Farsight

I know you're incredulous, Sisyphus, but IMHO I really have got something here. As to how valuable it is I don't know. We'll see.

Phil: It's just a word document converted to PDF. There's virtually no mathematics, and it's single spaced. I've used Times New Roman, and was just about to increase the font size.

iNow: Here's my references. As to whether it's an editorial or a scientific paper, that's why I'm looking for advice.

Klaynos: Any advice you can give will be welcome. I can clear up about half of these: Unsolved_problems_in_physics

References

[1] Turin, Luca ; “A spectroscopic mechanism for primary olfactory reception”, Chemical Senses 21(6):773-791 (1996).

[2] Folsing, A.; “Albert Einstein: A Biography”, page 261, Penguin Books (1998).

[3] The collected papers of Albert Einstein, volume 6, the Berlin years, writings 1914-1917, document 30, “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”. Translator Alfred Engel, Edited by A. J. Kox, Martin J. Klein, and Robert Schulmann. Princeton University Press (1997).

[4] The collected papers of Albert Einstein, volume 7, the Berlin years, writings 1918-1921. Translator Alfred Engel. Edited by Michel Janssen, Robert Schulmann, József Illy, and Christoph Lehner, and Diana Kormos Buchwald. Princeton University Press (1997).

[5] Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Albert Einstein, chapter 22: "A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity" (1920).

[6] Yourgrau, P; “A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein”, page 113, Basic Books (2005).

[7] Yourgrau, P; “A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein”, front flap, Basic Books (2005).

[8] Eaton, P. E. ; Zhang, M. ; Gilardi, R. ; Gelber, N. ; Iyer, S. ; Surapaneni, R. ; “Octanitrocubane: A New Nitrocarbon”, Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 27, 1-6 (2002).

[9] Williamson, J. G. ; van der Mark, M. B. ; “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997)

[10] Kiehn, R. M. ; (2004-2nd edition 2007 ) Cosmology, Falaco Solitons and the Arrow of Time, "Non-Equilibrium Systems and Irreversible Processes Vol 2", Lulu Enterprises, Inc., 3131 RDU Center, Suite 210, Morrisville, NC 27560. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): (http://www.lulu.com/kiehn).

[11] Ashby, N. ; “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”, Living Reviews in Relativity, Volume 6, 2003-1. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1

[12] Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. ; "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance", Physical Review Letters 3: 439-441 (1959).

[13] Shapiro, Irwin, I. ; "Fourth Test of General Relativity", Physical Review Letters 13: 789-791 (1964).

[14] Moffat, J. ; “Superluminary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Initial Value Problem in Cosmology”, Int.J.Mod.Phys. D2 351-366 (1993). URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:gr-qc/9211020v2

[15] Albrecht, A. ; Magueijo, J. ; "A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles", Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) 043516. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/9811018v2

[16] Magueijo, J. ; "New varying speed of light theories", Rept. Prog. Phys. 66 (2003). URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/0305457v3

[17] Brown, P. M. ; “Einstein's gravitational field”, URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:physics/0204044v2

[18] Will, Clifford M. ; “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment”, Living Rev. Relativity 9, (2006), 3. URL (cited on 29 September 2003): (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3) updated at arXiv:gr-qc/0510072v2

[19] Davis, T. M. ; Lineweaver, C. H. ; “Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, 97—109. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/0310808v2

[20] Neil J. Cornish, David N. Spergel, Glenn D. Starkman, Eiichiro Komatsu, “Constraining the Topology of the Universe”, Phys.Rev.Lett. 92 (2004) 201302. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:astro-ph/0310233v1

[21] Milgrom, M. ; A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 270, July 15, 1983, p. 365-370.

[22] Nieto, M. M. ; Anderson, J. D. ; “Seeking a solution of the Pioneer Anomaly”, Fourth Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, 8-11 Aug. 2007. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:0709.1917v1

[23] Saffari, R. ; Rahvar, S. ; “f® Gravity: From the Pioneer Anomaly to the Cosmic Acceleration”. URL (cited on 29 September 2007): arXiv:0708.1482v1

I've now completed my paper. It's 40 pages long, 22,730 words, and 873k in PDF format. The title and abstract is below. Canybody give me any advice regarding submission or endorsement? I'm registered with arXiv, and have printed the arViv.org > help > submit_pdf and related pages.

A qualitative 3+1 dimensional geometrical model: RELATIVITY+

 

Abstract

Current avenues within physics have so far failed to offer an intuitive understanding of the significant features of the universe. I present a new qualitative model built upon a re-examination of concepts that are customarily accepted as fundamental and irreducible. The new qualitative model refers repeatedly to the tenets of Special Relativity and the subsuming General Relativity, throws new light on The Standard Model, and is expected to redirect and refocus interpretation thereof via the delivery of powerful insight into the nature of time, energy, mass, charge, gravity, space, and particles.

 

 

1 Introduction

 

In comparison to the advances of the early twentieth century, physics appears to be at an impasse. Its popularity amongst the population at large appears to be falling, and it appears to be in danger of losing its senior science status to biology. The detailed reasons for this are beyond the scope of this paper, but simple logic dictates that if a rigorous mathematical approach cannot provide the answers we seek, then we must take a searching look at the axioms we use therein. To this end I have returned to first principles to analyse a set of basic concepts that are considered by many to be unsuitable for examination, either because understanding is already presumed, or because such concepts are considered to be fundamental. My analysis indicates that such is not the case, and the result is new understanding that dispels many former mysteries...

In this paper, will you actually make predictions?

Not really. I develop a model that explains what we already see. There are a few "predictions" dotted about, like "time travel is impossible" or "protons do not decay" but none that are readily testable.

A photo travelling through space is not interacting with any other objects. If it is not interacting, then how can it determine motion. As far as it is concerned, if it is not interacting, then it is alone in the universe.

The problem is, that no Fermions (matter) directly interacts. They only interact through the force carriers. But, as soon as a Boson leaves the Fermion, it ceases to be a "Particle" as such and is then just a immobile "bump" in it's "field"...

Yes, we can use pulses to an electromagnetic wave to make out time (and then use that to measure the speed of light). But, we could have just as well used the regular gravity waves from two pulsars orbiting each others. These gravity waves are not electromagnetic, and so if we used them, then we would be measuring the speed of light, not in terms of light, but with pulses of gravity.

Just because we currently use a system whereby we use pulses of light to mark out periods of time, does not mean that there is no other way we can mark out periods of time (a swinging pendulum is not an electromagnetic wave and for a long time we used pendulums to measure time). See, this why I keep repeating: "What you use to measure, is not the thing you are measuring". We might be using pulses of light to measure time, but our measure of Time is not dependant on the fact that we are using pulses of light. It is just something that is convenient. It is not fundamental to what Time is.

I think you might need to explain the exact meaning of "confounded" that you are using here ( http:// http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confounded ). If that is the meaning that you are meaning, then you will have to do more explaining on why it must be so. As you are proposing something different to currently accepted theories then the onus is on you for burden of proof.

But it is not the movement of light that is important to our measuring scale. It is the Events of the detected photons that is important. As you even stated in you essay "Time explained" we could just count pebbles thrown into a bucket. It is the event of the detected electromagnetic wave peak (or gravity wave peak, peak of the swing of a pendulum, the "ping" of a pebble hitting the side of a bucket, or the decay of one neutrino type into another). What is not important is what the event is made up of. It is only important that the event occurred.

Your entire argument for this is based on the Strawman that it is what the event is made up of that is important as to our definition of time. I can say absolutely that this is completely wrong. The only thing that is important about any kind of event that we use to measure time with is that it occurs (being regular or predictable allows us to have a consistent scale, so that does help). If the event didn't occur, then we could not measure Time at all. It would still exist, but we could not measure it.

Wrong again. You have jumped from: We use pulses of light to mark out periods of time - to: Periods of time are measuring in terms of the distance light travels in a give time. Again - Non Sequitur.

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it.

Please try to be more succinct.

Osiris: agreed. The speed of light varies, but this can never me measured locally. Here's an excerpt from something I've written about gravity:

When we look with fresh eyes we see a powerful equivalence between Special Relativity and General Relativity. The equivalence relies on this: time dilation is direct evidence of a reduced speed of light. It is quite trivial to see why. Imagine that I stay here on earth while you travel to Alpha Centauri in a very fast rocket travelling at .99c. We use 1/√(1-v2/c2) to work out that you experience a sevenfold time dilation. We normally think of time dilation as being countered by length contraction, but this only occurs in the direction of travel. Hold up a metre ruler transverse to the direction of travel and it is undoubtedly the same metre. Your metre is the same as my metre, and your time is dilated by a factor of seven, which means it takes a beam of your light seven times longer to traverse your transverse metre. Do not be confused by this. Do not tell yourself that your lightbeam is following a diagonal path and has to cover a greater distance. If you do, you are looking at your situation from my reference frame. You must observe your situation from your reference frame. Reduced to undeniable simplicity, speed equals distance over time, your metre distance has not changed, your time however has, and therefore the speed of light has also changed. Your c is a seventh of mine.

Fred: I understand the expansion of the universe. Dark Energy drives it, it doesn't oppose it. Entropy is just sameness, I touch on it in Time Explained with "the Arrow of Beans".

IMHO the "Many Worlds Interpretation" is far more speculative than the material I've been panned for on this forum.

I've now finished my paper, and hope to make it available shortly. The conclusion includes this sentence:

This will involve a fresh look at Quantum Physics, starting with Quantum ElectroDynamics and new simple concept to replace “many paths”. Then we can look again Quantum ChromoDynamics and review color and charm, whilst finally driving a stake through the heart of the Many Worlds Interpretation.

Or how about the decay of one type of particle into another, say a Neutron into a Proton and Electron (or some other type of particle decay). Remember single particles can and do decay without any outside influence, so if one of these particles existed in the Universe, then it's decay can be used as an event to arbitrarily mark time.

Yes, but the neutron decays because inside it something is moving. If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't decay.

A photon is an oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields. So if the photon couldn't move, then it wouldn't exists. But if it did exist, then you could use the oscillations of the electric and magnetic fields to mark time.

I agree that if the photon couldn't move we wouldn't recognise it as a photon. We'd think of it as a bump of electromagnetic field variation stuck at some point of the wave cycle. We'd think of it as something akin to an electron or positron. (Of course if all photons were like this we couldn't even see or think). We do use oscillations of the electromagnetic field to mark time. That's why we only measure the speed of light in terms of the speed of light.

And yes, we are using motion to mark time here. However, remember my point (1) above: What you use to measure is not the thing you are measuring.

Although we are using Movement to measure this does not mean that Time is Movement.

Quite the opposite actually. for if that movement didn't occur over a period of time (and remember a number over another number is a division), then there would be no difference between the first event (the first peak of the EM wave) and the second event (the second peak of the EM wave). They would have had to occurred simultaneously. If they occurred simultaneously, then the number we divide by is 0 (simultaneous means a separation of 0 Time), thus we get an answer of infinity.

Error, post deleted.

Farsight: So how do you intend to observe a universe with only two objects that are not moving, if your observer is moving?

With great difficulty. Hence my comment earlier including events within the mechanism of observation. That's why I didn't use the word "observer" with the two-object universe.

And what about a universe with just one object: a single photon. Would it move?

No.

Mr Skeptic: Things have got to move in your brain for you to have thoughts. Electrons, whatever. It's similar for a Turing machine.

Edtharan: a neutrino changing into another type of neutrino involves some motion. I say this with confidence because I actually know what a neutrino is. I'm sorry but I find the rest of your very long post somewhat confusing. Please can you raise succinct points.

Mr Skeptic, if you're asking me: no. A black hole that has been fed on matter will merge happily with a black hole fed on antimatter, and you just end up with one bigger black hole.

Thanks Spyman.

If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not space and time that are cofounded, it is motion and time that are cofounded.

Sorry Edtharan, but the interval between events is measured in terms of other events, and the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Eventually there are no more events, merely intervals. These intervals are frozen timeless moments. In a universe that is totally frozen with no events, including events within the mechanism of observation, the concept of time can not apply. We require events, not frozen timeless intervals to mark out time. The events are not “in” time, the time is in the events. Time is merely the measure of events, or change, or motion, measured against some other events, or change, or motion. You don’t need time to have motion, you need motion to have time.

Some of you may recall that I've been writing a scientific paper, which I hope will be taken seriously. Within it I use the words "dispels many former mysteries". I hope I do so - I cover a large number of matters to varying degrees, ranging from mass and charge through particles and The Standard Model, all the way to the expansion of the universe, dark energy, and dark matter.

The paper is now complete, and I am happy with it. But as a last sweep, I thought it might be worthwhile if I ask this:

Can anybody name some "mysteries of physics" that I can take a look at?

Because of the method I employed to derive that deep equivalence. This was my starting point:

About a hundred years later in 1784 the first person to cotton on to black holes was John Michell. He was a geologist but had other interests, like inventing the apparatus for measuring the mass of the earth. He calculated that if a star was five hundred times bigger than the sun, an object falling towards it from an infinite height would end up going as fast as light, so: “all light emitted by such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity”.

Well written, thank you. I disagree when you say space is fundamental while time is not, I think they are both non-fundamental.

 

IMO the basic concept is an event (not necessarily motion as you seem to have). Two events may happen at the same time or one may happen after another and they may happen at the same point or they may happen separately. These are fundamental things while everything else, including space and time, are invented by man. One uses time to deal with events that happen one after another and space to classify events that do not occur at the same place.

 

Are space and time different? Sure. Is it 3+1 not 4? Yes. But is space any more fundamental than time? No, I don't think so. They are equally non-fundamental.

Thanks for the feedback Billy. It's good to talk, and if we all agreed about everything life would be dull. But here's a potted version why I think space is fundamental while time is not:

If the universe consisted of no objects whatsoever, we could not say the universe even existed. We could hold no concept of time, and no concept of space. If the universe consisted of one object and that object alone, we could hold no concept of space, for that object is the whole universe. If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could then hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not time and space that are cofounded, it is time and motion that are cofounded.

Tom: there is a deep equivalence between special and general relativity with respect to time dilation. I can explain what gravitational time dilation actually is. Unfortunately I'm seen as something of a crank and receive much opprobium for making such claims. I have, for example, been banned from PhysicsForums, even after a long absence when I returned as "Voltage". Please give my regards to Marcus and Carl Brannen.

The other threads on this section of this forum are quite appalling, and I resent being forced to keep such company, particularly when threads in the physics section are overly dominated by lazy juniors asking homework questions. Note that in about a week I hope to make available a significant paper that I hope will change perceptions.

i dont know how many of you ever saw that show called the invisible man, im talking about the new....if there there is an older one...? but the idea is that he contains an organ inside his body that secretes a substance called "quicksilver" over his body. now this refracts light in such a way that it makes so that human don't see him, i.e. invisibility. im not asking about the possibiity if have the organ, or to debate the name....i want to know if its scientifically possible for light to refracted in a way that would cause invisibility

No, it isn't. We have plenty of examples of light being refracted, and the result is not invisibility:

Thus your "quicksilver" man would look like a silvery glassy distorted outline of a human figure. Somewhat disconcerting, and if he remained motionless he might pass notice, but he wouldn't be invisible.

...and if so is it remotely within possibility of our current technological state?

No. One could make a person more difficult to see, but not invisible.

Just to clarify my position: There are black holes. But there are no black hole singularities.

Thanks for the input guys.

Can anybody give me any advice on submitting a formal paper?

There's some good stuff here elas. Commiserations that you've been working on it since 1989. I see some similarity of concept, and hope to be able to give you what I hope you'll consider to be useful information in a week or so.

If it's already known to be true then it's not a prediction. Neutrino oscillations were reported a few years ago. I pick Indy to win last year's super bowl. Do you want to pay for my secret of how to pick winners of past events? Or does it possibly have no value whatsoever?

 

In testing scientific models, predictions have to be specific enough to falsify the theory if the theory is wrong, and exclude other models. Is any of this sinking in yet

I know all that Swanson. But this is a discussion forum. But somehow we can't discuss my ideas. They are ideas. Mine is a toy model. It's qualitative not quantitative. I've gone for width not depth.

How does neutrino mass follow from anything of yours, and what values do you predict? (you have to do this before the final answer has been determined

I haven't calculated neutrino masses. I was talking to Carl Brennan about it on Physics Forums, but I got banned there because a moderator took a dislike to me, a moderator who thinks I'm a heretic, and just didn't want to know. Like you. But neutrino mass follows from this:

Mass, in its barest essence, is a measure of how much energy is not moving with respect to you.

When energy is moving at c like it does, like a photon does, you measure no mass. If it's moving at zero velocity with respect to you, you observe all the energy as mass. If it's moving at less than c, it's a sliding scale. Neutrinos are a configuration of energy travelling at less than the speed of light. That's why they have mass.

I read it. You mention philosophy or philosophical several times. The real question is why you think you're doing physics. You run in the opposite direction, screaming, everytime that actual physics is brought up.

You skimmed it, and dismissed it. You sneered at the key that unlocks all the doors in physics.

The problem is not that people aren't reading what you wrote. They have, expecting some science, and found it wanting. It's philosophy and metaphysics (and I've been telling that from the get-go).

Oh yes it is the problem. And don't you sneer at philosophy or metaphysics. What the hell do you think PhD stands for? Have you ever even looked at Metaphysics to see what it's all about? And where are the questions on TIME EXPLAINED and the rest? They're just not here. And they aren't on the other absurd thread either.

Metaphysics[/b'] is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally including cosmology and ontology. It is also concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world. Its name derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "after talking about physics"), "physics" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. In english, though, "meta" means "beyond;over;transcending". Therefore, metaphysics is the study of that which transcends physics.

I know why there are no black hole singularities. It's crushingly simple. But the explanation is deemed to be pseudoscience, so I can't share it here.

What the hell are you on about? Illegal moves? This is no game. The is the real thing. History in the making. I do physics, and you guys who learned some physics parrot and sneer and insult and will not read what I say. Do you think I wrote TIME EXPLAINED some wet lunchtime for a laugh? This is what's gone into it. And time is the key. Understanding time is the key that unlocks all the doors of physics.

The concept of time that you find here is nothing new. Maybe five years ago I read Julian Barbour’s 1999 book The End of Time. It didn’t sink in much. It was just another fairly interesting book that I read on my Saturday afternoons on the sofa. A couple of years later I also read About Time by Paul Davies' date=' dating from 1995, but again it was just one book amongst many. I didn’t pay too much attention. I was sleepwalking. But thank you Julian and Paul because something along the lines of time is change became lodged in my mind, and it made me query the speed of light. In August 2006 I got myself into an argument about it on the internet. I remember looking up at my bookshelf and pulling down those books on time, weighing them in my hand, pondering. I resolved to get it down so darn straight that nobody could argue any more. I knew it wasn’t a brand new idea, because it goes back to Aristotle, who was born 2391 years ago and counting. But I could put a fresh slant on it, using catchy conversational language and a tight delivery that would be crystal clear even to the layman.

 

[img']http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MHHN9QD4L._AA240_.jpg[/img]

 

So I wrote a little essay called TIME EXPLAINED and posted it on an internet forum. Even the first version referred to the optical illusions, because I already knew that we take things too much for granted, and seeing is not always believing. Hence I’m very grateful to “echalk” Online Resources For Teachers, and to R Beau Lotto and Edward H Adelson, see http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/illusions.htm. That was October 2006.

 

The feedback was interesting. I learned a lot. I learned about Presentism, a philosophical concept introduced by John McTaggart in 1908 in an essay called The Unreality of Time, see http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html. I found myself siding with Presentism rather than Eternalism, an opposing philosophy that involves the block universe and big problems for free will.

 

 

A fellow forummer called mganderson flagged up A Hole at the Heart of Physics; A Matter of Time; Special Editions; by George Musser. It was in the September 2002 issue of Scientific American, and I was too mean to buy it. But I read the synopsis. Sorry George, but thanks, and thanks mg. And thanks THoR for vital encouragement when I was flagging. Ditto to amrit, real name Amrit Srecko Šorli, who was ahead of the game but language was a barrier. And thank you yquantum. On 29th October 2006 you recommended a book called “A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein” by Palle Yourgrau, professor of philosophy at the Brandeis University in Massachusetts. This book was published in 2005, and I bought the last copy Amazon had in stock at the.. time. It’s historical and philosophical, and pure gold dust. I was amazed to discover that Einstein thought of time this way too. Not in 1905, but in 1949, when he was at Princeton with Godel. Thanks Palle.

 

 

I also came across a 1999 paper Quantum Spacetime: what do we know? by Carlo Rovelli, see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903045, who said “At the fundamental level we should, simply, forget time”. Thanks Carlo. There’s also Process Physics by Reginald T Cahill, see http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS13.pdf dating from 2003. Whilst I didn’t find myself empathising with all aspects, I did find myself empathising strongly with the basic premise that time is process. Thanks Reg.

 

Much of what I learned went into a new improved version of TIME EXPLAINED, which is pretty much what you’ve read here. It’s all just a rehash of an old idea, and isn’t particularly original at all. As to why it’s news to anybody I’m not quite sure. Understanding time seemed to be the key that would open all the doors in physics. It was enough to convince me that I could make a difference. I could break the impasse. And then the fun began.