or credibility.
     
  22. Uclock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    BenTheMan

    It may have chiral fermions but a full non-perturbative string theory has not yet been formulated and probably never will be it is also still background dependant whereas three dimensional spacetime is not background dependant. At the end of the day do you really believe this Universe to be born out of complexity and not simplicity?

    I take it you are talking about entropy. The Second Law does not hold with strict universality because any system can fluctuate to a state of lower entropy so it is not really a good explanation for the arrow of time.

    There are many things that have not been disproved but that in itself doesn’t make them right. I am not even saying that three dimensional spacetime is correct but it is falsifiable using very simple experiments as explained in my paper and it makes a prediction that GP’B will return a high value for frame dragging. I would never put TR up for discussion unless it was falsifiable, unlike string theory.

    No you don’t know what causes mass. The Higgs boson along with the graviton have never been detected in any experiment, they are purely hypothetical constructs.

    There have been many Nobel awards for theoretical physics but that in itself does not make them right. The speed of light can be exceeded in three dimensional physics but not in the frame which detects light which is something you will not understand until you grasp three dimensional physics which obviously you are not willing to do.

    Just like the multi-million dollar detectors built to detect gravitational radiation you mean, such as LIGO. I can see the need for the LHC but they will not detect the Higgs boson because it does not exist, just as gravitational radiation does not exist, period.

    No I think that is a little different. I grant you that the atomic world will have to be reinvestigated if TR does turn out to explain the high rates of frame dragging but that in itself is not a bad thing because there may be much more simple explanations for all the types of particles that have been detected.

    If the real basic things about the physics of this Universe don’t interest you then how do you really know four dimensional physics is the correct physics of this Universe?
    If four dimensional physics cannot explain the simple everyday things we experience such as inertia then what right has it claim dominance on resources?
    You do not know for sure what three dimensional spacetime may turn up, neither do I so to say for a fact that three dimensional spacetime will not give chirality is very closed minded to say the least.
    I am not really that bothered whether mainstream physics listens or not. I have put this concept out on the internet so it can be discussed with those of an open mind and because of those discussions I have managed to be able to make predictions of TR that are different from GR.
    I have discussed TR with mainstream professional physicists and they have argued their corner as I have but they cannot say TR does not match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true without using Newton’s gravitational constant. No professional or institution has ever achieved this so I will just battle on until TR is backed up by experimentation or is proved false.

    Tony

    ____________________________
    This is the theory of True Relativity

    ____________________________________
    Time dilation inside and outside gravity fields

    ____________________
    Article on True Relativity
     
  23. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Now I get to defend string theory.

    There is no reason NOT to expect a non-perturbative formulation of string theory, and if you actually studied the problem instead of read Lee Smolin (or Peter Woit's) book, you'd know that.

    The stronger claim that you're theory is background independant is striking. Of course it's background independant...so is GR. But what your theory doesn't do is predict the dimension of space-time, the appearance of non-Abelian symmetries, or chiral fermions. All of which one gets "for free" from string theory.

    Number of people who think "True Relativity is right"?
    Number of people who think String Theory is right?

    Should we start a poll?

    The fact that the W and Z bosons have mass is proof that the Higgs exists. There is no other gauge invariant way to add mass terms for particles in the standard model.

    So, not only have you completely thrown out general relativity, you are now attempting to throw out all of particle physics, too.

    Next stop: Evolution.

    You have put this on the Internet because you cannot publish it anywhere else. "People with open minds" translates to "people who don't know what is horseshit and what isn't".

    Why is not using Newton's constant a virtue?

    Newton can explain Newton's laws in the confines of the Solar System. Einstein can explain Newton's laws in the confines of the Solar System. We already know how to do classical mechanics and general relativity. And general relativity tells us that, however many dimensions we have, they all have to be treated equally.

    This, of course, is the beauty of the internet. I can show you volumes of evidence for GR, but you can selectively ignore it because "my theory hasn't been tested".

    Just try not to convince anyone else who might vote, and don't raise any childeren.
     

Share This Page