Why Universe Appears to Have Only 1 Time and 3 Spatial Dimensions>

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Spellbound, Sep 15, 2015.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Things are located in 3D space, but not stationary. Time is more of an index that changes with their motion than a dimention.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    An electron is a "thing". It is made of bound energy E=mc^2. That bound energy propagates also, and the perfect rotation going on inside requires, literally, no measure of the dimension we call time in order for this rotational mode of propagation to proceed continuously, as viewed from the outside where unbound energy propagates in a straight temporal path limited by the speed of light in a vacuum.

    The Higgs mechanism gives the electron its inertial REST mass by interacting with that rotational mode of propagation. When kinetic energy is added to the external motion of the electron, it couples to the bound energy inside by means of a Doppler shift, but no matter how much it is accelerated, the vector sum +c adds to -c, both invariant, to resolve to the rest frame of the electron (v=0).

    Other than the exact timeless center of that (and other) electrons and particles of bound energy, absolute space does not exist. We live in a universe of energy exchange events.

    Lorentz covariance does not exist in this universe. Space IS light travel time, even though an understanding of the dimension of time together with energy rotation accounts for the rest of this narrative. The linear propagation of unbound energy is by no means the smallest measure of time. The rotational propagation of bound energy takes less time because that is is in part where time originates. The rest of the story involves the Higgs field and the energy of the vacuum.

    Simultanaeity, other than for quantum entanglement, does not exist. Time and energy are both continuous and so we would not expect there to be such a thing. For every interval of time you could specify in which a pair of energy exchange events are essentially simultaneous, there is a smaller one in which they are not, other than at the instant of the temporal origin of entanglement. Time proceeds at different rates everywhere there are energy events. Even atomic decay events proceed at different rates at different depths in the Earth's crust, or on different planets. Trying to determine this from calculations about spacetime geometry or space warpage in't just eccentric. It's deranged. The Higgs mechanism works all the way to the center of black holes. There is a good reason for that.

    Because the Higgs mechanism acts by means of slowing the kinetic energy of electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons, and their antiparticles so that they can assimilate into atomic structure, and the Higgs itself derives inertial mass from the interaction, a time dilation field in space surrounding matter results. The Higgs field, together with bound energy, is the basis of time. It gravitates exactly the way the graviton was supposed to work in quantum gravity. Light bends in the vicinity of bound energy. At no point in this universe does the passage of time proceed at the same rate, even though the instant of "now" is the basis for quantum entanglement. Absolute time has only an origin, which is the same everywhere. This is the universal role of entanglement. It's really not a conceptual problem because the Higgs field itself is entangled everywhere. If it were not, time dilation would not do what it manifestly does.

    For more background about the underlying model of the relativistic quantum foam universe, see the appropriate threads in Alternative Theories: "Space Composed as a Field of Virtual Energy".

    We have combined the Higgs mechanism with Special Relativity and just one new law of motion involving only energy and time because it was Einstein's purest expression of the invariant speed of light. Invariance of interval, warpage of spacetime, etc., were ideas that derived of pure mathematics, not physics or its bindings to physical reality of this universe.

    None of this would have been possible to figure out without the LHC and the certainly of the July 2012 five sigma discovery of the Higgs boson. Moral of the story: there are definite advantages to being able to clock zeptosconds in a collider. The discovery of the origin of time is only the first.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Everything you wrote here is rubbish.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    As is what you sparsely write. Anything specific you disagree with?

    Don't forget to dazzle us with your grasp of particle physics, something that has been notably absent on your raves about mainstream cosmology. This is not about cosmology-- yet.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2015
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    In relativistic models it's a demension. ...."an index that changes"...... LOL. How profound.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Good. More?
     
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Everything. What does Matt Strassler have to do with the Opera experiment? Nothing. What he did was confirm your idea about the Higgs was nonsense. We don't need Prof. Strassler to confirm that we just need you to open your mouth on the subject. You're not an authority on any of this stuff. You should shut up and quit making a fool of yourself. Regardless what you think connecting Professor Strassler, the Opera experiment, and the Higgs particles isn't a good analogy. It's self serving nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    By his own admission, Strassler was involved with OPERA.

    It took some serious reading on "Of Particular Significance" to find this out, but it is there. I would not be surprised if he removed that section of his blog, WHICH I HEAVILY COMMENTED ON long before joining sciforums.

    I wish to make it clear that the OPERA fiasco is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of Matt's theoretical work, but as a matter of fact, if I had been involved with OPERA, and they told me that neutrinos were superluminal, that's the day I would have gone looking for work with a different group. We already had evidence from the 1987 supernova that neutrinos and anti neutrinos arrived only slightly later than the time the light from that event reached Earth.

    Matt is still correct that strictly speaking, the Standard Model does not feature anything like Higgs gravitation, and relativity has been sanitized to grinding the crank with "boost matrices". Well, it runs a bit deeper than that.

    Excellent response.

    You also deserve credit for helping to develop this, more than you know. When someone speaks of Emergent Space and then begins to describe time in terms of space, that's just a HUGE problem. That I found a way out of the dilemma means that I needed to jettison two colleagues and their tortured ideas and go with what I learned here from responses like yours.

    Whether you buy into this Higgs-Relativity-Gravity or not yet is not important at this point, so, peace.

    I've added a single new law of the propagation of bound energy that anyone who really understands E=mc^2 should be able to get, even if they do not buy into the concept that rotation of energy within a particle like an electron (and it may be very complex) requires no passage of time that is analogous to unbound energy propagating in a straight temporal line in a vacuum at c. Any problems here?

    So, energy slowing down FROM the speed of light is every bit time dilation's effect as much as speeding up particles of the bound energy we call matter to relativistic speed. Relativity itself had a hidden symmetry here that was hiding in plain sight, just as you might expect of a theory that always requires at least two observers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2015
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is because if you want to describe events in another reference frame, moving with repect to yours, their time index (or yours going the other way) has spatical dimentions mixed into it; however, if only considering events in one inertial frame, this does not happen - Time in one frame is just an index, not a dimention.

    Sort of like a movie film frame number is an index, that could be used to tell where items are and how much they have moved from one frame to the next.

    Summary: Items have defined positions in 3D, but their position is not necessarily fixed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2015
  13. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    No. That's not the case we can determine the proper tick rate for any local proper frame. We can compare the local proper tick rate with any other local proper frame. Pretty much in every physics result a time coordinate is involved. Thinking it doesn't exist as phenomena in this universe is counterproductive.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I agree: Time is a coordinate, but not a dimension. Dimensions span some space. Time is only an advancing index that specifies the extent of changes in that 3D space.

    Yes, I also agree that proper time in one frame, if expressed in another frame moving wrt the first, will have spatial dimentions mixed into it. This is very much like the lengths in one frame are changed when expressed in the lengths of another.

    Also it is not necessarily true that the time index must appear in the ,equations of physics. I have more than once, in posts, shown that "t" can be elimated from equations. I. e. any two observables can be directly related. For example the height of a burning candle can be express in terms of the water level in a basis with unchange flow into it with no mention of time.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2015
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Uh... it would be more useful to the discussion, yet fully within the acceptable range of scholarly dialog, to say that the universe has three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.

    The Wikipedia article on "dimension" takes this approach, without even bothering to defend it. This implies that they don't expect any serious argument.

    Neither should we.
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Fraggle:Many people thinking the same does not make what they think correct. Time has not one property or observable. The "t" parameter that appears in many equation, is a convenience, as it leaves vague how it changes. Could be angular position of the sun, or number of swings of a pendulm or ocsillations of the chrystal in a timex watch, but not the unobservable time itself.

    Physics relates one observable change to another. Like length of metal rod to its temperature.

    In contrast the true dimentions can not be eliminated from the equations of physics. For example, the expresion for volume of an object, V(x,y,z) must have all three dimensions. The density of that object, D, an equation in physics, is D = M/V. None of the three real dimensions can be eliminated. That is the difference between parameter t and dimensions, x, y, z.

    SUMMARY: I am not impresed that 99.9% of the educated population thinks time is a dimention with no space to span.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2015
  17. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    One at at time then.

    1. Time is a coordinate, but not a dimension

    Time dilation is different everywhere. I must have written this over 100 times here now, so how can you read right past it? The rate at which time proceeds depends on

    1) your location in a gravitational field, or for that matter, near ANY bound or unbound energy that is near a location where time intervals are measured, and

    2) your relative state of motion with respect to an observer in another state of motion.

    If time is a "coordinate", it would need to be one of a most BIZARRE geometry in order to satisfy relativity. Do yourself a favor and forget about geometry. Absolute space only exists at the centers of bound energy. Only an ORIGIN of absolute time remains via quantum entanglement. Simultaneity does not exist at all in a universe composed of energy transfer events.

    LOOK-- NOT EVERYONE LIVES ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH. GPS satellites that help you to locate where you are don't. They use GENERAL RELATIVITY to determine the rate at which time passes on a LEO satellite relative to you and CONTINUOUSLY need to make corrections for it. If it did not-- if temporal corrections were not continuously made, your GPS location data would drift hundreds of meters a day.

    2. Dimensions span(s) some space

    Sure does. TIME "spans" space too. Problem is, there ISN'T really any "space", other than inside solid matter that is "at rest". Most of that solid will also be empty space, and that empty space is nothing more or less than the time it takes virtual energy in the vacuum to propagate in the same amount of TIME it takes for light to propagate across the vacuum between particles. That space Lorentz CONTRACTS to nothing relative to observers in relativistic reference frames with respect to yours at rest. Which observer is correct about lengths, the one who is at rest, or the one who is moving? This isn't fantasy; it's relativity theory. None of Euclid's geometry works out here in relativistic space. It never worked anywhere other than in solid matter at rest. Space is just the distance light travels in a given interval of TIME, rotated in every direction. Just three are sufficient to generate all of what we perceive as "space".

    All you need in order to generate the illusion of a "space" is energy that propagates in one of two modes; either linear (unbound), or rotating (bound). It is the rotating frame that is new in this theory. The rotation of a fundamental particle of matter requires no passage of time at all in order to accomplish a perfect rotation in all directions virtually at once.

    3. Time is only an advancing index that specifies the extent of changes (as compared to what is going on in) 3D space.

    That's what your wristwatch does, sure. That's what your fancy atomic clock does, sure. That's what radioactive decay used as a clock does, sure.

    But that isn't what the Higgs mechanism does. Without the Higgs mechanism, electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons and their antiparticles all just zoom off at the speed of light in a vacuum and atomic structure itself is not possible. Higgs SLOWS THESE PARTICLES DOWN FROM the speed of light and gives inertial mass to these particles AND TO ITSELF. It does so with gusto. It's FATTER than a photon. With photons, you just see things. With Higgs, you get hurt when you fall. Not only that; the longer and faster your drop, the more time dilates. It's like it's rubbing your smashed face in your own clumsiness in slow motion. Don't mess with the "G-d Particle"'; it can and does smack down black holes.

    In empty space, the Higgs mechanism is what KEEPS THE BOUND ENERGY THAT IS MATTER from EXCEEDING the speed of light when you accelerate them from rest.

    In the case of BOTH matter and energy, the Higgs field causes time dilation in any energy exchange between the limits of "at rest" and the invariant speed of light for both bound and unbound energy, because the Higgs field is the origin of time itself. It is NOT an index. It is not a wristwatch. Without Higgs, time itself doesn't exist. Combine it with relativity, and all of the energy transfer events in this universe suddenly make perfect sense.

    If you wish to use any or all of this in YOUR next book BillyT, you have my permission to use it. Check the sciforums licensing before you do so.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2015
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    "Time dilation is different everywhere" but with respect to what ?

    Your entire proposition is time dilation and bound / unbound energy. One by one: GR is 100 years old in our time, so how do you see the time dilation without pumping in one more reference. Who is the "Boss Time Keeper" or it is just the round table, anybody becomes boss and others have time dilation..Thats funny. The temporal flow of time needs definition with single frame around, which none could give so far. We end up linking motion somehow.
     
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I give you a simple idea....

    Start with all energy, unbound energy...no matter. This energy although is moving at 'c' but appears static, your freaky action at remote also can be explained in non existent photon frame, in which every photon while travelling infinity is static in its own non existent frame (appears foolishly contradictory, but thats how it is)....No motion, nothing, its like try SR on all photons and everything appears static.

    Now something happend, some freaky action happened, higgs came into picture, due to massive accummulation of photons at a freaky point, and we got something travelling at less than 'c'. That one instant, the motion became apparent and time started, things appeared different, changed and thats what time is. So t = 0 is that instant in which from all photons moving at c (which was a dynamically static situation : Oxymoron, but understandable), an energy field (or a partcile) with speed less than 'c' got created, change is visible and time originated, and rest is history.

    You are free to use this idea, but with due credit to me (The God)..
     
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    With respect to the devices we use to measure it - clocks. Once clocks measure dilated time, one can compare different clocks to compare them and see if time dilation is the same for all clocks - in this case, they would have to show the same numbers, independent of the trajectory of the clock, only with the accuracy of the clock itself as limiting the agreement between the clocks - or not. Observation shows that not. Different clocks show different "times", and the difference depends on the paths of the clocks, the trajectory they travel, and on the gravitational field at the places where the clock travels.

    We have a formula for this, \(\tau = \int_{\gamma} \sqrt{g_{mn}(\gamma(t)) \frac{d \gamma^m}{dt}\frac{d \gamma^n}{dt}}dt\). This formula remembers the formula for the length of a path in a curved space, except that such a metric is defined by a positive-definite metric tensor field \(g_{mn}(x)\), which the pseudometric which defines the gravitational field is not positive definite, thus, only formally remembers a metric.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    When I said "time is a coordinate" or "time is an index" that does not imply the "steps of time" are all the same everwhere. In an intense gravitational field, ALL PROCESSES proceed more slowly than in a weak field.*

    For specific example, imagine two identical timex watches, both started at 12:00:0000 noon simulatneoulsy, one on surface of moon and other on surface of Earth. The one on the moon will show 12:00:0000 midnight before the one on earth does. (By giving the final :0000, I am assuming the crystal in the timex oscillates more than 10,000 cycles each second.)

    * Time is not observable. Real events /changes are observable. Thus we pick some observable periodic event and define the second as X cycles of the periodic event.

    Time does not have any geometry. Geometry is relationships that exist in space of 2 or more dimentions. For example one well known relationship in 2D space is the Pythagorian theorem. The sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees is another geometic fact.

    If you think time has some geometic property, please tell it. I think time has not one property of any kind. - Why time can not be observed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Differences in height of as little as 1m near the surface of the Earth have measurable differences in the rate at which time passes. The implication is, this in principle works all the way down to the Uncertainty Principle limit, or our ability to build accurate clocks, which amounts to the same thing.

    Time IS geometry, EINSTEIN's, not Euclid's. The Pythagorean theorem does not apply to a universe of energy exchange events where any length we measure is relative to the state of motion of the observer, and the orientation of the 2D triangle in a gravitational field.
     
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    With respect to:

    1) The rate at which time proceeds at any point near a gravitational OR AN INERTIAL MASS, or even UNBOUND ENERGY, such as a beam of light.
    2) The rate at which time proceeds relative to any other inertial reference frame.

    For more background, see Alternative Theories: "Space Composed of a Field of Virtual Energy".

    Belated Happy Birthday, Albert. Happy Birthday, General Relativity.
     

Share This Page